The application raises issues solely related to 'character'. There are no issues pertaining to typical amenity considerations like overlooking, overshadowing or loss of daylight; there is also no dispute that the site is capable of hosting a second dwelling with frontage to Emo Road. The sole issue is with the design and bulk of this building and the consequent impact that this has on the 'character' of this area.
Council and the objectors variously described the proposal as being 'stark'; 'dominant'; 'dramatic' and 'completely out of character'. Their basis for this was the lack of a realistic front setback, the boundary-to-boundary built form, the bulk of the building, the lack of a recessive upper storey, the extensive and alien site coverage, the dominant front garage and the inadequate space for vegetation.
The permit applicant agreed that the central issue was 'character' and suggested that all of the concerns of Council and the neighbours were satisfied by an assessment under ResCode standards and objectives.
The issue of 'neighbourhood character' is called up by the purposes of the Residential 1 zone and by clause 55.02 at Standard B1. Ordinarily a Council might have prepared a neighbourhood character study or similar to assist in this assessment but in this case, Council relied on a detailed analysis of the site and the local area in order to establish the prevailing character. I must say that this is also the approach that I favour in preference to cross-referencing to a study or a brochure which is usually just a snapshot of the area at a point in time. The 'character study' approach also typically casts the net very wide and does not take account of localised variations to 'characteristics' such as the contrasts between adjoining streets like Emo and Warley. I agree with Council that this is a case where the photographs and inspection '...are sufficient evidence of the dominance of period dwellings in the makeup of the neighbourhood character.'
Accordingly, and as noted, I undertook the same level of inspection as the other parties had. I wandered up and down Emo Road, around into Worley Road and as far as Repton Road, Ardrie Road, Moama Road, Howard Street and Wilmot Street.
Based on this inspection and on my consideration of the plans, my findings coincide with those of Council and the objectors enabling me to conclude that this proposal would be so out of character with its neighbourhood as to be alien.
My concerns with the application in the context of 'character' are as follows.
The upper level is a dominant, rather than recessive element in the design. While I appreciate that the proposal does have an upper level offset (of about a metre) I find that it would have a dominating presence in the streetscape. I noted, by way of example, that Nos. 35B Emo Road is in stark contrast to the rest of the street and it presents as a quite 'aggressive' built form addition. By contrast, I favourably noted a new two storey set of side by side dwellings in nearby Moama Road (Nos. 31 and 31A) and felt that the combination in this design of the upper level recess, ground level setback, some side offset and especially its materials and colours enabled it to present as a very comfortable companion in its streetscape. I cannot reach that same conclusion with the subject application.
There is also a 'rhythm' to the built form along Emo Street with a spacing between buildings which is lacking in this design with its boundary to boundary development. Many of the properties along Emo Road had some side (as well as front) vegetation creating a sense of 'balance' between building and landscaping which I think is lacking in the proposed design. There is a sense that the existing buildings are set within expansive grounds (even if the front yards are modest). In contrast, I think that the proposal presents as a 'wall to wall' and 'top to toe' building which will have quite a 'jarring' presence in the streetscape.
There is also an 'evenness' between built form and open space in the area. I was surprised at the 'density' of the development in a site coverage sense and once again feel that this is alien in this part of East Malvern. The two dwellings (existing and proposed) would both have open space areas of minimum dimensions which is at odds with the prevailing characteristic of a 'spaciousness' around each dwelling.
The proposed dwelling has a very cramped front yard with only a two metre setback to the pergola. While I appreciate that the pergola is an 'open' structure, it nevertheless drags the building forward which results in very little meaningful open space at the front. This is once again uncharacteristic of the area in my view.
There is also a sense along Emo Road that car spaces are a secondary consideration to the houses with little evidence of garages. Where there is a garage (Nos. 19 and 35B), the effect is quite obvious and it does little to improve the street.
Ultimately the decision for me is this:
Does the proposed development respect the neighbourhood character?
I agree with the permit applicant that 'respect' does not mean replicate, mimic or repeat. I think it requires a building to be a comfortable companion to the other assets that are characteristic of the area whether they be buildings or vegetation. Sometimes this can be achieved by elements which 'complement' some of the features in the area. Some of these elements are self-evident - style, height, setbacks, materials, colours etc, while others are more intangible such as rhythm, spacing, recessive elements and public realm.
I have formed the view on the basis of my inspection that this building does not respect the character of the area. In my view this building is too bulky, too dominant, too 'dense' and as a consequence has an overbearing presence in the street and the area.
Accordingly, I find myself in agreement with the observations in the Council submission which noted:
[2]
The proposed development will not integrate successfully with the established built form of the neighbourhood, but will instead be overly prominent due to its scale and mass.
[3]
In my view this application started with a poor design response which gave insufficient regard to the obvious characteristics of the area and therefore the constraints that these imposed.
I note that Mr Marsden reached a similar conclusion in a nearby street which evidently had a strong theme of single storey Californian bungalows (C H Architects v City of Stonnington; L & D Coyne & Others (P55/2006 - 16 Wilmot Street, Malvern East). He noted:
[4]
In the Tribunal's view, the design response adopted by the permit applicant simply fails to give sufficient consideration to these constraints. As earlier indicated, the rhythm of the streetscape is derived from its horizontal scale. The placement of a two storey structure would, of itself, require a cautious, even conservative approach. In the present instance, the stone portico would protrude 2m into the front setback area, thus adding to rather than detracting from the prominence of the building. While the garages on each boundary are single storey, they still serve to eliminate the gaps between dwellings that characterise much of Wilmot Street. The lack of any adequate setback to the upper storey also serves to add to building bulk. The Tribunal has consistently held that setbacks to upper levels of a development assist in reducing the impression of bulk. It is also questionable whether the extensive use of brick as the primary building material is consistent with the extensive use of timber, a feature of the surrounding Californian bungalows.
[5]
This is not a case where I feel that I could take up the suggestion of the permit applicant to tamper with the design to remedy the situation. While I have no issue with a two storey building on the site I think that it needs to have a more recessive upper level at the front such as at No. 31 Moama Road; it needs to be offset from at least one side boundary; it must have less obvious and dominant car storage; it must have a greater setback at the front reflecting prevailing offsets; it must have a less expansive vehicle crossing; it cannot rely on its neighbours for 'borrowed' amenity space; it must use materials more characteristic of the area; it must avoid a total boundary-to-boundary outcome; and it must have a site coverage closer to the norm in this area. In my view the process must start afresh.
[6]
Context is everything in a proper planning assessment. Exactly the same building might be appropriate in one street but be completely out of character in another. I could imagine, for instance the proposed building being acceptable very close to the subject site in the vicinity of the Worley Road/Dandenong Road corner where more modern buildings are evident and where no identifiable 'character' is apparent. But even though it is only a few hundred metres away, I believe that the same building would be an awkward companion to the established development pattern on Emo Road east of Kilmuir Road.
It is directed that no permit issue.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Charterarm Investments Pty Ltd
Respondent/Defendant:
Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 365
Cases Cited (1)
Charterarm Investments Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 365 (6 March 2009)