appellant. The Tribunal set aside the Responsible Authority's decision and granted planning permit PA0816787 for the construction of two double-storey dwellings and one single-storey dwelling at 4 Nash Court...
Key principles
Where a proposed multi-dwelling development reasonably complies with the objectives of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the standards of Clause 55 (ResCode), and...
A development that 'fits in' with and is respectful of its local context may be supported even where it departs from particular local policy numeric requirements, provided...
The planning merits of encouraging incremental medium-density housing in a relatively homogenous suburban area close to a local activity centre can be given weight in deciding...
Specific detailed amendments required to make a proposal acceptable can be imposed as permit conditions (for example: increase front setback to at least 4.5m, set first-floor...
Issues before the court
Whether the proposed three-dwelling development is supported by the applicable State and Local Planning Policy framework.
Whether the proposal respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
Plain English Summary
VCAT allowed the applicant's review and granted a permit to build three dwellings on a vacant Altona Meadows lot. The Tribunal weighed state and local planning objectives promoting housing near the local shopping centre against local policies favouring minimal change. Finding no unacceptable amenity impacts and that identified design shortcomings could be fixed by conditions (increase front setback, articulate first-floor wall, adjust garage location, glazing measures), the Tribunal treated local numeric policy requirements as guidelines rather than mandatory limits and directed the permit be issued with 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
1,812 words · generated 27/07/2026
What happened
A developer sought planning permission to build three dwellings on a vacant 719 square metre lot at 4 Nash Court, Altona Meadows: two double-storey dwellings (front and middle) and a single-storey dwelling at the rear. Hobsons Bay City Council refused the permit. The Council’s reasons were principally that the proposal failed to comply with local policy (Clause 22.04 Altona Meadows Urban Design Policy) with respect to car parking and private open space, did not adequately respond to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character, and failed several objectives of Clause 55 (ResCode), neighbourhood character, street setback, access and private open space. The applicant sought review at VCAT under s77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (VCAT ref P2976/2008). The Tribunal (Member Geoff Rundell) inspected the site and hearing evidence, concluded that the issues could be resolved by modest design amendments and conditions, set aside the Council decision and granted the permit. The Order was made on 7 May 2009 (see Order and Appendix A for conditions).
Whether the proposal imposes unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbours.
Whether the internal amenity for future residents is satisfactory given car parking layout and private open space provision.
Cited legislation
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
Key procedural facts:
Application to Council for permit PA0816787 for three dwellings.
Council refused. Applicant sought VCAT review.
Hearing on 13 February 2009, site inspection 27 February 2009.
VCAT allowed the review and directed the Responsible Authority to issue the permit with conditions, including varied setbacks, glazing, landscaping and a garage relocation.
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal’s decision rests on a structured planning merits assessment rather than rigid adherence to local numeric standards. The main elements of the Tribunal’s reasoning were:
Policy balance and site context: The Tribunal recognised the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) objectives encouraging urban consolidation and housing choice and noted site-specific context, the review site is within about 400 metres of the Central Square Shopping Centre and local transport, which weighs in favour of medium density housing (see paragraphs addressing proximity and SPPF objectives). The Tribunal also observed the local policy identifying Altona Meadows West as an area of minimal change, but found no evidence the site had special heritage or environmental features requiring strict minimal change protection (see paragraph [12]). The result was to treat the site as suitable for careful change rather than as a protected minimal-change parcel.
Policy as guideline: The Tribunal adopted the familiar planning principle, expressed in the quoted authority SMA Projects v Port Phillip City Council, that policy is a guideline and should not be applied as a mandatory limitation on the exercise of the scheme’s discretionary powers. The Tribunal expressly relied on this statement to justify a merits-based approach where local numeric requirements exceed general ResCode standards or where the evidence supports a tailored outcome (quotation and discussion appear under the amenity analysis).
Focus on amenity and “fit”: The Tribunal concentrated on whether the proposed development would impose unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbours and whether it would 'fit in' with the neighbourhood character. It identified specific design elements that detracted from the 'fit', principally the front setback being modest relative to some neighbours, the presence of a large, unarticulated two-storey wall on the south side of the front dwelling, and the appearance of double driveways, but concluded these problems could be remedied by condition (increase front setback to 4.5 metres, set first-floor south wall back 1.0 metre behind ground floor, and relocate garage of dwelling 2 one metre north to ease manoeuvring). For amenity, the Tribunal noted no overshadowing problems and that overlooking could be addressed by translucent fixed glazing; a minor non-compliance with the boundary wall height standard was accepted because neighbours raised no objection and remedying it would create worse roofline inconsistency.
Proportionality and practical amendment: The Tribunal repeatedly framed its role as assessing whether the scheme would produce adverse outcomes and whether relatively minor modifications could remove identified problems. Where the development met Clause 55 standards (even if it failed some local policy numeric targets like the 40 m2 private open space suggested in Clause 22.04), the Tribunal accepted that the local policy should not displace an overall assessment that a proposal is acceptable with conditions.
On this basis the Tribunal concluded that the Council’s refusal was not justified and that a permit should be granted with conditions designed to address the identified defects.
Before and after state of the law
Before:
Local planning policy documents such as Clause 22.04 set out preferred neighbourhood character and more prescriptive numeric guidance (for example, requesting 40 square metres private open space per dwelling and 2 car spaces per dwelling).
Clause 55 (ResCode) set performance objectives and specific standards. Conflicts often arose between local policy aspirations and the measurable tests in Clause 55.
After (effect of this decision):
The decision reinforces that where local policy and ResCode standards diverge, or where policy is prescriptive beyond the ResCode requirements, the Tribunal will treat local policy as a guideline that informs but does not fetter the exercise of discretion.
The decision illustrates that VCAT will allow medium density development where the Tribunal is satisfied adverse amenity effects can be mitigated by conditions, and where broader planning objectives (housing near activity centres) support the outcome.
Practically, it illustrates how Tribunal will convert policy breaches into conditions rather than use policy non-compliance as an absolute bar to development where the evidence of harm is lacking.
This decision thus sits comfortably with established VCAT practice that emphasises merits, evidence and proportional remedies, rather than inflexible application of local numeric policies.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"Policy can never be more than a guideline, it should not be applied as if a mandatory limitation on the exercise of discretion provided for by this Scheme." (Tribunal quoting SMA Projects)
Translation: Local policy helps the decision-maker but does not remove their ability to make a reasonable judgement that departs from the policy if the evidence justifies that.
"I consider that the proposed development has been designed to be a good neighbour and that it does not impose adverse outcomes on adjoining neighbours."
Translation: The Tribunal’s view was that neighbours would not suffer unacceptable impacts from this design.
"The front wall of the area shown as the living area of dwelling 1 to be located at least 4.5 metres from the street frontage."
Translation: The Tribunal required a modest increase in the front setback as a condition to reduce the visual dominance of the front dwelling.
"The garage of dwelling 2 to be relocated at least 1 metre to the north."
Translation: A small relocation of the middle dwelling’s garage was necessary to improve vehicle manoeuvring onto the site and to preserve usable private open space.
Each of these passages demonstrates the Tribunal’s practical approach: it identifies relatively small, implementable changes that turn an otherwise acceptable, though imperfect, proposal into one that satisfies the planning balance.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most instructive and likely to be followed in contexts where:
A proposed multi-dwelling infill development is located in an established suburban area within walking distance of a local shopping centre or public transport node, and local policy both encourages consolidation near activity centres but also identifies parts of the suburb for minimal change.
The proposal complies with Clause 55 ResCode standards in material respects (no overshadowing of adjoining private open space; acceptable private open space dimensions per ResCode; adequate access width under B14), but departs from more prescriptive local policy targets (for example, slightly less private open space than a local policy wants, or shortfalls in on-site car parking as suggested by local policy).
The principal objections raised by the Responsible Authority concern neighbourhood character and visual bulk rather than demonstrable amenity impacts such as overshadowing, overlooking that cannot be mitigated, or significant traffic impacts.
The development issues can realistically be addressed by modest, design-based permit conditions (small increases in setback, articulation of first-floor walls, glazing changes, minor garage relocations).
If those features are present, the decision provides a persuasive template for arguing that the Tribunal should treat local policy as a guiding tool and permit the development with conditions.
How later courts have treated it
This is a VCAT decision at the Member level and is a persuasive, not binding, precedent for other VCAT panels or courts. It primarily reiterates established principles already found in authority: that local policy guides discretion and cannot be applied inflexibly. In practice, subsequent planning panels will treat this decision as consistent with Tribunal practice of:
Assessing the merits and evidence rather than applying prescriptive local guidance mechanically;
Using conditions to rectify discrete design failings where there is no significant amenity harm.
Because the decision expressly cites SMA Projects for the policy-guideline principle, it aligns with earlier Tribunal reasoning and forms part of a body of VCAT decisions that support a pragmatic and evidence-focused approach to neighbourhood character disputes.
Still-open questions
Threshold of non-compliance: How large a quantitative departure from local policy before the Tribunal will treat a policy breach as decisive? The decision shows tolerance for modest departures, particularly where Clause 55 is met, but does not provide a bright-line rule on scale of non-compliance (e.g. if private open space were 25m2 rather than the 33–41m2 in this case).
Weight to be given to 'minimal change' areas: The Tribunal found no evidence to treat this site as 'special character' minimal-change land. The decision does not fully elaborate what level or form of evidence would be sufficient to treat an area as minimal change. Developers and councils may dispute how to demonstrate 'special character'.
Interplay with local numeric policy where community objection is strong: This matter involved no neighbour objections to certain elements (e.g. boundary wall). If neighbours strongly object, would the Tribunal be less willing to accept departures from local policy? The decision suggests amenity evidence is critical, but how strong need that evidence be?
Applicability beyond the immediate context: This case balanced proximity to a local centre and street geometry (wide nature strip, curvilinear road) to accept two driveways and reduced private open space. Different site layouts or denser contexts may produce different outcomes; the decision offers guidance but not a deterministic rule.
Interaction with subsequent scheme amendments: If a local policy is later strengthened to make a requirement mandatory (e.g. via incorporated document or explicit 'must' language), the permissive approach applied here may not be available.
Practitioners should extract the decision’s core lesson: robust site-specific evidence on amenity impacts and a suite of practical, enforceable conditions can carry a proposal through even if it departs from some local numerical targets. Where possible, provide detailed plans showing how minor changes will remedy character issues, and be prepared to explain why the local policy's numeric preferences are guidelines rather than absolute bars in the circumstances of the site.
Judgment (55 paragraphs)
The applicant for review is amended to V.P. Homes Pty Ltd under the provisions of Section 127 of the _Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 199_8
The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
In permit application PA0816787 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 4 Nash Street Altona Meadows on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows the construction of two (2) double storey dwellings and one (1) single storey dwelling.
Mr R Hocking town planner City Shire Planning Pty Ltd
To develop a vacant allotment in a suburban residential street for three dwellings. Two of the dwellings are to be double storey and the third dwelling at the rear of the land would be single storey.
cl 32.01-4 (construction of two or more dwellings on a lot)
Development is required to comply with cl 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot.
The review site is located on the east side of Nash Court, Altona Meadows, approximately 53 metres to the south of the intersection of Nash Court and Balaclava Avenue, Altona Meadows.
The site has is rectangular with a frontage of 18.28 metres and a depth of 39.32 metres, and an area of approximately 719 square metres. The land is presently vacant.
SMA Projects v Port Phillip City Council (2000/017523 and 2000/027545)
The parties 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. The Tribunal inspected the subject land and its locality on 27th February 2009.
It is proposed to develop a vacant allotment for three dwellings The two storey dwelling at the front of the site comprises three bedrooms and amenities in the first floor level, and family / living areas and laundry on the ground floor. A single car garage and tandem space are provided on the north side of the dwelling.
The second two storey dwelling is located in the middle of the review site. It comprises a bedroom, and family / living areas on the ground floor and a master bedroom and en-suite in the first floor area. A garage for a single car is provided with a driveway on the southern side of the land.
The third dwelling at the rear of the site is single storey comprising two bedrooms, family / living areas and amenities. This dwelling includes a garage for a single vehicle, accessed by the driveway on the south side of the review site shared with Dwelling 2.
All dwellings have secluded open space on the north side and adjacent to the living rooms. The private open space adjacent to the living rooms ranges from 33 square metres for dwelling 3 to 41 square metres for dwellings 1 and 2.
This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to refuse permission for the construction of three dwellings at 4 Nash Court Altona Meadows. The responsible authority issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the following reasons:
The proposal does not comply with Clause 22.04 (Altona Meadows Urban design policy), with regards to car parking and private open space).
The proposal does not adequately respond to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
The proposal fails to satisfy the following objectives Clause 55 Rescode:
The proposed development is contrary to the Local Planning Policy framework Clause 21.06 (Housing) and 22.07 (Hobsons Bay West Neighbourhood
The relevant State Planning Policy framework includes:
cl 22.07 Hobsons Bay West Neighbourhood Character Policy.
I consider that the key issues to be determined are:
Is the proposal supported by the applicable policy framework?
Does the proposal respect the character of the neighbourhood?
Does the proposal impose unacceptable amenity impacts?
Does the proposal provide satisfactory internal amenity for future residents?
Is the proposal generally supported by the applicable policy framework?
Both parties provided an overview of the State Planning Policy Framework and expressed general support for it objectives. I do not intend to repeat that planning framework at length. In general the State Planning Policy Framework seeks to:
Encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas;
Encourage development that improves housing choice and accommodates future housing needs;
Facilitate residential and commercial development in existing activity centres with good access to public transport;
Ensure that development achieves a reasonable standard of amenity for existing and new residents;
Encourage the design of energy efficient buildings;
Ensure that development respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character;
Achieve high quality urban design and architecture;
Protect the environment and achieve sustainable land use and development;
Protect the cultural and/or heritage significance of the locality;
Clause 21.06 - Residential of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme notes that residential areas will provide a choice of housing types to meet the needs of the diverse households in the municipality. Housing styles and designs will contribute to neighbourhood character by harmonising with existing buildings. Objective 1 to this Clause includes strategies to ensure that new development respects and enhances the preferred neighbourhood character. This includes retaining a sense of openness in backyards, achieving high quality design, minimising loss of front gardens, and minimising additional vehicular crossovers and car parking structures.
Clause 22.04 - Altona Meadows Urban Design Policy seeks to retain the distinctive qualities and local identity of the area and to respect any strongly established neighbourhood character. The policy also encourages the location of higher density development around Central Square Shopping Centre and recognises Altona Meadows West as an area of minimal change.
Clause 22.04 also encourages the retention of the established rhythm of development characterised by matching setbacks, generous side setbacks and consistent front setbacks. The Local Policy proposes that 2 car spaces be provided for each dwelling. It also proposes that at least 40 square metres of private open space be provided to the side or rear of each dwelling and that the private open space have a minimum dimension of 3 metres.
Does the proposal respect the character of the neighbourhood?
Both parties agreed that a development is consistent with the neighbourhood character if it can be considered to fit in and is respectful of its local context.
Council refused the application largely on the basis that it does not respect the character of the area. The elements of the proposed design that do not fit in with the locality are the front setback and the loss of the front garden space, the dwelling at the rear of the land that reduces the sense of openness of the backyards and tree canopy, and the second driveway. The appearance of a two storey wall without articulation on the south side of the proposed front dwelling was seen as a significant variation from the established character of the area.
Mr Hocking noted that the frontage to the review site is approximately 1.5 times the width of most of the properties in Nash Court. The Review site is also wider than the properties to the rear (east) of the review site. Mr Hocking also noted that double driveways (comprising neighbouring driveways crossing the nature strip adjacent to one another) are found at three places on the west side of Nash Court, and is not uncommon in the streetscape.
I note that the driveways for the adjoining properties are located next to the boundary of the review site; hence any development will create at least one double driveway. I consider that the width of the review site, and the curvilinear design of the street and the relatively wide nature reserve will reduce the visual impact of the two double driveways. I also note that the proposed design is consistent with Standard B14 in Clause 55.03-9 Access objectives as the proposed driveways comprise less than 40 percent of the width of a lot less than 20 metres frontage.
The front dwelling is proposed to be setback 4 metres from the Nash Court frontage. The dwellings to the north, closer to the intersection with Balaclava Avenue are setback 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1 metres respectively. The dwelling to the south has a front setback of 4.8 metres. It was suggested that the proposed setback is consistent with a gradual increase. I concur with Council that the setback should be increased and Mr Hocking conceded in the Hearing that a greater setback could be provided without compromising the liveability of the family room in the front dwelling.
I also concur that the two storey wall on the south side of dwelling 1 should be articulated. In its proposed form, it is a large, blunt and imposing wall that will be visible in the streetscape. It is inconsistent with the built form of the neighbourhood. Some articulation in the built form by setting the first floor wall behind the ground floor wall will reduce its perceived mass and make it more consistent with other dwellings in the locality.
Does the proposal impose unacceptable amenity impacts?
The Council could not identify any adverse amenity impacts for neighbours arising from the development. The development does not overshadow adjoining private open space and windows that have the potential to be used for overlooking can be screened to minimise such intrusion.
Mr Lovell noted that the wall of the garage of Dwelling 3 is proposed to be located on the title boundary, and this wall is proposed to have a height of 3.15 metres. This is inconsistent with the requirements of Standard B18 in Clause 55.04-2 Walls on boundaries that requires such walls to not exceed 3.0 metres. This wall has a length of 6.5 metres and abuts the private open space of an adjoining lot. No objection was raised to this element of the development from the neighbouring property. The proposed wall height enables the roof slope above the garage to be angled consistently with the remainder of the development. I consider that requiring the wall height to be reduced and consequently changing the alignment of the roof could lead to an inconsistent roof line and be detrimental to the appearance of the development from the frontage.
This application was refused largely because it fails to meet several development standards or requirements included in Local Policy at Clause 22.04 Altona Meadows Urban Design Policy. The inconsistencies are the provision of car parking, private open space and the two driveways.
I note that the Tribunal has consistently viewed local policy as a guideline to assist the Responsible Authority to reach good or preferred outcomes. In the matter of SMA Projects v Port Phillip City Council (2000/017523 and 2000/027545) the Tribunal noted that:
Policy can never be more than a guideline, it should not be applied as if a mandatory limitation on the exercise of discretion provided for by this Scheme. Policy should not be applied in a way which leads to a result which is inconsistent with a proper analysis of the evidence.
I consider that the proposed development has been designed to be a good neighbour and that it does not impose adverse outcomes on adjoining neighbours. The refusal of the development on the basis that it fails to meet several design requirements that exceed similar requirements that are applied in Residential Zones elsewhere in metropolitan areas seems to unnecessarily deny an opportunity to add to the diversity of housing stock in this locality.
Does the development provide satisfactory internal amenity for future residents
The main concerns with the development's design arises from the inter- related arrangement of car parking and the provision of private open space.
The private open space provided for each dwelling does not meet the requirements of the Local policy that requires the provision of 40 square metres per dwelling. I recognise that the local policy requirement to ensure a generous provision of private open space arises from the poor provision of public open space in the locality. I note that the streets have wide nature strips, and the road layout has been carefully designed to limit both through traffic and vehicle speeds and hence the road reserve offers some opportunity for recreation activities. Furthermore the private open space that is proposed to be provided for each of the dwellings meets the requirements of Standard B28 of Clause 55 and I ma satisfied that the occupants of each of the dwellings will have satisfactory enjoyment of secluded open space.
The vehicle access arrangements for Dwelling 3 do not enable a larger vehicle to easily turn into the area in front of the garage for Unit 2 and then exit the site in a forward movement. The garage of Dwelling 2 would need to be moved to the north to increase the turning movement. I concur with Mr Hocking's view that the private open space area behind the garage for Dwelling 2 is likely to be of lesser quality than the private open space adjacent to the living rooms of the dwelling. Hence the relocation of the garage in the order of 1.0 metre to the north will make the turning movements easier for a vehicle parked at dwelling three without significantly diminishing the quality of the private open space for Dwelling 2.
With these changes I consider that the proposed development provides satisfactory amenity for the future residents of the development.
It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit granted.
The permit will include conditions which have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties and the matters which arise from my reasons.
For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. I order that a planning permit be granted including the conditions contained in Appendix A.
To construct three dwellings (two double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling) on 4 Nash Court, Altona Meadows in accordance with the following conditions.
Before the development starts, three copies of revised 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 substantially in accordance with the substituted plans but modified to show to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
A schedule of all external materials and finishes. The schedule shall show the materials, colour (including two colour samples) and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames and paving (including car parking surfacing).
The location and design (including elevations) of any structure to be sited within the front setback required to accommodate an electricity meter box. The structure must be a maximum height of 1.2 metres and designed to minimise the visual impact on the streetscape and possible impacts on pedestrian safety and vehicle traffic.
The positioning of all plant and equipment (including air conditioning units, heating units, hotwater systems, etc) which is proposed to be located externally. Such plant and equipment must be positioned to prevent unreasonable noise and visual impact.
The proposed landscape treatment of the site including the location of all existing and proposed species. An emphasis must be placed on maximizing the use of native drought tolerant species.
The provision of one feature native canopy tree contained in 40 litre pot size at the time of planting within the frontage of each of the proposed dwellings.
The front wall of the area shown as the living area of dwelling 1 to be located at least 4.5 metres from the street frontage.
The garage of dwelling 2 to the relocated at least 1 metre to the north.
All habitable first floor windows with transculent glazing to be fixed up to 1.7 metres above the finished floor level in accordance with ResCode standard B22.
The southern side of the first floor to dwelling 1 to be setback 1.0 metre from the southern side of the ground floor.
A survey plan of the subject land prepared by a licensed land surveyor showing the location of existing boundary fences and any other relevant land features in relation to the title boundaries. Any discrepancies between the plans submitted for endorsement and the survey plan must be rectified to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Plan annotated that no front fence is proposed.
Nomination of a Tree Protection Zone around the existing street tree in accordance with Condition 15 hereof.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to the use allowed by this permit starting or the occupation of the building hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and thereafter must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[1]
Street numbers contrasting in colour to the background must be fixed at the front boundary of the property as near as practicable to, or on the letterboxes. Separate unit numbers must be placed adjacent to the front entrance of each dwelling, such numbers must be clearly legible from the access driveway.
[2]
All service pipes, (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[3]
Any alteration of soil level involving an increased or decreased level at the boundary must be retained by the provision of an adequate retaining wall, constructed of brick or masonry or other suitable alternative approved by the Responsible Authority, to buttress the soil against the possibility of shift. The construction of this retaining wall must be carried out by the owner.
[4]
All brickwork on or facing the boundaries of the site must be either raked and cleaned (face brickwork) or rendered and painted or bagged and painted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[5]
Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
3. Surfaced with an all-weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
All basic services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage and telephone must be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The land must be connected to a legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[1]
Before any construction or demolition works commence on the site, a secure fence must be provided around the perimeter of the site to prevent access to the site from unauthorized persons. This fence must be maintained for the duration of the construction and demolition, be a minimum height of 1.8m (or such alternative height as is approved in writing by the Responsible Authority), and be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The gate or opening to the fence must be securely locked at all times when work has ceased on the site.
[2]
The owner is responsible to meet the costs of all alterations to and reinstatement of, the Responsible Authority and other Public Authority Assets deemed necessary and required by such Authorities for the development. The owner is responsible for obtaining the prior specific written consent of the Council or other relevant Authority to such alterations and reinstatements and must comply with conditions required by the said Authority in relation to the execution of such works.
[3]
Boundary fences must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at no less than 1.8 metres and no more than 2.0 metres in height and at the cost of the owner unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.
[4]
Any vehicle crossing must be constructed in the location shown on the endorsed plan to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority. The relocation of any services including electricity poles, drainage pits, Telstra pits, fire hydrants and the like must be at the expense of the owner and approved by the appropriate authority prior to undertaking such works. Consent for such crossings must be obtained through Council's City Maintenance and Cleansing Department prior to construction.
[5]
Prior to commencement of works, the following provisions relating to the protection of existing street trees must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
1. A suitable Tree Protection Zone of 1.5 metres radius with barrier fence must be established around the street tree on the Nash Court frontage.
2. The Tree Protection Zone must be enclosed using a 2 metre high temporary cyclone fence or similar, which must remain in place through all stages of the development. This fence must not enclose the footpath which must be kept clear for pedestrian access and a sign must be erected on the fence informing that the fence is a 'Tree Protection Zone'.
3. The area within the Tree Protection Zone must not be disturbed by any means including parking of vehicles or storage of plant & equipment, materials, soil or waste.
4. No excavation is allowed within the Tree Protection Zone except with the consent of Council's Town Planning Department and under the supervision of a qualified Arborist.
[6]
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
2. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
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.
The building is to comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations 2006, and a Building Permit is required before any works are commenced.
In the event that an application is made for the subdivision of the land to accord with the development hereby approved, the Responsible Authority will not:
Certify the plan of subdivision until construction of the development as approved has substantially commenced, or;
Issue a Statement of Compliance until all development works (including landscaping) are completed in accordance with the permit and the accompanying endorsed plans.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Leonnard Lawrence Architect
Respondent/Defendant:
Hobsons Bay CC [2009] VCAT 861
Legislation Cited (2)
Environment Act 1987
Building Regulations 2006
Cases Cited (1)
Leonnard Lawrence Architect v Hobsons Bay CC [2009] VCAT 861 (7 May 2009)
AI Analysis
Outcomeappellant
Disposition:
The Tribunal set aside the Responsible Authority's decision and granted planning permit PA0816787 for the construction of two double-storey dwellings and one single-storey dwelling at 4 Nash Court Altona Meadows, subject to conditions in Appendix A (including specified amendments to setbacks, glazing, garage relocation, landscaping and tree protection).
Clause 22.07 Hobsons Bay West Neighbourhood Character Policy applies to various suburbs including Altona Meadows. The objectives of the policy seek to ensure that development responds to the preferred neighbourhood character of the precinct, and to retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to the character of the precincts in Hobsons Bay West. The review site is located in Precinct 4. The Policy Statement of Preferred Neighbourhood Character highlights the uniformity of building siting, openness of streetscape and the garden settings. The Policy includes design responses to achieve the Neighbourhood objectives. Key design responses relevant to this review include:
Front setback should be no less than the average setback of the adjoining two dwellings.
If two or more dwellings are proposed, the dwelling(s) at the rear should be single storey form.
Mr Lovell gave considerable weight to the emphasis in Clause 21.06 Residential and Clause 22.04 - Altona Meadows Urban Design Policy that new development should reflect the prevailing rhythm of the low density suburban streetscape. Mr Lovell indicated that the preferred location for medium density housing in this area is close to the Central Square Shopping Centre where some development has occurred and vacant land is available for further development. The Local Planning Policy identifies this locality containing the review site as a minimal change area.
Mr Hocking noted that the emphasis in Clause 21.06 Residential and Clause 22.04 - Altona Meadows Urban Design Policy to respect and comply with the existing pattern of development should be tempered by the proximity of the Review site to the Central Square Shopping Centre and the lack of diversity in the housing stock in the locality. The Review site is within 400 metres of the Central Square Shopping Centre that provides a range of convenience shopping and is a focus for local public transport services.
Mr Hocking also referred to the document Our Changing Neighbourhoods GHD August 1999 which is a Reference Document to Clause 22.04. This document examines opportunities to provide a more diverse housing stock and identifies the area close to the Central Square Shopping Centre as an Urban Village, and an area of substantial change. The Reference Document also notes that vacant land should be developed to provide a more diverse housing, provided that it is compatible with its existing surrounds.
The areas where infill development is not to be supported are those areas that have special character, such as areas with Heritage significance.
I consider that the strategic directions set out in the Strategic Planning Policy Framework and in Clause 21.06 Residential sets a clear framework that requires that development such as the subject of this Review to be positively considered subject to its detailed design. Altona Meadows is a highly homogenous suburb, largely developed within a relatively narrow period of time. It is likely that many of the households that settled in this area in its early days may be reaching the stage where their children are leaving the family home. The older parents may in time want alternate, smaller accommodation in the locality in which they have spent much of their lives and established social networks. Rather than leaving the area because there is very little alternate housing, the provision of some medium density housing throughout this locality would seem to be consistent with the broader planning strategies.
I also note that opportunities to provide a more diverse mix of housing in areas such as Altona Meadows are limited by the relatively good quality of the existing housing stock. Housing developed in the 1980's and 1990's is relatively young and can be expected to provide good quality housing for many years to come. The replacement of older family homes by multi-dwelling development that has been experienced in suburbs closer to Central Melbourne is unlikely to occur in Altona Meadows for some time. This suggests to me that opportunities to provide more diverse housing in areas such as Altona Meadows are relatively limited and opportunities such as this should be supported, provided that the development is designed to be respectful and to fit in.
It has become accepted policy that areas that have special character or features should be areas of minimal change. The special features would typically include heritage, remnant vegetation, or topography. I was not provided with any evidence that indicates that the review site is located in an area with special features that suggests that this locality is an area of minimal change.