Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant George Psomotragos

Application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act for review of conditions in a permit.

Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including a second storey extension.

* No provision has been made for uninterrupted free use of chimneys on the property at 152 Park Street, Middle Park. A preliminary independent report obtained from civil and structural engineers confirmed that significant structural works will be required to the chimney on the property at 152 Park Street, Middle Park should a double storey residence be constructed next door. We call for it being a condition of approval that the chimney up to the required standard should be borne by the Applicants and works should be overseen by an independent and qualified third party. This was discussed at the meeting of the Statutory Planning Committee on 7 October 1998, however, no provision or condition was included in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit of 9 October 1998.

* Proposed construction of multi level roofline is inconsistent with the character of the area. We request that the number of rooflines be reduced.

* We request that double doors from the bathroom/toilet/laundry area opening onto the shared light well at 152 Page Street be replaced with a single, opaque glass window.

* Proposed construction of double storey residence at the address is a gross over development of the address, which consists of six single storey houses forming an intact terrace.

* Proposed construction of a double storey residence will unreasonably deprive residents of 152 Page Street, Middle Park of natural light. We call for the second storey adjoining the light well to be further set back to enable the flow of natural light into this area.

1(d) The window proposed for the front elevation on the first floor level must be deleted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1(e) The spa/shower shown on the ground level abutting the existing light well of 152 Page Street must be removed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1(f) 25 square meters of private open space to be provided.

1(h) Bathroom window facing the lightport to be of opaque glass.

1(d) There will be no overlooking of adjoining properties with the proposed window.

1(e) A spa/shower is not inappropriate in the bathroom of a residential development and any noise concerns would be covered under E.P.A. guidelines.

1(f) Private open space to be provided constitutes an increase over the amount of open space currently provided. The space to be provided is only slightly less than the 25sq m required by Council and it is within Council's jurisdiction to grant dispensation.

1(g) Corrugated iron roofing is as per Council's own requirements for local development.

1(h) The bathroom window is on the ground floor and there is no overlooking of the adjoining property. Council usually only requires opaque glazing on upper storey developments where there is a likelihood of overlooking of adjoining properties.

Mr James Livingston, Town Planner, represented the Responsible Authority.

Mr Martin Verhoeven, Town Planner of Bowden Verhoeven Planning and Development Consultants, appeared on behalf of the Permit Applicant.

Mr Stephen Roache, Solicitor of McKean and Park, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Objector.

1. Application 542/98/D was lodged with the City of Port Phillip for the purposes of alterations and additions to the existing building at 150 Page Street, Middle Park including a second storey extension.

2. The application involves demolishing the existing outbuildings at the rear of the dwelling, extending the dwelling at ground level and the construction of a second storey addition at the rear of the existing building. The alterations include the extension of the ground level by 1m on the south elevation to comprise a family room, kitchen and meals area and on the first floor level, a bedroom, study and en-suite. The alterations to the existing dwelling involve restoring the front façade of the existing dwelling by replacing the front existing aluminium windows with new timber framed casement windows to match existing windows on the adjoining properties; removing the existing cement render over the brickwork; cleaned and re-pointed brickwork; replace the front fence with a traditional timber picket fence; and replace the missing lacework to the front verandah. The walls of the new extension at the rear of the dwelling will be in a selected cement render. The roof material is proposed corrugated zincalume roofing in a natural finish. All the windows proposed are timber framed.

3. The application was advertised by way of sign on site and by notices to adjoining owners and occupiers. Ten objections were received to the application which were summarised by Council as follows:

* The proposed second level will overlook my rear yard and invade my privacy.

* The proposed extension will detract from the Heritage value of the area.

* The proposed extension will deprive my property of sunlight in the mornings.

* There will be a negative impact on the already strained car parking in the street.

* The street currently holds one of the highest classifications of Heritage areas in Melbourne. The proposed construction of a second storey extension will be out of character with the architecture in the area and will detract from the quality of life the street presently provides.

* The proposed construction of a second storey extension will be unsympathetic towards the unbroken roof line of the block and therefore unsightly from our house. I consider such an extension to be a gross over development and unattractive.

* The proposed extension will restrict access to natural light in our light-well.

4. Council considered the application at their meeting on 9 October 1998 and issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a permit subject to conditions. Condition 1 is of most relevance to these appeals requiring modified plans to show:

(a) The north-east boundary wall for the length abutting the existing light well of 152 Page Street (a length of 3m) be setback 1.2m from the boundary and the maximum height of proposed extension abutting the existing light well, (a length of 3m) be restricted to 4.8m, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) The highlight windows proposed for the first floor rear elevation be removed and the remaining windows on the rear elevation must have sill heights a minimum of 1.8m above the floor level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(c) The rear elevation must be reduced gabled roof to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(d) The window proposed for the front elevation on the first floor level must be deleted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(e) The spa/shower shown on the ground level abutting the existing light well of 152 Page Street, must be removed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(f) 25 square metres of private open space to be provided.

(h) Bathroom window facing the lightport to be of opaque glass.

5. Appeals were subsequently lodged by one of the Objectors against the decision; and by the Applicant against some of the above conditions. The grounds of these appeals are listed above.

6. The Tribunal has conducted an inspection of the subject site, the surrounding area, and the wider Middle Park neighbourhood. The inspection confirmed the submissions and photographic material which had been presented. Council described the area as follows:

"This section of the south side of Page Street is made up of a series of intact single storey attached identical dwellings. The streetscape is described as being intact with identifiable design elements, containing consistent architectural detail and built form. The dominant housing stock is Edwardian. The Council's Urban Character Statement describes the area as significant for its street trees and collection of Edwardian houses and inter war apartment buildings. Streets in the area are mostly wide with generous footpaths. The dominant housing style is Edwardian and Californian Bungalow, (houses built between 1900s-1920s), the dominant scale is single storey having pitched roof with a 5m or less setback. This area is extremely accessible to shops, services, beach, open space and public transport."

7. The subject building is a single storey Edwardian style brick dwelling which forms part of a row of six similar attached dwellings. The dwelling has been painted and its front timber windows have been replaced by aluminium sliding windows.

8. The subject land is within the Residential 1 zone of the new format Port Phillip Planning Scheme. Clause 32.01-4 requires a planning permit to extend a dwelling on a lot of less than 300m². The Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing operates for assessment on such sites.

9. The site is also affected by Heritage Overlay HO3 of the scheme and pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a planning permit is required to construct a building, construct or carry out works.

10. There are a number of important strategic principles which need to be assessed in determining the appropriateness of this proposal. Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) establishes planning policies and objectives which drive land use planning in Port Phillip. According to Council, the most relevant objectives and strategies to consider in the instant application are:

"* By ensuring new development is sympathetic to the local streetscape character of the city's residential neighbourhoods.

* Two-storey extensions in predominantly single-storey streets are set back sufficiently from the front elevation to prevent any adverse impact on the area's streetscape character.

* Roof forms and eaves-lines in new developments or extensions to existing buildings should reflect those of adjacent buildings.

* A high level of amenity for residents - including adequate open space, privacy, sunlight and daylight, parking and transport options."

11. In addition, and quite specifically, Council has identified various neighbourhoods within its bounds and has devised local policies for each. Council advised that this site is within Area 1 - Established Residential Areas under the South Melbourne, Albert Park and Middle Park Local Neighbourhood policy, the objectives of which are:

"* to retain the architectural diversity and integrity of the South Melbourne, Albert Park and Middle Park established residential areas by protecting and conserving individually significant heritage buildings and streetscapes including small streets and laneways;

* to ensure that new development complements or reconstructs/replicates the identified heritage qualities of the neighbourhood; and,

* to ensure that new development in non heritage areas is compatible with its surrounding and the identified neighbourhood character of the area."

12. In an even more specific sense, there are design and heritage guidelines to take into account which are both included in the Planning Scheme. The Port Phillip Design Manual has the status of a reference document; and the Port Phillip Heritage Review is an incorporated document. The Tribunal was advised that the subject site is a "contributory" building according to the heritage review.

13. Having considered all of the material presented to it, and having conducted an inspection of the subject site and area, the Tribunal believes that the issues for consideration are:

14. Consideration of any application under a new format planning scheme must commence by reference of the proposal to the planning strategy of the Council as included in its MSS.

15. Consideration of the MSS in its entirety suggests that the application is in total compliance with the land use strategy which Council aspires to. It is noted that this was not really in dispute between the parties although it still remains a primary issue for Council (and this Tribunal) to be satisfied about. The application satisfies state, regional and local urban consolidation principles which have been a fundamental tenet of planning policy for over a decade. The proposal consolidates and entrenches the residential use of the land by "renovating" an attractive building by bringing it up to current standards in terms of living area, access to daylight and sunlight and useable open space.

16. The proposal also satisfies the explicit MSS call for "two storey extensions in predominantly single storey streets are setback sufficiently from the front elevation to prevent any adverse impact on the areas streetscape character". The application attempts to precisely respond to this strategy and, on the Tribunal's inspections, it believes that this aspect is clearly satisfied.

17. Finally, with regard to the more specific policies for the Middle Park area (amongst others) the Tribunal notes the call to retain the ".... architectural diversity and integrity ..." of this area. The Tribunal observed such diversity and integrity on its inspections and noted the degree to which development has occurred in recent times which responds to, rather than just mimics, the eclectic built form characteristics of the area and neighbourhood.

18. The Tribunal is quite satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the strategic vision, objectives and policies of the new Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

19. Council provided the Tribunal with a very detailed assessment of the proposal when measured against the Good Design Guide. Council only highlighted three areas of concern with the proposal. The first required a minor increase in private open space which they have incorporated as a condition of permit (1(f)). The second required a slightly reduced wall height on the north eastern boundary wall and this has also been included as a proposed condition of permit (1(a)). The third issue concerned overshadowing by the extension which, according to the Council, will cause some additional shading to the two adjoining properties. It has acknowledged by Council that this increase in overshadowing was still within the limits suggested by the Guide.

20. Whilst the Objector noted some concerns with the Guide, his major issue was with the proposed conditions. The Applicant submitted that "..... the relevant objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide are fully satisfied".

21. The Tribunal believes that there is an overwhelming degree of compliance with the objectives, criteria and techniques of the guide. Many are satisfied because the proposal involves an extension to an existing dwelling. But for those new elements of the design, the Tribunal is satisfied that either the proposal or the suggested conditions of permit will result in a building which complies with the Guide.

22. Whilst the Objector maintained his opposition to the proposal, it was acknowledged that redevelopment of the site was likely to occur in some form, and so conditions should be devised which addressed the fundamental concerns of streetscape impact; and neighbouring amenity. The Applicant on the other hand was concerned with some of the proposed conditions.

23. The following conditions have been appealed against and will be addressed by the Tribunal in turn:

1(d) the window proposed for the front elevation on the first floor level must be deleted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

1(e) the spa/shower shown on the ground level abutting the existing light well of 152 Page Street must be removed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

1(f) 25 square metres of private open space to be provided;

1(h) bathroom window facing the lighport to be of opaque glass.

24. The deletion of the window on the front elevation at the upper level is no longer relevant given the changes to the design which are proposed to occur as a result of Condition 1(a) (which has not been appealed). The Applicant tabled a plan at the hearing for the assistance of all parties which included the changes required by Conditions 1(a) to 1(c) inclusive. Consideration of this plan makes it clear that Condition 1(a) has meant that the proposed window could no longer cause any visual intrusion.

25. The need for condition 1(e) has also been overtaken by the requirement of Condition 1(a). The Tribunal does not understand Council or the Objector's concerns with a spa/shower arrangement and subject to space being available (as shown on the plan tabled at the hearing) it is an appropriate and quite common facility.

26. Condition 1(f) requires 25m² of open space compared with the proposed 23m². The only way this could be achieved would be to slightly reduce the length of the building (by about 400mm) to provide this area. Whilst the Tribunal understands that this is the minimum figure suggested in the Good Design Guide, a degree of common sense still needs to be applied. Firstly, the existing open space is only 22m² and so there is a slight increase as proposed. Secondly, the proposed area is a much more functional area than before without outbuildings compromising it. Thirdly, the open space area leads directly from the internal area giving a functional and effective internal/external area of a good size for an inner urban area. Lastly, the Tribunal believes that the objectives and the criteria of the Guide are clearly met even if the arithmetic of the technique is not. The Tribunal believes nothing will be achieved by applying a condition requiring 25m².

27. Condition 1(g) requires a tiled roof instead of corrugated. The Applicant believes that corrugated roofing is more consistent with the roofing at the rear of the buildings on this and neighbouring sites and suggests it would hardly be visible anyway. The Tribunal has looked at this issue in the context of the building itself; its neighbours; the immediate area and the wider neighbourhood. The Tribunal supports the proposed condition. The site is one of six, all with tiled roofs (although the adjoining site appears to be in the midst of redevelopment and a re-roof). Clearly, terracotta tiling is the dominant roof form and the one which sits very comfortably with this style of Edwardian house. Council described the terracotta tiling as a "defining element" of Edwardian design. Whilst the Tribunal observed redevelopments which combined tiling and corrugated roof forms, it believes that in this discreet group of six, Council is quite justified in requiring a consistent roof material.

28. There is a requirement at Condition 1(h) for the bathroom window to be opaque glass. The window faces the light well and is separated from the neighbour by an intervening side fence of 1.8m in height. The Applicant wants as much natural light from the light court as possible to brighten the bathroom as well as providing a pleasant aspect onto the landscaped light court. The Tribunal believes that clear glazing to this room is appropriate.

29. In addition to the above, the Objector wanted Conditions 2, 4 and 6 strengthened; as well as two new conditions relating to an existing chimney on their property; and a relocation of part of the upper level. The Tribunal does not support this submission. The proposed conditions are framed to give Council some discretion in implementation. The condition regarding the chimney is best dealt with at the building permit stage. The request to relocate part of the upper level is unnecessary given the degree to which the final plans safeguard the amenity of neighbours.

30. The order of the Tribunal is that the Application for Review 1998/87024 is disallowed; and that Application for Review 1998/97222 is allowed in part. The Tribunal directs the Responsible Authority to grant a permit in accordance with the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit dated 9 October 1998 with a revised Condition 1, which shall read:

1. Before the use and development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority 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 submitted plans but modified to show:

(a) The north-east boundary wall for the length abutting the existing light well of 152 Page Street (a length of 3m) be setback 1.2m from the boundary and the maximum height of proposed extension abutting the existing light well, (a length of 3m) be restricted to 4.8m, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) The highlight windows proposed for the first floor rear elevation be removed and the remaining windows on the rear elevation must have sill heights a minimum 1.8m above the floor level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(c) The rear elevation must be a reduced gabled roof form to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.