appellant. The Tribunal set aside the Responsible Authority's refusal and directed that a planning permit be granted for the four-storey mixed-use development at 270 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverley, subject to...
Key principles
The Tribunal concluded the site at 270 Blackburn Road is suitable for mixed office and residential use and the proposed four-storey form, as amended, is consistent with the Local...
Bulk, massing and potential overlooking concerns were not sufficient to refuse the permit because the residential components complied with ResCode separation requirements...
The provision of 28 on-site car spaces (including car stackers) was adequate in context: having regard to the distribution between office and residential use, the proximity to...
Traffic access via the existing right of way to the north was acceptable and in fact preferable to additional crossovers on the main road, subject to conditions and...
Issues before the court
Whether the proposed four-storey mixed use development is inconsistent with the State and Local Planning Policy Framework (SPPF/LPPF).
Whether the building's bulk, mass and scale were unacceptable adjacent to Residential 1 zoned land.
Plain English Summary
VCAT allowed GAJ Corporation's review of Monash City Council's refusal and granted a permit for a four-storey mixed-use development at 270 Blackburn Road. The Tribunal found the site suitable for office and residential uses, judged that the 15 metre Melbourne Water reserve and compliance with ResCode mitigated bulk and privacy concerns, accepted that the amended carparking layout was adequate given proximity to public transport and ABS vehicle ownership data, and concluded remaining amenity and traffic concerns could be controlled by permit conditions.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,864 words · generated 11/07/2026
What happened
GAJ Corporation sought review at VCAT of Monash City Council's refusal to grant a permit for a four-storey mixed-use development at 270 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverley. The proposal, as amended prior to hearing, comprised ground-level car parking (28 spaces, including some mechanical stackers), a 530 m2 office at first floor level, and 12 residential apartments across second and third floors. The site is 655 m2 with a 20 metre Blackburn Road frontage, a fall from front to rear of about 2–3.3 metres, and it abuts a 15 metre Melbourne Water reserve (referred to throughout as the 'pipe track') on its rear boundary. The site sits within the Syndal neighbourhood activity centre, is zoned Business 1, and is subject in part to a Special Building Overlay. The Responsible Authority refused the permit on multiple grounds including inconsistency with planning policy, excessive bulk and scale, overdevelopment, inadequate parking, unsatisfactory waste storage and collection, poor access for people with disabilities, inadequate bicycle parking, and adverse amenity impacts.
Whether car parking and traffic arrangements are satisfactory.
Whether the proposal would unacceptably diminish amenity (privacy, overlooking, noise, refuse, light spill).
Cited legislation
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
VCAT (Member E Bensz) heard the matter, received expert evidence (planning and traffic), inspected the land and locality, and accepted amended plans. The Tribunal set aside the Council's refusal and directed that a permit be issued, subject to detailed conditions (Appendix 1).
Key factual elements that shaped the outcome were: the site’s permissive zoning for both office and dwellings (so the conflict was about form and impact not use), the presence of the 15 metre reserve that separates the site from residential properties to the east, the amendments that reduced the height by 400 mm and reconfigured parking (removal of some car stackers), and the site's proximity to Syndal railway station.
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal's decision turned on a site-specific balancing exercise anchored in the planning scheme and factual circumstances:
Permissive zoning and policy context: The Tribunal accepted the undisputed fact that the site was suitable for office and dwellings and that both uses are generally permitted in the Business 1 zone so long as works obtain a permit (see the Tribunal's opening finding that the site is suitable for those uses). That shifted the contest to built form, amenity and traffic impacts rather than use permissibility.
Policy analysis: The Tribunal considered the State and Local Planning Policy Framework (including clauses promoting compact urban form and activity centre hierarchies, and local objectives in Clause 21.03). It found the proposal, as amended, was consistent with those policies in the Syndal neighbourhood activity centre context because it would promote regeneration, housing diversity and employment opportunities in a local centre rather than a principal or major centre. The Tribunal emphasised that policy requires built form to fit context and enhance character, and read the proposals against that test.
Bulk, massing and separation: The residents’ primary objection was visual bulk and overbearing impact on houses backing onto the reserve. The Tribunal accepted that bulk was a concern for objectors, but concluded the 15 metre Melbourne Water reserve provided a meaningful buffer. Together with the amended setbacks, enhanced articulation and the reduced height, the Tribunal found ResCode separation principles and the actual distances involved prevented the sort of amenity harm required to refuse the permit.
Privacy and ResCode compliance: The Tribunal noted all balconies and windows were well in excess of the 9 metre arc required by ResCode; that physical separation (the pipe track) reinforced privacy protection; and that screening and design conditions could further manage any residual overlooking or light spill.
Parking and traffic: The Tribunal considered the amended car park layout (28 spaces) and expert traffic evidence. It found the parking supply appropriate given the split of uses, proximity to public transport, and ABS data on vehicle ownership for the postcode. The applicant reduced reliance on stackers by converting four stacks into single spaces. Access via the existing right of way to the north was considered preferable to increasing crossovers on Blackburn Road; the Tribunal acknowledged localised conflict points but viewed them as manageable.
Amenity controls by condition: Where the Tribunal identified risks (refuse collection location, lighting, noise, screening, disabled access, stormwater and Melbourne Water conditions), it fashioned permit conditions to manage those issues rather than refusing the permit outright.
Overall the Tribunal undertook a practical, context-sensitive application of planning policy, weighed empirical factors (distances, ABS statistics, amended plans) and preferred a conditioned approval to a refusal where the evidence did not establish unmanageable amenity harm.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision: the relevant legal framework was the planning scheme and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which governs merits review at VCAT. The decision does not announce new legal principle; rather it applies existing doctrines:
Assess built form against the hierarchy and objectives in SPPF/LPPF.
Use ResCode and scheme clauses (e.g. Clause 34.01, Clause 52.06, Clause 55) to evaluate setbacks, privacy, parking and amenity.
Use conditions to mitigate impacts where appropriate.
After this decision: the judgment stands as an example of VCAT’s application of established principles in a neighbourhood activity centre context. It affirms that:
Proximity to a meaningful physical buffer (the 15 m reserve) is a material factor in judging bulk and privacy impacts.
Compliance with ResCode separation standards (e.g. the 9 m arc) is a strong indicator that overlooking/privacy concerns may be addressed.
The adequacy of parking must be judged in context: modal shift potential, public transport proximity and local car ownership patterns are relevant.
The decision does not alter the law but clarifies application in similar site-specific circumstances and underscores the Tribunal’s willingness to grant permits where conditions can manage remaining impacts.
Key passages with plain-English translation
Quoted passage (Tribunal): "It was agreed between the parties that the site is suitable for use for purposes of office and dwellings and indeed neither use requires a planning permit." Translation: The dispute was not about whether offices or apartments are allowed on the land. Both uses are acceptable in the zone, so the argument was about how big and intrusive the building would be.
Quoted passage (Tribunal): "The 15 metre wide 'pipe track' ... creates a sufficient gap which has enabled the building to comply with the requirements of ResCode ... and I consider will not cause the perceived impacts raised by the residents." Translation: The pipeline reserve behind the site provides a buffer that makes the apartments less likely to harm neighbours by overlooking or by dominating the view; the distances meet the residential design rules.
Quoted passage (Tribunal): "I consider that there will not be a parking overflow into the surrounding streets particularly Shirley Avenue..." Translation: Taking into account the number and type of car spaces provided, the stacked-space arrangements, and the site's access to train services, the Tribunal did not expect the development to cause parking problems in nearby streets.
Quoted passage (Tribunal): "The applicant argued just because the building will be visible from residential properties is not sufficient grounds for its refusal." Translation: Visibility from neighbouring houses alone does not mean a development must be refused; the test is whether it creates unacceptable amenity impacts, not whether someone can see it.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is directly relevant where all or most of the following facts appear:
A Business 1 zoned frontage site within a neighbourhood activity centre where both office and residential uses are permitted.
A constrained site with floodway or Special Building Overlay constraints requiring at-grade parking and limiting basement solutions.
Existence of an intervening public reserve, service easement or similar buffer (e.g. a 15 metre 'pipe track') separating the commercial strip from adjoining residential properties.
Proposals for a mid-rise (four-storey) building where objectors raise bulk, overlooking, parking and traffic concerns.
Amended plans that reduce vertical extent, improve articulation, add setbacks at upper levels and reconfigure parking (including reduction in mechanical stackers).
Proximity to a railway station or other public transport hub that supports a reduced car parking demand assessment.
Where these facts occur, the Tribunal’s reasoning, focusing on measurable separation, compliance with ResCode standards, and contextual policy aims, is directly applicable.
How later courts have treated it
This VCAT decision is a merits review decision and does not establish binding precedent in the way appellate judgments do. It will however be persuasive in later Tribunal matters that involve:
The interplay between a public reserve and amenity impacts of adjacent higher density development,
Assessing parking adequacy by reference to proximity to public transport and local car ownership statistics,
The acceptability of mechanical car stackers when balanced with single spaces and practical management measures,
The use of conditions to control refuse location, lighting and other amenity issues.
Parties in later VCAT matters can cite this decision as an example of the Tribunal’s approach to contextual planning analysis, particularly in neighbourhood centre settings. Because it applies a fact-sensitive balancing approach, its persuasive value is greatest where factual parallels exist.
Still-open questions
Precedent and cumulative change in the centre: Several objectors feared this permit would set a precedent leading to even taller development. The Tribunal acknowledged such concerns but treated them as policy implementation matters. The open question is how successive approvals of similar scale aggregate to shift a centre’s character and at what point the cumulative effect becomes a strategic policy issue demanding a different outcome. That question often requires broader strategic planning instruments or policy amendments rather than determination at the level of a single permit.
Mechanical stackers and long-term practical use: While the Tribunal accepted the mix of stackers and single spaces, the decision leaves open the long-term usability and management burdens associated with stackers in mixed-use buildings, particularly for visitors and persons with limited mobility. The Parking Management Plan condition is a tool, but evidence from operational experience over time would better inform future decisions.
Narrow rights of way and conflict points: The Tribunal accepted access via the 3 metre right of way subject to Council’s possible future traffic management. The potential for conflict where narrow rights of way are relied upon for vehicle access to intensified development remains a policy and safety concern, and the judgment suggests local traffic engineering solutions may be required.
Active frontage expectations vs technical constraints: This decision accepts a reduced emphasis on active street frontages where floodway management and Special Building Overlay constraints operate. How councils should balance desired street activation against technical site constraints remains a matter for design policy development.
Robustness of ABS statistics in parking assessments: The Tribunal relied in part on ABS car ownership data for the postcode to support parking adequacy. The application of such macro statistics to a particular development's likely behaviour remains an area where parties can advance different empirical claims; the weight to be given such data will vary with the detail and relevance of the evidence.
Practitioners should treat this decision as a careful, contextual example of how VCAT balances policy aims, site constraints and measurable amenity effects. It underscores the importance of well-evidenced amendments, pragmatic design responses, and enforceable permit conditions when seeking approvals for mid-rise development in neighbourhood centres.
Judgment (76 paragraphs)
GAJ Corporation Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2009] VCAT 1256 (3 July 2009)
Monash Planning Scheme, Section 79 Planning and Environment Act1987, Office and Residential Building, Policy Compliance, Building Bulk and Mass, Overlooking from Residential Units, Traffic and Carparking.
Antonia Ringenbergs, Wendy Van Dok, Peter Deighan, Lisa Worsfold and Ors
The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. In permit application, TPA/36603 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 270 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverly. The permit allows a four storey mixed use development containing an office, dwellings and carparking in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1:
Mr Phil Borelli, Town Planner of SJB Planning.
Ms Charmaine Dunstan, Traffic Engineer of TraffixGroup.
Mrs Antonia Ringenbergs, on behalf of Waldemar, Natalie, Matthew and Andrew Ringenbergs, Joan Byrne and Geoffrey Hedger, Ms Lisa Worsfold on behalf of Syndal Pre-School Association Inc. Ms Wendy Van Dok, Mr Peter Deighan,
Four storey mixed use development containing an office, dwellings and carparking
The site is generally rectangular with an area of 655m2 and a 20 metre frontage to Blackburn Road. There is a significant 2-3.3 fall from front to rear of the site which abuts a 15 metre wide pipe track easement on its rear boundary
This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to refuse permission for four storey mixed use development containing office and residential units and carparking, at 270 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverly. The responsible authority issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the following reasons:
The proposal is not consistent with the relevant policies of the Monash Planning Scheme.
The proposal is out of character with the surrounding area with regards to bulk, mass and scale.
The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
The proposal does not provide a sufficient number of car parking spaces nor is the car parking provided easily accessible.
The provision of waste storage and collection is unsatisfactory in terms of the allocation and appropriate storage space and access and egress of vehicles to and from the site.
The proposed development not provide for an appropriate level of access for people with a disability.
The proposal does not provide adequate bicycle parking and facilities in accordance with Clause 52.34 of the Monash Planning Scheme.
The proposal will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.
Amended plans were circulated by the permit applicant in accordance with the Tribunal's practice direction. The changes are summarised by the permit applicant as follows:
The office space second floor level and the restaurant associated terrace at the third floor level have been replaced with residential apartments. These comprise two one bedroom and seven two bedroom apartments at second floor level and one bedroom and four two bedroom apartments at third floor level.
The proposed first floor office space has been more accurately measured at 530 square metres rather than 524 square metres (office and boardroom).
The ground floor layout has been reconfigured to allow for 28 rather than 32 parking spaces. In essence, four of the double car stacks have been replaced by four single car spaces. In addition, storage space for each of the 12 apartments has been provided, the bin area and bicycle parking redesigned and the vehicle access ramp width reduced slightly to 6.4 metres.
With regard to the building envelope the ground and first floor of the building will remain unchanged. The setback from the street at second floor level is reduced to 1.5 metres with greater articulation provided to the second and third floors provide fenestration and balconies for the residential apartments. A 7 metre rear setback has been introduced at third floor level.
The height of the building has been reduced by 400 millimetres and the building no longer projects beyond the site boundaries at any point.
There being no objection to the adoption of the amended plans for the purpose of this hearing I directed that this occur.
Ms Lisa Worsfold on behalf of Syndal Pre-School Association Inc is joined as a party to this proceeding in accordance with S.60 of the VCAT Act 1998.
Mrs Antonia Ringenbergs made a number of applications to the Tribunal in the days prior to the hearing seeking to have the matter adjourned to allow her to fully prepare a submission in response to the amended plans. At the hearing, Ms Ringenbergs did not pursue her application for adjournment.
The parties and the witnesses at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. I inspected the subject land and its locality.
The council report contains the following description of the land and its surrounds:
The subject land is located on the eastern side of Blackburn Road, approximately 200 metres north of Coleman Parade and Syndal Railway Station. The site is generally rectangular in character, has a frontage to Blackburn Road of approximately 20 metres and northern boundary which abuts the adjoining laneway of 35.8 metres and a southern boundary of 30.8 metres given the site a total area of approximately 655 square metres. There is significant level difference of between 2 to 3.3 metres from the front to the rear of the site. The subject site sits within the Syndal neighbourhood activity centre, with a strip of predominantly single and two storey attached shops and offices located on the eastern side of Blackburn Road between High Street Road and Coleman Road.
The land is currently developed with a double storey office building with an at grade car parking. The laneway abutting the site along its northern boundary has a minimum width of 3 metres and provides access through to a public parking area as well as Mathew Street that is north of the site. Surrounding properties can be described as follows.
To the north of the right of way is a double storey office building with a basement car park at the rear accessed via the laneway. A 15 metre wide Melbourne Water reserve that runs along the rear of the strip centre and car park. This reserve separates the activity centre and the residential neighbourhood to the east. Dwellings back onto the reserve and have frontage to Shirley Avenue. To the south is a single storey brick building with pitched roof currently used as a community health care centre by the Syndal day service. A council reserve sits directly opposite the subject site as do a number of larger buildings containing office and restaurant uses, including a three storey office building currently under construction.
It is proposed to construct a four storey building, containing parking for 28 cars (including car stackers) at ground level together with storage spaces for the dwelling units above, bin storage and bicycle storage and access via a right of way on the northern boundary.
Level 2 consists of two 1-bedroom and seven 2-bedroom apartments.
Level 3 consists of one 1-bedroom and four 2-bedroom apartments.
The external materials are a mixture of brickwork at the lower levels with rendered finishes, translucent and transparent glazing and timber cladding on the upper levels.
The land is zoned Business 1 under the Monash Planning Scheme and in this zone the use of the land for office and dwellings are as of right uses provided the conditions related to that schedule are met. In accordance with Clause 34.01-4 of the scheme, a permit is required to construct a building or carry out works.
A Special Building Overlay affects approximately one third of the western part of the site. This overlay requires a permit to be obtained to construct a building or to carry out works and the scheme requires that an application must refer to the relevant management authority under section 55 of the Act.
Under the State Planning provisions the following clauses apply:
Clause 12.01 A More Compact City, Clause 12.05 A Great Place to Be, Clause 14.01 Planning For Urban Settlement, Clause 15.12 Energy Efficiency, Clause 17.01 Activity Centres and Clause 19.03 Design and Built Form.
Under the Local Planning provisions the clauses apply:
It was agreed between the parties that the site is suitable for use for purposes of office and dwellings and indeed neither use requires a planning permit. The site is zoned for business purposes and boundary-to-boundary development is generally acceptable in the area, perhaps with the exception of the rear of some properties that are used as service areas. The proposal is able to meet the standards of ResCode because of the 15 metre reserve separating the site from the residentially zoned land to the east.
Council however, maintains there are still some fundamental concerns with the proposal regarding its height and bulk and maintains that the application should be refused. The residents are concerned about height, bulk, amenity impacts, overlooking and traffic issues.
Therefore I consider the issues in this matter to be as follows:
Inconsistency with the SPPF and LPPF.
Massing, bulk and scale adjacent to a Residential 1 zoned area.
Traffic issues
Parking on site
Amenity Impacts to residents
Privacy
Active Street Frontage
Refuse Disposal
Clause 12.01-2 sets up hierarchy of centres and contemplates different levels of both activity and built form within each level of the hierarchy. This policy contemplates high density development but requires that whatever is built fits the context and enhances the character of the area. This is in contrast to which principles applying to principle and major activity centres. They in fact make no reference to context or character.
There is no debate between the parties as to the suitability of the site for some form of office and dwelling use; it is the form of the building that is at issue.
Syndal Activity Centre is characterised as being a local activity centre for local convenience shopping with a cluster of small scale retail and service activities to meet local needs.
Clause 21.03 sets out the overall objectives for the centre and I was urged to take these into account by the applicant and my attention was drawn to those matters of particular relevance to this application being:
Enhance the high quality of amenity of the physical environment,
Provide for a managing the changing residential requirements of the city's population,
Create and diversify employment opportunities, and
Enhance accessible services and facilities.
I agree with the contention that the development is suitable for the centre and I consider that it is consistent with the local planning policy framework, in that it addresses the above objectives and will lead to a regeneration of this part of the shopping strip and introduce much needed residential development into the area.
Council strongly argued that the size of the development was inappropriate for the Syndal Activity Centre area in that it was probably at least one storey too high and that the centre itself was not ready for the scale of development although it is urged under Melbourne 2030. The applicant on the other hand drew to the Tribunal's attention a number of quite large and in fact larger buildings than the proposed development recently constructed and under construction in the vicinity of the site. Two examples included a four storey building on the corner of Blackburn Road and High Street Road which it would appear sits quite comfortably against its two storey neighbour. The applicant therefore argued that there were a number of larger scale buildings within the immediate area of the Syndal Shopping Centre and that on this site would also be quite appropriate bearing in mind the overriding Melbourne 2030 principles and Melbourne @ 5 million put in place by the State Government.
It is the bulk and massing of the building that are of particular concern to the residents particularly when viewed from the rear of the properties that front onto Shirley Street and in their view the building will stand out like a 'sore thumb' and will overwhelm the surrounding buildings. A number of the residents indicated that this size of development would be better located in Glen Waverley and that the building should be no more than three storeys with balcony setback to allow for planting to soften the appearance of the building and reduce outlook into neighbour's dwellings.
The 15 metre wide "pipe track" that separates the residences in Shirley Street from the properties facing Blackburn Road creates a sufficient gap which has enabled the building to comply with the requirements of ResCode as it relates to the residential component of the property and I consider will not cause the perceived impacts raised by the residents.
All of the residents were concerned that once a building of this height is built on this shopping strip it will set a precedence for further buildings to be erected perhaps even taller than the current one under review. All objectors argued that because the building extends to all boundaries there is no onsite landscape opportunities available to soften the appearance of the building particularly on the east facing boundary to the residences across the 'pipe track'. This could create visual and noise impacts on the residences in the area. Mrs Ringenbergs maintained that at the building being at 16.5 metres and lift overrun was considerably taller than the other buildings in Blackburn Road.
The nearest residential owner is Mr Peter Deighan of 13 Shirley Avenue who indicates that the proposed building will dominate his view and therefore reduce his view to the horizon to the west. He considers that even though he does have some significant tree planting in his rear yard the building will still be overbearing. It is my view that now that the proposal has been amended to delete the restaurant and balcony elements and provide further articulation to the building with a residential flavour, the building is better articulated and has the opportunity to integrate with the area far more successfully than the original proposal and will not have the impacts the residents fear.
All residents who presented submissions in this matter were concerned about the impact primarily of the residential component of this development and the ability of the apartment dwellers to the rear of the building to overlook their properties. It needs to be noted that all balconies and windows are well in excess of the 9 metre arc as required by ResCode and that the 15 metre wide 'pipe track' provides significant distances to residential properties. The applicant argued just because the building will be visible from residential properties is not sufficient grounds for its refusal. There are mechanisms by which screening and softening of the building can be undertaken to minimise the viewing and light spill aspects of the proposal and protect the residences on the east side of the pipe track fronting onto Shirley Avenue and these can be dealt with by conditions.
The residents were primarily concerned with the access point to the basement having been moved to the right of way however, VicRoads require this scenario, because it reduces the number of crossovers onto a busy main road. It is noted that further refinement has been made to the car parking arrangements within the parking area. Four car stackers have been removed in the amended proposal so that they are six single car spaces which will cater for large vehicles that would not be appropriate to accommodate within the stackers. It is understood that the stackers will be used by office staff and residents of the apartments above and that the single spaces can be used by visitors.
The applicant argued that providing vehicular access off the laneway to the north of the site this will reduce the potential impact for traffic and pedestrian conflict at Blackburn Road and provides the opportunity for street trees or street bike racks to be placed at the front of the site.
A submission from this Syndal Pre-school Association Inc highlighted traffic issues particularly as the right of way gave access to the rear of the pre-school. Ms Worsfold was concerned about the potential for conflicts at this point, arguing that the right of way between the subject site and its northern neighbour was in the order of only 3 metres and cars were not able to pass.
As far as traffic circulation around the site is concerned the right of way opens up into a larger unlined marked rear areas of a number of the properties to the north of the subject site and then narrows right back down again when it enters out into Matthew Street. All residents were concerned about these potential conflict points and Council may need to consider traffic management in the area in the future.
A shortfall in parking was raised by a number of residents as being an issue which would cause staff and residents to tend to use the surrounding network as they will be loathe to use the car stackers. However, it was argued by the applicant that the use of car stackers has become more common and staff and purchasers of the residential accommodation will be well aware that parking on site involved the use of car stackers and they may well modify their purchasing/working intentions in light of this fact.
A total of 28 car spaces are provided on site including 16 spaces allocated to the office and 12 for the residential dwellings. When ResCode provisions are considered 12 car parking spaces are required, that is one per dwelling and two visitor parking spaces would need to be found off site. Given the close proximity to Syndal Railway Station and a number of unit dwellers not having cars it can be argued that all residential demands as specified under clause 55.03-11 of the planning scheme have been complied with.
Ms Dunstan provided data of assistance to me in relation to car ownership statistics for postcode of 3150, as recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the 2006 Census. They indicated 18% of flat, unit and apartment occupants of two bedroom dwellings do not own a vehicle at all and so it can be well argued that with the close proximity to the Syndal Railway Station that the provision is quite adequate. I consider that there will not be a parking overflow into the surrounding streets particularly Shirley Avenue, one of the major concerns for the objectors.
Five secure bicycle spaces for use of residents and staff are proposed. This level exceeds the planning scheme requirements and is sufficient to meet all expect residential and staff demands. I am therefore satisfied with the amount of parking for cars and bicycles provided on the site and its arrangement and its flexibility with single space car parking spaces and two car stackers that there is sufficient parking provided to meet the reasonable expected demands of the site.
The site is constrained by the floodway management restrictions that require that there be no basement car parking and that car parking has to be at street level above potential flood levels. This in some respects negates the possibility of an active streetscape however, the applicant maintained that the site is not in a core retail precinct where an active frontage would be important, and however the architect has added streetscape interest by providing an elongated building entry and ground level façade detailing. At the upper levels windows, balconies and planters are proposed to provide interaction with the street and enhance the building's appearance. I consider the design proposed is acceptable in this respect.
Location of refuse bins was an area of contention and Ms Dunstan has recommending the location of the refuse bins be moved further down the site adjacent to the ramp to the car park area. This has a number of benefits in that it removes the conflict between people trying to access the bin enclosure area and the cars particularly those accessing the disabled car parking space that is adjacent to the lift. This location will provide greater manoeuvring ability for any refuse collection vehicle that services the site.
Extensive discussion occurred regarding suitable conditions for this application. The draft conditions tendered by Council related to the original application which included provision for a restaurant, and it was agreed between the parties that all reference to the restaurant should be deleted and the technical specification changes regarding the carpark arrangements recommended by Ms Dunstan are included, as well as a range of resident amenity protection conditions.
It follows from the above reasons that it is the Tribunal's conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit be granted. In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit the Tribunal has had regard to the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from these reasons.
Before the development and use starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show:
Provision of loading facilities in accordance with Clause 52.07;
Location of waste storage areas;
The pedestrian ramp from the parking area to the building foyer must have aslope of 1:14;
The refuse bin storage area is to be located adjacent to the ramp entry to the carpark and the bicycle parking relocated.
All external lighting to the residential units is to be suitably baffled to ensure no light spill outside the property.
Location and design of any electricity supply meter box/kiosk/substation, which may be required. This facility must not be located within the front landscape setback of any road;
Location of any fire hydrants, booster assemblies or sprinkler control valves which may be required and details to minimise their visual prominence;
Location of gas and water metres. These facilities should be designed to minimise their visual prominence if located within the front setback area;
Details of external materials and colours including paving. Reflectivity of materials must be no greater than 15%.
A graffiti proof material finish is to be applied to the laneway and rear of the property to at least first floor level.
A mosaic or similar decorative feature is to be applied to the front street elevation.
The development and use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Disabled access to the building must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All work carried out to provide disabled access must be constructed in accordance with Australian Standards Design for Access and Mobility AS 1428.1.
Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority must be advised in writing when the construction and works are completed to enable the site to be inspected.
No goods must be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare.
No bin or receptacle or any form of rubbish or refuse shall be allowed to remain in view of the public and no odour shall be emitted from any receptacle so as to cause offence to persons outside the land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Prior to the commencement of the development, a comprehensive Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must detail:
that a Private Collector will be responsible for the collection of waste from the site;
that the bin storage areas are sufficient to cater for the amount of waste that will be produced;
the type of refuse and recycling bins to be used on the site and where they will be stored including details of screening and ventilation;
how it is intended to control the emission of odour caused by such refuse and recycling materials and measures to minimise the impact of waste collection on the operation, management and maintenance of car parking areas;
who will be responsible for taking refuse and recycling bins in and out for collection, where this will occur and how collection of refuse and recycling materials will be managed;
the hours of bin collection, the frequency of the removal of such refuse and recycling materials and how recycling materials will be dealt with and collected;
who will be responsible for collecting the refuse and recycling materials and the method of collection; and,
access and egress for collection vehicles.
The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through the :
transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;
2. appearance of any building, works or materials;
No equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind, including telecommunication facilities, other than those shown on the endorsed plans shall be permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.
Before the development permitted is completed, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be :
(a) constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
(c) surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(d) drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(e) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
The construction works associated with the permitted use/development and/or subdivision must only be carried out during the following hours:
Monday to Friday (inclusive) - 7:00am to 6pm;
Saturday - 9am to 1pm;
Saturday - 1pm to 5pm (only activities associated with the erection of buildings);
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
[1]
All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties.
[2]
Stormwater discharge is to be detained on-site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required from Council prior to works commencing.
[3]
Before the development starts, a site layout plan drawn to scale and dimensioned must be approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must show a drainage scheme providing for the conveying of the stormwater to the nominated point of discharge. The nominated point of discharge is to the north-west corner of the property where it must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Council pit in the right-of way to be constructed to Council Standards.
[4]
Any new drainage work within the road reserve requires the approval of the Council's Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Three copies of the plans for the drainage works must be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division prior to the commencement of works. The plans are to show sufficient information to determine that the drainage works will meet all drainage conditions of the permit. AS refundable security deposit of $2000 is to be paid prior to the drainage works commencing.
[5]
The existing redundant crossing is to be removed and reinstated with kerb and channel to the satisfaction of Council. The footpath and naturestrip are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.
[6]
Prior to commencement of any buildings and works on the site, a Parking Management Plan detailing the management and allocation of car parking on the site must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The Parking Management Plan must provide for (but not be limited to) the following:
1. On site parking to be provided at a rate no less than 3.0 car parking spaces to each 100 square metres of net floor area for the office and a minimum of 1 space to each dwelling; and
2. Allocation of staff parking, visitor parking and resident parking and how a stacker car parking system will operate in terms of management and anticipated difficulties.
The Parking Management Plan may be amended with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to commencement of any buildings and works on the site, a construction management plan must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must address the following issues:
measures to control noise, dust and water runoff;
2. prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council's underground drainage system or road network;
the location of where building materials are to be kept during construction;
site security;
2. maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site during the construction phase;
3. on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction activities;
4. wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction activities;
5. cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces.
The existing vehicle crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerbing reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
At least 21 days prior to commencement of works, a Site Management Plan detailing pollution and sediment control measures, must be submitted to Melbourne Water.
Prior to the commencement of works, a separate application direct to Melbourne Water, must be made for any new or modified storm water connection to Melbourne Waters drains or watercourses. Prior to accepting an application, evidence must be provided demonstrating that Council considers that it is not feasible to connect to the local drainage system. Contact Asses Services on telephone 9235 1414 for Melbourne Waters connection requirements, including payment of appropriate fees.
The entry/exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex of a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
All doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park must be a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
Vehicle access along the pipe track, to the rear the property, for the delivery of construction materials and the storage of plant, equipment or materials on the pipe track is subject to Melbourne Waters approval.
Blasting will not be permitted within 20 metres of the water main.
Surplus building materials shall not be dumped on the pipe track during or when construction is completed.
The developer must arrange and fund fencing along the common boundary with Melbourne Waters pipe track, to Melbourne Waters satisfaction.
No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Waters drains or watercourses.
The applicable flood level for this property is 98.9 metres to AHD. If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Waters permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9235 2517, quoting Melbourne Waters reference 157278.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
GAJ Corporation Pty Ltd
Respondent/Defendant:
Monash CC [2009] VCAT 1256
Legislation Cited (1)
VCAT Act 1998
AI Analysis
Outcomeappellant
Disposition:
The Tribunal set aside the Responsible Authority's refusal and directed that a planning permit be granted for the four-storey mixed-use development at 270 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverley, subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the decision.