The Warrandyte Community Association is relieved that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has determined to refuse a planning permit for the development of a garage-servo at 1,3-5 Yarra Street, at the Yarra Street – Harris Gully Road intersection. (for full VCAT finding click here servo-determination-refusal…)
The WCA worked with the Warrandyte Character Protection Group and a range of other local residents to support Manningham Council’s decision to refuse a permit. Experienced members of our committee believe it was essential to bring a local perspective before the Tribunal and we were fortunate that Doug Seymour and Bev Hanson stepped up to be our advocates.
The conclusion to the 48 page Determination sums up the issues:
” This proposal primarily fails because the development features of this proposal for a service station would create unacceptable impacts on the area’s landscape and environmental qualities and would have adverse impacts on existing levels of residential amenity. We also find that the proposed on-site circulation arrangements are unacceptable.”
There is little mention of resident-objector submissions, which may seem surprising as many detailed, almost expert quality, submissions were presented over the eight hearing days. One of the tasks of a VCAT Panel is to best ensure their findings are prepared with legal rigour and clarity to reduce the chance of wasted expenditure and time being caused to any aggrieved party inclined to seek Supreme Court review of the decision (Such reviews are uncommon and can only be made on “a point of law”). Accordingly, where Council has refused a permit and the Panel has decided to confirm that decision, it is normal practice for a Tribunal to speak directly to the reasoning by that Council.
However, references to resident-objector submissions appear throughout the Determination. See:
- Clause 37. The Panel’s interpretation of the manner in which the planning provisions for this Neighbourhood Residential Zone focus on compatibility of uses with residential use in this context.
- Clauses 55-66. Concerns with the stand of Yellow Box gum trees within the Yarra Street road reserve, six of which were proposed for removal.
- Clause 109 & 110. Discussion on visual impact in the written policy context. The Panel found at Clause 186 that the proposal would have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area that is contrary to the design objectives of the provisions of the the planning scheme.
- Clause 119. Objectors disputing the “local community need” Subsequent clauses lead to the conclusion that “the weight to be afforded to local need is low.”
- Clause 173 The Panel finds the proposal would have unacceptable impacts on No.7 Yarra Street. The appearance of those residents at the hearing was an important contribution to our representations.
- Clauses 174, 194 and 219-225 respond to supporting submissions made by the Warrandyte Character Protection Group in relation to the complex traffic movements proposed.
- Clauses 198 & 199 determine that adverse amenity impacts within the locality would likely ensue.
In conclusion, the WCA does not have a “no garage” planning policy. Any such proposal is considered on its merits; the committee decided after careful study that this proposal was ‘Out of Character’ with the Township, that the site was too sensitive and too small for this use. We join the other 63 resident-objectors and associations in applauding this Decision.