1 This is an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by the Permit Applicant for review of a decision of the Boroondara City Council ("the Responsible Authority") to refuse to grant a permit.

2 The proposal is for roller shutter doors at the front of 432-434 Burwood Road Hawthorn. The roller shutter doors have been erected.

3 The subject land is on the south side of Burwood Road east of Glenferrie Road. It is developed with two double storey buildings being 432 and 434 Burwood Road. The buildings are used for the business "Total Solutions". The shop at 432 Burwood Road is used as a computer shop, and the shop at 434 Burwood Road is used as a computer repair shop. The roller shutter doors when closed cover the whole ground floor facade of the shops.

4 The ground floor of the building to the west is used as a café, and the ground floor of the building to the east is used for mobile phone sales. There is a glass installer and buildings used by Swinburne University on the opposite side of Burwood Road.

5 The subject land is covered by the Boroondara Planning Scheme and is in a Business 2 Zone which is the subject of Clause 34.02. A permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works.

6 The following Decision Guideline is relevant:

"The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of building and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and landscaping of land adjoining a road "

7 The subject land is covered by an Environmental Audit Overlay, but this is not relevant to this proposal.

8 Reference was made to the following planning policies:

•

Clause 12.05 A Great Place to Be

•

Clause 14 Metropolitan Development

• Clause 19.03 Design and Built Form which includes a reference document "Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria"

• Clause 21.05 Urban Character

1. The roller shutters are out of character with existing shopfronts in the area.

2. The roller shutters will have a detrimental impact upon the streetscape.

1. Decision to refuse permit application was unreasonable.

2. Failure to take into account relevant material.

11 Ms White, in her written submission for the Responsible Authority, made reference to Clause 19.03, Design and Built Form, which has the objective to achieve high quality urban design and architecture that promotes attractiveness of sounds and cities and enhances liveability, amenity and safety of the public realm. Under Pedestrian Spaces the policy provides that design and the relationship between buildings and footpaths should enhance the visual and social experience of the observer.

12 Ms White acknowledged that the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant desires to achieve a degree of security for his premises however she submitted that the impact of the roller doors on the streetscape is not consistent with State and Local Planning Policies.

13 Mr Selimi, in his written submission for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, submitted that the roller shutter doors were not out of character with the existing shopfronts in the area and would not have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. He submitted that the roller shutter doors would blend in with the decor of the building and improve the general appearance of the streetscape having regard to other shopfronts in the area. He submitted that the roller shutter doors are necessary to secure the contents of the building and his client had previously been robbed when occupying another premises.

14 Mr Selimi called Mr Carter, the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, as a witness and Mr Carter gave sworn evidence. Mr Carter gave evidence of a robbery he had suffered when occupying a previous premises and he had installed the roller shutter doors in order to prevent a reoccurrence.

15 Mr O'Leary dealt with a similar proposal in Sakkas v Hobsons Bay CC [2000] VCAT 2486 (30 November 2000), which was an Application for Review of the decision of the Responsible Authority to refuse to grant a permit for a roller shutter door in front of an existing shop. Mr O'Leary disallowed the Application for Review and directed that a permit not be granted. Mr O'Leary said in his Reasons:

14. The Tribunal considers the placement of a roller door in front of the shopfront is an inappropriate treatment in a Business Zone. The Tribunal acknowledges that this is not a prime retail area. It also acknowledges that the applicant has installed two other roller shutter doors in front two adjoining shops. The applicant was able to achieve these roller doors because no planning controls existed prior to the VPP based Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.

15. The Tribunal considers the existing roller doors rather unsightly, and there has been no attempt to enclose or disguise the roller door encasement. The view of these roller doors does little to enhance the appearance of the shops. Whilst the placement of a further roller door on the third shop in a row may be seen by some people as only marginally worse than that which exists on the two adjoining shops the Tribunal considers there are alternative treatment to achieve a reasonable standard of security for the shopfront. It is disappointed that the applicant is unwavering in his desire to have a solid type roller door (only) on the shopfront.

16 I have conducted an inspection when the roller shutter doors were shut and I consider that what was said by Mr O'Leary applies also to this proposal. I acknowledge the concerns of Mr Carter concerning the security of his premises and stock. I consider, as did Mr O'Leary, that there are alternative treatments available to achieve security which would not have the impact on the streetscape that is demonstrated by the roller shutter doors that are in place.

17 For the above reasons this application is disallowed. It is appropriate for a permit not to be granted, and I will so order.