The applicant's submission also noted that if I was not satisfied that the third level had been adequately resolved, it could be removed.
Following the circulation of the amended plans I received submissions from the responsible authority and a number of the objectors. In broad terms there was acknowledgement of improvements in aspects of the amended plans but both the objectors and the Council continued to oppose the proposal on the basis that the amended plans had not gone far enough in responding to the Tribunal's criticisms. The Council in particular presented a detailed submission which concluded that the proposal fails to respect the adjoining heritage building, fails to integrate with the street, and presents excessive visual bulk to neighbouring properties. The Council opposed the increased ground and first floor footprint, the access arrangements and the loss of a street tree.
[2]
The provision of an opportunity to prepare amended plans was intended to enable the applicant to address identified concerns, prepare amendments accordingly, and thereby allow an assessment of those amendments to be made. This course of action is not routinely followed by the Tribunal. It is in fact a method which is used sparingly and usually only in circumstances where the Tribunal has concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed use or development, but that changes of some substance are required to achieve an acceptable outcome. The opportunity to prepare amended plans is something of a privilege because it enables the applicant to avoid starting the planning permit process all over again in circumstances where the Tribunal has concluded that the proposal is not acceptable in its present form.
In this case the changes which have been made to the plans considered by the Tribunal are of no great consequence in terms of achieving the outcomes which were specifically identified in the interim decision.
In my view the second floor component continues to represent an excessive visual presence in the streetscape. The amended plans also fail to achieve an appropriate transition in height from the three storey building to the east to the single storey heritage building to the west.
While the separation of the garages at the front of the property achieves an improvement in the streetscape presentation, the access arrangements to the garages are unresolved. I agree with the Council's submission that further changes would need to be made to the crossover configuration to achieve functional and safe vehicular access to the site. The resolution of this issue maybe a matter of detailed design but it is surprising that it has not been resolved.
With respect to the applicant's suggestion that it would be possible to remove the second storey, I am not satisfied that the achievement of an acceptable outcome is capable of being achieved by simply removing the second storey. Imposing a condition to this effect would necessitate other consequential changes to the plans. I am not in a position to appreciate the form and magnitude of those changes and I am therefore not able to assess the extent to which the removal of the second storey addresses my concerns. It is not clear for example what roof forms would be incorporated into the design following the removal of the second storey. It is also unclear how the elevations would be treated and what wall and overall building heights would result.
Having regard to the above, I am not satisfied that the amended plans have adequately responded to my concerns. I have therefore decided that the decision of the responsible authority should be affirmed.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Vello
Respondent/Defendant:
Yarra CC [2009] VCAT 2234
Legislation Cited (1)
Environment Act 1987
Cases Cited (1)
Vello v Yarra CC [2009] VCAT 2234 (22 October 2009)