The applicant acknowledges that the RGZ6 and DDO14 encourage site consolidation to facilitate design outcomes towards the higher end of the policy settings along Oriel Road. However, it argues that this is a policy preference, not a mandatory development requirement or prohibition on single lot developments. The applicant submits that there are many reasons why single lots may be developed and many ways this may be done quite properly and still make a suitable contribution to the overall policy vision.
The applicant has referred me to other sites in the surrounding RGZ6 and DDO14 area along Oriel Road. These include sites that are already developed with reasonably new townhouse developments, and others that are single sites adjacent to developments that make consolidation unlikely. The applicant says:
There will never be a neat complete delivery of a new 6-storey boulevard. All of these development configurations and practical considerations mean there will inevitably be some single lot redevelopments as part of the housing intensification policy delivery along this corridor. There will inevitably be a mix of scales and development configurations.[29]
The applicant has also referred me to several groups of properties that it says present good consolidation opportunities. It says there are still many opportunities to realise the capacity provided by the policy in this immediate location regardless of the specific outcome for the subject land. It argues that this proposal is not an inherent or significant threat to the broader policy vision to consolidate and intensify along Oriel Road. The applicant submits that the proposal is a reasonable and appropriate response to the policy settings and the surrounding context to propose redevelopment of this individual lot.
I acknowledge that not every development site may be developed in a way that maximises the development potential provided for under the planning provisions and policies. This was recognised by the Council during the process to implement the Postcode 3081 UDF through the Scheme amendment C120bany, which applied the RGZ6 and the DDO14. The Planning Panel Report for that amendment includes discussion about the evidence of the Council's urban design expert that three properties may need to be consolidated to achieve six levels and comply with the side setback requirements. The strategic direction for the Postcode 3081 UDF area also anticipate these areas will include some medium density housing in addition to high density housing. I agree with the applicant that there will inevitably be a mix of scales and development configurations. The particular circumstances of each site will influence its development potential and the design response. Despite this, I am not satisfied that this proposal is consistent with the degree of housing change sought in this location.
The proposal will provide a net increase of only four dwellings on the land in a two-storey townhouse building form. The provisions and policies that apply to the subject land's main road location anticipate a change to higher density and more intensive built form outcomes. The proposal is similar in density and scale to other townhouse developments in the surrounding are that pre-date the introduction of the RGZ6 and DDO14, and those within the GRZ1 hinterland to the east and west of the Oriel Road 'Area 2 - Main Roads' area. The planning and policy context demands a greater density and scale of development.
I place considerable weight on the expectations for a greater density, scale, and form of housing in the RGZ6/DDO14 and Postcode 3081 in the circumstances of the subject land's proximity to the Bell Street Mall Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
I am not persuaded that the existence of other two-storey townhouse developments in the RGZ6/DDO14 area along Oriel Road justifies approving this proposal. Many of these existing developments occurred before the Postcode 3081 UDF was implemented with the application of the RGZ6 and DDO14 to the Main Roads areas. These include the four two-storey townhouses on the land on the south-eastern corner of Oriel Road and Altona Street,[31] opposite the subject land, and four two-storey townhouses at 202 Oriel Road.[32] While the development of four two-storey townhouses at 198 Oriel Road[33] was approved after Amendment C120bany implemented the Postcode 3081 UDF, it was only two months after this amendment occurred. This may explain why that development was approved by the Council. The development of five townhouses occurring at 2 Derna Street, on the north-western corner of Oriel Road and Derna Street 100 metres to the south of the subject land, is on a site that comprised a single development site. The adjoining properties to the north[34] and west[35] were already developed with townhouses.
The capacity of the subject land to accommodate the potential degree of change provided for by the RGZ6 and DDO14 is reduced by it being a single, unconsolidated site. The RGZ6 and the DDO14 both encourage the consolidation of sites to enable the preferred scale and built form outcomes that improve housing diversity and discourage underdevelopment.
I acknowledge the applicant's submissions that it has had discussions with the adjoining neighbour at 142 Altona Street and that neighbour is unlikely or unwilling to undertake a redevelopment. This may be the case. I accept that it is not always possible or feasible to achieve consolidation of two or more properties. The issue of consolidation of privately owned properties is recognised in the Postcode 3081 UDF document.[36] However, the subject land is in a prime position for consolidation with one or both of its adjoining properties. I cannot overlook the real potential the subject land provides to be consolidated with adjoining properties to achieve development outcomes consistent with these planning provisions and policies.
The subject land presents an obvious opportunity for site consolidation with the property to the west at 142 Altona Street. It also presents an opportunity for site consolidation with the property at 190 Oriel Road, either in combination with 142 Altona Street, or on its own. I do note, however, that the easement that extends across the northern portion of the subject land adjoining the boundary with 190 Oriel Road may be a constraint for development. Consolidation of all three of these properties would provide a substantial development site, consistent with the size of site identified by the Council's urban design expert in relation to Amendment C120bany. Together, or in pairs, these properties provide realistic opportunities to achieve development outcomes consistent with the scale and density anticipated by the RGZ6, DDO14 and the Postcode 3081 UDF.
While development of the subject land as a single site would not preclude consolidation of the adjoining properties or their development as single development sites, I am concerned it may impact the potential for consolidation to occur and/or the scale of density and development that may be achievable. Development of the subject land as a single development site will create a similar scenario to that of the three properties at the north-western corner of Oriel Road and Derna Street. The older two townhouses on the land at 4 Derna Street,[37] one property in from the corner of Oriel Road (like the subject land), preceded the development of the land at 175 Oriel Road to the north and the corner property at 2 Derna Street. This left these two properties forming an L-shaped configuration, which is not typical of consolidated development sites. Those two properties have subsequently been developed with two townhouses and five townhouses, respectively.
Although the vision for Diversity Areas and the strategic directions for the Postcode 3081 UDF at clause 02.03-5 anticipates some medium density housing in this area, this does not persuade me that the proposal is acceptable. Given the planning and policy context, medium density housing developments could be acceptable in particular circumstances. For example, on isolated development sites such as those at 200 Oriel Road[38] and 2 Derna Road.
Even if it may not be possible to accommodate an apartment building or six-storey development on the subject land as a single development site, this does not persuade me that a development of five two-storey townhouses is an acceptable response to the planning provisions and policies. On sites such as the subject land, which are not isolated and present opportunities for site consolidation or development at a scale more reflective of that sought by the RGZ6, DDO14 and the Postcode 3081 UDF, I consider a medium density development of five two-storey townhouses to be an underdevelopment.
I accept that the subject land's interface to the GRZ1 zoned land to the east, which has recently been developed with four two-storey townhouses, calls for some degree of transition from the higher scale and density expected in the RGZ6 / DDO14. However, I am not persuaded this justifies a development of the limited scale and density proposed. Rather than providing a transition, the proposal has adopted the scale and density of development more typical of developments in the GRZ1.
I find that the proposal is an underdevelopment of land that not only has the strategic context but also the potential to provide a greater number of dwellings in a building of a greater scale than is currently proposed, either as a single site or as part of a larger, consolidated development site. The incremental development of medium density housing on sites that have the potential for higher densities or consolidation with adjoining properties runs the risk of entrenching buildings that are inconsistent with the preferred built form and vision for these urban renewal areas. Incremental underdevelopment of land identified for housing change and urban renewal is inconsistent with orderly planning.
If the subject land is to be developed as a single, unconsolidated site, it requires a more innovative design response to provide an acceptable response to the degree of change sought by the planning provisions and policies. I acknowledge that it may also require the Council to adopt a more considered approach to how it applies the provisions of the DDO14 schedule, such as the preferred minimum setback requirements. For example, I note that it may not be necessary to provide a 6 metre rear setback along the subject land's northern boundary, which adjoins the side boundary of 142 Oriel Road which is similarly in the RGZ6 and DDO14, to achieve the design objectives sought. It seems to me that the more important interface for the built form transition is to the adjoining GRZ1 land to the east.
For the reasons I have outlined, I find that the density and scale of the proposal does not provide an acceptable response to the degree of housing change sought by the RGZ6, DDO14, the Postcode 3081 UDF, and the MPS and local policies.
Even if I were to find that the landscaping outcome provides an acceptable response to the planning provisions and policies, and the proposal will provide an acceptable amenity for unit 4, I would not consider the proposal provides a net community benefit.
As such, I find that the application should be refused.
[2]
For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.
[3]
[1] Source: Nearmap (Photo dated 1 January 2023). The review site is identified by a red star.
[4]
[2] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.
[5]
[3] Landscape Concept Plan, prepared by Justin Hutchison Landscape Design, Revision B dated 26.08.22. North is to the left hand side of the plan.