VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1251/2024
Permit Application no.PLN23/0208 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 80 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Commercial 2 Zone; Residential Interface; Amenity Impacts; Wall Height; Landscaping; Clause 22.03; Wall Height-Setback Formula.	

Applicant	Blueprint Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Greater Dandenong City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	1-3 Edgewood Road
DANDENONG VIC 3175	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	31 January 2025	

DATE OF ORDER	11 February 2025	

CITATION	Blueprint Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2025] VCAT 91	
Order
Conditions changed
1	The decision of the responsible authority is varied.  
2	The Tribunal directs that planning permit PLN23/0208 must contain the conditions set out in planning permit PLN23/0208 issued by the responsible authority on 24 September 2024 with the following modifications:
(a)	Delete condition 1.1.
(b)	Renumber the subsequent condition accordingly.
3	The responsible authority is directed to issue a modified planning permit in accordance with this order. 

Joel Templar
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Paul O’Shea, town planner of CS Town Planning.	
For responsible authority	Zachary Ryan, town planner of Greater Dandenong City Council.	
Information
Description of proposal	Development of the land for an extension to an existing industrial building	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the conditions contained in the permit.	
Planning scheme	Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 2 Zone	
Permit requirements	Clause 34.02-4 - to construct a building or construct or carry out works. 	
Land description	The site contains two separate land parcels – 1 and 3 Edgewood Road, Dandenong and is rectangular in shape with a width of 33.52 metres and a depth of 36.88 metres. It is occupied by two adjoining industrial buildings used for panel beating, with existing car parking within the front setback and within the existing building to the rear of 3 Edgewood Road. Vehicular access is provided via three double width crossovers that connect the site’s north-western frontage to Edgewood Road. 

  Reasons
introduction
1	This decision was delivered orally at the hearing. The following findings are those delivered at the hearing.
2	This application concerns an application brought by the permit applicant against one condition included on a permit granted by the Greater Dandenong City Council for an extension to an existing building at 1-3 Edgewood Road, Dandenong.
3	The extension proposed includes a covered accessway with roller doors, to be constructed along the side south-western boundary of the review site, between an existing building used for panel beating, and the boundary, with the new wall of the accessway constructed along the southern boundary in two sections. The first, and longer section is to be adjacent to 5 Edgewood Road at a length of 15.47 metres The smaller section is to be adjacent 9 Ray Street for a length of 1.93 metres. The wall height varies between 3.15 metres at the western end and 3.6 metres at the eastern ends.
4	The condition contested is condition 1.1, which requires the Covered accessway, roller doors and associated wall on boundary be removed.
5	The key issues in this case are whether the proposed extension will have any amenity impacts to adjoining properties and whether the proposal meets policy to require a setback from the south-western boundary.
6	Written submissions were received from the council and the permit applicant, setting out descriptions of the site, the proposal, neighbouring properties, and relevant planning scheme provisions and policies. Given the nature of this matter, it is not necessary for me to repeat all of those in detail. 
7	In summary, key points in this case are:
a	The review site is zoned CZ2 and there are no overlays applicable.
b	It abuts a residential property in the General Residential Zone to the south-west.
c	This residential property has a dwelling which has a side setback of approximately 6 metres form the common boundary, with a driveway extending along this common boundary to a shed towards the rear. Behind the shed is part of the private open space. Directly between the dwelling and the common boundary is a paved or concreted area and this does not appear to form part of any SPOS, or sensitive space, which would appear to be directly behind the dwelling. There are also limited windows on this dwelling facing the review site, all of which the applicant said were non-habitable. In any case, there are few.
d	The surrounding area is a mix of commercial or industrial buildings, generally along the Princes Highway to the north, and with some extending along side streets, such as the review site. Beyond these to the south, is a residential area.
e	The council submitted that the key concerns with this proposal related to the impact the boundary wall would have on the amenity of this dwelling, through its height, rudimentary appearance and the outlook from the adjoining dwelling. 
f	It was also submitted that clause 22.03 requires a setback of a wall of this height for landscaping and amenity purposes. It was this policy that council largely relied upon in including the condition, and substantiating its position at the hearing.
g	The applicant submitted that there would be no unacceptable amenity impacts from the proposal to the south. It was said that the property at 5 Edgewood Road has its dwelling well setback from the common boundary, at around 6 metres, has no sensitive interfaces and has its driveway leading to a shed towards the rear, all of which indicate a lack of sensitivity of this property. The applicant also said that the SPOS was at the rear of this property, and not the side that faces the review site. Further, whilst both parties agreed that clause 55 does not apply, the applicant did set out that the proposal complies with the length of wall on boundary required under Standard B18 which was demonstrative of the proposal being an acceptable outcome, notwithstanding this application is not subject to that standard.
h	The applicant also said that from a landscaping perspective, the landscaping in the surrounding area was sparse and that if the condition were retained, the existing conditions would remain, which do not include any landscaping at present.
tribunal findings
8	Clause 22.03 is a long-standing policy in the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, with the council stating it was gazetted into the planning scheme in 1999. The age of this policy is significant, and whilst that should not be determinative, it includes a formula that is to be applied to proposals such as this, for a wall height-setback matrix, based on the wall height proposed where adjacent to residential properties. 
9	By way of example, if a 2 metres high wall were proposed, this formula would require a 2.5 metres setback. The existing fence is 2.1 metres high and so what this formula would demand in this scenario, would be a setback of 2.5 metres from the boundary where the fence is already higher than the 2 metre wall hypothetically proposed. 
10	Or, by way of another example, if a 6 metres high wall were proposed, this would require a 4.5 metres setback. Under Standard B17, just to use it as a comparison for what is deemed acceptable in a residential-residential context even though it does not apply in this case, would only require a 2.44 metres setback. 
11	The council accepted, and it is commonly accepted in Victorian planning, that where there is an interface between two zones, each property within each zone should temper their respective expectations, when compared with no zone interface.
12	In this case, where a residential zone abuts the C2Z, the setback formula under clause 22.03 for this proposal would require a 3.3m setback, where under Standard B17, if it were applicable, would only require a 1m setback, if not constructed on the boundary.
13	It seems somewhat illogical that in a context where there is an interface between the C2Z and a residential zone, that any development on the C2Z land is required to provide greater setbacks for amenity purposes, than what would be allowed in a residential zone. It is therefore difficult for me to give much weight to the formula in clause 22.03. Clause 22.03 is about urban design, and not the use of land for industrial purposes adjacent to residential properties. It also heavily focusses on new industrial estates, with less emphasis on proposals such as this. The objective of this clause, as relevant to this proposal is:
To improve the appearance of all commercial and industrial areas, and particularly development along main roads and at identified gateway sites.
14	Whilst it seeks to improve the outcome of urban design in industrial and C2Z areas, the review site and the surrounding area are not particularly well vegetated, particularly industrial and commercial sites. Whilst clause 22.03 seeks that landscaping design should be an integral part of any development, a site such as the review site which is already heavily developed, and in the context of this proposal being for a relatively modest addition, has limited scope to achieve this in any case.
15	In relation to amenity impacts, I agree with the applicant that the presentation of the proposed boundary wall to 5 Edgewood Road adjoining to the south will not be unacceptable.
16	As set out above, the combination of factors of this dwelling being setback 6 metres from the common boundary, its driveway and other paved area being between the dwelling and boundary and the shed to the rear indicate that this is not an overly sensitive part of this property. It appears that the main SPOS is to the rear of the dwelling, well removed from the side boundary. No objection was received form this property also.
17	The section of wall proposed along the common boundary with 9 Ray Street is very short at 1.93 metres and is located behind outbuildings on this property. No objection was made from this property either.
18	For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal will not result in an acceptable outcome, both in terms of amenity impacts and urban design/landscaping and therefore, condition 1.1 should be deleted.
19	Whilst there was discussion during the hearing about whether the wall height on the boundary could be reduced, and the applicant said that it could but to no lower than 3.4 metres adjacent to the ramped section, I have found the proposal without condition 1.1 to be acceptable and therefore do no need to consider lowering of this wall.
Conclusion
20	On the basis of these findings, I will vary the decision of the council and direct that condition 1.1 of the permit be deleted.

Joel Templar
Member