VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL administrative DIVISION
The permit allows::
· The construction of a second dwelling on a lot and removal of one tree.
A single storey dwelling is to be constructed behind an existing dwelling. The new dwelling will include two bedrooms and other living and utility areas. A single space carport is to be constructed on west side of the new dwelling accessed from the existing cross over to Wheeler Street
The new dwelling would be constructed using a mix of colourbond and rendered walls and a skillion colourbond roof. Minor alterations to the roof line of the existing dwelling are proposed. The objectors grounds also raised issues about environmental, amenity and native vegetation impacts which were not pressed in oral submissions, but nevertheless were raised in the written grounds. I find that these are not determinative issues to my decision. The proposal involves no removal of native vegetation. Being in an urban setting there were no issues of environmental impact that could be said to have been relevant and the design response in terms of presentation of building bulk, overlooking, overshadowing and setbacks meet the applicable standards under Clause 55 and, as the Council set out, were all acceptable.
The issue of traffic generation, also raised by the objectors is not a grounds for refusing a permit in this instance. The addition of one extra dwelling would not see an increase in traffic volume of such significance that the amenity or safety of residents in the street would be detrimentally affected. No pre-existing conditions were drawn to my attention as to particular circumstances that would warrant refusal of an additional dwelling on this basis.
The policy context for medium density development
It has been put to me quite plainly that some residents do not consider Coldstream to be one of the rural towns where medium density should occur as such development would intrude into the overall rural character of the town and it is not supported by local policy. The objectors rely on various strategy objectives set out under the Municipal Strategic Statement (the MSS) that medium density development in rural towns should be limited to the larger towns with infrastructure and services capable of supporting such development. It is submitted that such development should be limited to the larger towns of Healesville, Warburton, Yarra Glen and Yarra Junction.
In Coldstream, the predominant form of single dwellings per lot will be retained because of the covenants that exist over a large proportion of the lots that prevent more than one dwelling being built.
In response to a wider view of the policy position, Mr Peel submits that there is no need for this type of diversity in Coldstream. He relies on data to show a very low percentage of vacant dwellings (2%) and that as older residents move out, due to the lack of social and medical support services, opportunities will arise for new residents to move in. He also points to the difference between growth rates between Yarra Ranges
I conclude that in weighing up the relevant policy and site context, there is no ‘in principle’ or policy prohibition to this proposal occurring on this site in Coldstream.
e mail me at coldstream@eftel.net.au (lower case) if you would like a copy of the FULL report.
7 comments:
It's understandable that people would want to sub divide in Coldstream, its ideal. Close to the Lilydale Station and shops, land and housing is so short, and the properties in Coldstream are on nice land size.
Lilydale and Mooroolbark, Croydon etc are all having sub divisions done, why not Coldstream, it's not like Coldstream is out in the Country miles from anywhere.
New housing has to happen, it's happening all over Victoria, and unfortunately for the objectors in Coldstream, they are in close proximity to the railway station.
Something should be done on the land opposite the housing estate on Maroondah Hwy, lots of land called green wedge, but there's nothing green on it!
I am still stunned to think that the objectors thought that they had a right to stop the individual land owners from doing what they were legally entitled to do on their own properties
That's right Lilydale, Mooroolbark, Croydon do have dual occ's so why not keep them there ? People in Coldstream moved out here for the peace and tranquillity not the hustle and bustle. Keep Coldstream peacefull.
I agree the blocks are a decent size not like the postage stamp blocks that you have to buy now at least our kid's can enjoy the back yard to play and don't have to play on the streets causing trouble with the vandalisim they do down that way.
I tend to disagree with the last comment made that quotes ...People in Coldstream moved out here for the peace and tranquility ...unquote.
I personally moved here because it was the only place I could afford and I am sure because of the desperate housing situation that the country is in at the moment, that I am not the only one.
And are you seriously suggesting that youth vandalism, etc is caused in other areas because of all the current dual occupancies that don't have a large back yard in those areas?
Funny that, seeing as Lilydale and other surrounding suburbs have had a bad reputation for graffiti, violence and vandalism for years and years, long before dual occupancies ever came into existence.
So you would rather people live in cars than homes. So sub division is ok, as long as it's in someone else's backyard, and not your own??? If so many sub divisions are going through in Coldstream, perhaps there is a smaller number people that want that extra little bit of land. As for vandalisim, that happens everywhere, Coldstream is no exception.
Anon of 4 June 9.56 tended to disagree with Anon 3 June 12.55pm.
I don't. I definitely moved here for the 'peace and tranquility' and what was a NORMAL size house block until the last decade or so, and for the fresh air, and the sense of community. Greedy developers, with their marketing techniques, managed to con everyone into believe smaller yards were better. I know i used to do the legal work for such a company.
Also, Anon 28 May remains stunned that objectors thought they had a right to object. Well, stunned you may be, but they have a statutory right. They are owners within the same plan of subdivision. They have every right. If they didn't, the objections wouldn't have even been entertained by Council or ended up in VCAT. So, stay stunned, or educate yourself about what little civil liberties we have left. Your choice.
As to vandalism.... well, that speaks more to parenting. Kids raised with a sense of pride and self worth, goals for themselves in their future, self respect and respect for others, seem to not need to engage in such activities as bored kids with no understanding of respect or self worth. But that's just my opinion.
The sense of community, sporting clubs, community activities, and community Reserve (Margaret Lewis) available in Coldstream provide parents with an opportunity to offer children better choices and places to fulfill those choices, than the destructive activities bored and aimless kids make.
How can anyone be confused or stunned at community members wanting to keep that lifestyle.
As to the comment of Anon 4 June 10.04am..... Wow.... suggesting the other blogger would rather people live in cars... an imaginative and dramatic stretch but hardly an appropriate assumption.
Rather than attack people for wanting sensible growth, as opposed to destroying what is a lovely subdivision, why aren't you all endeavouring to force the Government to fix their error at making the land on the west side of the highway green wedge. That is the real problem that has forced Coldstream into a position of very little growth options.
Oh, that's right.... local and state government tell you all it can't be done. Hmmm, well, they managed to stuff it up by changing legislation. Get loud enough voices in the right ears and perhaps someone can get the morons that buggered it up to fix it.
That makes more sense to me than dividing a community, just so a few people can make a quick buck.
Post a Comment