Darebin Planning Scheme; Residential 1 Zone; Four dwellings and alterations

to an existing dwelling; Neighbourhood character; Streetscape

[2003] VCAT 538

A permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 2-4 Kellett Street, Northcote.

The construction of four two-storey dwellings and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 4 Kellett Street in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Job No. 10111 Pages 1 to 13 and date stamped as received by Council on 24 February 2003 prepared by Comley Building Designs) but modified to show:

(i) the setback of the upper floor of Dwelling 1 increased by 3.2 metres achieved by deletion of the area north of the stairwell. The increase in setback is to be absorbed within the existing building envelope with no further alteration to the remaining setbacks.

(ii) The west section of the garage of Dwelling 4 recessed 4.7 metres. The increase in setback is to be achieved by deleting the store room with no further alteration to the remaining setbacks.

(iii) Detail of front fencing including height, material and colour.

(v) An automatic light outside the respective front entrances including entrances to garages and car parking areas.

(vii) The floor to ceiling heights annotated on each elevation including the wall height and overall height.

(viii) The west facing windows of the upper level of Dwelling 1 fitted with fixed obscure glass to a height of 1.6 metres above floor level or alternatively provide with sill heights of 1.6 metres above floor level.

(ix) Timber louvre screens 750mm wide mounted at right angles to the eastern side of the north facing windows of Dwellings 2 and 3 except the western bedroom of Dwelling 3 where the screen shall be on the west side and to the east side of Bedroom 2 of Unit 4.

(x) A landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect indicating all plants (including botanical names, numbers, pot size and height at maturity) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

and such plans are approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and/or the size of the proposed or existing buildings and works and/or the internal layout and use of the building as shown on the endorsed plans shall not be altered or modified (whether in order to comply with any statute, statutory rule or by-law or for any other reason) without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

4. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

5. The walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. All external lighting must be baffled and/or located to prevent light from the site causing detriment to the locality to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The landscaping of the site shall be effected in accordance with the endorsed plan and be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The development must not be occupied before completion of all works, including landscaping.

11. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

* The development does not start within two (2) years from the date of this permit; or

* The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before this permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.

_____________________________

For the Applicant for Review: Mr Dominic Scally of Best Hooper, Solicitors. Mr Scally called Mr Ubaldo Comley of Comley Building Designs to give evidence.

For the Responsible Authority: Ms Carol Pilatti, Town Planning Consultant.

1. This was an application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review the failure by the City of Darebin to grant a permit within the prescribed time (in Application No. D/604/2001) for the land at 2-4 Kellett Street, Northcote to be used/developed for the purpose of four two-storey dwellings and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 4 Kellett Street.

2. At the commencement of the hearing and pursuant to Clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (`VCAT Act'), Mr Scally requested the Tribunal to amend the application for permit by substituting revised plans for those which had originally accompanied the application and by substituting the owners' names for that of Comley Building Designs.

3. Mr Scally advised that the names of the owners are:

* 4 Kellett Street: Gregory Siciliano, Maria Siciliano; Pomenic Siciliano, Pasquale Siciliano and Roco Siciliano

4. Copies of the revised plans had been forwarded to all parties under cover of a letter dated 20 February 2003 detailing the changes and outlining the Permit Applicant's intention to seek approval for their substitution.

5. There was no objection to the substitution of the plans or the Applicants' names. The Tribunal made the amendment in the manner requested.

6. The subject site is located on the south-east corner of Kellett Street and Brickworks Lane. The site abuts Brickworks Lane along its western and southern boundaries. The site comprises two lots, namely 2 and 4 Kellett Street. No. 2 Kellett Street is located on the corner and has a frontage of 13.716 metres and a depth of 49.76 metres providing an area of 682.5 square metres. This site contains a single storey weatherboard dwelling and outbuildings. No. 4 Kellett Stree is regular in shape and has a frontage of 17.37 metres and a depth of 49.75 metres. The site area is 864 square metres and contains a single storey brick dwelling and outbuildings. The total site area is 1547 square metres.

7. The surrounding area was described by Ms Pilatti in the following terms:

North of the subject site, over Kellett Street at numbers 1 and 3, are two single storey period weatherboard dwellings. South over Brickworks Lane and west over Brickworks Lane (former ST David Street South) is a large area of parkland for passive recreation. To the east of the site is a single storey weatherboard and brick inter-war dwelling interfacing with Kellett Street and a two storey attic-style dwelling in the backyard fronting Brickworks Lane.

The Review Site is located within a neighbourhood, which is strongly characterised by development in the form of single storey detached inter-war weatherboard dwelling within the Kellett Street area.

The dwellings in the street are consistent in their single storey scale, Californian Bungalow style, with consistent front and side setbacks, gable end roof profile and weatherboard or brick construction. Being of a detached form, the dwellings are set back from both side boundaries, with one side set back being greater than the other (around 3.0 metres) to accommodate a driveway, which leads to a garage or carport facility. The majority of the car accommodation structures are sited toward the rear of sites and are not readily evident from the street. Kellett Street is characterised by mature street planting, which gives the area a green and leafy presence. Kellett Street is characterised by generous front gardens supporting moderate to large canopy trees. Kellett Street, due to the absence of multi unit development, the prevalence of the detached house form, and generously proportioned allotments, has an obvious spacious feel, representative of a garden suburb.

The backyards of the Kellett Street properties have in more recent times been developed and consist of single and double storey detached and attached dwellings. These properties interface with Brickworks Lane and overlook the parkland to the south with distant views of the city skyline. These houses are modern in design and architecture and in contrast to the period houses interfacing with Kellett Street.

8. Ms Pilatti described the advertised proposal as it applies to each of the allotments:

Dwelling 1 - ground and first floor extension to the existing dwelling lounge, bedroom 1 and garage toward the front at ground level providing a setback of 4.5 metres and master bedroom, en-suite and retreat at upper level;

Construct two additional dwellings side by side to the rear (dwelling 2 - east, and dwelling 3 - west) fronting Brickworks Lane.

Both dwellings 2 and 3 will be almost identical with single garage, lounge, kitchen, dining, laundry and store at ground level;

The upper floor areas of dwellings 2 and 3 will have 4 bedrooms, a bathroom and an en-suite. A small balcony is proposed overlooking the street interfacing with two of the bedrooms.

Construct two double storey dwellings on the site (Dwelling 4 fronting Brickworks Lane to the rear and Dwelling 5 fronting Kellett Street);

Dwelling 4 will have a double garage, living, family, meals, kitchen, laundry and store areas at ground level;

The upper floor will have 3 bedrooms, a study, bathroom with a balcony facing south and west;

Dwelling 5 will have a double garage with access from Kellett Street and lounge, dining, meals, family, kitchen, laundry areas at ground level;

The upper level of unit 5 will have 3 bedrooms, an en-suite and a bathroom with a balcony to the north and south elevations.

9. The amended plans circulated prior to the hearing detailed reductions in the scale, increased setback in Dwellings 1, 4 and 5.

10. The relevant planning controls were fully set out at pages 4-15 of the Responsible Authority's submission, which I adopt for the purposes of this determination.

11. The subject application for permit (No. D/604/2001) was lodged with the Responsible Authority on 16 August 2001. Following a request for further information and two meetings between Council officers and the Applicant, Council gave notice of the application on 8 July 2002.

12. The subject application for review was lodged on 8 August 2002 against the Council's failure to grant a permit within the time prescribed under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

13. At its meeting on 14 October 2002 the Council's delegate resolved that it would have refused the application on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inappropriate in terms of Neighbourhood Character (Element 3 of the Good Design Guide) and is inconsistent with the City of Darebin's Urban Character Study (December 1998).

2. The design, building bulk and setbacks to Kellett Street are inappropriate.

3. The amenity of the open space area of unit 4 is compromised by Unit 5.

4. The proposal does not comply with the various objectives, criteria and techniques of the Good Design Guide.

5. The proposal does not comply with orderly and proper planning.

6. The proposal is inconsistent with State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework.

14. Subsequent to the hearing the Tribunal inspected the subject site as well as the surrounding area.

15. The principal issue for consideration in respect of this application for review is the extent to which the proposed development is compatible with the neighbourhood character of the area and in particular whether Unit No. 5 at 2 Kellett Street is appropriate in the streetscape. Lesser issues in dispute between the Applicant and the Council concerned the setback of portion of the garage of Unit 4 fronting Brickworks Lane and issues of visual privacy between units within the proposed development.

16. The subject property is within Precinct E1 of the City of Darebin Urban Character Study. The study is noted as a reference document within Clause 21.12 of the planning scheme. The valued character of the area is described in the following terms:

The area's valued character is its regular layout and site sizes which enable the spacing of buildings resulting in an ordered and relatively spacious appearance. Most of the housing is solid and many of the Californian Bungalows, are being renovated indicating that these dwellings are valued. Some redevelopment for individual houses has occurred in the past, and this may continue due to the site sizes and as the timber 1950s housing is not as highly valued as the Californian Bungalows.

17. The desired future character of the area is to be pursued in the following manner:

The area's current valued character, typified by family sized dwellings in garden settings, is to be retained and enhanced. This means:

* Maintaining the predominant single and two storey scale of the area.

* Designing second storey extensions in a style and shape sympathetic with existing dwellings of the Inter War or Post War style/era.

* Designing new dwellings that respect the form of the Inter War or Post War era in a contemporary manner.

* Maintaining consistent frontage widths and front and side setbacks to retain the spacious feeling to the area.

18. In his submissions on behalf of the Applicant, Mr Scally indicated that the Applicant was prepared to agree to a further setback of the upper floor extension of Unit 1 at No. 4 Kellett Street by a distance of approximately three metres corresponding to the northern wall of the stairwell. Such a change will not only reduce the area of the upper floor component of the dwelling but also make that element much less dominant within the streetscape and provide a more gradual transition from the single storey dwelling on the east side at 6 Kellett Street to the larger double-storey dwelling, which is Unit 5 at the corner of Kellett Street and Brickworks Lane. The change is consistent with a draft condition proposed by Council.

19. In relation to Unit 5, Ms Pilatti stated that:

The building envelope at upper storey level of dwelling 5 is excessive. The height and massing of dwelling 5 (2 Kellett Street) presents as a three storey building to the street by virtue of the attic-style roof form over the two-storeys. The height, setback and massing of the building is imposing and overpowering and does not respect the character of the neighbourhood engendered by the predominant low lying inter-war and Post-war dwellings in Kellett Street. ... ... ...

The separation between dwellings 1 and 5 is inadequate having regard for the generous side separation between dwellings in the street. A 1-metre separation as proposed is considered inadequate and should be increased to at least 2 metres, 3 metres would be more preferable.

20. I agree with Mr Comley that Kellett Street does exhibit a more diverse range of housing styles than that described in the character statement for the precinct. They range from houses with characteristics of the Victorian and Edwardian period through to the inter-war years including California bungalows and post-war 1950s weatherboard dwellings. Pitched and gable roofs are evident and while single storey dwellings remain the dominant form, double storey dwellings and attic rooms at the third level are present in the area.

21. Unit 5 is situated at the western end of Kellett Street opposite a public park and recreation reserve on the site of a former quarry and brickworks. `Yanada House', Northcote Day Centre is situated diagonally opposite the subject site to the north-west. The streetscape of Kellett Street is strongly influenced by a well-developed avenue of plane trees.

22. Given the circumstances set out above, I have formed the view that the site is capable of accommodating an infill development of the type proposed in a manner that is responsive to the site and locality. Unit 5 has a maximum height of 8.7 metres, which is less than the prescribed maximum of 9 metres. The double storey verandah proposed for portion of the Kellett Street frontage and much of the Brickworks Lane façade will serve to moderate the impression of bulk. While some separation between Units 1 and 5 is provided between the garage and boundary of No. 4, the garage of Unit 5 is situated on the boundary. To provide a one metre setback from that boundary would eliminate the possibility of a double garage being provided for a dwelling which is a substantial family home. I do not consider that the garage will be dominant within the streetscape due to it being set back behind the level of both the verandah and the bay window of the lounge on the ground floor. The additional setback of the upper floor of Unit No. 1, referred to above, and the single storey nature of the adjacent garages will ensure that the sense of separation between dwellings and the rhythm of Kellett Street is retained in this instance. However, the ability of passers-by to discern the separation and the bulk of the dwelling will be further limited by the presence of a large cypress tree in the north-west corner of Unit No. 1, which I understand is to be retained, and the visual screening provided by the avenue of plane trees.

23. In relation to the garage of Unit No. 4 on the east-west section of Brickworks Lane, I agree with Council that it is appropriate for the western portion of that double garage to be set back by a further metre in order to more closely align with the southern wall of the dwelling rather than the verandah. A certain amount of the space required to accommodate this change can be obtained by removing the western storeroom of the two store areas provided within the garage. A condition of permit will require this change.

24. I also agree with Council that there is the potential for the north facing bedroom windows of Units 2 and 3 and to a lesser extent bedroom 2 of Unit 4 to overlook the internal private open spaces of adjoining dwellings. While I acknowledge that the dwellings are proposed to be occupied by members of the same family and that visual privacy is not considered an issue, that situation could change in future. Accordingly, a condition will be inserted requiring the fitting of external timber louvred screens mounted at right angles to the north facing windows in order to prevent overlooking into adjoining private open spaces.

25. Having had regard to the foregoing matters I have found that the proposed development exhibits a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of the planning scheme and the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

26. Accordingly I will direct that a permit issue.

_____________________________