3. Application for Review 2000/015712 is allowed in part.

4. The Responsible Authority is directed to amend Permit TPA/26140 to vary Condition 1 (b) as follows:-

Removal of retreat window on the first floor in the west or the

_____________________________

Mrs R Williams on behalf of the Responsible Authority

Mr C Bowden, Bowden Verhoeven on behalf of the Respondent.

1. This is an application for review pursuant to S 80 Planning and Environment Act 1987 against permit conditions imposed by the Monash City Council in granting permit TPA/26140 for the development and use of 24 Delos Street, Oakleigh South for a dual occupancy development.

2. The notice of decision to grant a permit dated 12 November 1999 was received on 17 November 1999 and the Permit was issued on 17 December 1999. Application 2000/010671 was lodged with the Tribunal on 11 February 2000, this was an application pursuant to s 87 Planning and Environment Act 1987 for amendment of the permit and related to the conditions on the newly issued permit. On 3 March 2000 the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant seeking leave to withdraw this application.

3. On the 6 March 2000 application 2000/015712 the more appropriate application seeking review of the conditions pursuant to s 80 Planning and Environment Act 1987 was lodged with the Tribunal. As this application was out of time leave was sought by the applicant for an extension of time pursuant to s 126 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 in relation to this application.

4. The Tribunal pursuant to s126 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 granted leave for an extension of time, leave is also granted to withdraw application 2000/010671.

5. The application related to review of three conditions, namely conditions 1 (b), (c) and (d) of permit TPA /26140. The Tribunal was advised that the applicant and responsible authority had agreed to modify condition 1(b) to now read -

Removal of retreat window on the first floor in the west or the window to be fire rated.

6. In relation to condition 1(d) this was to remain as stated on the plan. The only condition that therefore remained in dispute for consideration by the Tribunal related to condition 1 (c), which states:

Removal of second crossing and visitors space and reinstate the area as open space by re-sowing with grass. Visitor's space for dwelling 1 will be parked at a slight angle in tandem of the front of the garage on the northern boundary.

7. The grounds of the application in relation to condition 1 (c) states:

The matter of the second crossover is not part of the application for permit. It has been approved by Council's engineering department and in any event is not appropriate for a second visitor's space to be provided in the rear area, because this will require reversing movements that are unnecessary.

8. The permit allows for the development and use of a dual occupancy at 24 Delos Street, Oakleigh South comprising the construction of an additional double storey dwelling with associated car parking and landscaping.

9. The site is located on the eastern side of Delos Street. It has a frontage to Delos Street of 15.24 metres, a depth of 39.62 metres with an overall site area of 603.85 square metres. A single storey, double fronted 1960s weatherboard dwelling occupies the site set back 7.6 metres from Delos Street. Within the front setback on the southern boundary of the site is an existing crossover and driveway to be used to provide access to a new single vehicle garage at the rear of the existing dwelling on the northern boundary for the existing dwelling and a single vehicle garage on the south west boundary for the proposed new dwelling.

10. In the front approximately 1 metre from the northern boundary of the property is a recently constructed second crossover and gravelled visitor car space located in front of the master bedroom of the existing dwelling. This was constructed in accordance with an approval from Monash City Council dated 6 July 1998.

11. The streetscape is described as predominantly 1940-1960's single storey dwellings. Front fences in the immediate vicinity of the site are generally low or non-existent as characterised by the subject site. Front setbacks are predominantly open with minimum vegetation mainly small bushes and medium trees.

12. The subject site is situated in a Residential C zone under the Monash Planning Scheme. A permit is required pursuant to clause 130 and the application for permit is subject to the provisions of clause 21, the purpose of which is to ensure the use or development of land for medium density housing is in accordance with the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

13. The Monash Urban Character Study adopted by the Council on 18 February 1997 was referred to when assessing the application. The subject site is located within a neighbourhood Character Type B1a area. Within this character unit the main architectural framework is "modest, open and unpretentious".

"The area is characterised by the evenly distributed mix of consistently setback post - War single storey weatherboard and brick houses of a common, functional architectural style".

"Front gardens are varied in horticultural content and are often well planted. most have low fences and walls constructed of brick, wire mesh or timber which allows low shrubs in front gardens to be visible from and soften the street".

"Parking is in driveways and carports set back beyond the front setback and on the street".

14. The responsible authority states there are several reasons why the condition was placed on the permit. These relate to the impact of the crossover on the amenity of the area and the ability to provide carparking within the development and therefore comply with the requirements of the Good Design Guide.

15. This proposal is not removing the existing single storey dwelling on the site, The proposed additional development takes place in the rear of this dwelling. There is not proposed to be any change to what currently exists at the front of the property and its address to Delos Street. Whilst the other properties in the street generally have single driveways with single vehicle crossings there are a number of instances as with the subject site where there are double crossings between sites. The additional crossover towards the northern boundary of the site is not part of a double crossover, nor does it extend to a driveway and is an unusual feature within the streetscape.

16. Car parking the Good Design Guide says should not dominate the street. Both the Good Design Guide and the Urban Character Study support the provision of a single crossover to each property. The Urban Character Study indicates there should be one single crossover per lot at street frontage unless the frontage is in excess of 20 metres. The frontage of this site is 15.24 metres.

17. The Tribunal notes that the crossover given approval by the Council's Engineering Department in July 1998 did not require planning approval as it was issued for a single dwelling. There was no requirement on the Engineering Department to consider any impact on the existing streetscape. This was unfortunate as it would appear as a result of one departments recommendations the Council had adopted its Urban Character Study in 1997 well before the Engineering Department approved the additional crossover.

18. The approval of this second crossover has now become evident as a consequence of the dual occupancy development proposed on the site. A consequence of such an application is that the whole site must be considered particularly within the context of the Good Design Guide and its requirements to consider streetscape. The two crossings occupy 39.4% of the frontage of the site. The responsible authority says the second crossing on the site, is contrary to the Council's Urban Character policy. The additional visitor space does present as uncharacteristic to Delos Street and detracts from the open garden character of the area.

19. The applicant contends that it has acted in good faith it was given a permit for the crossover albeit not a planning permit which would have considered issues such as impact on the streetscape. The applicant further contends that as the crossover has existed since 1998 it is now part of the streetscape and it is unreasonable to request removal. It is noted the application for the crossover was requested prior to the initial application for a proposed dual occupancy development. The permit before the Tribunal is as a result of a second application the first such proposal having been refused by the responsible authority and its decision upheld by the Tribunal. When the matter was previously before the Tribunal there was no comment by the Tribunal in relation to the second crossover although the responsible authority did raise the issue in its submission..

20. The responsible authority referred to two recent cases before the Tribunal. A & G Vicino v Monash City Council, 2000/001425 (unreported) and R R Long for Planning & Drafting Pty Ltd v Monash City Council, 1999/072513 (unreported). In the later decision the Tribunal upheld the requirement to remove a recently constructed carport and concrete driveway in the front of an existing dwelling and the former related to the refusal of an application for four double storey attached dwellings with two vehicle crossings.

21. In relation to the removal of the constructed carport the Tribunal stated:

10. The Tribunal is satisfied that adequate carparking is planned without the need for the front carport and concrete slab that does detract from the area. The Responsible Authority has a character study that sets out its aims and objectives and the Tribunal in this instance believes that the streetscape/local character should be improved with that.

11. The Tribunal supports the Responsible Authority in its aims of improving streetscapes and to retain the carport and concrete slab would definitely detract from that area...."

22. The applicant contends that in respect of the first case requiring the removal of the carport the Tribunal noted there was adequate car spaces provided without the need for this additional space whereas in the present case this second space was required otherwise the required car parking was not workable. In this respect the applicant referred to the second requirement embodied in condition 1 (c) requiring the placement of the visitor space for the existing dwelling to be at a slight angle in tandem in front of the garage. This requirement the applicant contends will result in the vehicles associated with the new dwelling having to reverse the full length of the driveway as the opportunity to reverse and drive out in a forward direction will not be possible if a vehicle is parked in the tandem space.

23. The Tribunal considers that the slight angling of the visitor car space in front of the garage to dwelling 1 can be reasonably achieved as a result there is no necessity for the visitor space to be retained in the front setback. There is further ample provision for visitor parking in Delos Street, which is not uncommon.

24. Whilst the development itself will have a minimal impact on the streetscape the second crossover does impact on the streetscape in that it is an unusual feature and appears somewhat out of character with the rest of the street. Although the crossover is to a car space and not an actual structure, parking in the front setback is not common in the area. Currently the space is gravelled, the applicant has indicated concrete block paving could be installed with openings for grass to soften the appearance. Whilst this would soften the actual space there would still exist in the streetscape the additional crossover within the narrow frontage of the site.

25. The Tribunal considers it is appropriate to remove the second crossover and visitor car space and to reinstate this area with grass. This would return the frontage of the property to be consistent with the streetscape, it may also give an opportunity for some additional planting within the front setback of the property. The removal of the second crossover will result in carparking no longer dominating the street frontage resulting in the maintenance of the open garden character of the existing streetscape.

26. The Tribunal for the above reasons will allow the application in part. The responsible authority is directed to vary condition 1 (b) as agreed by consent between the parties. Conditions 1 (c) and (d) will remain as part of the permit.

_____________________________