1. The decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2. In permit application GE/PP-21678/2009 no permit is granted

Mr John Glossop, Town Planner of Glossop Town Planning Pty Ltd. He called the following witness:

• Mr Russell Fairlie, Traffic Engineer, Ratio Consultants

Seven dwellings. Six are two bedroom apartment style units, three at ground floor and three at first floor. Of these, two are in a front building connected to a main central building of four units with a double garage in between. The garage accommodates double car stacker to accommodate four cars. Above the garage are two terrace areas for the upper dwellings. These are screened to north and south as well as between the units. A second double garage behind the main building includes one car stacker accommodating a total of three cars. Above this garage is a terrace for the third upper dwelling. The rear unit is a single storey dwelling.

Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987

cl 32.01 - 4 (development of more than one dwelling on a lot with reference to schedule to the zone and the provisions of Clause 55)

Site area 811 sqm (14.3m x 56.7m). Existing single dwelling on site with side driveway along south boundary. To the north is single dwelling within Council's defined housing diversity area. To the south are four rear yard interfaces, all of which are in Council's minimal change areas. These include a side boundary to 36 Ames Street and properties at 4 and 6 Philip Avenue having their rear boundaries abutting this south side boundary of the subject site. No. 8 Phillip Avenue extends its side boundary across the rear boundary of the subject site.

Duxwell Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2003] VCAT 1895 (15 December 2003)

Francis v Monash CC [2009] VCAT 327 (3 March 2009)

David Norman Design & Construction Pty Ltd v Franskston CC [2009] VCAT 849 (13 May 2009)

1. Mr Sharp wants to construct seven dwellings at 34 Ames Street, Carnegie. These are all two-bedroom units. Three are at ground level below a further three first floor units sitting on top. Externally they will look as two storey townhouses. A rear dwelling will be single storey. Council officers supported the application but the Council resolved to refuse the application. Mr Sharp has now requested the Tribunal to review the decision of Council.
2. In refusing the application, Council determined the proposal was an over development, being too big and bulky, particularly with its interface to properties to the south and east. Council was also concerned the proposal relied too heavily on the use of car stackers that were uncharacteristic to the area and added to the sense of over development.
3. The site sits approximately 650m from the Murrumbeena activity centre and train station. It sits at the edge of a defined[1] "housing diversity area" with the four properties abutting the south side and eastern rear boundary of the property being in defined "minimal change" areas.
4. Neighbours of the property to the north and south have objected to the application and support Council's decision to refuse the permit. The Swedosh family (represented by Mr Burrage) have a family home abutting the northern side boundary of the development with a large rear yard. This site is located in the area defined by Council policy as "housing diversity". Mr Burrage lives directly south of the site at 36 Ames Street and a further three objectors including Ms Hopkins and the Scharf family (represented by Ms Wilson) have rear yards that abut the property to the south and east. Objectors have a number of concerns including that:

1. The use of car stackers is uncharacteristic to the area and cause amenity problems, mainly from possible noise and people parking in the street rather than using the stacker space for a short period. 2. The buildings are too big and bulky.

1. There is not enough landscaping provided on site.

1. Design issues such as storage, rubbish collection and landscaping are poorly resolved.

1. The core issue in this review is whether the proposal balances the need to provide housing diversity whilst protecting the amenity and character of the adjoining minimal change area. Intertwined with this is whether car stackers are an appropriate design tool in this location.
2. I find the two issues are inter-twined as the use of the stackers has resulted in a number of design elements that impact on character and building bulk.
3. In summary I find key issues I need to address are:

1. Are car stackers an appropriate design response for this site? 2. Does the proposal adequately address back yard character and building bulk to adjoining properties?

1. Does the proposal adequately consider neighbourhood character from the street?

1. Are there any other on or off site amenity impacts that may result in unreasonable impact to future residents or existing adjoining residents?

Are car stackers an appropriate design response for this site?

1. Council and objectors argued car stackers are not an appropriate design response in a conventional residential area and cited other cases[2] where stackers were considered inappropriate as the site was not sufficiently close to an activity centre. With this was an argument that people would not use the stackers as they were too inconvenient and therefore people would park on the street and add to car parking on street.
2. Mr Fairlie's evidence was that stackers were generally convenient and that whilst occasionally people may park on the street for short stops this would be no more than if people chose not to park in a garage.
3. I find the traffic implications of using stackers can be supported. Firstly, the site is approximately 650 m to Murrumbeena Activity centre and 750m to the southern end of Carnegie Urban Village, both via convenient walking distance with generally flat topography. Whilst people may not use the stacker to park a car for a short period of time the converse argument is that people may not take a car out of the stacker for a short trip to the shops, choosing to walk instead. This would benefit arguments for sustainable transport.
4. Having viewed stackers in other locations[3] I am also satisfied issues of mechanical noise can be satisfied as the stackers are to be located inside garages and motors can be insulated if needed.
5. I find the critical issue with the use of the stackers is the impact they have had on the design response, particularly the bulk and setbacks of the building form.
6. Mr Glossop argued the building design was comparable to a more conventional residential development. He also submitted "landscaping is proposed along the side and rear boundaries". This is partly true, but the need for outdoor living spaces and car stackers means that:

1. The connecting garage areas are not low form garages that would normally provide a sense of building break. The combined height over the garages to the top of the terrace screens is 5.3m, close to a standard two storey wall of many developments. Hence the overall form is not so much 3 residential building units divided by garages but more of one long continuous 2 storey form. 2. The garages likewise have needed to be setback 1m off the northern boundary, so as to meet the requirements of ResCode as the garage wall is 3.67m high[4]. Along the north interface much of the building interface is only 1m from the boundary with sections either on the boundary or with ground floor eaves encroaching into this space leaving only 0.5m between the boundary and the building. Much of this space is then dedicated to storage that cannot be provided in the garages as the garages are dedicated to stackers. This leads to the 1m section along the northern boundary becoming a service space only. It cannot accommodate any useful landscaping to soften the building form and appears mainly to accommodate the setback needed, rather than forming part of a considered design response. The inability to landscape this space is highlighted in the landscape plan tabled by Mr Glossop.

1. As the garages cannot be used for storage space, the location of storage space is relegated to odd, left over locations, such as an access off bedroom 1 in dwelling 1. Bin storage also needs to be located within the front setback. This is not a design feature that is characteristic to the area or a feature that should be aspired to in setting a benchmark for new more intensive development in the housing diversity area.
2. The flaws from the use of stackers on this site are design related, not use related. These flaws lead to a sense of building bulk that, as discussed below I find leads to the building being too big and bulky to the site context.

Does the proposal adequately address back yard character and building bulk to adjoining properties?

1. Objectors to the south and Council submitted the proposal had not adequately addressed the interface of properties to the south that are located in a minimal change area. Council and Mr Glossop did note, however, that the Council officer report did acknowledge the proposal had provided the driveway along the south side boundary and included only single storey development to the rear so as to provide a transition between the site's location inside the housing diversity area and the adjoining sites in minimal change areas.
2. I agree the use of the driveway on the south side provides one logical design response. The existing drive is on this side. This currently leaves the southern properties at 36 Ames Street and 4 Philip Street with limited landscaping along their rear or side boundaries to the subject site. Having said this, the development does propose double storey 6.1m high walls, 3.1m form this boundary directly beside these adjoining secluded open spaces. The additional height is not in itself problematic, but the limited driveway space means there is no opportunity to soften this building form with any landscaping. The location of the garages and width of the drive means that there is no capacity to provide any landscape outstands along the south boundary, or meaningful landscaping adjoining the building.
3. The intensity of use of this driveway space will also be significantly increased, particularly for Mr Burrage at 36 Ames Street as there will be four units with ground floor external entry 3 - 3.5 from his side boundary and four car spaces in the form of the double stackers also in this area.
4. Whilst the use of separate ground floor entries leads to a more conventional, townhouse look, it adds to dwelling entry points that can add to noise, external lighting[5] and reduces efficiency of the building footprint. The central building has four separate dwelling entries and two stair cases, that a more conventional apartment form would have had one central entry point and staircase. I was advised that the site was the subject of a previous proposal for 11 apartments with a basement car park. I have not seen these plans. I am left wondering, however, that in the attempt to make the dwellings appear more like townhouses there has been significant compromises made to accommodate apartment forms in a townhouse look. It may have been better to review a design for apartment building that may provide better interface to adjoining properties.
5. Ms Wilson noted the comments of Member Bennett in David Norman Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Franskston CC[6] where he expressed concern that upper terraces would introduce activity at a height which is largely foreign and quite at odds with the neighbourhood. I find the circumstances here are possibly different as the site is in an area of housing diversity where a change in intensity over time is to be expected. The balconies will be some distance from the properties to the south. However, all three dwellings located at upper level have all windows (apart from the front windows to dwelling 2 that face the street) to be screened or raised to prevent over looking. This means dwellings 3 and 6 at upper level do not have one window that has general outlook. The only windows that are clear are to the outdoor terraces. Dwelling 3 has a terrace that is 3 x 3.5m making the only view out of the unit being to a relatively small outdoor space[7]. The internal amenity of these units is therefore compromised by the need to screen most, if not all, external views from the dwellings. My reading of the plans is that the building designer has taken a band aid approach to overlooking rather than regarding overlooking as part of the design of the site. This is evident in the fact that windows in unit 2 meals area are screened when these generally face over the front yard of 32 Ames Street and therefore may not need screening. Likewise the living area of dwelling 3 has highlight windows when they overlook the roof of 32 Ames Street.
6. Ms Bowdern and Ms Wilson submitted the proposal did not provide adequate landscaping, whilst Mr Glossop noted the site had retained a Liquid Amber tree in the front façade and protected trees on adjoining sites being a large Eucalypt near the rear boundary and a Glossy Privet on the adjoining northern property.
7. I agree the retention of the liquid amber and protection of the Eucalypt are admiral aspects of the proposal. The Liquid Amber, adds to the character of the street and currently reduces views of the property. The rear Eucalypt is a dominant feature to the overall views of the area. I do find it odd that the design has sought to setback a garage from the privet tree to the north. This is not a tree protected by the planning scheme and it is my understanding that this species is identified in many locations in Australia as an environmental weed. I accept the tree may provide some current landscape value to the neighbour at 32 Ames Street, but its protection has not added to the design response of the subject property. Given the ferocity of the privet species I would question if much root protection is needed to such a tree. Alternative design solutions, including consulting with the neighbour about long term replacement of the tree may be advisable in any future application. This is particularly relevant given 32 Ames Street is in the area of housing diversity.
8. Ms Wilson submitted the rear unit should be setback off the rear south boundary as directed in the officer report. The officers sought to set the building off the boundary so as to accommodate visitor parking and increase landscape space in this rear location.
9. I find visitor parking in this location would be beneficial to landscaping objectives and given the use of stackers may provide a short term alternative car space for residents. I find the need for visitor parking for the proposal, however, not essential. Had there been other locations where some canopy landscaping could occur along the south boundary I find a boundary wall to part of the south boundary could be acceptable. It is the lack of landscape opportunity along any part of the south interface that is problematic.
10. Overall I find the proposal has inadequately responded to the need to interface with the minimal change area. This is a combination of factors, primarily led from the design requirements of the site to accommodate the car stackers. This has led to a higher wall form, dysfunctional storage spaces located along minimal side boundaries and lack of landscaping anywhere along the south boundary. The design appears to have simply designed buildings to fit the ResCode numeric standards and then apply amenity protection measures, rather than carefully addressing the site constraints, which are many, as part of an integrated design response.

Does the proposal adequately consider neighbourhood character from the street?

1. At the hearing it was evident the floor plans did not match with the front façade plan. There are also no plans that show an elevation of the dwelling against its neighbours that are both single storey form. It is therefore difficult to analyse if the front façade will be sympathetic to the street. The retention of the Liquid Amber tree in the front façade, however, would mean that this tree would continue to dominate the streetscape. Given the conflicting detail of the plans about the façade I do not make detailed findings on its merits of the streetscape other than generally the setback and form of the proposal appear to relate to the street.
2. As I noted in paragraph 13c, part of the setback, however, is needed for bin storage. It is also partly used for secluded open space of dwelling 1, all adding to the intensity of the use of the site. These I find are not fundamental flaws to the design, but add to the sense of intensity and bulk of the development.

Are there any other on or off site amenity impacts that may result in unreasonable impact to future residents or existing adjoining residents?

1. Objectors noted a number of other minor design issues with the plans. Some of these I have addressed above. Others include the width of the drive, the need for direct pedestrian entry from the drive and lack of landscaping in front of bedroom 2 of dwelling 7.
2. Again, none of these are individually fatal, but they do add to the sense of over development on the site.
3. Mr Fairlie acknowledged the turning circles were tight, and limited opportunity for landscaping along the driveway. This is not critical, but highlights the sense of overall "tightness" of the development footprint. Likewise the dwelling entries to dwellings 1, 4 and 5 are directly from the drive with no landscaping to soften these points. The planting to the side of the entries is on the south side under eaves to the first floor, limiting their function as landscape spaces.

1. This site has a number of constraints; it is relatively narrow for its depth having a frontage of only 14.3 metres. It then has four sensitive interfaces on its south side. To its north is a property in the housing diversity area but currently used as a single dwelling. As such ResCode amenity provisions still need to be addressed to this adjoining property.
2. The development has made some endeavour to interface with the minimal change areas to the south. This includes setting the higher building form on the north side of the site away from the minimal change properties.
3. Material use is generally acceptable, although I note the front façade detail does not match the floor plans. The retention of the tree in the front façade, however, would minimise views of the front façade regardless of its form.
4. On balance, however, I find the proposal has not adequately addressed the objectives of ResCode to consider building bulk and site context, even in the location in a housing diversity area. The site still sits at the edge of the housing diversity area, having not one, but four abuttals to the minimal change area.
5. Being located in an area of housing diversity it is to be expected that more intensive housing form will occur on this site, but I am not satisfied that the proposed design response is adequate. No one specific feature has led to my decision to refuse the application. It is a culmination of flaws that I find creates a sense of over development. The most significant of these I find are:

1. Use of higher garage walls with added terrace height over these that do not create separation in building form normally apparent with townhouse form. 2. Use of side setbacks appearing mainly to exist only to meet ResCode minimum standards rather than being an incorporated design response that provides landscape relief to adjoining properties.

1. Use of individual dwelling entries at ground level for apartment from of living, resulting an intensity of ground floor use adjacent to the south interface to 36 Ames Street.

1. A lack of any sizable landscaping along the entire south boundary.
2. It therefore follows that I will affirm the decision of Council and direct that no permit issue.

[1] Cl. 22.07 and the schedule to the Residential 1 provides for different controls and policy for areas of housing diversity and areas of minimal change.

[2] Notably Duxwell Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2003] VCAT 1895 (15 December 2003)

[3] I have previously inspected use of stackers in Elwood resulting from previous decisions - refer Francis v Monash CC [2009] VCAT 327 (3 March 2009)

[4] This actually slightly exceeds the standard of 3.6m for a 1m setback.

[5] Presuming each dwelling entry has a separate entry light over doorway.

[6] David Norman Design & Construction Pty Ltd v Franskston CC [2009] VCAT 849 (13 May 2009)

[7] The space does meet the standards of ResCode. I simply note that it is not a space with a view.