Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2012-07-10

This matter is not a key factor in my decision, as I agree that the required objective could be addressed through conditional use of obscure glazing, or by raising the sill height to at least 1.7m above the finished floor level of the hallway.

Extensive use of obscure glazing to the first floor habitable room windows.

As I have decided for other reasons to refuse a permit for the development as proposed, I do not dwell here on this matter. I expect that redesign of the upper level can provides a better glazing outcome as sought by Council. I do not consider the use of the obscured glazing to at least 1.7m in bedrooms to be a suitable internal amenity outcome.

I have previously identified that some tree removal was clearly anticipated in approval of the building envelope in the existing permit. The same approval also limited the scope for perimeter landscaping at the northern and eastern boundaries. The two main trees currently retained in the private open space in the south east portion of the lot are important to local neighbourhood and on-site character, clearly need to be retained. The small Hakea in the far north east corner is of no particular importance however its replacement with another plant in accordance with an approved landscape plan will be appropriate. It will be important that a future planning permit adequately provides for the both the retention and protection of the existing trees and potentially vulnerable neighbouring trees in the manner that has been discussed and identified in the draft conditions provided by Council for the current application. I note that Council's guidelines seek that at least 50 percent of the total number of plants used in landscape design are required to be indigenous to the area.

My decision on this matter will necessitate a redesign of the upper level of the dwelling. I have considered approving a permit subject to the draft conditions proposed by Council. However, I consider that to impose the setbacks identified by Council may limit the potential for an alternative suitable or preferred outcome, and in fact may not provide for a feasible outcome. I consider the Council's proposal to impose excessive demands. However it is not the role of the Tribunal to comment further on potential design options.

I have concluded that no permit is to be issued for the proposed development at 8A St Leonards Road, Healesville. This is primarily because I consider that the scale and mass of the upper level development particularly on the northern face does not respond adequately to the local policy in the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme, and will unduly impact on neighbouring amenity at number 10 St Leonards Road.
I have also concluded that the conditions which the Council seeks to impose are excessive and that an acceptable 'middle ground' can be achieved.

Teleskivi Investments Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2012] VCAT 969 (10 July 2012)

Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375 (30 September 2004)

Teleskivi Investments Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2012] VCAT 969