//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] VCAT 680
appellant. The permit was granted. The Responsible Authority was ordered to issue it subject to 20 conditions, including requirements concerning amended plans, parking, drainage, landscaping, heritage...
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Tribunal allowed Portdome's review and granted a permit for 17 dwellings, including the restoration and reuse of Sutton Grange. It accepted that the surrounding streets could accommodate the expected traffic and that the new buildings did not need to align with the mansion's setback. The permit was subject to extensive conditions, including requirements relating to heritage, landscaping, parking, drainage and construction management. The extract does not reproduce all of the planning scheme provisions or the full legal reasoning.
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.
2,295 words · generated 29/09/2026
Portdome Pty Ltd sought a planning permit for a residential redevelopment at 14–18 Tanti Avenue and 18 Franklin Place in Mornington. The land had a total area of 4,149 square metres. It included Sutton Grange, a two-storey Italianate mansion dating from 1878, and a separate dwelling at 18 Franklin Place. The mansion was identified as locally significant and was within a Heritage Overlay. The land was also subject to a Vegetation Protection Overlay and a Design and Development Overlay.
The original application, dated 28 May 2002, sought alterations and additions to the mansion to create seven townhouses, as well as a basement car park and ten further townhouses ([1]). The amended proposal considered at the hearing was for 17 dwellings in total: seven within the existing mansion and ten in two new buildings ([5]). The mansion was to be restored and refurbished ([6]). The proposal included basement parking, access arrangements from both Tanti Avenue and Franklin Place, and visitor parking.
The review was brought under s 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 because the Responsible Authority had not granted a permit within the prescribed time. The Tribunal heard the matter on 30 April 2003. The applicant for review was Portdome, the Responsible Authority was Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, and a group of objectors, including K. McDonald, appeared in opposition.
The objectors' principal concern was vehicle access through Franklin Place. They described the surrounding streets as narrow, referred to parked cars and limited or absent footpaths, and said additional traffic could create safety and amenity problems ([15]–[17]). Other concerns included the potential loss of views of Sutton Grange and overlooking from the proposed apartments ([17]).
Council supported the proposal in principle but identified matters on which it sought changes, including the relationship of the new buildings to the mansion's setback, traffic access, views from nearby dwellings, and other design and operational matters ([10]–[14]). The evidence for Portdome included expert material on heritage, planning, visual effects and traffic ([18]–[25]). After the hearing, the Tribunal inspected the site and surrounding streets ([26]).
The order granted the permit and directed Council to issue it subject to 20 conditions. Among other things, the conditions required approved amended plans, construction and maintenance of parking and access areas, drainage and landscaping works, energy-rating requirements, controls on lighting and plant noise, and an agreement addressing access to the tower, balcony restoration, landscape management and ongoing maintenance of the heritage building (conditions 1–20). The order also specified commencement and completion periods.
The decision was made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, not a court. The extract gives a short account of the Tribunal's conclusions, but it does not include the full planning scheme provisions or a comprehensive discussion of the statutory framework. The reasons should therefore be read as a record of the Tribunal's assessment of this proposal and evidence, rather than as a complete statement of planning law.
Traffic and access were central issues. The objectors said the streets were narrow and that vehicles, parked cars and pedestrians already competed for limited road space. Their concern was that the development would increase that pressure, particularly around Franklin Place and during busy periods. Council's traffic engineer had indicated that traffic volumes would be limited, while the applicant's traffic expert gave evidence about the parking provision, access arrangements and likely trip generation ([8], [23]–[25]).
The Tribunal did not simply repeat the experts' conclusions. It inspected the site and the surrounding streets. It described them as particularly quiet and free from traffic and parking, and agreed with the applicant's traffic expert that they could handle the anticipated traffic without an unreasonable loss of amenity ([26]–[27]). It also concluded that there was no sound basis for limiting access to Tanti Avenue ([28]). The extract does not set out a detailed numerical traffic analysis by the Tribunal, so the stated conclusion should not be expanded into a general finding that similar streets can always accommodate comparable development.
The Tribunal also considered the claimed effects of the new buildings on Sutton Grange and the surrounding setting. The applicant's heritage expert considered the mansion and the areas proposed for new buildings to be distinct, and said the new buildings could be closer to Tanti Avenue than the mansion without adversely affecting the mansion's heritage significance ([19]–[20]). The applicant's planner described the new buildings as contemporary and said their siting would leave the mansion as the most prominent building ([21]). The Tribunal's own stated finding was that the parts of the site were separate and distinct and that setting the new buildings back to align with the mansion was unnecessary, and could detract from the mansion's presence ([28]).
The order's conditions are also important to understanding the outcome. The permit was not an unconditional approval of every detail shown at the hearing. Condition 1 required further amended plans to be approved before development began, with specified changes including screening, external materials and colours, a wider parking space to accommodate a disabled parking space, excavation details, a landscape plan and staging details. Condition 15 required an agreement dealing with access for repairs and maintenance to the tower, restoration of a balcony, landscape management and an ongoing heritage management plan. Condition 18 required the works generally to accord with a heritage conservation report, subject to specified modifications. The conditions show how the approved development was made subject to further design and management requirements.
The Tribunal's final assessment was favourable: it described the proposal as making excellent use of the site while preserving the heritage building and providing a more diverse range of housing ([29]). That is the Tribunal's overall evaluation of this proposal, not a general rule requiring approval of comparable developments.
The extract identifies the legal route by which the matter came before the Tribunal: an application under s 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of a failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time. It does not reproduce the text of s 79. Nor does it set out the detailed statutory provisions, planning scheme policies, overlay provisions or ResCode requirements relevant to the merits.
Accordingly, this source alone does not establish a general “before and after” change in the law. It contains no statement that the Tribunal was changing, clarifying or overruling an earlier legal principle. There are no other judgments cited in the extract, and no precedent is discussed. The most that can be said from the supplied reasons is that, in this review, the Tribunal assessed the design, heritage and traffic evidence, inspected the site, reached case-specific conclusions and granted a permit subject to conditions.
The extract refers to the Residential 1 Zone and the Heritage, Vegetation Protection and Design and Development overlays. It also records that the traffic evidence addressed ResCode parking requirements and the expected traffic generated by the proposal ([23]–[24]). But the relevant scheme text and the Tribunal's treatment of particular statutory clauses are not included. It would therefore be unsafe to infer from this extract a broader doctrinal test for heritage settings, access arrangements, traffic impacts or residential density.
The decision can be useful as an example of the kinds of evidence and conditions considered in a permit review involving a heritage building and multiple access points. Its value as a statement of law is limited by the form of the extract and its lack of cited authorities or detailed statutory analysis.
At [26], the Tribunal records that it inspected the subject site after the hearing and also visited the area on later weekends. This matters because the Tribunal's traffic and amenity assessment was informed by direct observation, as well as the parties' evidence. The extract does not state precisely how many inspections occurred or provide measurements taken during them.
At [27], the Tribunal says the surrounding streets were “particularly quiet and free from traffic and parking” and that they could handle the expected traffic without “any unreasonable loss of amenity”. In plain English, the Tribunal considered that the conditions it observed did not support the objectors' prediction of unacceptable traffic-related effects. This was a finding about the streets and traffic associated with this particular proposal, not a universal conclusion about all narrow residential streets.
The same paragraph identifies two perceived benefits: closing the existing informal pedestrian route through the site was expected to reduce traffic and parking activity in Franklin Street and Grange Road during school peaks; and the proposed development was expected to improve the locality compared with the former reception centre. The Tribunal referred to improved landscaping and the earlier use of the site when explaining its overall assessment ([25], [27]).
At [28], the Tribunal rejects two requested changes. First, it considers a setback aligning the new residential buildings with the mansion unnecessary. It says the site areas were separate and distinct, and that moving the new buildings back could detract from the mansion's presence. Second, it finds no sound basis for restricting access to Tanti Avenue alone. These findings explain why the Tribunal did not adopt those particular Council recommendations, as recorded earlier in the extract ([10]–[13]).
At [29], the Tribunal gives its overall evaluation: the proposal made good use of the site, retained the heritage building and provided a more diverse housing choice. The permit conditions qualify the practical effect of that conclusion. For example, heritage details, landscaping, access, drainage and construction management remained subject to specified requirements.
The order itself is essential to the result. Condition 19 sets out a two-year period to start development and a four-year period to complete it, with a stated possibility of extension on a timely written request. Condition 20 requires compliance with all permit conditions before initial occupation. These are operative terms of the permit, rather than explanatory observations in the reasons.
This decision is most relevant as a factual comparison where a planning permit review concerns residential development that reuses a heritage building, introduces new buildings on the same site, and raises disputes about the relationship between new construction and the heritage building's setting. It may also be a useful comparison where proposed access uses local streets and objectors raise concerns about narrow road widths, parking, pedestrians and residential amenity.
The relevant factual features include the 1878 mansion's heritage status, the proposed retention and refurbishment of that building, the placement of new buildings elsewhere on the combined site, and the proposal's access and parking arrangements. The Tribunal considered evidence about the expected traffic generation and personally inspected the locality ([23]–[28]). A later matter with materially different street conditions, traffic levels, site layout, heritage significance or planning scheme provisions may not be comparable.
The decision does not establish a rule that access from a local street must be accepted whenever a traffic expert predicts modest traffic, or that new development need not match the setback of a heritage building. Its conclusions followed the evidence and site inspection in this particular matter. The extract also does not explain the contents of the applicable overlay provisions, which limits the extent to which it can be used to compare heritage-related legal tests.
The conditions may be relevant to comparisons involving permits that secure further design or management details after the Tribunal has decided the broad merits. Here, the Tribunal required detailed plans and measures concerning landscape, construction, parking, drainage and heritage. The source does not explain the legal limits on those conditions, so it should not be treated as authority for the validity of any particular condition in a different case.
The supplied judgment extract contains no citations to later decisions, and it provides no information about subsequent treatment by courts or tribunals. No statement can therefore be made from this source about whether later decisions followed, distinguished, approved or criticised the reasoning.
The extract itself cites no other judgment as precedent. Its reasoning is based on the evidence described, the Tribunal's site inspection, and its evaluation of the proposed development. To trace later treatment, a researcher would need to consult an independent and current case-law source. That information is outside the supplied text and is not asserted here.
Several questions cannot be answered from the extract. It does not set out the complete planning scheme provisions, policy framework or overlay controls, although it says those matters were addressed in the Responsible Authority's submission ([9]). It does not reproduce all of the evidence or explain in detail how the Tribunal weighed each planning consideration.
The extract also does not provide a full comparison of the traffic evidence and objectors' evidence, such as detailed traffic counts, accident data, parking surveys or quantified pedestrian movements. It records the Tribunal's observations and conclusion, but not a detailed methodology for determining that the traffic effects would be acceptable.
The heritage reasoning is also limited in the available text. The extract records expert evidence and the Tribunal's conclusion on setback, but it does not reproduce the full heritage report or explain the statutory meaning of the Heritage Overlay in this case. The permit conditions provide additional protection and detail, but the extract does not discuss the legal basis for each condition or whether any condition was contested.
Finally, the source supplies no subsequent case history. It cannot show whether later decisions adopted the Tribunal's approach or how the decision has been treated in other planning disputes. Those limits make it important to distinguish the specific findings in [27]–[29] from any broader statement of planning law.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST Application for Review No. P3374/2002
Apartments, Heritage building, Agreement for maintenance, Parking and access.
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY: Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
Medium Neutral Citation [2003] VCAT 680
2. The Responsible Authority is ordered to issue the permit which must contain the following conditions:-
1. 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, and endorsed accordingly, these plans will form part of this permit. Such plans are to be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies are to be provided. The plans are to be generally in accordance with those tabled at the Tribunal on 30 April 2003. (The Irwin Alsop Group Drawing Nos. TP00 VCAT dated 31 March 2003 and Contour Design Australia Pty Ltd Drawing No. TP 01 and TP01A dated March 2003 but modified to indicate:-
a) Details of screening devices along the upper storey west side of the Western Townhouses.
b) Details of external material and colour schedules, and paint colour samples.
c) Car space 14 widened to 3.2 metres and the adjacent spaces (spaces 15 to 18) being narrowed to allow the incorporation of a disabled parking space.
d) Details of all areas where excavation and fill is to be greater than 1.0 metre in addition to the basement car park.
e) A landscape plan and schedule generally in accordance with the submission by Mr T. Vernon dated 11 April 2003 including:
(i) A survey of all existing vegetation and features.
(iii) A schedule of all proposed and/or existing trees, shrubs and ground cover, shrubs including the location and size at maturity of all plants and their botanical names.
(iv) Landscape plan and schedule with vegetation to be retained and removed and no net loss of significant vegetation.
g) Details of the security gates and perimeter fencing.
2. The layout of the land, the size and type of the proposed buildings and works, including the materials of construction, on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Before initial occupation of the dwellings, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be:
b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
4. The selection of paving materials to be used on the land must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Construction plans for all parking areas, access lanes and drainage must be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the start of approved works.
6. All area of the development shall be drained to a lawful point of discharge via an underground system or other approved method of stormwater drainage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such drainage system must include siltation control measures of a permanent nature and during construction.
7. Before the initial occupation of the dwellings approved by this permit landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and then maintained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority no tree on the road reserve shall be removed.
9. All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the development must be revegetated and stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. All fencing on the subject site must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and shall not restrict the sightlines of motorists leaving the site.
11. Access shall be means of reinforced concrete or segmental paving vehicle crossings.
12. Each dwelling shall be constructed and completed to satisfy the requirements of the planning scheme in achieving a four star energy rating using the Sustainable Energy Authority of Victoria `FirstRate' system or equivalent.
13. Air-conditioning or other plant equipment must be baffled to prevent nuisance or annoyance to persons in dwellings nearby and adjoining land.
14. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on and so that no direct light falls onto adjoining land.
15. The owner of the land must enter into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority to provide for the following:
a) access available to the tower for repairs and maintenance;
c) landscape and landscape management plan be submitted that provides for the context and setting of Sutton Grange; and
d) heritage management plan including the on-going maintenance of the Heritage building.
This Agreement must be executed prior to the start of the approved building and works. All costs relating to the preparation of the agreement are to be borne by the owner.
16. Before construction of any hardstanding surfaces starts within the land the developer must request Telstra Australia to undertake the laying of suitable cables and conduits to ensure the provision of telephone services to each unit intended to use as a separate occupancy.
17. Before the development starts, a site management and environment plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan will have regard to the Mornington Peninsula Shire's Sustainability framework and shall provide details of the following:
a) Hours during which construction activity will take place.
b) Measures to control noise, dust and water runoff, including sediment control during construction.
c) Stormwater management and on-site retention opportunities.
d) Location of where buildings and building materials will be stored during construction.
e) Provision for the management of all building and construction waste, including recycling of all materials generated during construction.
f) Opportunities to maximise energy efficiency and reduce reliance upon non-renewable resources and materials, including the use of solar and/or green power and appropriate building materials where appropriate.
g) Details for best practice waste management of the facility once operating.
h) Any other opportunity to achieve best practice sustainability for the development.
18. Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority the proposed buildings and works shall generally be in accordance with the heritage conservation report dated 4 July 2002 by D.V. Bick but modified to indicate:
a) Eaves to the rear first floor addition to the 1878 building generally matching those of the existing building.
b) The entrance treatment to Unit 1 being appropriate to the 1878 building.
c) The interior of the building being kept as reasonably intact possible.
d) The original stairway from the first floor to the tower room being retained.
e) The French doors to Bedroom 1 of Unit 5 being of a simple timber type.
f) Glazing bars to the ground floor of the 1990s wing similar to those on the first floor.
19. This permit will expire if one of the following applies:
a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the above periods if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within the following three months.
20. All conditions of the permit shall be complied with prior to the initial occupation of the dwellings.
1. During construction all materials and builder's facilities including toilets must be stored on site and the site must be maintained in a clean condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All waste generated during construction must be stored on site and disposed of at regular intervals to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The permit holder shall make all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the construction vehicles associated with the proposal do not disrupt resident and visitors' vehicles in Franklin Place. Wherever possible, vehicles should park on site.
_______________________ _________________________
Responsible Authority: Mr P. Newman, Consulting Town Planner.
Applicant for Review: Ms S. Brennan of Counsel instructed by Arnold Bloch Leibler, Solicitors.
Application under S.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for review of the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.
Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme - Residential 1
1. By application dated 28 May 2002, permission was sought for the following development:-
"Alterations and additions to existing mansion building for development of 7 Townhouses, and construction of basement carpark (42 spaces and 10 Townhouses)".
2. Amended plans of the proposal dated 30 March 2003 were substituted at the hearing having been circulated beforehand to all parties.
3. Mr Newman gave the following detailed and interesting description of the subject site:-
The land at 14-18 Tanti Avenue contains a two storey brick polychrome brick Italianate mansion ("Sutton Grange") which dates back to 1878. This building, which is distinguished by a balustrade three-level tower, is of local heritage significance (being included in the Heritage Overlay under the Planning Scheme).
The mansion once sat on a much larger holding known as the Sutton Grange Estate. This was subdivided into seven (7) lots in 1983, of which 14-18 Tanti Avenue (containing the mansion) is one, and 18 Franklin Place (which contains a two storey dwelling) is another.
.... The land also has a rear abuttal to Franklin Place of 2.69 metres. The mansion and its rear reception centre extension is centrally sited on the site. The building is set back approximately 20/25 metres from the frontage, behind a 2 metre high picket fence and front garden which to some extent hides the building from view from Tanti Avenue, although the three-level tower is quite visually dominant. The main entrance to the building however faces north (towards the common boundary with 12A Tanti Avenue), rather than to the street.
Two driveways provide access to the mansion site from Tanti Avenue. The driveways lead to car parking areas located on both the north and south sides of the building. The main car park is on the south side of the building (at the back of the building). A smaller car park is on the north side of the building (in front of the main entrance). A pathway connects the two car parks.
From Franklin Place, there is presently pedestrian access only to the mansion site, with the pathway leading to the northern car park. This has been used by the community at large (and particularly by school children) as an unofficial access between Tanti Avenue and Franklin Place and other streets serving the local neighbourhood to the west.
The garden around the mansion site comprises some very significant and substantial trees, including some, like the magnificent ficus growing on the common boundary with 12A Tanti Avenue, which possibly dates back to when the mansion was built. There is a more formal garden including a grassed area and hedges at the front (north side) of the mansion itself, while vegetation along the rear boundary seems somewhat overgrown. Overall, my impression of the garden is that it is a quite significant garden, but in need of attention.
18 Franklin Place ("the dwelling site") adjoins the mansion site to the west. It is a long, narrow, irregular shaped lot of some 1,029 square metres, with a frontage of about 6 metres to Franklin Place. A long paved driveway leads to a two storey dwelling built towards the rear of the site.
Taken together, the subject land (comprising the "mansion site" and the "dwelling site") can be described as an irregular shaped parcel with a combined area of 4,149 square metres, a frontage to Tanti Avenue of 59.6 metres, and a rear abuttal to Franklin Place of about 8 metres.
4. Tanti Avenue is a Collector Road linking the Esplanade and Nepean Highway and is parallel to and 400m distant from the Mornington main shopping street. Apart from numerous dwellings, the area contains uses such as St Macartan's Roman Catholic Primary School, Mornington RSL, Beleura Hospital, a motel and other uses. The primary school is said cause significant congestion in Tanti Avenue and nearby because of traffic at school drop-off and pick-up times. Mr Newman said various road closures have occurred generally between the subject site and the Esplanade reducing through traffic in a small residential enclave between the subject site and the Esplanade. Franklin Street is a local street which ends a cul-de-sac at the rear of the subject land.
5. The proposal is for 17 dwellings, 7 within the existing building and 10 in two new buildings, one to be built on the existing carpark to the east of the mansion and the other in place of the existing dwelling at 18 Franklin Place. The dwellings will comprise a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments with 12, three bedroom apartments.
6. The existing mansion is to be restored and refurbished as part of the proposal.
7. Access is via a single lane driveway from Franklin Place to the parking basement. Amended plans now include access from Tanti Avenue to the basement also. A lift and two stairs provide access from the basement to the upper levels. Four visitor spaces are provided off Tanti Avenue with a further driveway leading to a circular driveway in front of the mansion.
8. The proposal was widely advertised by a direction of the Responsible Authority and 27 objections received. The Mornington Historical Society and the National Trust (Vic) did not object to the proposal although the Trust requested a greater separation between the mansion and the western apartments. Internal Council referrals generally supported the proposal with the Traffic Engineer indicating that traffic volumes would not exceed about 200 vpd which equates to an access place in ResCode. He believed the entry from Franklin Place should be 5m wide for a length of 7m to permit accessing vehicles to pass each other.
9. Mr Newman next set out details of the planning controls, State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement. These all remain on file in his submission and will not be repeated here.
10. Mr Newman said that while the Responsible Authority resolved to support the application it did so with some qualifications. The substituted plans address most of these changes but the following remain. These aspects are set out from Mr Newman's submission:-
Buildings being set back from Tanti Avenue, not less than the building setback of the Sutton Grange residence.
No - this is discussed in section 8.1 below.
Vehicular access to the basement car park being directly from Tanti Avenue.
No - this is discussed in section 8.2 below.
To maintain a reasonable share of the views from adjoining dwellings at 20-22 Tanti Avenue, the provision of areas with reduced building heights.
No - this is discussed in section 8.1 below.
Building setback from the rear of 18 Franklin Street increased to ensure long term retention of vegetation and provision of access from the residents of the apartment.
No - the setback remains at between 3.345 to 3.555 metres. High level windows to the upper level living areas of unit 17 (being at the southern end of the Western Townhouses) will however preclude overlooking of rear yards of the abutting properties.
Provision being made for waste bin collection from Tanti Avenue.
No - Although a central bin storage location is now provided in the basement carpark, no provision has been made for a bin collection area from Tanti Avenue.
11. Mr Newman said that it was desired that all buildings facing Tanti Avenue be setback in line with the mansion whereas a lesser setback is proposed by the applicant.
12. He said Council believed that direct access should be provided from Tanti Avenue to the basement carpark rather than by a surfaced driveway. He said that the Council believes that Tanti Avenue is better able to handle increased traffic than Franklin Place.
The officer's report to Council noted that development in recent years had diminished the views of Sutton Grange. Furthermore, that the best views of the mansion (from the east) are generally obtained from the adjoining single storey dwellings at 20-22 Tanti Avenue, and that a share of the views from this property should be retained. The officer's report went on to stress the importance of ensuring that the significance of the mansion was not unreasonably reduced in the context of neighbourhood character.
Recommendation F of Council is also related to the desire to maintain a reasonable share of the views from adjoining dwellings at 20-22 Tanti Avenue - by recommending the provision of areas with reduced building heights.
14. Mr Newman concluded by saying that the Council believed the proposal to be "an ideal development for the area, particularly since it will also allow Sutton Grange mansion to be restored and put to productive use" subject of course to the changes outlined above.
15. All objectors were represented by a submission presented by Mr McDonald. He said the application was opposed principally because of the intention to provide access to the basement carpark from Franklin Place.
Our main reasons for objecting to access to the site from Franklin Place are as follows:
1. Grange Road is a particularly narrow street as is the top end of Franklin Place measured as 5.82 metres wide gutter to gutter at the neck. The narrowness of these streets as illustrated in the attached photographs already makes it difficult for vehicles to negotiate their way between parked cars, particularly during the summer months when families with young children use these streets to access Shire Hall Beach.
2. The old bluestone kerbing in Grange Rd reduces the effective traffic width of the road further because of the type of crossovers required at many driveways.
3. A general lack of footpaths in these streets forces pedestrians to walk along the roads between parked cars, particularly in Grange Rd.
4. The proposed development will exacerbate these existing problems and create serious safety issues.
5. The additional parked vehicles from visitors and the vehicle movements to and from the site at these peak times will cause a loss of amenity to the residents of the area.
6. Residences at the head of Franklin Place cul-de-sac (Upjohn & McDonald) are already faced with difficulties reversing out of their driveways safely into Franklin Place and the additional movement of vehicles to and from the site will further compound these safety issues.
There are no footpaths in Cook Street and Grange Road. The driveway of Franklin Place would be dangerous. The high density would destroy the quietness of the area and the resulting traffic would be dangerous to pedestrians and visitors.
This objector considered that the views of the mansion from the villa units at 22 Tanti Avenue where she lives would be lost and in addition, they would suffer from overlooking from the units.
18. For the Applicant, Ms Brennan called evidence from a number of witnesses each of whom is an acknowledged expert in his/her field.
19. On the question of the setback of the proposed townhouses from Tanti Avenue, Mr Bick said:-
* The new buildings are at the rear and separated from Sutton Grange and the 1990s wing. While the Tanti townhouses building is closer to Tanti Avenue than Sutton Grange, on the existing rear carpark, where it is not screened by planting the proposed different design to the heritage building will continue the existing contrast between the 1878 building and the post-1940 dwellings that now surround it.
The existing carpark is a very minor part of the setting of the 1878 building and its use as proposed (or subdivided into a separate property) would not adversely impact on the heritage significance of Sutton Grange.
20. He said that it was quite acceptable for the new buildings to be further forward than the mansion.
21. On the question of setback from Tanti Avenue he said, at page 20 of his submission:-
The manner in which the development has been sited and planned is respectful both of its setting and its relationship with neighbours. The taller and more dominant built form of the existing mansion building will continue to enjoy primacy as the most prominent building in the area. The two Tanti Townhouses facing Tanti Avenue have been purposely stepped back to open up the view of the front garden from the street and the view of the mansion building. ....
.... The new buildings are contemporary in appearance which is appropriate given the presence of the mansion building on the site. It is not appropriate that the building mimic or incorporate design features which characterise the heritage building but instead, adopt a theme which is respectful of its presence. I believe that the design successfully achieves this.
22. He considered the possible loss of views from Ms Keast's villa unit and said:-
I have already referred to the issue of built form and height. I do not consider that the proposed development will result in an unreasonable level of visual impact either in terms of the streetscape or views from surrounding properties. Whilst parts of the proposed buildings will be visible from neighbouring properties, the height of the proposed buildings are within the accepted limits of the DDO. Redevelopment of neighbouring vacant properties to the west coupled with existing boundary planting and a maturing of the proposed planting associated with the development will assist to blend the new buildings into their surroundings over time.
23. Ms Brennan called traffic engineering evidence from Mr Russell Fairlie of Ratio Consultants. He set out the following details of the arrangements for parking and internal access for the proposal:-
It is proposed to provide a basement car park with 42 parking spaces underneath the new townhouses (the `Tanti Townhouses' and the `Western Townhouses'). Two stairwells and a lift will be provided for access to apartments and townhouses. A `wash-down' area and ample provision for storage will be provided in the basement car park.
Vehicular access to/from the basement car park will be available via Franklin Street (residents only) through the creation of a new 6 metre wide crossover to Franklin Street, and via Tanti Avenue (for residents and all visitors) via the existing northern crossover.
The access road link to Tanti Avenue will be 3 metres wide and incorporate a midblock circular driveway to cater for short term parking in an informal setting, in keeping with the presence of the adjacent mansion building. The on-site access roads will all be constructed of a hard standing surface (eg. asphalt or coloured concrete).
Four spaces within the eastern section of the existing main car park, accessed via the southern crossover from Tanti Avenue, will be retained for visitor parking.
* The ResCode requirement for parking for the proposal is 32 spaces (46 provided).
* All vehicles are able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction apart from garbage trucks.
* The access from Tanti Avenue will be controlled by security gates.
* The development will generate a peak of about 124 vehicle trips per day, about 13 trips per hour in peak periods. This traffic will use the perimeter streets "without creating adverse traffic safety, capacity or amenity problems".
25. Mr Fairlie then made the following points which are particularly relevant to this review:-
The closure of existing pedestrian access through the subject site between Franklin Street and Tanti Avenue will also result in a reduction in traffic and parking activity in Franklin Street and Grange Road during school peak times as parents will no longer be able to park in these streets for convenient access to the nearby Saint Macartan's Primary School.
The overall concentration of traffic generated by the proposed development will be lower than the previous level of traffic generated by the reception centre, which catered for up to 144 patrons (which equates to typical parking demand of 58 vehicles @ a rate of 0.4 spaces per patron), and in addition the proposed development will generate significantly fewer trips during the evening period when amenity impacts are greater. According to Council records, the previous reception centre generated a history of nuisance and noise complaints from residents, relating to the departure of guests, with noise created by car doors closing, screeching of tyres, and patrons congregating in Tanti Avenue, and requests were made by residents for the premises to be closed down. This traffic related noise and amenity impacts will not be generated by the operation of the proposed basement car park.
26. The subject site was inspected on the day following the hearing and randomly over the following weekends.
27. The subject group of streets was found to be particularly quiet and free from traffic and parking so that we concur with Mr Fairlie's findings that these streets will handle the traffic volumes without causing any unreasonable loss of amenity to existing residents. We believe the traffic arrangements relating to the proposal will have two major benefits for the locality:-
(i) Eliminating the shortcut used pedestrians through the site will reduce traffic and parking in Franklin Street and Grange Road during school peak times; and,
(ii) the substantial improvement in the overall amenity above that which existed with the former reception centre when account is taken of the improved landscaping proposed, the proposal is likely to improve the general streetscape and ambience of this part of Mornington.
* It is quite unnecessary to set the proposed residential buildings back to be in line with the existing mansion. Our inspection showed that both parts of the site are quite separate and distinct. Setting the new buildings back could well detract from the presence of the mansion.
* The low levels of parking and traffic in the perimeter streets indicates to us that there is no sound basis for limiting access only from Tanti Avenue. We do not believe that there will be any significant increase in hazard either to residents accessing their properties or to school children and other pedestrians using the roadways without footpaths.
29. Overall we believe the proposal makes excellent use of this site and, preserving the existing heritage building, provides an interesting and diverse range of housing over that which exists in the area now.
_______________________ _________________________
Portdome Pty Ltd
Mornington Peninsula SC & Ors [2003] VCAT 680
The permit was granted. The Responsible Authority was ordered to issue it subject to 20 conditions, including requirements concerning amended plans, parking, drainage, landscaping, heritage conservation, construction management, and a heritage management agreement. The permit expires if development is not started within two years or completed within four years, subject to the stated extension provision.