Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2005-09-20

Douglas v City of Greater Geelong [2005] VCAT 2006 (20 September 2005)

The request to review the decision of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for a two double storey development is disallowed. The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit with conditions 1-13 as listed in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit dated the 16th June 2005 with the following alteration to condition 13(b) -

Alter the two years to four years and replace the word commencement with "the permit".

Ms Virginia Jackson of Harlock Jackson Town Planning.

1 This application is brought under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a decision of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for a two (2) double storey development.

The site is located along The Esplanade, Indented Head. The site is regular and rectangular in shape and contains a total area of approximately 558 square metres. Public open space areas associated with the foreshore of Port Phillip Bay are located opposite the site such that panoramic views of the bay are available from the site, along with views further afield, extending to the skyline of Melbourne. The site is relatively flat and does not contain any significant vegetation. The site is located within an established residential area and is currently developed with a single storey weatherboard dwelling, with outbuildings situated to the rear of the site. As the site is located on a corner, it has frontages to both The Esplanade and David Street.

3 The proposal also from Ms Watt's submission is:

The section of the report describes the amended plans which were submitted during the processing of the application and upon which Council's decision was based.

The plans propose the construction of two double storey attached dwellings which have a maximum overall height of 7.5 metres from Natural Ground Level. The development is designed in such a way that it has the appearance of one large dwelling, rather than two dwellings.

The easternmost dwelling, which has access from The Esplanade, is setback 7.6 metres from the street; however a balcony area projects into this setback. The dwelling contains a double garage, media room, two bedrooms, and bathroom/laundry at ground level, with open space areas orientated to the east of the site. An additional bedroom and open living area is located at first floor level. The living rooms are oriented to the north and have a direct connection with a north facing balcony.

The western dwelling is setback 4.5 metres from The Esplanade and 3 metres from David Street. Entry to this dwelling and vehicle access, is via David Street. Three bedrooms, a laundry and bathroom, media room and double garage are located at ground level, while an additional bedroom and open north facing living area is located at first floor level. A balcony connects with the living room area. A studio is proposed above the garage which is located to the rear of the site. Private open space areas are proposed to the west of this dwelling.

The dwellings are contemporary in design and contain expansive glazed areas. The dwellings are generally based on cuboid forms, but projecting roof elements and varied used of materials and colours provide for a visually interesting development. It is proposed to construct the dwellings using colorbond roofing, colorbond fascias, rendered walls, timber garage doors and glazed areas.

Planning controls

4 The subject land and land east, south and west is zoned Residential 1 under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and is affected by a Design and Development Overlay No.14 opposite the site to the north is Port Phillip Bay and the beach zoned Public Conservation and Resource.

A permit is required for more than one dwelling on the land.

5 The reasons for this request are:

1. Over development of small residential bloc.

2. No visitor parking.

3. Less than 3m from north facing window.

Preliminary matter

6 Ms Jackson sought a change of the applicant's name to that of the permit applicant ie Mr Jonathan Martin and Ms Karen Rendell. There was no objection and the substitution permitted in accordance with Clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

7 This is an ultra modern two storey dual occupancy on a corner overlooking Port Phillip Bay.

8 The proposal has been well designed in a modern seaside style with individual entries and adequate car parking.

9 Mr Douglas who spoke on behalf of a number of residents considered the development too large and didn't comply with setback, site coverage, private open space and overshadowing requirements.

10 The Tribunal was given excellent photographs and considered the submissions with the photographs enabled a decision to be made without the need for an on site inspection.

11 There is no doubt the subject land is suitable for a two dwelling development and the Tribunal must consider the character of the area and any potential amenity loss to abutting properties with this proposal.

12 As stated above, the proposal has been well designed and generally complies with the provisions of ResCode.

13 It is ultra modern, but what is generally seen at beach side areas to take in bay views. The Tribunal believes the proposal fits the area with the bay opposite.

14 The siting with the front overhanging upper balcony areas is satisfactory so far as the setback from the frontage is concerned and the shape with varying cladding materials reduces the impact of the structure.

15 In terms of abutting amenity concerns, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal will not create any loss that could cause this proposal to fail to proceed.

16 The Tribunal believes the proposal meets the requirements of the planning scheme and ResCode and there are no reasons on planning grounds to stop the development proceeding.

17 The request is disallowed and the Responsible Authority will be directed to issue a permit with the conditions listed in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, amending the completion of development to comply with the standard four (4) year term.

18 I record that a letter of the 14th September 2005 was received by Deputy President Gibson from Dr Pat Corbett in relation to the proceeding. As leave was not granted by me for any further submissions to be filed subsequent to the hearing, the material has not been considered.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998

Douglas v City of Greater Geelong [2005] VCAT 2006

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (18 paragraphs)

Douglas v City of Greater Geelong [2005] VCAT 2006 (20 September 2005)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)