Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2002-07-16

Archicert (Vic) Pty Ltd v Frankston CC & Anor [2002] VCAT 1004 (16 July 2002)

Application under S.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time. Permit Application No. 01286. Residential 1 Zone. Development Plan Overlay (Langwarrin Outline Development Plan). Dwellings (Twenty four single storey dwellings). Subdivision (24 residential lots). Irregular Site (Area 10126 square metres). Orderly planning. Outline Development Plan. Neighbourhood character. Streetscape.. Landscape character. Loss of established trees. Density. Private open space. Car parking, Traffic.

The order of the Tribunal is that the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. The Tribunal directs that a permit must not be granted.

Mr Matthew Cameron, Town Planner, appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority.

Ms Julie James, Respondent/Objector, appeared on her own behalf and on behalf of her family.

Ms Joanna Matthews, Town Planner, appeared on behalf of the Applicant for Review and Permit Applicant.

1. This is an application to review the failure of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit within the prescribed time in relation to a permit application for 24 single storey dwellings and for the subdivision of the land into 24 lots, to be developed in two stages,. The Responsible Authority ultimately decided that it would have issued a notice of refusal to grant a permit for the following reasons, had it not been for the application for review:

"1. The proposal does not respect the existing neighbourhood character.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the orderly and proper future planning of the area.

3. The proposal is in conflict with the Langwarrin Outline Development Plan.

4. The proposal will restrict the future development potential of abutting and nearby land."

2. The parties at the hearing of the application for review made both written and verbal submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal.

3. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal gave oral reasons for its decision to uphold the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct that no permit be granted. A summary of the Tribunal's reasons is set out below.

4. I do not agree that the proposal "does not respect the existing neighbourhood character", in many respects a good medium density development could be consistent with the emerging neighbourhood character. It is clear that the existing character of the east side of Potts Road is intended to be substantially changed.

5. I do not agree that in a broad sense the proposal can be regarded as being "inconsistent with orderly planning". Nevertheless, I have a number of more detailed criticisms of the proposal which relates to the orderly planning issues.

6. I do not agree that the proposal "is in conflict with the Langwarrin Outline Development Plan". To the extent that the Outline Development Plan is specific about future development density and form it is consistent with this outline. In particular it makes specific provision for the local road shown on the Outline Development Plan.

7. I do not agree that the proposal would necessarily "restrict the future development potential of abutting and nearby land". However, I do agree that land to the east of Potts Road would benefit from some accumulation of lots prior to redevelopment, but if this is to be encouraged the Responsible Authority would need to undertake more fine grained planning for the area.

8. However, notwithstanding these conclusions in many respects I believe that the proposal is a poorly resolved design which is for this reason premature i.e:

* The driveway which is ultimately a minor local street should be incorporated into the design of the Granite Drive intersection which under the ADP is intended to be developed with a roundabout. Such a design response may impinge upon the present intention to retain the existing dwelling.

* The presently intended interface of the land with Potts Road is rather utilitarian, and I believe a better urban design solution would be desirable at what will be a minor visual node in the streetscape when the intersection is redeveloped.

* The proposed development makes no attempt to retain established trees in an urban environment where the lack of established trees is an evident and undesirable characteristic. Indeed, the land set aside for the extension of Raneen Drive contains some of the most significant trees on the land. The issue of whether or not this is the appropriate relocation for this proposed local street needs to be more carefully considered.

* Drainage issues are unresolved and in my view this is a matter which should have been investigated as part of the planning process leading to the preparation of the application for dwellings and subdivision.

* I am concerned about the absence of an appropriate sense of space in the central driveway, and the ability to create an appropriate landscape environment in the future along this vehicular accessway. In forming this conclusion I am cognizant of the fact that this is a development in a suburban rather than highly urban setting, and for this reason not only am I doubtful about the possibility of creating a suitable landscape setting, I am also concerned about the unbroken row of dwellings abutting the access driveway.

* While I do not necessarily agree that the proposed dwellings should have significantly larger areas of private open space available to them, I am of the view that in many instances the proposed private open space is poorly proportioned, and this failing is of particular importance given the relative isolation of the subject land from urban or at least suburban facilities.

Archicert (Vic) Pty Ltd v Frankston CC & Anor [2002] VCAT 1004

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (25 paragraphs)

Archicert (Vic) Pty Ltd v Frankston CC & Anor [2002] VCAT 1004 (16 July 2002)

Parties