Asian Pacific Building Corporation v Stonnington CC [2007] VCAT 1914

[19]

The site is zoned Residential 1 under the Stonnington Planning Scheme. A permit is required to use the land for the purpose of a residential hotel, convenience shop, and restaurant. A permit is required to construct a building and to construct and carry out works.
There are no overlay controls affecting the site.
Permits are required to display advertising (Clause 52.05-9), reduce the number of parking spaces required under Clause 52.06, reduce the standard loading bay requirements under Clause 52.07, use land to sell or consume liquor (Clause 52.27), create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, and reduce the standard bicycle parking requirements under Clause 52.34.
In relation to the current proposal the state and local planning policy framework seeks to:
- Encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas;
- Encourage development that improves housing choice and accommodates future housing needs;
- Facilitate residential and commercial development in existing activity centres with good access to public transport;
- Ensure that development achieves a reasonable standard of amenity for existing and new residents;
- Encourage the design of energy efficient buildings;
- Ensure that development respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character;
- Achieve high quality urban design and architecture;
The Council's Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.01 of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), includes the site within or on the periphery of a principal activity centre and on a selected arterial road where medium density housing and high scale development maybe supported. The general direction of the framework plan is supported by the Draft Structure Plan for Prahran/South Yarra principal activity centre which is currently the subject of public consultation. I was advised that there is some inconsistency in the plan as to the strategic direction for this site and its environs, but that a submission has been made to the Council by its officers that the site's designation within the document be amended to reflect the existing permit for the five storey building on the site. The Council, pending further consultation, has deferred adoption of the Draft Structure Plan.

[21]

As I stated above, the dispute in this matter is confined to a consideration of some conditions sought to be imposed by the Council and, with respect to the issues of concern raised by the objector, the interface treatment between the review site and the residential property abutting to the south.
I will deal with the interface issue first.
The proposal locates the hotel entry and vehicle entry on the south side with one way vehicular access from Thomas Street, leading to the basement ramp and a drop off/pick up area outside one of the two entrances to the hotel lobby and restaurant.
The treatment of this area provides for a fully enclosed canopy erected over the entry feature, together with a 3.6 m high acoustic fence extending over a distance of some 20 m along the southern boundary
Mr Doig submitted that the proposal represented a sub optimal design response to the sensitive residential interface to the south, and that the location of the entry area at this point would lead to increased noise and activity levels at the site's most sensitive interface. It was Mr Doig's submission that alternative designs ought to be pursued in order to move the entry area toward the centre of the site and therefore eliminate the need for the enclosure of the entry area through the provision of the fence and the canopy.
I disagree with Mr Doig's submission that a site responsive design approach would inevitably lead to a relocation of the entry area away from the southern interface. In my view a successful design response would identify the interface to the residential property to the south as being a site feature or constraint to which careful consideration needs to be given. I do not think that the amenity impacts associated with the entry area at that location are such that a conclusion should automatically be drawn that it is inappropriate.
The nature of the interface to the south is also a relevant consideration in my assessment of the proposal. The dwelling to the south presents a long, blank, two storey brick wall at its closest point to the common boundary with the review site. There are no windows facing the review site in that wall. Habitable room windows are located at first and ground floor level, but these are oriented to the west in that part of the wall which returns to the south. Ground floor habitable room windows facing the review site are setback approximately 3.0 m from the common boundary.
Having regard to the nature of that interface, the location of the entry facility is in my view a perfectly acceptable design solution provided that the amenity impacts which may arise from it are carefully managed. In this respect I accept Mr Fearnside's evidence that the acoustic treatment which is proposed is more than adequate in terms of ensuring that noise associated with the entry facility will be controlled and contained within acceptable limits.
Mr Doig also raised concerns about the height of the acoustic fence and both its visual and overshadowing impacts. The height of the fence could be reduced to 3.0 m by providing an angled treatment to the canopy, and this would in my view be sufficient to ensure that the impacts of the fence are not excessive and would be consistent with those considered to be acceptable in a residential context.
Turning now to the issue of conditions, the matters in dispute were largely related to the wording of conditions and I have amended the Council's draft conditions to clarify the intent of those conditions or to correct errors where occurring.
The substantive dispute related to the Council's conditions which require a reduction in the area of signage, and limits the hours of operation of the hotel lounge and restaurant.
With respect to the area of advertising, the main impact of the Council's condition would be to require a reduction in the level of advertising from 97.25 m2 to 45 m 2. Compliance with this would necessitate the removal of the artwork from the eastern elevation, and this is apparently what is intended by the condition. Mr Scally submitted that the artwork (being a reproduction of David Larwill's "DOG" etching and lino-cut) does not constitute advertising as defined under the planning scheme. I have some sympathy for this submission but it is not a matter about which I need to make a finding. Whether this feature constitutes advertising or not, it is in my view an integral part of the architectural expression of the building and any reduction would compromise the integrity of the building.
Concerns about the amenity impacts of the hours of operation of the hotel lounge and restaurant, can be addressed by imposing a condition to the effect that patrons arriving at or leaving these facilities, do so via High Street, at any time after 11.00 pm.

Asian Pacific Building Corporation v Stonnington CC [2007] VCAT 1914 - VCAT 2007 case summary — Zoe

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (22 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (1)

Asian Pacific Building Corporation v Stonnington CC [2007] VCAT 1914 (13 October 2007)