Is a three storey residential building on the review site consistent with the planning policy framework?

1. Mr Patterson put to me that the site did not have policy support for the redevelopment, as the proposal did not achieve all of the planning scheme objectives. Mr Patterson referred many times to an assessment of density in terms of plot ratio and what level of plot ratio is deemed acceptable. He also referred me to the Strategic Framework Plan of clause 21.01 of the planning scheme and highlighted that the site is not identified as a site where medium density housing is encouraged and high scale development may be supported. There are a raft of policies, which direct me to consider the appropriateness of this site for higher density development. Whilst the Strategic Framework Plan[1] fails to identify this site as one for specific higher density development, it does not exclude it from consideration for development. There are sufficient policies within the State planning policy framework[2] that encourage higher density development. From a contextual perspective, this site is located on a main road, in fact one of Melbourne's largest arterial roads, is well served by public transport, is within walking distance to a principle activity centre (Chadstone) and is well located in relation to community services. The site is a candidate for higher density development.
2. Having concluded that the site enjoys policy support for its redevelopment, there is more than one policy applying to the site and in considering any proposed development; it must be considered in the context of how the development respects the neighbourhood character. There are competing policy objectives requiring a balance between urban consolidation objectives and neighbourhood character.
3. I find that there are two key issues to be considered. Firstly how the proposed building is integrated into the neighbourhood and secondly the impact on the adjoining properties.

Does the proposed building respect the character of the area

1. There was much debate as to how the character of the area could be defined. Much of the debate focussed on how neighbourhood character is determined. It was common ground that due to the width and nature of Dandenong Road, the southern side of Dandenong Road is somewhat irrelevant. Council put to me that the guidance on this matter is found in the practice note Understanding Urban Character[3].
2. Mr English described the area as a mix of one and two storey dwellings with no three-storey buildings at present. Mr English put to me that Council has been guided by the practice note and in this instance has reviewed five sites up and down the street. This analysis shows a mix of one and two storey buildings. It was Council's position that a three level building may be appropriate but not this design. Any future three level building would need to have a substantially reduced third level, greater opportunities for landscaping at ground level and an improved response to overlooking to adjoining properties. It needs to be said however, that determining character is not restricted to reviewing five properties either side of the subject site. The practice note goes on to say:

Respecting neighbourhood character does not mean limiting the scope of design interpretation and innovation, or mimicry or pattern book design. Instead, it means designing the development to respond to the features and characteristics identified in the neighbourhood.

1. Mr Patterson submitted that the character of the area is determined by the following factors; wall heights in the range of 5.5-6.5 metres, site coverage generally not exceeding 50%, side access for vehicles giving one broad setback and views to the rear, parking at ground level, secluded private open space of at least 40 square metres per dwelling, opportunity for landscaping including small trees in all open areas, hipped or gabled roofs of tile or galvanised steel and general absence of balconies and terraces used as living spaces at first floor.
2. Mr Zervas on the other hand described the area as one that is not characterised by demure single storey dwellings and that there is a number of dwellings that stand proud of landscaping and present significant built forms to the public realm.
3. Mr English posed the question does one place a greater emphasis on the built form immediately surrounding the subject site, or should the design response be primarily guided by the aspects the State planning policy framework, which suggests higher density development, is appropriate in this location?
4. On my site inspection, I noted that despite the nature of Dandenong Road and the closeness of the site to Chadstone activity centre, between Castlebar Road and Arcadia Avenue, the dwellings are modest single and two storey development. However, the attributes of the site play a key factor in determining how the site should be developed. Senior Member Liston made the following observations NJJJKT[4]:

[12] Informed participants in the planning approval process recognise that strategies in relation to urban consolidation, diversity and affordability are equally important to strategies in relation to neighbourhood character. However, it is my concern that because neighbourhood character is inherently site specific and local in its application then neighbourhood character considerations dominate the debate about particular projects while consolidation diversity and affordability are reduced to a background hum in our thinking.

[14] I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on the importance of metropolitan policies in relation to urban consolidation, housing diversity, and affordability. I do not say that neighbourhood character is of less importance, rather I say that in each decision consolidation diversity and affordability need to be at the forefront of our thinking, and not merely a background hum.

1. I am of the view that the attributes of the site distinguish it from the residential hinterland of the municipality and in turn provide it with the opportunity for development. This section of street may host a number of single and two storey dwellings, but this should not prohibit a three level building. The importance of urban consolidation policies is in the forefront of thinking how the site should develop. This is a site where character will evolve based on what exists but also what the opportunities are. Just as Senior Member Liston observed, this is a site where there should be an emphasis on urban consolidation policies.
2. I agree with the submission of the Council that a three level building in this site is appropriate however not in the form that is before me. Either the form should be of exceptional quality to justify the flat roof, or a hipped roof form could be introduced. I also have concerns with the bulk and massing of the building, the continuous built form, the poor internal amenity of several of the apartments and the lack of landscaping opportunities.

1. Mr Zervas submitted that the design is an innovative contemporary design of architectural quality which is respectful of its environment. He further submitted that the articulation of the building is achieved through varied setbacks, mix of materials, cutting away of edges and architectural elements.
2. I am not persuaded by the submissions of the permit applicant. I find that the building is ill mannered on the site. The building is 35 metres in length. There is some variation to the floor plan and the building does have a slight step down halfway in the built form. However, the articulation of the building includes some minor protrusions and some varied material detailing. The building will read from both side elevations as a long built form of little interest. The building is box like with a flat roof. I find the building sits uncomfortably on the site. It also fails to provide adequate landscaping opportunities (which is discussed below),
3. Where a building is seeking to go beyond what the community's expectations are for the site, it needs to demonstrate that it is of high quality design. In this case, it will be the first three storey building in this location. It therefore has a responsibility to demonstrate that it can sit comfortably within its environment.
4. I have concluded earlier that the urban consolidation objectives are very important on a site like this. This does not however dismiss neighbourhood character objectives. This building is unresolved. It was only as a result of questioning during the hearing that the permit applicant indicated what type of materials would be used in the design. In summary, the concerns I have with the built form include:
   • The flat roof of the building. Whilst a flat roof might be appropriate, the quality of the design is not sufficiently resolved to successfully integrate this element into the streetscape.
   • The length of the building. Again whilst there is a step at a mid point in the building, the level of articulation is insufficient to off set the length of the building on the site.
   • The box like structure of the building. Mr Holdsworth submitted that the building is designed within the ResCode envelope. This may be the case, but design is not about filling the envelope. The façade treatment is not of a quality that promotes good design.

Does the proposal provide satisfactory internal amenity for future residents?

1. I expressed some concern during the hearing of the extent of the use of screening of windows. My above concerns are amplified when I closely consider the internal configuration of the proposal.
2. Mr Holdsworth suggested that the apartment building has been designed to a particular price point, however that should not compromise the internal amenity for future residents.
3. Council noted that the extent of screening required would provide for an inferior design response compared to a solution which provides for better orientation and design of building.
4. I consider that the development has several significant design failures that result in a lesser internal amenity than households would reasonably expect.
5. Apartment 7 and 8 have all windows screened with the exception of the rear living windows not being screened. This is due to the inclusion of the balconies that are screened to 1.7 metres. There is not one window or outlook that has a clear view of the sky or a view not impeded by screening.
6. Apartment 10 has all windows screened with the exception of the living room window that opens to the balcony, which is screened to 1.7 metres. There is not one window or outlook that has a clear view of the sky or a view not impeded by screening.
7. The private open space for apartment 2 is 22.22 square metres extending from the dining room. This open space is located within the Dandenong Road frontage and adjoins the access to the basement. This open space is little more than a light well given its location and orientation.
8. Mr Holdsworth put to me that the proposed building meets the ResCode envelope and is therefore appropriate. Overall I consider the development may meet the standards of clause 55, but in doing so it has failed to provide an acceptable level of internal amenity for at least three of the apartments and failed to create a liveable environment.
9. A way forward is to reconsider the number and orientation of the apartment building. It is possible to design apartments that do not have to completely rely on screening of all windows.

1. Mr Patrick presented a landscaping plan based on the opportunities provided to him. I have no doubt that Mr Patrick could make the landscaping grow and make those spaces available appear green. However, I find that the designers simply did not give Mr Patrick enough area for landscaping.
2. I have determined that this is a site of opportunities; however, this is also an area where some landscaping is evident. Landscaping often assists with the softening of built form. With the basement occupying approximately 82% of the site, the landscaping opportunities are limited and this is a failure of the proposal.

Does the proposal impose unacceptable amenity impacts?

1. Adjoining property owners raised concern regarding the impact of the development. The proposal does not fail because of the amenity impacts of overshadowing or overlooking. I also note that the interfaces have been landscaped.
2. The building is visually dominating to adjoining properties but that is a consequence of the poor quality design. It may be possible to achieve a three level building on the site subject to an improved design.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the development fails to provide a high quality design that I can approve. It also fails to provide a satisfactory amenity for the future residents of the development.
2. For these reasons, I order that the decision of the responsible authority is set aside and that Application 604/08 be refused.

[1] Clause 21.01 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme

[2] I have had regard to policies 11, 12 and 16 of the State Planning Policy Framework.

[3] Understanding Urban Character, Department of Planning and Community Development.

[4] NJJJKT Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2008] VCAT 1410.