The application proposes the construction of five double storey dwellings - one dwelling would front Kororoit Creek Road, with another two dwellings along the western side of the property. Two additional dwellings would be located along the eastern property boundary and a central accessway would be provided to enable access to a double garage for each dwelling[3].
The application proposes to widen the present accessway shared with 72A and 72B Kororoit Creek Road so that access at the main road would be 5.5 metres wide (allowing for landscaped areas throughout). The current pavement width is approximately 3.6 metres (with some minor exceptions) and would be widened by the dedication of additional land within the site itself.
[2]
In cases such as this it is necessary to consider the relationship between the proposed development and each adjoining property in assessing whether there would be any unreasonable visual bulk or amenity impacts.
I note that proposed dwellings 2, 3 and 4 have been carefully designed so as not to provide any overlooking opportunities into the private open space of Nos. 72A and 72B. While the proposal would no doubt involve change to the more distant outlook from the private open space of No. 72B and, to a lesser extent, No. 72A. The fact that parts of the development will be visible does not of itself make the outlook unacceptable. I consider that these viewlines would be oblique and at least 6-8 metres distant to each of these dwellings and would present as acceptable. In terms of proposed dwelling 4, this view would be over the existing garage structures at close range, which would provide minimal views of the upper level of this dwelling.
Ms Prinzi was concerned with the increase of traffic movements along the shared accessway, particularly on her compact lightwell/landscape area facing west[4]. This space is contained by a tall rendered wall to the accessway. While her concerns appear to be genuinely held, the fact remains that there is an easement of carriageway over this accessway in favour of the subject land and that this carries with it an expectation that it can legitimately be used for all traffic associated with the subject land. In the current case, the application proposes 10 car parking spaces accessed via this easement and I do not consider that the impact of these vehicle movements would be overly intrusive on Ms Prinzi, particularly given that this compact area is well protected both visually and acoustically by its design.
The dwelling to the west is somewhat more complex in its relationship with the subject land. A re-establishment survey obtained by the permit applicant indicated that the eastern wall of the dwelling has been partly constructed over the property boundary. This wall includes a number of windows, although as a result of my inspection I regard only one as potentially sensitive - the bedroom window at the front of the property. The applicant suggested that boundary fencing could be provided to allow a lightwell-type arrangement including semi-permeable timber slats adjacent to the windows on this elevation. I think this is a reasonable solution to an unusual site condition.
In general terms, dwelling 1 provides for a courtyard opposite most of the windows on the eastern elevation of No. 76, providing an appropriate level of visual relief. I do not consider the outlook from the kitchen window at the rear of No. 76 to be particularly sensitive.
In general terms, I consider that the proposed development would not overwhelm the private open space area of this dwelling. At the same time, I am also conscious that, at present, this property appears to be ageing and somewhat underutilised and it may be a candidate for more intensive redevelopment itself.
Two dwellings are proposed for 30 metres along the common boundary and the private open space of No. 76. These dwellings are separated at ground floor by some 6 metres at the closest vantage point, increasing to 7 metres at upper level. Ground floor side setbacks are predominantly 1 metre, increasing to 2 metres at upper level. In addition, the upper level footprint has been reduced by the equivalent of one room at the corner of units 2 and 3. In my opinion, the combination of these factors results in an appropriately scaled and sited building form when viewed from No. 76. However, overlooking from the two upper level bedrooms and stairwell into this private open space will need to be controlled via a permit condition requiring appropriate screening.
I have no qualms about the proposed interface with the single storey unit to the rear of the subject land, given the siting of private open space and visitor parking/driveway in this corner of the property.
I consider that the double storey townhouses at No. 70 are potentially vulnerable to the impacts of visual bulk from the proposed development and also amenity impacts since they include a relatively large number of habitable room windows along the western elevation. However, examining the plans for this development, a 1 metre setback is provided at ground floor level which increases to 2 metres at upper level. In a similar way to the layout of the upper levels of units 2 and 3, units 4 and 5 also provide only one bedroom at the upper level near to the shared property boundary (with a "near" upper storey length of only 6 metres for each unit), with the remainder of the upper level footprint sited an additional 4 metres beyond.[5] I appreciate that a separation distance of 4 metres at ground floor may not be overly generous. However, in assessing the overall visual impact of the units I am influenced by the fact that the "near" portion of the upper storey is separated some 12 metres between units 4 and 5 and this will result in an articulated and acceptable built form outlook from the existing townhouses.
The responsible authority submitted that a poor design outcome would result from the extent of double storey, non-articulated walls facing the common driveway. I agree that this feature should generally be avoided wherever possible, but in the current context, this will only be obliquely and distantly viewed from the public realm (with the exception of the north eastern wall of the front dwelling) and would be improved to an acceptable degree by differentiating the lower level by a variation in materials such as stone cladding. I have required this by permit condition as offered by the permit applicant. In addition, if I was to require a further setback of the upper levels of the proposed units, it would compromise the functionality of the upper level bedrooms of these units.
I agree that the layout of the front dwelling that has resulted in an unarticulated double storey wall on the south eastern corner of the dwelling could have been more carefully crafted. However, given its substantial separation from the adjoining unit to the east, it does not visually overwhelm streetscape or site views. It should also be the subject of additional detailing by way of finishes/materials/colours.
[3]
The presentation of dwelling 1 to the street has been a vexed issue for the responsible authority. It considers that all versions of the amended plans provide a poor neighbourhood character response. I agree that the proposed modification to shift the location of the garage for the front dwelling is a definite improvement, and one which is consistent with the design responses outlined in clause 22.10-3 of the planning scheme.
I have had regard to the preferred neighbourhood character objectives at clause 22.10 which include:
[4]
To ensure new development respects the dominant building scale and forms of the streetscape.
[5]
By reference to the objective above, the frontage setback proposed by Mr Negri is generally in line with the average of adjoining properties and the height, scale and siting of the front dwelling would sit comfortably with existing and diverse housing stock in this area.
I agree that the second storey of the proposed front dwelling is not particularly recessive - in fact it slightly overhangs the lower level in the form of a framed balcony. However, I do not think that this design response is reflected in the site's context which does not exhibit any examples of recessive upper levels.
Similarly, I have considered the objective to maintain and strengthen the garden setting of dwellings. While other parts of Precinct 1 may exhibit a discernible "garden setting", this section of Kororoit Creek Road generally has basic frontage setbacks with minimal landscaping. In this context, the proposed landscape plan proposes an adequate planting regime for the frontage setback.
I have also considered the referenced Neighbourhood Character Study in so far as it replicates the policy at clause 22.10 to respect the dominant building scale and forms in the area. One design response of this Study is to avoid two storey "boxy" buildings with unarticulated wall surfaces. I understand this to be a reference to buildings such as the older-style flats in the area which are essentially boxy forms.
The design of the front facade essentially comprises a series of boxlike forms, but in my opinion is not of itself "boxy", in the sense that it provides articulation through its porch/entry and balcony in particular. Its flat roof contrasts it in some ways with more traditional dwellings along this strip, but it sufficiently referable to existing forms further east along Kororoit Creek Road. At the same time, the permit condition I have imposed will require additional variation in building materials for the front elevation to provide further detailing within this elevation.
[6]
A ground of objection raised by the owners and occupiers of the two townhouses at 72 Kororoit Creek Road was that they purchased the land on the understanding and agreement as to the use of the shared driveway in place at the common time. Legally speaking, this is a misapprehension, since an easement of carriageway in favour of the subject land permits access over 1.52 metres of their land with no limitation as to the number of vehicles that may traverse this accessway.
I have considered whether the increase in traffic along this shared driveway might have flow-on amenity impacts to the objectors' units but consider that the traffic impacts would not be unreasonable given the separation between the driveway and any sensitive areas of the adjoining properties. I am also influenced by the proposed widening of the driveway access on the subject land itself to 4 metres which would provide an improved access arrangement for the two properties overall.
[7]
I have amended the draft permit conditions provided by the responsible authority with a view to addressing substantive matters that need to be addressed as part of the permission granted. I have also included a requirement to retain/relocate or replace the three established palm trees, as volunteered by the permit applicant.
[8]
The permit requirement for amended plans encompasses all changes recommended by Mr Negri in his evidence and additional design/finish changes to the frontage to dwelling 1 in particular. Subject to these changes, it is appropriate that a permit should issue for the proposed development.
Beyond this, some scope remains for improvement to the level of finish and articulation of the units. I would encourage the permit applicant to consider and discuss these with the responsible authority with a view to including further design features in the amended plans to be submitted for endorsement (that is, beyond the changes required by condition 1 of the permit).
[9]
Application P1115/2008 - 74 Kororoit creek road, Williamstown
[10]
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.
[11]
The plans must be generally in accordance with plans prepared by Level Architekture numbered A03-A09 (inclusive) printed 18 August 2008 but modified to show the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
[12]
(a) Additional articulation of the front facade to Unit 1 by the inclusion of a range of external materials, finishes and/or colours**;**
(b) Provision of stonework or similar detailing to the ground floor eastern elevations of townhouses 1, 2 and 3 and to the ground floor western elevations of townhouses 4 and 5 (excluding garages);
(c) The incorporation of a window in Unit 2 kitchen, Unit 3 lounge and Unit 5 study facing the common accessway;
(d) First floor habitable room windows and each outward facing stairwell window to be screened in accordance with ResCode standard B22. Where fixed obscured glass is used, the sill height of the window above the finished floor level must be notated on the plans;
(e) Storage sheds provided for each dwelling;
(f) A schedule of all external materials and finishes including the colour and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames and paving (including car parking surfacing);
(g) The positioning of all plant and equipment (including air conditioning units, heating units, hotwater systems, etc) which is proposed to be located externally;
(h) Notations of all front, side and rear setbacks at ground and upper levels;
(i) Notation of the ceiling level for the ground floor of each dwelling with dimensions of the floor to ceiling height of the ground floor;
(j) Finished floor levels for the ground floor and first floor;
(k) Notations on the elevation plans showing maximum building heights;
(l) Provision of an elevation plan of the south elevation of dwelling 4;
(m) Detailed design of boundary fencing between dwelling 1and 76 Kororoit Creek Road with the inclusion of slatted or similar semi-permeable screening to provide for access to daylight to the three habitable room windows of that dwelling;
(n) Details of the height and material of the dividing fence separating the private open space between Units 4 and 5;
(o) Crossover location and design in accordance with VicRoads requirements of this permit; and
(p) Reduced length of the landscape strip beside unit 1 adjoining Kororoit Creek Road so that it does not come within 8 metres of the property boundary.
[13]
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
[14]
Before the commencement of any buildings and works, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be generally in accordance with Drawing No. 08-209TP prepared by John Patrick & Associates dated August 2008 but modified to show:
(a) 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.
(b) Retention of the three established palm trees near to the shared accessway with 72 Kororoit Creek Road (with the potential to relocate them within the property), with protection measures during the construction period. Alternatively, their replacement with three established palm trees in a location on the subject land capable of views by adjoining properties to the east and at a planting height of no less than 2.5 metres.
(c) The provision of two feature native canopy trees within the frontage of Unit 1 to be a minimum of 40 litre pot size at the time of planting.
(d) Screen plantings placed along the north-west boundary fence adjacent to the visitor car space.
[15]
Before the occupation of any approved dwelling, all landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[16]
Concealment of service pipes, fixtures and fittings
[17]
All service pipes, (excluding down pipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[18]
All external plant and equipment must be positioned to prevent unreasonable noise and visual impact to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[19]
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 permit holder at its cost.
[20]
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.
[21]
Before any approved dwelling is occupied, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
(c) Surfaced with an all-weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[22]
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
[23]
The land must be connected to a legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[24]
All vehicular movements to and from Kororoit Creek Rd must be made in a forward direction and restricted to left-in left-out manner.
The proposed crossover to Kororoit Creek road must be at least 5.50 metres wide for the 6.0 metres within the property line and constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and VicRoads.
The proposed crossover must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and a 1.0 metre clearance should be maintained to any fixed objects, signage trees, power poles, pits, letter boxes, etc in the road reserve.
At no cost and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and VicRoads the applicant must relocate all trees, road furniture, electricity poles and other services that maybe required in order to accommodate the new crossover.
There must be no gates installed on the accessway within the first 6 metres of the property line.
Any redundant crossovers to the site from Kororoit Creek Rd must be removed and the kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and VicRoads.
The area set aside for vehicle manoeuvring must be designed as common property for the purpose of vehicle access and manoeuvring only and must be kept available without obstruction, for this purpose at all times.
Worksite traffic management practices for all work undertaken within the Kororoit Creek Rd road reserve adjacent to the subject property must be in accordance with VicRoads 'Worksite Traffic Management (Roadworks Signing) Code of Practice which includes Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - 2002 "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Part 3: Traffic Control device for Works on Roads".
A traffic management plan must be submitted to Vic Roads 14 days prior to the commencement of any work on the Kororoit Creek Rd road reserve.
Any works associated with the proposed development must be performed at no cost to VicRoads or the Responsible Authority.
[25]
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.
[26]
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.
[27]
[1] The responsible authority's planning officer also emphasised its lack of satisfaction with the documentation and procedures undertaken by the applicant in the context of the permit application. In my opinion, this is not relevant to my determination of the application provided that I consider that the application is now of adequate detail and standard that it can be fully assessed.
[28]
[2] I was advised that this accessway was constructed to its current standard as part of the development of these adjoining townhouses and that this development holds public liability insurance in respect of the accessway, which is designated as common property as part of this development.
[29]
[3] Under Mr Negri's amended proposal, unit 1 would provide a combination of a carport/garage in that the front would have a standard garage door, but the rear would be open and the structure would be topped with a material that allowed light to permeate through to the north facing living room.
[30]
[4] This area provides a sliding door for additional ventilation to her kitchen/lounge area.
[31]
[5] Similarly, the upper level bedroom windows would require treatment to prevent unreasonable overlooking in compliance with ResCode standards.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Samaha
Respondent/Defendant:
Hobsons Bay City Council [2008] VCAT 1979
Cases Cited (1)
Samaha v Hobsons Bay City Council [2008] VCAT 1979 (26 September 2008)