1.8 100 WELLINGTON ROAD CLAYTON CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE … · 28/03/2017 · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This...

Council Meeting, 28 March 2017 Section 1.8 –

100 Wellington Road, Clayton - Construction Of Five (5) Three Storey Dwellings

1.8 100 WELLINGTON ROAD CLAYTON CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE (5) THREE STOREY DWELLINGS (TPA/46294)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This application proposes the construction of five (5) three storey attached dwellings and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1. The application was subject to public notification. Three (3) objections to the proposal have been received. Key issues to be considered relate to the intensity of the development, neighbourhood character, building bulk and massing, design detail, lack of landscaping opportunities, private open space, sense of address, internal amenity and car parking and vehicle access. This report assesses the proposal against the provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme including the relevant state and local planning policy framework, Clause 55 and issues raised by objectors. The reason for presenting this report to Council is the proposed development cost of $1.6 million. The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme and it is recommended that the application be refused. RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Panagakos

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER: Angela Hughes

RESPONSIBLE PLANNER: Craig Smith

WARD: Oakleigh

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 Wellington Road, Clayton

PRE-APPLICATION MEETING: Yes

NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS: Three (3)

ZONING: General Residential Zone 2

EXISTING LAND USE: Dwelling

OVERLAY: None

RELEVANT CLAUSES: State Planning Policy Framework Clause 11.02 Urban Growth Clause 11.04 Metropolitan

Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21.04 Residential Development Clause 22.01 Residential Development



Melbourne Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16.01-1 Integrated Housing Clause 16.01-4 Housing Diversity Clause 16.01-5 Housing Affordability

and Character Policy Clause 22.05 Tree Conservation Policy Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 Car Parking Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Clause 55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot

STATUTORY PROCESSING DATE: 15 January 2017

DEVELOPMENT COST: $1.6 million



LOCALITY PLAN

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

SUBJECT SITE



RECOMMENDATION:

That Council resolves to issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit (TPA/46294) for the construction of five (5) three storey dwellings and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 at 100 Wellington Road, Clayton subject to the following grounds: 1. The proposal does not meet the objectives of Clause 15 Built Environment

and Heritage, Clause 21.04 Residential Development, Clause 22.01 Residential Development and Character Policy and Clause 22.05 Tree Conservation Policy in terms of building bulk and massing, design detail, sense of address and insufficient landscaping opportunities.

2. The proposal does not meet the following objectives of Clause 55 of the

Monash Planning Scheme: • Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character • Clause 55.02-5 Integration with the street • Clause 55.03-5 Energy Efficiency • Clause 55.03-7 Safety • Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping • Clause 55.04-1 Side and Rear Setbacks • Clause 55.05-2 Dwelling Entry • Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space • Clause 55.05-5 Solar Access to Open Space • Clause 55.06-1 Design Detail

3. The proposal does not meet the objectives of Clause 52.06 Car Parking of

the Monash Planning Scheme in relation to car parking and vehicle access.

4. The proposal would result in poor amenity for future occupants.

5. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

BACKGROUND:

History Council’s records show no planning permits issued to the land or previous application for planning permits.

Consultation with Permit Applicant Further information was requested of the Permit Applicant on 8 August 2016. In this letter, officers also raised the following preliminary concerns: • The height and scale of the proposed development is inappropriate



• The proposed design in terms of bulk, mass and lack of separation does not provide an acceptable outcome in terms of Council’s Neighbourhood Character policy.

• Minimal opportunity for landscaping and excessive hard surfacing • Domination of the garaging. • The sense of address to Dwellings is poor. • Dwellings have poor solar aspect. • Insufficient rear setback. • Excessive overshadowing on the private open space of 12/102 Wellington

Road. • The use of balconies as a substitute for ground level private open space is

considered unsatisfactory. • The dimensions of the car spaces do not comply and vehicles may not be

able to exit in a forward direction. • The proposal is an inappropriate design response and an overdevelopment

of the site.

Officers advised the Applicant in writing that should these concerns not be addressed, that this application that the application would be not be supported.

The Permit Applicant responded to this letter on 31 October 2016 by providing the requested further information. In relation to the preliminary concerns, the Applicant advised that they had amended the plans to address some of the concerns raised, but that they do not agree with all of the preliminary concerns. The applicant responded to Council’s further information request and design concerns and made the following changes/response: • Greater articulation and building separation along the building’s east and

west facades. • Increased landscaping opportunities at front setback, rear setback and side

boundaries. Specific details of the changes were not described. • Greater sense of address through improved lighting, dwelling numbering

and shelters to entrances. • Reduced overshadowing to secluded private open space of 2/102

Wellington Road. Specific details of the changes were not described.

The Applicant was advised on 13 February 2017 that this application was to be reported to the March Council meeting, in addition to a letter that was sent to the Applicant formally informing them of the details of the Council meeting. The Applicant has been advised that this application is recommended for refusal.

The Site and Surrounds The site is located on the south side of Wellington Road, 50 metres east of Blackburn Road. It has an area of 730.60 square metres and is rectangular in shape, with a width of 17.07 metres and length of 42.80 metres. The topography of the site is relativity flat. The site contains a single storey dwelling and several trees and shrubs. There is currently one vehicle crossing providing access to the site via the service lane of Wellington Road to the east of the frontage.



There is a 1.83 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement at the rear of the site. The site is affected by a covenant prohibiting quarrying and the manufacture of bricks and pottery. The proposal would not breach the covenant.

The adjoining properties to the west and south each contain a single storey dwelling. The land to the east contains a dual occupancy development with a single storey dwelling and double storey dwelling. To the north is Wellington Road and Monash University at the north-west corner with Blackburn Road.

The area is characterised by low scale, single dwellings constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s of brick veneer and pitched tiled roof construction. There are some later examples of low scale, multi-dwelling developments in the area, with newer constructions along Blackburn Road. The garden city character remains intact with dwellings nestled amongst well landscaped front and rear gardens. An aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding land can be found attached to this report (Attachment 2).

PROPOSAL:

This application proposes the development of five (5) three storey, reverse living, attached townhouse dwellings, comprising: • One three storey building with individual dwellings sharing a common

driveway on the east side of the site. • Three bedrooms to each dwelling. • All dwellings have a double carport, storage and enclosed entry at ground

level, stair access to an open plan living room with balcony and one bedroom on the first floor, and two bedrooms and amenities on the second floor.

• The first floor cantilevers over the driveway 3.0 – 4.4m with the second floors recessed.

• A 1:20 slope driveway provides access to carports roofed by the first floor. A total of 10 car spaces is provided. One visitor space is proposed at the rear of the site, south of dwelling 5.

• Vehicle access from Wellington Road is via a widened crossover with a width of 5.5 metres. A roller door setback 7.0m from the street provides security to the parking area.

• The first floor balcony to each dwelling is 7.6 square metres facing west accessed from the living area.

• Individual dwelling entries are located along the west side of the building accessed via a common walkway with a security gate 3.0m from the street, with the exception of dwelling 1 which has direct access from Wellington Road.



• Bin storage is provided to each dwelling in the carport. Letterboxes are located adjacent to the common access.

• Contemporary design with flat roof form, rendered walls and timber and stone cladding.

• Maximum building height of 9 metres. Attachment 1 details plans forming part of the application.

PERMIT TRIGGERS:

The land is zoned General Residential Zone 2 and not affected by any overlays.

A planning permit is required for the following: • General Residential Zone 2 – construct two or more dwellings on a lot. • Land Adjacent to a Road Zone (Clause 52.29) – alteration of access to a

road in a Road Zone Category 1

Attachment 3 details the zoning and overlays applicable to the subject site and surrounding land.

CONSULTATION:

Public Notice The application was advertised in accordance with section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by way of letters sent to the surrounding property owners/occupiers, and sign displayed at the Wellington Road frontage of the site.

Council has received three (3) objections to date. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • Building bulk and massing. • Overshadowing secluded private open space and solar panels. • Solar access impacts to windows. • Overlooking. Attachment 4 details the location of objector properties. Referrals The application was referred as follows: External Referral Authority • VicRoads – No objection to the proposal or conditions required. Internal Departments • Drainage – No objection subject to standard conditions relating to

stormwater drainage.



• Traffic – The requisite number of resident and visitor car space are

provided. Vehicle access to the resident spaces is satisfactory. However, vehicles from the visitor space cannot satisfactorily turn around and exit in a forward direction and the location of the space is not easily accessible at the rear of the site.

• Horticultural Services – The Melaleuca quinquenervia street tree has a

height of 11 metres and is in reasonable condition. There must be no excavation within 3.27 metres of the tree. The proposed vehicle crossing is setback 3.6 metres from the street tree.

DISCUSSION:

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

Clause 16.01 Housing seeks to:

• “Increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land.”

• “Locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.”

• “Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.”

Clause 21.04 Residential Development has the objectives:

• “To encourage the provision of a variety of housing styles and sizes that will accommodate future housing needs and preferences of the Monash community that complement and enhance the Garden City Character of the City.”

• “To provide accommodation for a diverse population that caters for different family and lifestyle preferences and a variety of residential environments and urban experiences.”

• “To recognise and provide for housing needs of an ageing population.”

The proposal makes a contribution to the supply and diversity of housing in the municipality to meet the growing population and changing needs of the local community. Whilst located very close to Monash University, the general area does not have convenient access to an activity centre or a major public transport node, being 2 km from the Clayton Activity Centre and the Clayton Railway Station. Although bus services along Wellington Road and Blackburn Road give access to Clayton, this in itself does not provide sufficient strategic justification to support the density and size of development proposed.



Monash Housing Strategy The site is located within the Garden City Suburbs (Category 8) and Monash National Employment Cluster (Category 3) of the Monash Housing Strategy 2014. The Garden City Suburbs area seeks modest housing growth and diversification with emphasis on preserving and enhancing Monash’s Garden City Character. The future character seeks lower scale residential development, with new development comprising a mix of single dwellings and medium density units and townhouses. Modest dwellings, with simple pitched rooflines and articulated facades, will continue the prevailing development themes. The Monash National Employment Cluster seeks housing change and diversification that responds to the broader context. Development within the Cluster will respect the changing built form within the commercial areas. The scale of new residential development will generally comprise larger footprint apartment development of a high quality design and finish. Some infill development, townhouse and unit development will also occur. The scale and form of the proposal does not respect the neighbourhood character and amenity of the area. This is described in more detail below. Although located opposite Monash University and within a key strategic area, whilst the density of dwellings may be suitable this in itself does not provide sufficient strategic justification to support the size of development proposed, that being five three bedroom dwellings with little living area and minimal open space. RESCODE ASSESSMENT Neighbourhood Character The site is located in Character Type “B” of Clause 22.01 (Residential Development and Character Policy). The desired future character statement seeks modest and unassuming character by ensuring that multi-dwelling developments, including dual occupancies, are appropriate in scale and form to existing dwellings. The area is characterised by low scale, single dwellings constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s of brick veneer and pitched tiled roof construction. There are some later examples of low scale, multi-dwelling developments in the area. The garden city character remains intact with dwellings nestled amongst well landscaped front and rear gardens.

The contemporary ‘box-like’ design, flat roof and large blades on the east side of the dwellings are not in keeping with the character of area and are visually obtrusive. Pitched roof forms and simple detailing are encouraged. A mix of colours and materials are used but this is not sufficient to break up building lines. Rendered walls and timber and stone cladding are considered appropriate materials.



The building bulk and massing is substantial and not sympathetic to the low scale character of the area. The overall building height is 9 metres, which would dominate the streetscape and surrounding properties. Whilst this height may be appropriate when limited to the ridgeline of a pitched roof, it is not appropriate for the parapets walls of a flat roof design occupying a significantly larger portion of the site. There is no separation between the dwellings and the proposal reads as a continuous building mass. The proposal fails to maintain the rhythm of separation between dwellings on sites and opportunity for landscaping breaks. The expanse of the building across the site also does not respect the rhythm of the street.

Sheer walls are proposed between the ground floor and the first floor, with no first floor recession provided. The first floors walls lack sufficient articulation to break up building lines. Second storey walls are recessed from the first floors below and reasonably well articulated. Parapet wall heights (6 metres at ground floor and 9 metres at first floor) are excessive and visually obtrusive, both from the ground floor and from the second floor.

The front setback of the building is 7.6 metres, which meets the minimum requirement. The first floor west setbacks of 1.7 metres are not sufficient to mitigate visual bulk to adjoining lots considering the height (6 metres) and continuous length of the first floor walls. Similarly, the second floor west setbacks of 3.8 metres are not sufficient considering heights (9 metres) of the second floor west walls.

The trees and shrubs on the site are not significant. No opportunity is provided for canopy tree planting along the side and rear boundaries considering the building footprint and rear easement. There is limited opportunity for canopy tree planting in the front setback resulting from the extent of hard surface areas, namely the accumulation of the driveway and two pedestrian paths. The arborist report submitted with the application assessed potential impacts to neighbours’ trees. Tree 2 – Corymbia ficifolia (Flowering Gum) and Tree 3 – Erythrina X sykesii (Coral Tree) located at 98 Wellington Road (west) have the potential to be impacted by the proposal. If a planning permit was to issue for this proposal, this could be addressed with pier and beam construction of the footings required for this development.

Amenity The building would present continuous mass and significant wall heights to the adjoining lots. The resulting visual bulk to adjoining lots is considered excessive.



The degree of overshadowing to the secluded private open space of adjoining lots is reasonable as adequate sunlight will still be received through the day at the Equinox. Overlooking to the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of adjoining lots is minimised through the use of highlight windows and screens to the side and rear elevations of the building at both the first and second floors. The ground floor is not elevated to a level that would result in overlooking. Site Coverage and Permeability The site coverage and permeable area is acceptable (approximately 49% and 28% respectively) and complies with the minimum requirements. The permeable area is sufficient to limit the impact of stormwater runoff subject to drainage conditions to maintain overland flows. On site amenity and internal amenity The principle living area (living room, dining room and kitchen) to each dwelling has poor solar access. Solar access to these areas relies on west facing windows, which are partially obscured by roofed balconies and internal staircases, except for Dwelling 1 which has north facing windows by virtue of its siting on the site. A high degree of screening is required of habitable rooms and balconies given the orientation of this development. This is a symptom of the poor design and will result in a poor internal amenity outcome for future occupants. The dwellings lack a sense of individual identity and address. It is difficult to distinguish between the dwellings, which appear as a single building mass with poor architectural delineation. The dwelling entries are obscured and not easily identifiable from the street, being located at the side of the building via a narrow walkway. The dwelling entries are not provided with adequate shelter from the weather, lack a sense of address and lack adequate transitional spaces around the entries.

Car Parking, traffic and access The requisite car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06 would be provided as shown in the following table:

Use Number of Dwellings

Clause 52.06 Requirement

Car spaces required

Car spaces provided

Three bedroom dwellings

5

(2 spaces per dwelling) 10 10

Visitor Parking 5 (1 space for every 5 dwellings)

1 1

Total 11 11



The visitor car space is to be provided at the back of the car park area accessible via an electronic gate. Vehicles exiting the visitor space cannot satisfactorily turn around and exit in a forward direction. This space is not considered appropriate given the fact that a vehicle cannot leave in a forward direction. The visitor car space location at the rear of the site is obscured from the street and not easily accessible to service all five dwellings.

VicRoads did not object to the proposal or require any conditions of permit primarily as access is not directly from the main carriageway, but the service road. Other than the visitor space, vehicles are able to turn around and exit the site in a forward direction. The proposal rationalises access to one vehicle crossing which is of an appropriate width to accommodate two-way traffic and vehicle access to the site.

Private Open Space The proposal fails to meet Council’s requirement for a minimum of 75 square metres private open space to each dwelling. First floor balconies 7.6 square metres are provided to each dwelling in place of secluded private open space. Other than the front setback, which only Dwelling 1 will have the benefit of, no other additional private open space is provided to the dwellings. This is not sufficient to meet the recreation and service needs of residents, particularly of a three bedroom dwelling. The balconies are west facing and enclosed on their north sides, providing limited solar access. The size of the balconies is less than the requisite 8 square metres required to be provided under Rescode. Balconies are appropriate for apartment developments but balconies are not considered a satisfactory substitute for the open space needs of a three bedroom townhouse style development.

Objections not previously addressed

Overshadowing solar panels – The shadow diagrams show that there would be no overshadowing to the solar panels of 1 Murdo Road. Shadow diagrams show where the shadow strikes the ground and the shadows fall well short of the roofline of the dwelling where the solar panels are mounted.

CONCLUSION:

The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant policies and objectives of the Monash Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and Clause 55. The proposal is not sympathetic to the character of the area in terms of building bulk and massing, design detail, sense of address and insufficient landscaping opportunities. Sufficient private open space is not provided to meet the recreation and service needs of residents and solar access to the dwellings is poor. Car parking and vehicle access arrangements are not satisfactory.



Without further strategic direction, this proposal is considered inappropriate and an overdevelopment, providing a poor level of housing.



LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Proposed Development Plans. Attachment 2 – Aerial Photograph (October 2014). Attachment 3 – Zoning and Overlays Map. Attachment 4 – Objector Properties Location Map.

1.8 100 WELLINGTON ROAD CLAYTON CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE … · 28/03/2017 · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This...

Documents

Transcript of 1.8 100 WELLINGTON ROAD CLAYTON CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE … · 28/03/2017 · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This...