The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed, and a permit is granted for three single storey dwellings at 4 Cadiz Waters, Point Cook, in accordance with the plans to be endorsed as part of the permit and subject to the following conditions:
Before the 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 drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
(a) Each dwelling having convenient access to at least six cubic metres of externally accessible and secure storage space;
(b) The vehicle accessway and any relocation of the on street parking space; and
(c) Vehicles able to enter and leave in a forward direction.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans and described in the endorsed documents must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Before the development starts a landscape plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
(a) All surface treatments;
(b) The location, type and height of all fencing;
(c) The botanical name, height and width at maturity, and location of all vegetation to be used; and
(d) A works specification and the method of preparing, draining watering and maintaining the landscape area.
The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained and must not be used for any other purpose, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Before the dwellings are occupied drainage must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority as follows:
(a) The whole of the subject land, including landscaped and paved areas, drained to the legal point of discharge and connected to the Council underground stormwater drainage system;
(b) Underground drainage catering for a 1 in 5 year return interval; and
(c) Provision for storage or detention of a minimum volume of 4,000 litres of water prior to discharge to the Council's stormwater drainage system.
Areas shown on the endorsed plans for the parking and movement of vehicles must be made available for this purpose and must not be used for any other purpose.
A barrier, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be provided where necessary to prevent vehicles causing damage to garden areas, movement other than on driveways, and to prevent vehicles projecting beyond the boundaries of the subject land.
Any service relocation at the cost of the owner, to the satisfaction of the relevant service authority.
The dwellings must not be occupied until the following have been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the endorsed plans:
[4]
(a) Parking areas and vehicle accessways; and
* (b) Garden and landscaped areas;
10. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
* (a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit, or
* (b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
[5]
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
Ms R Gray, Consultant Planner, of ARG Planning Pty Ltd
[8]
The proposal is for three double storey dwellings. Each dwelling is proposed to have two bedrooms and an open plan meals, living area/kitchen and a single vehicle garage. The dwellings are proposed to be along the southern boundary of the subject land and setback 1.15 metres from the southern boundary. Dwelling 1 is proposed to be at the eastern end of the subject land at the end of the court bowl of Cadiz Waters.
[9]
The garages of dwellings 2 and 3 are proposed to be detached and between those dwellings. The garage for dwelling 1 is on the western side of the dwelling and there is a gap proposed 3.75 metres wide between that garage and dwelling 2. Dwellings 2 and 3 are proposed to be setback 4.85 metres form the north boundary which is the common boundary of 5 Cadiz Waters, the home of Mr and Mrs Kelly. The driveway for the dwellings is proposed to be along the north boundary and within the setback of dwelling 2 from the north boundary.
[10]
Landscaping is proposed along the front of each dwelling and also along the north boundary between the driveway and the boundary.
The subject land is covered by the Wyndham Planning Scheme and is in a Residential 1 Zone, which is the subject of Clause 32.01.
[13]
A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot, pursuant to Clause 32.01-4. Clause 55, Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings, applies to the proposal.
[14]
Clause 14.02 Metropolitan Development - Consolidation of residential and employment activities encouraged within existing urban areas and designated growth areas
[15]
Clause 16.02 Medium Density Housing - the development of well designed medium density housing which respects the neighbourhood character is encouraged
[16]
The subject land is at the end of an access place, Cadiz Waters, which could be described as a court. Cadiz Waters runs southerly from Hemsley Promenade. There are double storey dwellings with pitched tiled roofs on the southeast and southwest corners of Hemsley Promenade and Cadiz Waters. There are single storey dwellings facing Cadiz Waters to the south of those dwellings, 2 Cadiz Waters, the easterly dwelling, and 5 Cadiz Waters, the western dwelling. There are two lots at the southern end of Cadiz Waters and the subject land is the western of lots. The other of those lots is vacant but I was told that it has been granted a permit for a development similar to the proposed development. The dwellings to the south front San Sebastian Drive and the abutting dwelling to the south of the eastern end of the subject land is a double storey dwelling with a pitched roof. There is a double storey dwelling to the immediate east of that dwelling which is to the south of the vacant lot. There is a vacant lot fronting San Sebastian Drive abutting the eastern end of the subject land. Surrounding lots otherwise contain (tape 11.26) dwellings with pitched roofs.
[17]
I conducted an inspection on Wednesday 21 October 2009
[18]
We moved here because of the bigger blocks on offer and with the original council approved covenants in place, we assumed we would be surrounded by low density houses. There is a genuine fear from residents that Point Cook will become a shambles if medium to high density houses continue to be approved. We believe this goes against the neighbourhood character of the area.
[19]
In particular we are concerned with the proposed flats to be developed at 4 Cadiz Water because of the following:
[20]
Significant increase in traffic in Cadiz Waters and the associated dangers and noise levels;
[21]
Lack of parking in the proposed developed;
Significant infringement on the privacy of our family home;
Unfair commercial advantage being sort by the developer at the expense of existing families;
Concern with original notification of development; and
Other specific areas of concern.
It is generally accepted that a single dwelling will generate around 10 vehicle movements per day and a dwelling in a medium density housing development will generate around seven vehicles per day. It might be expected therefore that the proposed development would generate 21 vehicles per day, or an additional 11 vehicles over what might be expected from a single dwelling, or to put it another way twice the number of vehicles expected from a single dwelling. There are already two single dwellings in Cadiz Waters which would be expected to generate a total of 10 vehicles per day approximately. The development proposed for the eastern lot at the end of Cadiz Waters would be expected to generate around 21 vehicles per day. The likely traffic volume in Cadiz Waters would therefore be approximately 62 vehicles per day. Mr Kelly said that the width of Cadiz Waters is only 5 metres. I consider, based on my inspection, that an estimated traffic volume of 62 vehicles per day would be well within the safe capacity of Cadiz Waters.
The relevant standard, B16, of Clause 55.03-11 of the Wyndham Planning Scheme provides that one car space should be provided for a two bedroom dwelling. This standard is satisfied and in all probability a second vehicle could park in tandem to the proposed single vehicle garages. I consider that adequate onsite parking is provided.
I understand the concerns of Mr and Mrs Kelly with respect to privacy. The proposed dwellings would be setback 4.85 meters from the boundary with their property and their dwelling is setback approximately 1.5 metres from the common boundary. Landscaping is proposed along the common boundary. There are two habitable room windows on the south wall of their dwelling. Private open space for dwelling 3 abuts the rear of the south side of their dwelling, to the rear of their habitable room windows, and their private open space. There is a 1.8 metre high colourbond fence along the common boundary. I consider that any impact on the visual or acoustic privacy now enjoyed by Mr and Mrs Kelly would be no different than the impact resulting from a single dwelling on the subject land, and it may be less because of the relatively large setbacks of the proposed dwellings 2 and 3 from the common boundary.
I understand that Mr and Mrs Kelly had some concern with notification of the development but it would seem that any persons who might be affected were aware of the proposal.
This is a Residential 1 Zone and medium density housing developments are certainly not prohibited. It is important that they do not impact adversely on the character of the neighbourhood and I do not consider that this development would not impact adversely on that character. A dwelling will be seen at the end of Cadiz Waters and this itself would not be unusual. It seems that there may have been a covenant controlling development in the area but the covenant has now lapsed. It is certain there is no covenant presently in place.
I note that there are two car spaces on the road reserve of Cadiz Waters, and one of those car spaces may have to be moved to accommodate the vehicle accessway to the proposed dwelling. This is a matter for the Council, and I consider it appropriate that the plans in fact show any proposed relocation of this car space to enable the Council to make it quite clear to the developer whether any such proposed relocation is satisfactory.
I consider that the proposal is in accordance with the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone and is supported by relevant policy in the planning scheme.
Ms Psikarakis, in her written submission for the Responsible Authority, said that the proposal satisfies the relevant sections of the Municipal Strategic Statement and it caters for changing demographic trends in Wyndham and promotes choice and diversity in housing form. She said that it satisfies the relevant sections of the State Planning Policy Framework in that it makes efficient use of existing infrastructure, promotes diversity in housing choice, promotes consolidation of urban development in existing urban areas, and promotes well design medium density housing.
I consider, for the reasons stated above, that a permit subject to conditions should be granted.
I consider that some of the conditions in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit are not required and the drafting of others could be improved. Six cubic metres of storage should be shown on revised plans, which should also show what is required for the vehicle accessway and the parking space within Cadiz Waters so that the Council can indicate whether what is proposed is satisfactory. A condition requiring that vehicles be able to enter and leave in a forward direction would help ensure safety in Cadiz Waters.
[22]
For the above reasons it is appropriate that a permit subject to conditions be granted. I will so order.