1 Condition 1(a) and Condition 1(b) deleted.

2 Condition 1(c) amended to read:

"Perimeter fencing in front of and at the side of the front setback to Dwelling 1 not more than 1.2 metres in height.

3 Conditions 1(c) to Conditions 1(e) renumbered to be Conditions 1(a) to Condition 1(c) inclusive.

4 Condition 4 remain in the permit.

1 This is an Application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by the Permit Holder for review of a conditions in a permit which the Monash City Council ("the Responsible Authority") has granted to her.

2 The proposal is for two single storey dwellings. Dwelling 1 would front Ormond Road and be set back 7.2 metres from Ormond Road and 2 metres from Gentle Street. It would have two bedrooms and a study and a living area/kitchen. It would have a single garage with tandem car space accessed via a vehicle crossing from Ormond road offset a little over one metre from the south boundary. Secluded private open space for Dwelling 1 would be at the rear and face Gentle Street.

3 Dwelling 2 would from Gentle Street and be set back 3 metres from the front boundary. It would have two bedrooms and a study and a living area/kitchen. It would have a double garage set back 3.6 metres from Gentle Street and private open space at the rear of the garage.

4 It is proposed that there be a 1.5 metre high fence around the subject land. This fence is proposed to have brick piers of 1.5 metre high columns, brick base 0.6 metres high and the infill between the piers being wrought iron (or similar).

5 The subject land is on the south-west corner of Ormond Road and Gentle Street. It has a splay on the corner. The south boundary is 42.4 metres, the west boundary 15.24 metres, and the area is 667.9 square metres. There is a 1.83 metre wide easement along the west boundary.

6 There are single storey detached dwellings on the other corners of Ormond Road and Gentle Street. The lot to the west, on the south-east corner of Harlington Street and Gentle Street, contains a single storey dwelling on the corner, being 28 Harlington Street. A second single storey dwelling, which is 1 Gentle Street, has been developed at the rear, and this dwelling is also at the rear of the subject land. There is a carport for 1 Gentle Street between the dwelling and the subject land.

7 The subject land is covered by the Monash Planning Scheme and is in a Residential 1 Zone which is the subject of Clause 32.01. A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot, pursuant to Clause 32.01-4. Clause 55, Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings, applies to the proposal.

8 Reference was made to the following planning policies:

•

Clause 21.03 Strategic Framework Plan

•

Clause 22.01 Residential Development and Character Policy

•

Clause 22.01-5 Policy References, which include the Monash Urban Character Study, Gerner Consulting Pty Ltd (the subject land is within the neighbourhood classified as Residential Character Type B, and Decision Guidelines as set out at Clause 22.01-4).

Conditions subject to the Application for Review

9 The Conditions that are the subject of Application for Review are:

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

The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show;

a) The double garage to dwelling 2 replaced with a double carport open at the north and south end;

b) The setback of dwelling 1 from Gentle Street increased to a minimum of 3 metres;

c) No perimeter fencing except from a point parallel with the east facade of dwelling 1 to the western extremity of dwelling 1 and enclosing the private open space of that dwelling;

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

Note:-A drainage contribution may be accepted in lieu of the installation of the retention system.

10 Mr Walter also made reference to Condition 5, which was not subject to the Application for Review. Condition 5 reads:

5. Before the development starts, a site layout plan drawn to scale and dimensioned must be approved by the Responsible Authority.

The plans must show a drainage scheme providing for the conveying of the stormwater to the nominated point of discharge. The nominated point of discharge is the south east corner of the property where it must be collected and free drained to the 450mm Council drain in the naturestrip of Ormond Road via an approved saddle adaptor to be constructed to Council standards.

1. Condition 1(a) It is preferred to have a garage - convenience security etc.

2. Condition 1(b) Table to Standard B6 specifies no setback.

3. Condition 1(c) It is proposed to have wrought iron fence with piers.

4. Condition 4 Approval of internal drainage is the role of the relevant building surveyor.

12 Ms Moses submitted that the Responsible Authority "requires" garages to be set back at least 5.5 metres from the property boundary to prevent vehicles parking in front of garages and protruding onto the footpath.

13 I acknowledge that vehicles parked so as to protrude over a footpath is most undesirable. It is also illegal and a matter for parking enforcement.

14 Two vehicle car spaces are provided and this satisfies Standard B16 of Clause 55.03-11, Parking Provision Objectives. The objective includes ensuring that car parking is appropriate to the needs of residents and the design of parking and access areas is as practical.

15 Clause 22.01 also makes reference to vehicle crossings and location of garages, carports and car spaces. I do not consider that what is proposed is inconsistent with that policy provision.

16 I consider that Condition 1(a) is unnecessary and should be deleted from the permit.

17 It is proposed that Dwelling 1 be set back 2 metres from Gentle Street, the side boundary, and this condition would require that the setback be increased to 3 metres. Ms Moser acknowledged that the Table to Standard B(6) of Clause 55.03-1, Street Setback Objective, provides that side walls of new development on a corner site should be set back the same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the street or 2 metres whichever is the lesser. Ms Moser submitted that the 2 metre setback to Gentle Street is inconsistent with the dominant and desired character of the area and the side wall of Dwelling 1 would sit forward of the front of Dwelling 2, which is proposed to be set back 3 metres from Gentle Street.

18 I consider that a 2 metre setback is appropriate and consistent with the character of the area. I therefore consider that Condition 1(b) should be deleted from the permit.

19 This condition would require that perimeter fencing should be provided only along the private open space for Dwelling 1 and not be adjacent to the front setback of Dwelling 1 or the front setback of Dwelling 2.

20 Ms Moser made reference to the Urban Character Statement for Residential Character Type B which states that most dwellings have low fences and walls which would enable vegetation to be visible from the street. Under the heading Contributory Element low fences and walls are identified as contributing to the character of the neighbourhood. The Desired Future Character Statement provides that front fences will be low. Clause 22.01 also provides that no front fences will be provided where more than 75% of properties in the immediate neighbourhood do not have front fences. The Schedule to Clause 32.01, Residential 1 Zone, provides that front fences within 3 metres of a street should not exceed 1.2 metres.

21 Ms Moser submitted that fencing is proposed around the subject land except for driveways, and the 1.5 metre high columns proposed and non compliant with Schedule 1 and the number and height of the columns would produce a development that is out of character with the neighbourhood. Ms Moser submitted that there is some high fencing in the neighbourhood but the majority is low and unobtrusive.

22 I have had regard to the policy provisions and Schedule 1 of Clause 32.01. I consider it appropriate to amend Condition 1(c) to provide that fencing in front of and adjacent to the front setback of Dwelling 1 be not more than 1.2 metres high. I consider that this would be in accordance with policy and would satisfy the Standard in the Schedule.

23 Mr Walter addressed Condition 4 and Condition 5. He submitted that they would require that the internal stormwater and retention system be approved by the City of Monash. He made reference to Practice Notes of the Building Control Commission.

24 I consider that both Condition 4 and Condition 5 are appropriate as they would ensure that offsite discharge of stormwater would be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and provide the opportunity for the Council, in another role, to ensure that its drainage scheme is not overloaded.

25 I consider that Condition 4 is appropriate and should remain in the permit. Whilst Condition 5 was not the subject of the Application for Review I also consider that it is appropriate.

26 For the above reasons I consider that Permit No. TPA/32611 should not contain Condition 1(a) or Condition 1(b), Condition 1(c) should be amended, and Conditions 1(c) to (e) should be renumbered to be Conditions 1(a) to Condition 1(c) inclusive. I also consider that Condition 4 should remain in the permit. I will so order.