4.9 155-157 WAVERLEY ROAD, CHADSTONE EIGHT (8) …...RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolves to issue...

Council Meeting, 29 September 2015 Section 4.9 – 31

155-157 Waverley Road, Chadstone - Eight (8) Dwellings And An Alteration To The Access To A Road Zone Category 1

4.9 155-157 WAVERLEY ROAD, CHADSTONE EIGHT (8) DWELLINGS AND AN ALTERATION TO THE ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1

(TPA/44212)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This application proposes eight (8) double-storey dwellings and alteration to the access to Waverley Road, which is a designated Road Zone Category 1.

The application was subject to public notification. One (1) objection to the proposal has been received.

Key issues to be considered relate to neighbourhood character, bulk and massing, provision of open space, landscaping opportunities and amenity.

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 $1.65 Million.

The proposal is considered 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: Rowena Brennan

WARD: Mount Waverley

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 155-157 Waverley Road, Chadstone

PRE-APPLICATION MEETING: No

NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS: One (1)

ZONING: General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 Abuts a Road Zone Category 1

EXISTING LAND USE: Residential

OVERLAY: Not applicable

RELEVANT CLAUSES:

State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11 Settlement

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement

Council Meeting, 29 September 2015 Section 4.9 – Page 132


Clause 11.02 Urban growth Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 14.02-1 Catchment Planning and Management Clause 15 Built Environment & Heritage Clause 16 Housing Clause 16.01-2 Location of Residential Development

Clause 16.01-4 Housing Diversity

Clause 21.04 Residential Development Clause 22.01 Residential Development and Character Policy Clause 22.04 Stormwater Management Policy Clause 22.05 Tree Conservation Policy Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 Car Parking Clause 52.29 Land adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

STATUTORY PROCESSING DATE: 30 August 2015

DEVELOPMENT COST: $1,650,000



LOCALITY PLAN

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

SUBJECT SITE



RECOMMENDATION:

That Council resolves to issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit (TPA/44212) for the eight (8) dwellings and an alteration to the access to a Road Zone Category 1 at 155-157 Waverley Road, Chadstone subject to the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Residential Development and

Character Policy at Clause 22.01 and the Tree Conservation Policy at Claus 22.05 of the Monash Planning Scheme. The proposal does not provide sufficient room for landscaping, and the building bulk and mass does not respect the neighborhood character.

2. The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and design standards of Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme with regard to Neighbourhood Character, Street Setback, Energy Efficiency, Landscaping, Overlooking, Daylight to New Windows and Private Open Space.

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

4. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

BACKGROUND:

The Site and Surrounds The subject site is located on the north side of Waverley Road, approximately 110 metres west of the intersection with Huntingdale Road. The site is rectangular in shape and has a width of 26.27 metres, a depth of 45.72 metres and an overall site area of 1201 square metres. The site currently contains two single storey dwellings with pitched tiled roofs and associated out buildings. The property at No. 155 contains a mix of small to medium trees and shrubs throughout the site, including 3-4 metres high fruit trees in the rear garden. The property at No. 157 contains low shrubbery only. There are well established street trees in the nature strip on the Waverley Road frontage. Abutting the site to the east is a single-storey weatherboard dwelling, with its driveway and car part adjacent to the common boundary.



Abutting the site to the west is an eight unit, double-storey development that is constructed over two blocks. This development contains a central driveway, with four attached units located adjacent to the common boundary. This development was granted a permit by VCAT after initially being refused by Council. The form of this development is similar to the proposal for the subject site, with a reverse-living arrangement (meaning bedrooms on the ground floor and kitchen/living/dining rooms on the first floor) and small ground floor courtyards. The majority of the built form of this development is setback between 1-3 metres from the common boundary. Abutting the site to the rear are the rear gardens of single storey dwellings which front onto Nyrang Street. On the southern side of Waverley Road, opposite the subject site, are the rear gardens of mostly single-storey units which front onto Elmore Terrace. These units are situated behind a continuous timber paling fence and, due to the slope of the land, result in only the pitched roof forms being visible. An aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding land can be found attached to this report (Attachment 2).

PROPOSAL:

Approval is sought to construct eight double-storey dwellings on the land. The proposal is summarised as follows:

A minimum front setback proposed is 7.0 metres.

One central driveway to access the garages of all dwellings.

The built form is divided into two blocks, each containing four dwellings.

Dwellings 1 and 8 front onto Waverley Road.

Dwellings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have frontage to the internal driveway.

One visitor car parking space, located at the rear of the site.

Each dwelling to contain three bedrooms and two car parking spaces.

Dwellings 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 have a ‘reverse living’ layout, with small service courtyards at the ground floor level and balconies at the first floor level.

Dwellings 4 and 5 each contain 75.6 sqm of private open space at the ground level and which is directly accessible from the main living areas.

One visitor car space to be provided at the end of the common driveway. Attachment 1 details plans forming part of the application.

PERMIT TRIGGERS:

Zoning

The land is situated in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) under the provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme where a planning permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.



Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06: Car Parking

Prior to a new building being occupied the required car parking spaces must be provided on the land or as approved by the Responsible Authority.

Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1

Pursuant to this Clause a permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

Clause 55: Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (ResCode).

A development must meet all of the objectives of this clause and should meet all the standards.

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

Monash Housing Strategy 2014

The Monash Housing Strategy has been developed to review Council’s current housing strategies based on an assessment of key State and Local Strategies and research from all tiers of Government and other research bodies. A key issue for Council will continue to be the management of household growth and change while at the same time preserving its valued neighbourhood character and enhancing sustainability. It will also be necessary to ensure that housing is designed to meet the specific needs of the community as it ages and diversifies. The subject site is in Category 8- “Garden City Suburbs” under the strategy. The prevailing objective is to provide opportunities for modest housing growth and diversification with an emphasis on preserving and enhancing Monash’s Garden City Character. It is intended that Category 8 areas will comprise a mix of single detached dwellings and multi dwelling developments in spacious garden settings with tall canopy trees. Front setbacks should be consistent and expanses of blank or continuous walls discouraged, particularly when adjacent to public parks, reserves and other open space areas. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory having regard to the intent of the strategy. The bulk and mass of the proposal is inconsistent with the desired character for the Garden City. There would also be minimal opportunity for landscaping particularly around the perimeter of the development. These concerns will be discussed below.



CONSULTATION:

Public Notice Notice of the application was given in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the surrounding property owners/occupiers, and two signs were displayed on the site. One objection to the application was received. The issues raised in the objection relate to overdevelopment, loss of privacy, excessive traffic and a concern about asbestos removal. Attachment 4 details the location of the objector’s property. Referrals

Drainage Council’s Drainage Engineer has recommended standard conditions.

Traffic Council’s Traffic Engineer has recommended design modifications to the layout of the driveway in order that that the vehicle in the visitor space can easily turn on site and exit in a forward direction, as well as to improve other internal vehicle turning manoeuvres. Vic Roads Vic Roads has advised that they do not object the granting of a permit, subject to the inclusion of conditions on any permit issued, and which include modifications to the design of the accessway/crossover to Waverley Road.

DISCUSSION:

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies The Garden City Character of the municipality is identified in Clause 21 of the Municipal Strategic Statement as a core value held by the community and Council. Garden City Character Policy objectives are significant and important considerations in all land use and development decisions. Council’s Residential Development and Character Policy (Clause 21.04) aims for balanced residential development with a variety of housing styles while remaining sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character. Council’s Residential Development and Character Policy (Clause 22.01) aims to ensure that new development is successfully integrated into existing residential environments with minimal streetscape or amenity impact and to achieve outcomes that enhance the Garden City Character of the area. It also encourages a variety of housing types to accommodate future housing needs and preferences that are energy efficient and sustainable.



The subject site is located in Residential Character Type “D” at Clause 22.01 for which the desired future character seeks for the area to evolve as a well-planted, open and spacious ‘garden suburb’. Building setbacks are to be generous. Architecture is to integrate sympathetically with the landform and new buildings are encouraged to be energy efficient and of contemporary excellence. The proposal is inconsistent with the desire for an open and spacious garden suburb, with the layout resulting in small ground floor service yards and a continuous built form which does not cater for a spacious feel, nor room for quality canopy tree planting to perpetuate the Garden Suburb ideal. The Policy at Clause 22.01 also requires that the height, scale, spacing and setbacks from side boundaries maintain the spacing and rhythm of existing dwellings. The scale and form of double-storey buildings at the rear of properties adjacent to single storey dwellings is to be low key. This could be achieved by generous upper floor articulation and setbacks from boundaries to enable screen planting. However, the minimal separation distances between the front and middle units at the first floor level, together with the unbroken extent of building mass at the ground floor level, results in a bulky and overwhelming building presentation, particularly when viewed from the rear of properties located to the east. Assessment under Clause 55 (ResCode)

Neighbourhood Character Standard B1 of ResCode requires the design response to be appropriate to the neighbourhood and the site. The proposed design must respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site. For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development is considered to be at odds with the existing and preferred character for the area in which the subject site lies. Specifically the extent of building massing and minimal landscaping opportunities is out of character with the desire for a well-planted, open and spacious garden suburb. Street Setback Schedule 2 to the General Residential Zone requires a minimum front setback of 7.6 metres. The two units proposed to front Waverley Road each have a staggered front setback, with the study component being setback 7.0 metres from the front property boundary – a shortfall of the 0.6 metres from the minimum. The adjoining unit development to the west complies with the 7.6 metres requirement, whilst the adjoining house to the east is setback 9.1 metres, and properties further to the east have a similarly consistent setback. A reduction in the standard front setback is not justified in this context. Energy Efficiency The central dwellings (Units 2, 3, 6 and 7) have reduced opportunities for access to northern light, particularly at the ground floor levels, due to the continuous



attached nature of the built form. Furthermore, the bedroom 2 windows of each of these dwellings will not received adequate daylight in accordance with the requirement at Standard B27 as they face onto a light court that does not meet the minimum dimensions as required by the standard. Landscaping There is room for new canopy trees and other soft landscaping within the front setback area of Units 1 and 8, as well as the rear gardens for the two northern –most units (Units 4 and 5). However, the layout of the remaining units is such that they have their communal living areas and associated balconies on the first floor, is a poor design outcome for such a large site. The ground level private open space areas of Units 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are insufficient in size for meaningful planting, particularly canopy trees, especially when the space that has been provided will be taken up with clothes lines, bins and external storage. The continuous expanse of building form will be unable to be visually broken up via the inclusion of canopy trees along both the eastern and western boundaries for the majority of their length, due to there being insufficient space for new trees along these boundaries. This is inconsistent with the Garden City objectives of the Monash Planning Scheme, and the Tree Conservation Policy at Clause 22.05 for which it is policy that

“Semi-mature canopy trees with spreading crowns be planted as part of any new development, in open space areas, along boundaries adjacent to neighbouring open space and in front setback areas to reinforce the Garden City Character of the area.”

Overlooking East and west facing first floor habitable room windows are proposed to have either a sill height of 1.4 or 1.6 metres, which do not comply with the requirement to prevent overlooking below 1.7 metres. There is also the potential for overlooking from the first floor, north facing Units 3 and 6 kitchen windows, for which no elevation has been provided. Additional screening of all these windows could be employed by permit condition to prevent overlooking. However this excessive reliance on screening would be a poor internal amenity outcome – particularly given that for six of the eight units the upper floor levels are proposed to contain the main living areas of these dwellings. Overshadowing Standard B21 of Res Code requires that “where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75%, or 40 square metres, whichever is the lesser area, of secluded private open space should receive a minimum of 5 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September”. Some overshadowing of the private open space to the development to the west will occur in the mornings. These dwellings have first floor balconies which they rely



upon for their accessible open space, and these balconies will not be impacted upon by shadows cast by the proposal. Private Open Space Schedule 2 to the General Residential Zone specifies the area and dimensions for the provision of private open space as follows:

“A dwelling or residential building should have private open space consisting of:

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

A balcony of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.6 metres and convenient access from a living room; or

A roof top area of 10 square metres with a minimum width of 2 metres and convenient access from a living room.”

Monash has a long established minimum private open space area that is significantly larger than the Clause 55 standard in recognition of the importance of the identified Garden City Character of the municipality. The larger open space area, with the minimum 5 metre dimension, readily supports room for the planting of new canopy trees which will allow for the perpetuation of the established landscaped character of the area. Units 4 and 5 have been provided with open space in compliance with the requirements of the schedule. The remaining six units, however, have small secluded service yards at the ground level and are reliant on first floor balconies (8.5 – 10.7 square metres in area) for their private open space. Whilst these balcony areas meet the minimum dimensional requirements, it is considered that this style of open space is more reminiscent of apartment-style dwellings, not town house development in an area that has an established garden character. Council has consistently required that developments of this type be provided with a minimum of 75 square metres of ground level open space. This policy has the dual benefit of providing good quality outdoor space for residents use, as well as sufficient room for the planting of gardens, including canopy trees, which will perpetuate and enhance the established garden city landscape character of the municipality. Parking provision and access The requisite number of on-site car parking spaces has been shown on the development plans. Council’s traffic engineer has identified aspects of the layout of the proposal which do not comply with the minimum accessway widths requirements and has noted that a vehicle parking in the visitor space at the rear of the site cannot



easily turn around and exit the site in a forwards direction. Minor modifications could be made to the plans to address these concerns. Objections not previously addressed

Loss of Privacy The objector’s concern regarding loss of privacy is based on the ‘reverse living’ arrangement proposed. The proposed unit layout would increase the intensity of activity at the first floor level, however privacy concerns could be addressed using window screening as required. Excessive traffic The increase in vehicular movements caused by this proposal is not expected to be excessive in the context of the site’s main road location. Asbestos removal Removal of asbestos occurs under the regulations enforced by the Environment Protection Authority and is outside of Council’s jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION:

Although the objective for increased density would be satisfied by this proposal, the submitted development form is inconsistent with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character, and particularly the Garden City character. There is little opportunity to landscaping to soften the visual impact of the proposed buildings or to perpetuate and enhance the Garden City ideals. The design layout is unduly bulky in form and is not considered to be site responsive. The landscape response, excessive built form, necessity for significant screening of windows and poor energy efficiency all suggest that the proposal is an overdevelopment. The application is recommended for refusal.



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.

4.9 155-157 WAVERLEY ROAD, CHADSTONE EIGHT (8) …...RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolves to issue...

Documents

Transcript of 4.9 155-157 WAVERLEY ROAD, CHADSTONE EIGHT (8) …...RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolves to issue...