Spektor Developments Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2022] VCAT 862 which involved the construction of five double storey dwellings. In this matter the Tribunal grappled with local policy which referred only to respecting existing neighbourhood character as opposed to ordinary ‘existing or preferred’. The Tribunal found that existing character was incompatible with future character and stated:
What then of the existing character. This part of Springvale is a representative example of the housing developed in the 1950s and 1960s to accommodate the influx of population following the Second World War. Tens of thousands of mostly modestly sized, single storey weatherboard and brick veneer dwellings were constructed on the then suburban fringes of Melbourne. They served a purpose and have a particular character. But the world has moved on and expectations about living standards has changed; not only about the size and amenities provided within dwellings but also the dwelling density and typology (e.g. townhouses and apartments).
Within this neighbourhood, the gradual redevelopment of the original single storey dwellings, one per lot, with medium density developments of two, three, four or more dwellings per lot, is evidence of that intensification and change. That change is occurring in response to planning controls and market forces in a neighbourhood with great access to a wide range of urban facilities and services. It is also evidence that many of the original dwellings no longer meet the housing needs of future residents.
It is therefore not a question of whether the character of the area will experience significant change. Instead, it is a question of whether new development helps to achieve the future character sought by relevant policies and zone controls…
This sentiment can perhaps be applied to large areas of the ‘middle ring’ and highlights the ever-present competition between ‘existing’ and ‘preferred’ character and the need to recognise that the 2020’s are not the 1960’s.
Borgheiinck-Murphy v Brimbank CC [2022] VCAT 907 for the fact it involved retrospective permission for the construction of a second dwelling constructed circa. 1961. Despite the second dwelling having existed for many decades the Tribunal restated the principle that:
In considering whether a planning permit should be granted, the Tribunal must consider the policies and provisions of the Scheme, as well as the site context, and determine whether the proposal provides an acceptable outcome. The fact that this ‘proposal’ is already developed is not a relevant consideration in the merits of the proposal, but can be used to better appreciate what is proposed, given that the development is existing on the ground.
Glossop Town Planning enjoyed another busy month appearing before the Tribunal either as an advocate (Hew Gerrard) or expert planning witness (John Glossop). If Glossop Town Planning could potentially be of assistance with any VCAT related matters, please contact our office on 9329 2288 or via email at mail@glossopco.com.au.
