Citi Road Apartments Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2006] VCAT 1070

Citi Road Apartments Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2006] VCAT 1070 - VCAT 2006 case summary — Zoe

[9]

4 The review site is located on the northeast corner of Rouse and Stokes Street in Port Melbourne. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Rouse Street of approximately 55.5m, a frontage to Stokes Street of approximately 40.4m and an overall site area of 2232m2. To the rear of the site along its northern boundary is a 3.6m wide right-of-way known as Church Street.

5 At the present time the review site is developed with a single storey brick warehouse building which varies in height between 6 and 7 metres and has a zero setback to Rouse Street but a setback to Stoke Street of approximately 3.6m. The setback to Stoke Street is used as a landscape buffer.

6 Effectively to the north of the review site is land zoned Residential 1 and comprised of one and two storey terrace and semi-detached dwellings. Immediately abutting the north side of Church Street are 74 and 74B Stoke Street which are two two-storey dwellings that have their open space areas separating them and abutting Church Street.

7 To the west of the review site is also Residential Zone 1 land and occupied by the St Joseph's Catholic Church and associated outbuildings. Across the road on the south side of Rouse Street are the Swallow and Ariel buildings which are two storey heritage buildings constructed in the Renaissance revival style and have been recently converted to apartments.

8 To the east of the site 222 and 224 Rouse Street are single storey terraced dwellings. However, approval has been given for the construction of a four level building containing eight dwellings on the sites. The Responsible Authority has informed the Tribunal that that project is unlikely to proceed. Further to the east at 216 Rouse Street is a warehouse building of similar portions to the review site and a permit has been issued for the redevelopment of that site with a six level building containing some 68 apartments.

9 Within this area are a number of redeveloped industrial sites that have been developed primarily as residential apartments with commercial areas located at the ground floor. Most of these buildings have been designed with a 'podium base' consisting of three levels located at a zero lot line setback and the upper levels are generally set back around 5m.

[38]

31 This Tribunal agrees with the above observations. In this case there is essentially unanimous agreement between the parties that this site and location represents an opportunity to achieve the policy objectives of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The real question is how well does this proposal do that in terms of its specific design response, to the opportunities and constraints presented by the site and location?

32 As mentioned earlier the DDO1-2a policy generally provides for a podium level to be provided with a preferred height of 10.5m (3 storeys). It is acknowledged that the provisions of the DDO1-2a also allow an absolute height of 19.5m.

33 Clause 43.02 of Schedule 1 under Section 2 Buildings and Works under the heading "Height" provides that 'the preferred maximum height may be exceeded up to the absolute maximum height ... if the proposal meets all the relevant design objectives and achieves all the outcomes specified in the Table to this schedule and will not result in any additional detriment to the amenity of surrounding public realm or private residential areas as a result of the increased height'.

34 It is noted that the site adjoins an area which has the DDO1-4 Overlay to the north. The DDO1-4 provides for a podium level that under its provisions has a preferred set back between 3-8 metres to a preferred height of 9m.

35 Thus, while it is true the zone and DDO-2a Overlay are anticipating change, this to some degree needs to be tempered by the recognition this site is located, insofar as the northern boundary is concerned, at the interface with a more sensitive sub-area.

36 This sensitivity is verified by the inspection undertaken by the Tribunal of that area. The Tribunal found that dwellings located to the north of Church Street to be generally well maintained and in fact some had been recently upgraded. It did not appear to the Tribunal that this was an area likely to undergo massive redevelopment within the short-term.

37 Simply the opportunities provided by large single owned or occupied holdings of land available for redevelopment, such as the review site and many of the others recently developed sites, is not present in the area to the north of the review site.

38 The Tribunal notes the objectives of the building design section of the DDO1 which includes:

[42]

39 In this proposal the replacement building provisions do not assist with the consideration of this application.

40 Mr McGauran's evidence was essentially that the proposed podium level particularly at the north and north-western end of the review site was not significantly respectful of the existing character of the dwellings to the north and west of Church Street. This he suggested was required to respond to the 'fine grain' of the character of the area.

41 The lack of any transition along the northern edge for the podium level Mr McGauran submitted was not supported by the policy objectives nor a carefully considered design response of the residential areas to the north.

42 The proposed design on the northwest corner and along the north boundary (abutting Church Street) essentially provides for a zero lot setback up to four levels. While the floor to ceiling levels are relatively low the overall height of the wall on this northwest corner is approximately 11.5m. The northwest corner is in our view the most sensitive corner of the proposal in terms of its residential interface. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the height of the wall at this corner and along Church Street is unacceptable.

43 The Tribunal believes the increased height does result in increased detriment to the north and thus does not satisfy the test set out in the DDO1.

44 The Tribunal does not accept that policies, even though strongly supporting change in this location, go so far as to require the Tribunal to disregard this sensitive interface. We do not believe that the building should be dropped to single storey or such but we are of the opinion a transition between what may be expected to occur to the north under DDO1-4 and what can occur on this site would at least be a starting point for determining that transition.

45 The Tribunal is also of the view that the strong policy support that has occurred for development in this area has been quite successfully implemented. We believe the objective of the planning scheme to create a podium comprised of one level of a 4.5m in height with two levels of 3m in height above has been generally well embraced and now clearly forms a distinctive emerging character in this area. The Tribunal sees no reason to allow an increase from the preferred height of 10.5m and even see little reason why four levels should be permitted in this podium component of the development.

46 We believe the visual mass represented by the four levels at the corner of Church and Stokes Streets and along the Church Street abuttal is simply unacceptable in the context of this area.

47 While the Tribunal recognises that a two level home office has some merit we are concerned that the minimal floor to ceiling levels proposed in this development will result in a poor level of amenity for future residents.

48 The Tribunal is also of the view that the flexibility that is being sought by the Responsible Authority in the policies of the planning scheme have much merit as the changing nature of this area brings with it a demand for services to be provided nearby.

49 Thus, we are of the opinion that the flexibility of having a ground floor area level with a height of approximately 4.5m to facilitate flexibility in future use is quite appropriate.

50 In terms of other urban design issues we are of the opinion that the façade treatment of the building as generally shown in the perspectives table and including Revision E dated 7 February 2006 provide a simpler and more appropriate treatment for the building.

[49]

Thus, this is not a site constrained in terms of access to daylight as one may expect on a mid-block central city site.

56 In this proposal the Tribunal has calculated around approximately 37 of the 110 dwellings have bedrooms or study/bedrooms equating to 34% of the dwellings relying on borrowed light. In addition in excess of a further 16 studies rely on borrowed light.

57 As Member Hewet observed judgment needs to be made and in the Tribunal's view we have come to the opinion that the extent of rooms relying on borrowed light is unacceptable. The Tribunal has come to this view on the basis that this is a site that has the benefit of the street frontage abuttal (plus the central courtyard) and the opportunity to design apartments with direct access to sunlight has in our view been missed.

58 In addition the apartments are quite compact and in our view the internal amenity is compromised by having rooms with no direct access to sunlight.

59 Mr Canavan provided the Tribunal with a suggestion, if the Tribunal determined it necessary, with a reduction in the number of units and therefore a reduction in the reliance on borrowed light that would result from the redesign of combined units. We shall return to this issue later in these reasons.

60 The other major concern the Tribunal had was the separation distance and the orientation of habitable rooms around the central courtyard area. Privacy between the units and in particular between balcony areas, being the principal private open space for these dwellings, are located between 10 and 16.8 metres at a maximum and some have a zero separation.

61 Mr Govenlock's solution of sliding screens on the balconies while interesting and innovative in the Tribunal's view reinforces the fact that perhaps too much is trying to be squeezed on this site.

62 Finally, the Tribunal is also concerned with, as mentioned previously, the limited height provided from floor to floor. Each of the levels are approximately 2.8m floor to floor and allowing for a floor slab of approximately 200mm and for some other hidden services results in a typical floor ceiling level of about 2.4m. While this meets the minimum required height for the dwellings it does demonstrate the tightness in trying to achieve an extra level within the overall height limitation of this area.

[51]

68 Mr Hunt on behalf of the Applicant for Review provided evidence in respect of parking in the area together with an analysis of the likely parking demand of the facility.

69 Mr Hunt's analysis suggested 99 car spaces be allocated to the residential component, 11 car spaces be allocated to the home office and 14 car spaces be available for visitors to the site resulting in a total of 124 car spaces which is the number provided in this proposal.

70 Mr Hunt submitted that the 14 visitor spaces are sufficient to meet the demands of the home office and visitors parking. Mr Hunt submitted that an empirical analysis of visitor parking in the area of a similar development e.g. Beacon Cove, resulted in a peak visitor demand of 0.11 space per unit. This would equate to a peak visitor parking requirement of 12 visitor spaces for this proposal.

71 Thus, on Mr Hunt's evidence approximately 122 car spaces would be sufficient to serve the proposal and with at least 18 car spaces available

on-street in the immediate area he concluded that the parking availability in the area and onsite provision is adequate.

72 Objectors to the application raised concerns in respect of the analysis particularly by the fact that the surveys tabled as part of the evidence were undertaken during the summer vacation period. This is of course a two edge sword. Locations such as beach suburbs tend to become more popular during summer vacation periods and therefore as Mr Hunt indicated parking demand may generally be expected to be higher.

73 Nevertheless, the Tribunal is concerned with the level of parking provided. The first concern expressed by the Tribunal is that the area is an area undergoing rapid redevelopment and the full affects of parking demand from nearby developments would not be realised until those developments are completed and occupied. Thus, while an empirical study may show at present at least 18 spaces available it is difficult to estimate what change would occur when other developments that are also relying on some overflow parking on-street area are completed.

74 Another factor is that many of the apartments in this proposal are two bedrooms and have a dedicated study area. Thus, one can really anticipate a number of the internally provided visitor spaces being utilised by residents when allocated parking within the site is exceeded.

75 Thus, we are of the opinion that the parking for this proposal for the amount of units provided is inadequate.

76 The Tribunal is of the view that this proposal should provide for at least one car space for each of the residential units and 0.2 spaces be provided for visitors which in the Tribunal's view would also cater for customer parking for the home office. That is a minimum of 132 spaces should be provided for a proposal of this size.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (52 paragraphs)

Citi Road Apartments Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2006] VCAT 1070 (7 June 2006)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)