Ms Robyn Mullin and Mr Ken Wurster, appeared in person

Mr Peter Tesdorf, Town Planning Consultant appeared on behalf of Steven & Lydia Cincurak

Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987

cl 32.01-4 Permit is required for the development of more than one dwelling

Clauses 12 Metropolitan Development, 14.01 Planning for urban settlement, 15.12 Energy efficiency, 16.02 Medium Density housing

Clauses 21.02-5 Future Housing Needs, 21.05 Managing Urban Growth, 21.05-2 Diversity of Housing Opportunity.

The site is located on the north east side of Redwood Drive.

The site has a total site area of 1005 square metres.

1. Srinivasa Raja Verraraghavan lodged an application to review the decision of Council to refuse an application for the construction of three single storey units at 8 Redwood Drive, Hoppers Crossing. Council refused the application on one ground:

On the grounds that the proposed density and site coverage are contrary to the character of the neighbourhood.

1. Neighbours and objectors, Robyn Mullin, Ken Wurster, Steven & Lydia Cincurak supported Council's refusal but also raised the following concerns:
   • The proposed development is inconsistent with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.
   • The arrangements for vehicle access, including vehicular crossings are inappropriate.
   • A number of clause 55 failings including but not limited to: inadequate frontage setback, unsatisfactory energy-efficient design, lack of driveway buffer landscaping, garages less than the minimum length required

1. The site is located on the north east side of Redwood Drive. The site is currently vacant.
2. The site has a frontage of 18.11 metres and an overall site area of 1005 square metres.
3. The surrounding area is a typical residential area. It accommodates a range of dwelling styles and range of materials and roof lines.
4. The general character is detached housing, some very large houses as well as housing that is more modest. Both single and two storey development exists. There some evidence of attached housing. Front gardens appear well cared for which contributes to a green feel for the area.

1. It is proposed to develop three single storey dwellings. Each dwelling is accommodates:
   • open plan living and meals areas,
   • three bedrooms for units 1 and 2
   • two bedrooms for unit 3
   • double garage for units 1 and 2
   • single garage with tandem space for unit 3
   • over 40 square metres of open space for each unit.
2. A front setback of 6.5 metres to Redwood Drive. Separate vehicle access for unit 1.
3. The dwellings are constructed in selected brickwork with aluminium windows.
4. The only built form on the boundary is the double garage to unit 1 located on the north boundary.

1. I agree with the submission of Mr Eccles that the local planning policy framework offers little guidance in the consideration of this matter. Clause 21.05-2 [Diversity of Housing Opportunity] recognizes the population of the municipality and identifies that whilst it is a family area, this will change over time. Clause 21.05-2 expresses the objective:

Access to a range of quality of housing opportunities which meet the needs of the population.

As an area in which young families predominate, Wyndham's housing provision has tended to be relatively uniform. As the municipality matures and accommodates an older population, greater diversity in housing will be required. Diversity will be expressed in both functional and aesthetic terms and is important to developing a coherent sense of community in the municipality.

1. The local planning policy does not have a neighbourhood character study. It does however state at clause 21.05-10 states:

There is a lack of defined character and thematic urban design in much of Wyndham's development. Residential areas often appear monotonous due to a lack of landscaping.

All development should contribute to an improvement in the image and appearance of Wyndham. The landscape character of the municipality is an important factor in improving overall urban design.

1. Council refused the application on the grounds that density and site coverage were contrary to the character of the neighbourhood. Mr Tesdorf submitted that the development was at odds with the character of the neighbourhood for the following reasons:
   1. Inadequate front setback
   2. Little if any space between dwellings, resulting in an almost continuous built form.
   3. Private open space, whilst technically compliant is poor quality.
   4. Dwellings crammed into available space, therefore creating less than desirable living environments.
   5. Little if any landscaping to soften the interface between the driveways and side fences.
   6. No room apart from front setback to plant canopy trees.
   7. Design detail and style of dwellings is plain and bland with few design features to create a sense of style.
   8. Proposed driveway and crossing formation inappropriate.
2. The objective of clause 55.02-1 [Neighbourhood character objectives] reads:

To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

To ensure that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.

The design response must be appropriate to the neighbourhood and the site.

The proposed design must respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

1. It is necessary to understand that neighbourhood character is shaped by the combination of public and private realms. Respecting neighbourhood character does not mean preventing change. Respect for the character of the neighbourhood means that the development should be designed in response to its neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood Character Practice Note prepared by the Department of Sustainability and Environment goes further to identify two broad approaches for respecting neighbourhood being:
   • respecting the bulk and form of surrounding development
   • respecting the architectural style of surrounding development.

Determining whether either or both approaches should influence the design response will depend on the features and characteristics identified in the neighbourhood and site description. Respecting neighbourhood character does not mean mimicry or pattern book design, or limiting the scope of design interpretation and innovation. Instead, it means designing the development in response to the features and characteristics identified in the neighbourhood.

1. The question is what is the character of this neighbourhood that should be respected? On my inspection I made the following observations:
   • Housing of various styles including contemporary and mock period.
   • Housing generally displaying detailing on the façade treatment.
   • Front gardens well cared for.
   • Feeling of spaciousness contributed to by the lack of front fencing and low planting in front gardens.
   • Variation in lot sizes in the broader area. There are examples of very large houses on large lots, as well as dwellings that are more modest.
2. Does the proposed development respect, not replicate this defined character?
3. The front dwelling is proposed to be setback 6.5 metres from the street. Mr Tesdorf submitted that the proposed setback is less than that required of Rescode and less than the adjoining dwelling at 6 Redwood Drive. Mr Eccles submitted that the front setback sits comfortably in the street. I am persuaded by Mr Eccles that the front setback as proposed is appropriate in the street context. The setback is not dissimilar to that of 12 Redwood Drive and other properties in the street. In this case, the character of the street is not defined by the actual setback but the treatment of the frontage. Council should ensure that there is adequate planting in the front setback to contribute to the greening of the area and the streetscape.
4. Both Council and Mr Tesdorf submitted that the plans convey a bland and featureless design which does not compare well to the prevailing standard, style and appearance of housing in the area. I agree that the appearance to the street of dwelling 1 is bland. However, this is not a reason to refuse the proposal. It is appropriate to require the front dwelling to have improved articulation which may include improved verandah detailing or ensure that the gable end is highlighted. This is an area of diverse housing styles. There are examples of large bland dwellings in the area. The proposed styling of the dwelling will fit appropriately within the streetscape.
5. The front garden contributed to the character of the area. Gardens appeared to comprise of low planting but well cared for. Within the proposed setback there is sufficient space for landscaping including one or two canopy trees. The landscape plan submitted for information provides indicative detailing of planting within the site. What this plan details is the ability of the site to contribute to the landscape street context.
6. It is an accepted principle that neighbourhood character is not limited to the design of the dwelling to the street but extends to the backyards. Mr Tesdorf submitted that the design of the dwelling is a continuous form with little spacing between the dwellings. Whilst there was little evidence in the area of dwellings extending into the rear yards, the design is single storey and set off the boundaries. As I stated above respecting neighbourhood character does not mean preventing change. I find that the design is appropriate given its single storey nature, its setback off the boundaries and ability to provide some boundary planting.
7. I find that the proposed development will respect the character of the neighbourhood. The dwelling design is inoffensive. The front dwelling will contribute to the streetscape with a landscaped frontage and modern design.

1. Mr Tesdorf raised concern regarding design issues such as poor quality open space, less than desirable living spaces and energy efficiency issues with unit 3.
2. Unit 3 has east facing windows to the proposed living area. Whilst they are not north facing windows, it is not fatal to the design or amenity level of future occupants. The layout of this unit could be improved with the relocation of the laundry to allow an east facing kitchen window. I will require this internal design change by condition of the permit as it allows for more east facing windows to the living area and kitchen. This would improve the amenity for future occupants.
3. I will address the issues of concern as raised by Mr Tesdorf:
   • Dwelling entry: I am satisfied that units 2 and 3 have entries which are visible within the driveway. Unit 2 in particular has a porch entry.
   • Noise impacts: This is a residential development. The issue of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners can be addressed by permit condition.
   • Overlooking and Overshadowing: The dwelling is single storey on a relatively flat block. There are no concerns with overlooking or overshadowing.
   • Storage: Dwelling 3 will be required to provide 6 cubic metres of storage. This can be provided in a garage.

1. Concern regarding vehicle access was raised. Council submitted that the current location of the proposed crossover is insufficient. The Officer report noted that a condition should be added requiring the existing power pole to be relocated to allow the proposed crossover to be perpendicular to the street.
2. I agree with this submission. As the proposal is presented, the driveway access is difficult and would not satisfy B14 To allow convenient, safe and efficient vehicle movements and connections within the development and to the street network. It can however be addressed by requiring the relocation of the power pole. I will require this as a condition of the permit.

1. The units will fit comfortably within the streetscape. The development recognises that the municipality will need to cater for a diverse range of housing. What is offered is two three bedroom dwellings and one two bedroom dwelling that should offer housing diversity.
2. Having regard to the above, I will order that a permit be issued subject to conditions.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies provided generally in accordance with the plans but modified to show:

• (a) Dwelling three to be two bedrooms.
  • (b) Elevation drawings displaying a greater articulation to the façade of the units. These plans are to include the colour and type of building materials used for the development.
  • (c) Each unit to provide a 6 cubic metre storage shed. This can be provided in the garage or in the yard.
  • (d) Dwelling 3 : The internal relocation of the kitchen and laundry. The kitchen is to be relocated to the east to provide an east facing window to this space.
  • (e) The crossover/driveway for units 1 and 2 is to be located perpendicular to Redwood Drive to ensure safe vehicular movement to and from the subject site.
  • (f) The existing power pole is to be relocated to allow for the straightening of the proposed crossover/driveway for units 1 and 2.
  • (g) Each unit is to have a gable roof to blend in with the existing neighbourhood.
  • (h) The existing side-entry drainage pit located within the proposed crossover must be upgraded to heavy duty ("Class D") frame and lid.
  • (i) The location of the mail boxes, bins and recycling enclosures.
  • (j) Consistency between the site and elevation plans.
  • (k) All plant, equipment, services or architectural features to be detailed.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
3. Subject to approval, the developer must gain consent from the Relevant Authority to relocate the existing power pole to allow for the construction of the proposed new crossover. All costs associated with the relocation of the power pole are to be borne by the developer and at no cost to the Responsible Authority.
4. The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until the relocation of the existing power pole has been completed and is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
   • (a) details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways
   • (b) the location, type and height of all fencing
   • (c) the botanical name, height and width at maturity and location of all vegetation to be used.
   • (d) A works specification and the method of preparing, draining, watering and maintaining the landscape areas.
6. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
7. Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.
8. A concrete kerb of a minimum height of 150mm or such other form of barrier as the Responsible Authority may approve, of sufficient height to prevent the passage of vehicles, must be provided where necessary to prevent vehicles causing damage to garden areas, to prevent vehicular access/egress other than where driveways are provided and to prevent vehicles projecting beyond the boundaries of the subject land.
9. Vehicle access to the subject land from any roadway or service lane (and vice versa) must be by way of a vehicle crossing(s) constructed at right angles to the road, to suit the proposed driveway(s) and vehicles that will use the crossing. The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Council. Any existing unused crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb and channel and any services or infrastructure, including street trees, that require relocation of modification as a result of proposed crossovers must be relocated or modified at the permit holders cost and to the satisfaction of the Council.
10. The whole of the subject land, including landscaped and paved areas, must be drained to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11. Each dwelling is to connect directly to Council's underground stormwater drainage system.
12. The new vehicle crossings for the Units to be a shared double vehicle crossing in accordance with Council standard drawing SD4-3 for double residential vehicle crossings.
13. Any services affected by the crossover locations (e.g. Public lighting poles, side entry pits) must be relocated at the developer's cost, or permission must be obtained to build over services form relevant service authority.
14. The development permitted by this permit must not be occupied until the:
    • (a) Parking area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: and
    • (b) Garden and landscape areas(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been planted to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building(s) without the written consent of the responsible authority.
16. Mechanical plant equipment on the subject buildings shall be so positioned and baffled so that no noise disturbance is caused to occupiers of adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17. The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until approve is gained from the relevant authority to build over the existing easement.
18. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies
    • (a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
    • (b) The development is not completed within four years of the commencement of works.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.