Streeter v Stonnington CC [2018] VCAT 628 (23 April 2018)

1. Mr Streeter is concerned that the Council and the Applicant have not applied the north facing windows objective because they consider that standard B20 does not apply as the windows are 3.03 metres from the title boundary. The Council tabled a plan of survey it was given by Mr Streeter during the processing of the permit application illustrating that the windows are 3.03-3.06 metres from the title boundary. The survey information contained in the Applicant's plans is similar.
2. Mr Streeter also submits that the north facing windows objective must be considered regardless of the standard because there are no limitations specified in the objective. In support of this, he compared this objective to others such as the dwelling diversity objective that restricts its applicability to 10 or more dwellings. The introduction to clause 55 explains that a standard 'contains the requirements to meet the objective'. Hence, I can understand why the Council and Zealous Homes concluded that, as the windows are greater than 3 metres from the boundary as is referenced in the standard, this means the requirement to meet the objective has been achieved.
3. Mr Streeter referred to paragraph 13 of the decision of Lamaro v Hume CC & Anor (includes Summary)(Red Dot)[2013] VCAT 957 that found there is nothing in the start or opening of clause 55 that says the decision guidelines do not need to be considered if the standard is met. He submits this means the decision guidelines still need to be considered in this case even if the standard is met.
4. I do not need to make a finding about this because it appears that the survey information relied upon by the Council and the Applicant may now be out of date. Mr Streeter submits one of the north facing window panes was replaced in May 2017 and is now 2.9 metres from the title boundary. If that is the case, the standard is a relevant consideration. As part of any new planning application for this site, the Applicant should review the existing conditions of Mr Streeter's north facing windows and then respond to this objective, including consideration of the standard if relevant.
5. Mr Streeter raises a concern about the height of the garage walls on the boundary. For the southern proposed garage, if the north facing windows standard is relevant, this may impact on this wall height. Otherwise, I am not persuaded there are any character or amenity reasons to support a finding that the proposed garage wall heights are unacceptable.

1. Mr Streeter is concerned about the energy efficiency of the southern proposed dwelling as well as the impact of the proposal upon his solar panels.
2. In regard to the southern proposed dwelling, Mr Streeter points out that the side-by-side arrangement is impacting its energy efficiency. However, an impact does not mean the design is unacceptable. Houses across Melbourne have differing solar orientations and the fact that there is limited north facing exposure for the southern dwelling does not mean that its orientation is unacceptable. A dwelling can still achieve solar access in the morning and afternoon and can provide other measures that contribute to its energy efficiency, as such efficiencies involve more than just considering solar access. I am not persuaded this is a reason to refuse this proposal.
3. Mr Streeter advises his solar panels were installed in May 2017 on the north and west facing sections of his roof. He acknowledges the north facing section is distant from the proposed development. It is the west facing section where some overshadowing may occur. He accepts that this would be within reasonable limits if the north facing windows standard was met.
4. Zealous Homes submits Mr Streeter has provided insufficient information to substantiate his concern about the likely impact upon the efficiency and usage of these solar panels having regard to John Gurry & Associates Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC & Ors [2013] VCAT 1258. I agree with this submission. The Council submits the solar panels were installed well after this permit application was advertised and this should significantly temper the weight to be given to these solar panels. I agree with this submission as well. Hence, any potential impact upon the west facing section of Mr Streeter's roof is not a reason why I have refused this proposal.