Planning Application M/2017/978 – 62-74 Vasey Concourse, Croydon
Explore Councils by state
Maroondah City Council has refused a planning permit for a 6 lot subdivision and associated vegetation removal at 62-74 Vasey Concourse, Croydon.
The application proposed a 6 lot subdivision of the existing 1.96 hectares, with two of the proposed lots to each retain the two existing houses, and a high level of tree removal.
Council advertised the application, including to surrounding properties, and received 51 submissions to the application.
Following advertising of the application, a Planning Consultation Meeting was held on 25 July, 2018 with the Mullum Ward Councillors, Council planning officers, the applicant and 50 residents in attendance. This meeting provided an opportunity for all parties to discuss their views and concerns in relation to the proposal.
Council considers a range of matters when assessing a planning proposal. These include, but aren’t limited to, planning policy, tree removal, landscape character, subdivision pattern, potential built form outcomes, and importantly, matters raised by submissions to the application.
When taking all these matters into consideration, Council formed the view that the proposal could not be supported. The Notice of Refusal was provided to the applicant on 15 August, 2018.
The grounds of refusal are:
The proposed subdivision is in contravention of the Variation to Covenant AK 745845D (Lot 12 LP16996). Pursuant to Section 61(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority must refuse the application. The proposal fails to meet the purpose of the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 as the design and layout of the proposed subdivision, including the lot configuration, the size and location of the building envelopes and the location and construction of the proposed common property driveway does not ensure the protection and enhancement of the high environmental significance of the site or the biological and landscape significance of a ridgeline protection area. The proposal does not achieve the objectives of Clause 22.04 – Sites of Biological Significance. Pursuant to 22.04 it is policy to “ensure development does not result in a net loss of indigenous vegetation or biodiversity.” The development would result in a net loss of indigenous vegetation and biodiversity which is contrary to the policy objectives, given the extent of vegetation removal proposed. The proposal does not achieve the vegetation protection objectives of the Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 as it fails to protect and enhance an area of biological significance in Maroondah due to the extent of vegetation proposed for removal and its impact upon the areas biodiversity. The proposed subdivision design fails to achieve the purpose of Clause 52.17 in that it has not appropriately addressed the 3-step approach to “avoid, minimise and offset” the loss of native vegetation. The proposal fails to achieve the landscape character objectives of the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 3 in that the extent of vegetation removal and impacts of construction on vegetation to be retained including the construction of the common property access way will be detrimental to the landscape and environmental significance of the area. The proposal does not comply with Clause 56 – Residential Subdivision, in particular Standard C6 – Neighbourhood Character, Standard C7 – Lot Diversity and Distribution, Standard C8 – Lot Area and Building Envelopes, Standard C10 – Street Orientation, Standard C11 - Common Area, Standard C12 – Integrated Urban Landscape, Standard C15 – Walking and Cycling and Standard C24 – Waste Water Management. The proposal is not in keeping with the preferred future neighbourhood character as stated in Clause 22.02 for Neighbourhood Area No 18 – Burley Griffin in that the siting of the building envelopes will not result in low scale built forms tucked in the landscape as there is excessive tree removal throughout the site, the building envelopes and setbacks from boundaries do not provide sufficient space for the replanting of canopy trees to soften the scale of the dwellings in the building envelope in the landscape and the construction of the central common property access way fails to respond to the topography as excessive excavation is required which will also result in the further loss of vegetation and significant trees.