Mr Simon Merrigan, Landscape Architect of Miller Merrigan.

Buildings and works to establish two roller shutters on an existing glass shopfront. Shutters are silver metallic finish with no transparency. Proposal is to legitimise existing shutters erected at the premises that are currently the subject of enforcement action of Council.

The proposed shutters include one shutter to cover a door approximately 1m wide x 2.3m tall. The second shutter is to cover the front window with dimensions approximately 4.2m x 2.4m.

Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987

cl 34.01-4 (buildings and works in a Business 1 zone)

Site is an existing two storey building with ground floor retail shop selling hand bags, shoes and other accessories. At first floor is an office with ground floor access via a side entry way to the east of the shop front. The shop front includes large glass display window with glass front door and side glass window display facing pedestrian access to the first floor entry way.

Newtone Retravision v Maribyrnong CC [2006] VCAT 383, Sakkas v Hobsons Bay CC [2000] VCAT 2486, Carter v Boroondara CC [2005] VCAT 2739, The Glen Centre Hawthorn Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2007] VCAT 596 and Xu v Hobsons Bay CC [2008] VCAT 1669

1. This review results from a refusal of Maroondah City Council to issue a permit for two roller shutters to be erected on the façade of an existing shop front at 72 Railway Place, Ringwood East. The application results from enforcement action taken by Council to remove the shutters that were erected on site without planning permit.
2. Under Clause 34.01 a planning permit is required to install external roller shutters.
3. Mr Merrigan submitted the shutters were a necessary security requirement for the shop to protect stock within the shop and the glass window that had been the subject of vandalism in the past from graffiti and scratching. Ms Luketic stated Council acknowledged a potential need for security to the shop but considered better means of protection were available to the applicant that had a less detrimental affect on the safety and amenity of pedestrians and general users of the activity centre.
4. Decision guidelines of Clause 34.01 - 4 include the need to address[1]:

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 buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and the landscaping of land adjoining a road.

1. Clause 19.03 also provides specific policy relating to urban design stating:

Development should achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties

1. My assessment of the proposal below considers the impact of the proposed development on active frontage to the street and visual amenity of the street having regard to Clause 19.03 and the provisions of the local planning policy framework. With this I have also had regard to the Activity Centre guidelines and Safer Design Guidelines both of which form reference documents to Clause 19.03 - 3.

Does the proposal protect active frontage to pedestrian areas?

1. Both the Activity Centre guidelines and Safer Design Guidelines that form reference documents to the planning scheme provide a definition of active frontage being:

Refers to street frontages where there is an active visual engagement between those in the street and those on the ground floors of buildings. This quality is assisted where the front facade of buildings, including the main entrance, faces and open towards the street.

1. The activity centre guidelines go on to provide a number of directions to protect active frontage including:

Promote the natural surveillance of public space and street edge activity. This can be achieved by ensuring buildings address the street and contain active uses on the ground floor.

Design suggestion 1.6.1[3] - concentrate shops into continuous active frontages, with minimum setbacks to the street.

To design and plan street edges to enhance the pedestrian environment.

Design suggestion 3.3.3 - restrict the use of blank walls and reflective glazing that hides the presence of activity within buildings.

Design suggestion 3.3.4 - ensure buildings are designed so occupants can maintain eye contact with people in the street.

1. It is a difficult conundrum planners face to balance the needs of personal protection with broader community safety. Whilst individuals have a right to protect the safety of their person and property, it should not be at the significant detriment of broader community safety. In this regard, the planning scheme makes specific direction that it is important to maintain active frontage to streets and consequently the perception of safety.
2. Mr Merrigan stated the shutters were important for the business owner as this section of the street was generally not used at night, except for the subject premises where the upstairs office was sometimes open at night and the shop itself was sometimes open at night for sales parties. He also emphasised the quality of display in the window and how this was an important attractor to the business and this section of the activity centre.
3. It is this display and sense of activity that promotes active frontage and perceptions of safety that the planning scheme seeks to protect. Proliferation of fully screened roller shutters in a street only increases the extent of blank wall / façade in the street and reduces pedestrian amenity and perception of safety. Whilst shops may not be occupied at night displays and display lighting can add to a sense of activity and safety that engages people to be in a centre. This in turn can add to the real safety of the centre for users and business owners as there are then more people in the area to maintain casual surveillance of public and private property.
4. The current trading hours of the shop, as identified on the shop door are 9.30am to 4.30pm Tuesday to Friday and Saturday 9am to 1pm. Mr Merrigan indicated the shop was also open for private sales parties 2 - 3 evenings per week. There are long periods of time, however, including afternoon - early evenings and all day Sunday and Monday when the shop will have no active frontage to the street, reducing the amenity and vitality of the activity centre.
5. Mr Luketic stated Council's view was that alternative security arrangements were possible including internal grills, external screens (with clear shutters) or other permeable screening devices. Whilst I accept some of these options may not protect glass from scratching I consider this a relatively minor consequence. Alternatively, solid shutters as proposed, invite other forms of vandalism such as graffiti with the blank canvas that the shutters then provide.
6. Mr Merrigan noted other premises in the street already had security screens including solid shutters at a hairdresser nearby to the east and a chemist nearby to the west. Ms Luketic advised Council was not aware of whether permits were being issued for other premises in the street and she was not aware if enforcement action had been taken on other premises. From inspection, the shutter to the hairdresser looks to have been in place for many years. The shutters to the chemist do look modern, similar to that of the subject site.
7. Whilst the subject application has been brought from an enforcement action of Council on the subject site for shutters established without a permit, it is not my role to comment on this enforcement proceeding or whether the provisions of shutters on other properties in the street legitimises a need for shutters on the subject property. It does, however, reinforce to me concerns in incremental loss of active frontage in the centre from additional solid screens that can reduce the sense of activity and perception of safety for users of the street.

1. Whilst Mr Merrigan submitted the shutters were slim line and not unattractive to the street, I do not find they enhance the public realm. The shutters, regardless of their neatness, remain a form of garage door, with no visual interest to the passer by.
2. Ms Luketic cited a number of other VCAT decisions[5] in which the Tribunal did not support the use of solid screen shutters. I find the circumstances of this proposal to be similar and find no extenuating circumstances as to why I should deviate from other decisions of the Tribunal in relation to this site.
3. I consider the proposal not enhance the public realm, but detracts from the existing[6] public realm in a similar manner that other centres have experienced, as cited in cases noted by Ms Luketic.

1. In a safe environment no security measures would be needed for a retail premises. I acknowledge, however, that there is a need to balance protection of the property with real and perceived public safety as well as enhancement of the public realm. I find the existing proposal does not achieve this balance and therefore cannot be supported. Alternative security arrangements are available to the owner and these can be addressed on their merits through planning permit as may be needed.
2. It therefore follows that I will affirm Council's decision and direct that no permit issue.

[2] Pg. 6 - Element 1 Urban Context: Activity Centre Guidelines 2005.

[5] Newtone Retravision v Maribyrnong CC [2006] VCAT 383, Sakkas v Hobsons Bay CC [2000] VCAT 2486, Carter v Boroondara CC [2005] VCAT 2739, The Glen Centre Hawthorn Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2007] VCAT 596 and Xu v Hobsons Bay CC [2008] VCAT 1669.

[6] Prior to the shutters being erected.