Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2009-10-20|Before: Michael J

For the reasons set out above, we have directed that a permit issue for the proposal, but subject to our modifications to the Villamanta Street interface.
During Mr McGurn's evidence, there was some discussion of potentially improving the design/layout of the POS/deck areas for ground level studio 1 and the upper deck of studios 8, 9, 26, 27, 16, 17. 34 and 35. Although we consider the status quo to be acceptable in this regard, it may well be that Mr McGurn's suggested tweaking would be a useful improvement that Council could readily deal with on a secondary consent basis.
For the removal of any doubt, to the extent that either Council or the objectors made various comments on design detail that we have not covered above or raised criticisms regarding the internal amenity outcomes, we consider that:
- the new accommodation being provided should of a reasonable internal amenity standard for this type of facility;
- we are struggling to see that we should give preference to the design views of Council or the objectors to change application plans which have been prepared by an experienced affordable housing provider and an architect that we were told has done work on a number of similar affordable housing projects before. We note that no other party apart from the Applicant called formal planning/design evidence in relation to the proposal;
- where any of the objectors alleged that the facility would provide inadequate internal amenity for those needing affordable housing, some perspective is needed that this is 2/3 storey housing of a modern standard, not 20-30 storey pre-fabricated high rise public housing. With this high rise housing, concerns were being raised as early as the 1960s about suitability problems for high rise housing used by families (see the ground-breaking study "High living - a study of family life in flats" by Stevenson, Martin and O'Neill published in 1967 by Melbourne University Press).
To the extent that any of the objectors expressed frustration at the lack of direct consultation between the Applicant and the immediate neighbours, whilst at a personal level we acknowledge this frustration:

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 must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted to the Tribunal prior to the hearing date, but modified to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to show:
- (a) in relation to the proposed new Units 4 and 5, at the permit holder's discretion, either:
  - both of these units must be deleted, with the resulting spare space to be used for a re-configuration of the entrance area and the internal courtyard areas, plus the provision of new side windows for units 3 and 6; or
  - the front setback of both units must be increased to 7 metres, including any corresponding re-configuration of the entrance area, the internal courtyard area, the private rear open space (as needed) of any other nearby units, and the provision of new side windows (as needed) for units 3 and 6.
- (b) In relation to the proposed new units 3 and 7, the front parapet height of these units must be reduced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, so as to make the roof feature of these units more visible from the public realm.
- (c) In relation to the garbage areas currently shown on the application plans as next to studios 2 and 21, these garbage areas moved to a less sensitive location.
- (d) The rear upper windows of units 1-8 must all have a 1.7 metre sill height.

The development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

The new buildings authorised by this permit must not be occupied until the owner of the land has entered into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to provide for the following matters:
- (a) All persons who occupy the Residential village authorised by this permit must be either recipients of a government pension or benefit or on low incomes, and must also meet the eligibility criteria for affordable rental housing as determined from time to time by the Victorian Office for Housing or any successor body.

(b) The on-going management of the Residential village authorised by this permit must be undertaken by Yarra Community Housing or an alternative Victorian Government Accredited affordable housing association.

(c) Unless otherwise permitted in writing by the Responsible Authority, in relation to the new buildings authorised by this permit:

they must be used for affordable housing purposes; or
if it is proposed to use the buildings for some other lawfully permitted use, then the owner must provide an appropriate level of on-site car parking for that use to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

In relation to the preparation, lodging and registration of this Section 173 Agreement with the Land Titles Office, whilst the owner is responsible for any registration fees, each party must bear their own legal costs and must expeditiously/diligently progress the drafting and completion of the Section 173 Agreement so as to minimise any delays.

The Land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no storm water, sullage, sewerage or polluted drainage may drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties.
All construction works on the Land shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The Owner shall immediately rectify any damage caused to the Responsible Authority's drainage infrastructure due to the development at no cost to the Responsible Authority.
Any water sensitive urban design features must be designed, constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to the commencement of the use authorised by the Permit, the site drainage must be constructed in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Prior to commencement of any construction on the Land, a detailed Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The matters to be covered by this plan must include the permitted hours/days of construction activity including deliveries, together with the relevant contact phone numbers in relation to any complaints regarding this building activity.
During construction measures shall be taken to ensure that no polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses.

Prior to the commencement of the development, the Owner shall submit for approval engineering plans for the construction of the driveway and car parking area. A qualified Civil Consulting Engineer must prepare the plan, and when approved it shall form part of this permit. The plan must include details of pavement composition, kerb and channel /kerb, surface seal, finished surface and existing surface levels to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to the occupation of any buildings permitted by this permit, the owner must submit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority a Car Parking Management Plan, which must address in particular:
- how car parking spaces are to be allocated;
- the intended mix of persons using the car parking spaces who are and who are not engaged in paid work;
- how any visitors to the facility during business hours who come by car will be catered for.
Prior to the commencement of the use of the Land, the Owner shall:
- construct vehicular crossings via relevant Council Permit. Any redundant crossing is to be replaced with kerb and channel to match existing;
- ensure that all power poles and drainage pits within road reserve are at least one (1) metre clear of driveways and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of Responsible Authority;
- construct the car park including accessways and surface with an all-weather sealed coat in accordance with the approved engineering plans;
- linemark the car spaces and accessways in accordance with the endorsed plans and any approved car parking plan;

prohibit vehicular access from the ROW at the western boundary of the land by means of fencing or bollard (although vehicle access to this ROW must still be available for emergency vehicle purposes)

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Prior to the commencement of the occupation of the new buildings permitted by this permit, Lot 1 on TP375687B, Lot 1 on TP403381B, Lot 1 on TP535802Q, Lot 1 on TP378767M, and Lot 1 on TP330500A must be consolidated under the Subdivision Act 1988 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Before the development starts, a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This plan must be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is a member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, or a person with a suitable background in horticultural science or an allied field to the satisfaction of 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 (3) copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan by Pelham Design Studio Pty Ltd Issue A05 dated August 2008, except that it must be amended to show:
- the changes as required by the amended plans condition one (1) above;
- the planting of semi-mature vegetation in the front setback to Villamanta Street.
Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

The exterior colour and cladding of the building(s) must be of a non-reflective nature to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
- the development has not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit;
- the development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards.

[1] Senior Member Liston's picks up the same topic in Kairouz v Darebin CC VCAT Ref P253/08, where he states at paragraph 8 that "It is very evident at this particular point of time in the history of our city that we have both a housing crisis, essentially a crisis of affordability and a population growing at a rate greater than anticipated by Melbourne 2030".

[2] See for example the front page article in The Age on 30 September 2009, where it is stated that "As the Federal Government yesterday revealed a significant improvement in its budget position, a senior Reserve Bank official delivered a sobering message on how recovery could help refuel the nation's housing affordability crisis....When the price of housing rises, higher-income households tend to benefit at the expense of lower-income households....".

[3] See page 6 of the Applicant's written submission.

[4] See page 7 of the Applicant's written submission.

Yarra Community Housing v Greater Geelong CC [2009] VCAT 2208 (20 October 2009)

Yarra Community Housing v Greater Geelong CC [2009] VCAT 2208

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (22 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Yarra Community Housing v Greater Geelong CC [2009] VCAT 2208 (20 October 2009)