VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P101/2020
Permit Application no. P152/2019	

APPLICANT	Chris Papanastasiadis	
responsible authority	Brimbank City Council	
SUBJECT LAND	41 Derrimut Street
ALBION  VIC  3020	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Karina Shpigel, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	11 August 2020	
DATE OF ORDER	9 February 2021	
CITATION	Papanastasiadis v Brimbank CC [2021] VCAT 97	

Order
1	In application P101/2020 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2	In planning permit application P152/2019 no permit is granted.

Karina Shpigel
Member			

Appearances
For Mr Chris Papanastasiadis	Mr Russell Hocking, Town Planner, Cityshire Town Planning Pty Ltd. 	
For Brimbank City Council	Ms Eunice Wong, Town Planner. 	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of five dwellings.  Dwellings 1 to 4 are double storey and Dwelling 5 is single storey.  Each dwelling contains two bedrooms and has a single garage.  
The development is laid out in a tandem arrangement. A shared driveway is located on the western boundary. 	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Brimbank Planning Scheme.	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone, Schedule 1.
Development Contributions Plan Overlay, Schedule 2. 	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. 	
Land description	The land is located on the southern side of Derrimut Street.  It is an irregularly shaped lot that has an area of 947 square metres.  It is developed with a single storey weatherboard dwelling.
The site is scarcely landscaped and does not contain any significant vegetation. 
The site is located in a mostly residential area.  It has abuttals to five residential lots – 39 Derrimut Street, 55 Adelaide Street, 51 Adelaide Street, 38 Hutchinson Street and 43 Derrimut Street. 
Opposite the site is the Good Shepherd Christian Church and the Albion Primary School. 	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied site inspection was undertaken from the public domain.    	

Reasons
1	Mr Chris Papanastasiadis (applicant) is seeking a planning permit to develop five dwellings at 41 Derrimut Street, Albion (review site).  The application was refused by Brimbank City Council (responsible authority) and the applicant is seeking review under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 
2	The applicant submits the proposal is comprised of five compact well designed dwellings that will sit comfortably in the streetscape.  The review site is located in an area where medium density development is encouraged by the Brimbank Planning Scheme (planning scheme).  The applicant says the proposal responds positively to the emerging character of double storey medium density development in Derrimut Street and the surrounding area.
3	It is not disputed that the redevelopment of the review site with five houses will fulfil a number of strategic objectives in the planning scheme relating to urban consolidation, housing diversity and affordability in established and well-located areas.  The development is also consistent with the General Residential Zone, which encourages a diversity of housing types and housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.  The review site is located within the Principal Public Transport Network and within walking distance of Albion Train Station.  The planning scheme promotes increased development close to high quality public transport roues.  
4	I also acknowledge that the design of the development has several positive features.  With the exception of Dwelling 5 which is built to the rear south west boundary, the development is well setback from both side boundaries maintaining the existing side setbacks evident in the area.  The development will present with one dwelling and one crossover to Derrimut Street, maintaining the rhythm of the streetscape.  Car parking is located behind the façade of the development and will not be visible from the streetscape.  The proposed materials, including weatherboard and tiled roof are characteristic of the area. 
5	But despite these positive aspects I find the proposal overall to be unacceptable and a poor response to the existing character of the area.  I consider that the development of five continuously attached dwellings, which extend approximitley 54 metres down the length of the site, combined with attached upper stories that are minimally separated to be too intense for an area that is largely comprised of detached single storey built form.  I share the responsible authority’s concern that the dwellings lack separation and breathing space.  
6	I also consider the upper stories of the proposal to be too bulky.  The upper levels of Dwellings 3 and 4 are attached and are minimally recessed behind the ground level on the north east elevation.  From the north-west, there is no recession and the dwellings feature sheer double storey walls.  Dwelling 1 and 2 also present with double height sheer walls to the north east and when combined with the very minimal gap on either side of Dwelling 2, I find the upper stories to be unsatisfactorily bulky. 
7	It was not in dispute that there is emerging double storey development in the area and the applicant referred me to the development 47 Derrimut Street, which was approved by the Tribunal Black T Small Footprint Pty Ltd v Brimbank CC, but not yet constructed.  Whilst that development similarly consists of five double storey dwellings, it is distinguishable on a number of grounds.  The physical context of 47 Derrimut Street is a corner lot with two street interfaces.  The development approved on that site featured separation at both ground and first floor, leading the Tribunal to find the development “will read from Hutchinson Street as being three separate buildings with gaps in between allowing views to the rear”.  
8	I also note that the adjoining site to the west, 43 Derrimut Street, is currently being developed with three double storey dwellings.  The dwellings are generously separated from each other, with an 8 metre gap at ground floor and 8.9 metres at first floor.  I agree with the responsible authority that the neighbouring development presents as a respectful response to the prevailing neighbourhood character of detached dwellings.  
9	I am also concerned about the extent of hard paving proposed along the south west boundary of the site, with very few opportunities to soften the 53 metre long driveway with landscaping.  The living areas of Dwellings 2 to 5 have windows with a direct outlook to the driveway and the development has only made minimal provision for landscaping.  The living room windows of Dwelling 5 are sited directly on the driveway contrary to Standard B15 and there is no opportunity to provide landscaping at this location as this is a turning area for garages 4 and 5.
10	The responsible authority was also concerned about the compliance of the front setback with Standard B6.  An 8 metre front setback is proposed and a 9 metre setback is required under the standard.  I would not have refused the development for this reason.  I agree with the applicant that the front setback is generally consistent with surrounding setbacks and is sufficient for canopy tree planting and landscaping.  However, the upper storey is sited 0.95 metres behind the ground floor and I consider this to be too minimal. 

11	For the reasons I have outlined, the development is not acceptable.  The decision of the responsible authority is affirmed and no permit is to issue. 

Karina Shpigel
Member