City Of Yarra Urban Planning Dept Refuses A Permit for A Simple Privacy Screen Despite Allowing A Massive Three Level Development Only 18m From The Applicant's Dwelling

[Read the permit applicant response in a separate post below] This is a disclaimer. Please seek professional town planning or legal advice relevant to your needs. Do not rely on the information provided herein.

You can follow along using the links to view the exhibits submitted to VCAT in the appeal.

[see image exhibits- local]
[see image exhibits- neighboring municipalities]
[see image exhibits- overlooking]
[see image exhibits- permit applicant streetscape]

The following case study is about a couple living in the inner city Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy North who successfully challenged a City Of Yarra  Notice Of Refusal for a planning permit in 2006. The couple (or permit applicant) had applied for a planning permit to have a screening device ( also commonly known as a  privacy screen) erected on their first level balcony. The couple submitted that the privacy screen was necessary to mitigate the effects of overlooking caused a neighboring development, which was previously approved by City Of Yarra Planning Department. Although no part of this article should be construed as advice, the underlying message is that in cases where town planning matters are concerned, consulting a professional town planner for advice (or a town planning law firm for advice) should be considered if one is serious about challenging a Notice Of Refusal (NOR). When the couple in this case engaged the services of legal group Russell Kennedy they were advised that a day of professional representation at the appeals tribunal ( VCAT ) could amount to a costly exercise and were advised to try and settle the matter amicably with their local council if possible in order to save on costs. The couple attempted to negotiate and settle with the local council, but were largely ignored and subsequently issued with a Notice Of Refusal (NOR).  The couple appealed the City Of Yarra decision  at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ( VCAT )  representing themselves at VCAT.  The money which they had invested in obtaining the town planning advice was well spent. Their appeal at the VCAT was successful and the City Of Yarra decision was 'set aside'.

When the couple (referred to herein as “the permit applicant”) first purchased their inner city three level dwelling, it faced opposite a small one-storey windowless building. However, a few years later, the town planning department of their local council, City Of Yarra, granted a planning permit allowing a developer to convert the one storey building into a three-storey apartment block. It was the view of the permit applicant that City Of Yarra's decision was a shortsighted planning decision which  resulted in a loss of amenity. The loss of amenity was primarily due to overlooking issues caused by the heights and proximity of the two buildings which were situated less than 18 meters apart from one another across a very narrow street. [see image exhibits] Not wanting to be forced out of a home in addition to being compromised by a potential devaluation in property value, the permit applicant applied to have a privacy screen erected above the existing 1.17 meter high balustrade to the first floor balcony, but were refused a planning permit and issued with a Notice Of Refusal (NOR) by City Of Yarra Planning. In most municipalities the simple construction of a screening device (privacy screen) wouldn't require a planning or building permit, however, this area was located in Heritage Overlay 327 (North Fitzroy Precinct) so a planning permit was required to carry out works.

The notice of refusal was issued according the planning authority's interpretation of State Planning Policy and Local Planning Policy Guidelines. In his Delegate Report, planning officer, Mr. John Theodosakis for the responsible planning authority cited:

State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
Ensuring the design of buildings, public spaces and the mix of activities contribute to safety and perceptions of safety.

Remarkably, Mr. Theodosakis went on further to add that "the proposed screening will have no impact on the heritage significance of the precinct, as the building has no heritage importance", yet cited the following:
Clause 15.11 of the State Planning Policy Framework
To assist the conservation of places that have natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific of social significance or other value important for scientific and research purposes, as a means of understanding our past, as well as maintaining and enhancing Victoria’s image and making a contribution to the economic and cultural growth of the State ...

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)
Clause 21.05-1 of the Yarra Planning Scheme was also used in the planning authority's submission.
To provide pedestrian spaces and links that provide a safe, inclusive, attractive, and vibrant public domain and a sense of community.

In his Delegate Report, planning officer, John Theodosakis for the responsible planning authority submitted that the proposed screen would undermine the visual amenity of the streetscape , create safety issues by obscuring passive surveillance of the street and was an attempt to produce a private open space area at the first floor, which the responsible authority claimed was"inappropriate"

Indeed the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the proposal was the pivotal point that was to be established by the presiding member of VCAT. The permit applicant argued that the privacy screen was appropriate, given that there were similar devices within the City Of Yarra and outside the City Of Yarra in what the permit applicant submitted were "arguably less needy situations" The permit applicant argued that many of the screening devices were even located in pristine heritage areas and presented comparisons between the existing structures and their own proposal to demonstrate that overlooking, glare and ventilation issues in their case added weight to their argument.

The permit applicant submitted that the screening device (privacy screen) would allow them once again to enjoy full use of their balcony. The permit applicant claimed that the construction of the five new three level apartments / townhouses opposite to their dwelling, had resulted in problems associated with overlooking. The permit applicant argued that balconies and windows of the new development directly overlooked the second level balcony and living area of the permit applicant dwelling. In addition to overlooking issues it was also submitted that at certain times of the year there was a significant amount of glare being reflected from the new building across the road to the permit applicant dwelling. Further to their cause, the permit applicant claimed that enjoyment of the interior and exterior private living space of the dwelling was diminished as they did not feel comfortable using the balcony space and also felt very uncomfortable leaving their blinds open.

Contrary to Yarra City Councils assertion that a privacy screen would diminish passive surveillance, the permit applicant argued that passive surveillance was already diminished by saying:

“We do not survey the street from the balcony, nor do we survey the balcony from the interior balcony windows of our dwelling. ...Our day to day environment has now become extremely uncomfortable, as we feel very confined.”

The responsible planning authority had conceded that: “…the [permit applicant] dwelling itself is of no heritage significance" but wanted to maintain an argument under heritage grounds by citing:

Clause 21.05.7 of the Yarra Planning Scheme which aims:
To conserve places of aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific and social significance which reflect Yarra’s historic development.
And

Clause 22.02-3.3 of the Yarra Planning Scheme which relates to additions and new works: all heritage places. [see images of heritage place in the context of the permit applicant street]

"...Will not visually dominate an existing heritage place or street in terms of size, height and bulk when viewed from surrounding streets"

Mr.Theodosakis wrote:

"While it is acknowledged that the subject site is not a heritage place, it is included within the heritage overlay and therefore it must be assessed against Council policy"

“The installation of the screening device (privacy screen) would effectively form a wall to the street that is not visually transparent, thereby creating a situation which is at odds with not only the subject site, but surrounding contemporary dwellings that form part of the overall development.”

[Pictured: Extremely large privacy screens in Richmond]
The planning authority clearly didn't take into account the fact that privacy screens were already in widespread use inside the City Of Yarra  and outside the municipality but rather, had this to say:

"The design of the screening device (privacy screen) is considered to make a mockery of orderly planning as there are clearly other design options available from screening the first floor living room which does not involve construction of such a high screen."


The permit applicant submitted that the planning authority's assertion regarding the screen being detrimental to the character of the overall complex or street was flawed as there are many cases where visual elements are placed on buildings simply to provide interest [see images opposite and below] and successfully demonstrated this to the satisfaction of VCAT.

The permit applicant submitted:

"To cite an example where uniformity is intentionally broken to provide visual interest without detriment to the streetscape we refer to the dwellings [across the road from the permit applicant dwelling] Four dwellings are rendered solid brick units and the fifth contrasts very sharply and is of a completely different design as it is clad in metal and features thirteen wire cables stretched vertically down the full length of the building simply as a design element."


[Pictured: Example where design elements are employed to break uniformity]


Negotiations & Council Planning Dept Responses Prior To NOR

From the onset of the application, the permit applicant had requested a planner from Yarra City Council's planning section to conduct an on-site inspection and was told that the proposal was likely to be rejected if the permit applicant did not negotiate to agree to accept a smaller screen. A few more requests for on-site inspection later, the permit applicant felt that Yarra Council's planning officer was being resistant to the request and so engaged the services of legal group Russell Kennedy. With the help of a (urban planning qualified) paralegal representing, council finally committed to an on-site inspection.

Present at the inspection were the paralegal representative, two City Of Yarra Planning Department members and the two property owners who were applying for the screen. At some point during the meeting the two Yarra City Council planning officers made it clear that the council would in all likely hood reject the proposal. On behalf of the permit applicant the paralegal representative asked the planning officers it they were willing to negotiate and signaled to them that the permit applicant was willing to adapt the materials and nature of the proposed structure to achieve a mutually desirable outcome.

By the end of the meeting the two council town planners made it clear that they were not interested in seeing any structure being put in place, whether a transparent screen or a shade sail.


Legal Advice Received The Town Planning Specialist & Permit Applicant Strategy

Initially, the permit applicant was advised by their legal representatives to negotiate with the council planning department to avoid outright refusal. Some time after the onsite inspection, the council signaled to the permit applicant via the permit applicant's representative that it might consider a smaller 1.7m high screen proposal was put forward. Reluctantly, the permit applicant then asked the representative to put forward the proposal to the council's planning department. The proposal was rejected. The permit applicant suspected that this was simply a council strategy to weaken the permit applicant proposal should it go to VCAT for review.

Following the Notice Of Refusal for a planning permit, the permit applicant wanted to retain the representative and was advised to do so on a limited consultant basis, given the relatively small nature of the project. The permit applicant followed this advice and had also devised a strategy of their own. The strategy was to highlight a major inconsistency between the planning authority's basis for a refusal in this case against examples of previous developments.

In summing up the permit applicant argued:

" If the City Of Yarra wishes that our application be assessed against Yarra City council’s policy then we would submit that it be tested against some of the sample exhibits that we have provided."

The suggestion of precedent and use of photographic exhibits were invaluable in this case as they made the strongest point possible. In her summation, the VCAT Member presiding over the appeals case stated:

"[the permit applicant]... provided many many examples of screening found within the City of Yarra and neighboring municipalities. The photographs included examples of where within the one development some units were provided with screens, whilst others were not."

[Pictured: Prestigious development where privacy screens are used - Contrary to City Of Yarra argument. Note the lack of uniformity, as some apartments do feature screens whilst others do not]


Professor Ross Garnaut Case - A Precedent For City Of Yarra heritage Policy?

Since this Article was written, the media has widely reported a City Of Yarra decision to approve Professor Ross Garnaut's permit application for a modern structure in a a heritage sensitive area with Yarra City. As you may well be aware, Professor Ross Garnaut Is the renowned economist that recently handed down The Garnaut Report as the Rudd Labor Government's Climate Change Advisor.

Considering how seemingly impossible it is to get something as minor as a privacy screen approved by City Of Yarra in a semi industrial street; how does the City Of Yarra planning department justify approving a entire modern structure in a rich heritage character filled area? The fact that Yarra City has approved Professor Garnaut’s application in this case, despite the strong objections of ten neighbors who make a case for stringent heritage policing is a question which begs an answer. Another issue that needs to be explored is if future permit applicants (who are rejected on the basis of heritage) are going to be successful in using Ross Garnaut's permit approval as a precedent, if their circumstances are similar.

Town Planning Appeal To VCAT - Permit Applicant Submission - Below is permit applicant submission to VCAT

Introduction

We intend to demonstrate that the privacy screen we have proposed is consistent with other such existing structures within the City of Yarra and consistent with other screens within other areas controlled by State Planning Policy.  We believe that The City Of Yarra’s decision to reject our proposal is inconsistent with state and local policies.  We believe that the screen is appropriate, as it will enhance passive surveillance. We believe its high quality construction will not be detrimental to the character or the streetscape of ## Street and will stay within the street’s diverse and contemporary character. In arguing that such structures are widely accepted and appropriate, we will show that such structures are sometimes to be found in pristine heritage environments and can exist to complement, rather than undermine neighbourhood character.

Further to demonstrating the appropriateness of such and similar devices in what are arguably less needy situations, we believe that we can comparatively demonstrate that overlooking, glare and ventilation issues that are of concern to us, warrant a positive outcome.

You can follow along with the links to exhibits submitted
[see image exhibits- local]
[see image exhibits- neighboring municipalities]
[see image exhibits- overlooking]
[see image exhibits- permit applicant streetscape]


In deciding what is appropriate to maintain maximum passive surveillance with the street, we are happy to allow VCAT to decide on the issue regarding fixed panel v’s moveable panel louvers.  We have provided alternate detail that would entail using bi-fold panels that would allow us to fold completely back to the side partition walls, so that the entire area can be opened up at will.

Basis for Proposal

We have proposed a screening device for the following reasons

Privacy

Energy Efficiency

Safety

To  Add Visual Interest to Our Property and The Street

Privacy

The construction of the five new three level townhouses on the corner of ## and ## streets, collectively known as 142 ## Street (56-62 ## & 142 ## Street) has created issues associated with overlooking. The balconies and windows of 142 ## Street overlook our second level balcony directly into our balcony decks and into our living area through our six (2.8 meter high) glass panel doors. (Refer P.1-P.3) We moved into our dwelling in February 2001. From that period until the time 142 ## was occupied in March 2005, the level of observance into our balcony was confined to street level and there was no issue with glare.

Our enjoyment of interior and exterior private living space of our dwelling has been diminished significantly, as we do not feel comfortable using the balcony space nor do we feel comfortable opening our blinds. As a result we have stopped using our balcony and rarely venture out, instead preferring to keep the horizontal slimline blinds mostly shut. On occasion however we have strategically angled some of them downward in an effort to maximise natural light.  We do not survey the street from the balcony, nor do we survey the balcony from the interior balcony windows of our dwelling. We have completely stopped using our BBQ and have also completely stopped entertaining guests on the balcony. We were hoping to resolve this when we made the proposal at the beginning of 2006. Our day to day environment has now become extremely uncomfortable, as we feel very confined.

Energy Efficiency

(Refer P.4-P.7) The first storey of our dwelling is the main area where we spend a significant proportion of our time and is essentially a level consisting of a 14.5 x 5.4 metre open plan room, containing our living area, kitchen and meals area. Six large full panel glass doors open out to the balcony area, which can open up to allow a cross-flow of fresh air between the balcony doors and an atrium. The atrium travels through all three levels of our dwelling and had previously helped to circulate the air and cool down all three levels very effectively. In past summers, we were fortunate in that we were able to ventilate and cool our house in a very energy efficient way without the use of air conditioning. The atrium has moveable side sliding windows however, without the combination of the open balcony doors and atrium working together we now find that we cannot cool our dwelling. Last summer we kept our doors closed and as a result were deprived of much needed ventilation as the cross flow of air is non existent. During these times our dwelling’s interiors had become extremely hot to an extent which had not been encountered in all our years of living there.  We were forced to endure hot stagnant air and extreme heat in that summer of 2005-2006. During the months of late October until early April, glare is reflected from 142 ## Street, making it necessary for us to keep the blinds closed. Sun glare and heat reflection during summer is very unpleasant and contributes to higher temperatures inside. Prior to the glare issues, our dwelling enjoyed protection against the summer sun, as it’s only set of windows face east. The summer sun would expose our windows in the morning and would travel behind us by noon adding to the energy efficiency of our dwelling.

Because our balcony doors have remained shut we now need to use additional lighting during parts of the winter as keeping the blinds angled downwards does not allow in enough light further reducing our energy efficiency.

We have mostly refrained from using a portable clothes hanger on the balcony and have resorted to using the clothes drier far more often.

State Planning Policy Framework in the Yarra Planning Scheme Clause 16.02-1 states:

To encourage the development of well designed medium

By

Improved energy efficiency of housing.

We had expressed our concerns regarding the cooling issues via our representative David Vorchheimer of Russell Kennedy Legal Group during site inspection. We further added that the suggestion of opaque glass as suggested by council would not remedy this problem as we would not be able to open our doors to achieve cross flow cooling and ventilation. Not mentioned in the delegate report was that one of the council representatives suggested that we should purchase electric fans and place them at the ends of our couch. We consider this solution not only to be totally ineffective, especially considering the cooling advantages we once enjoyed, but also inconsistent with Clause 16.02-1regarding energy efficiency.

Safety

Section 12.05-2 of the Yarra Planning Scheme states:

each new development and redevelopment should provide safety, diversity and choice

Ensuring the design of buildings, public places and the mix of activities contributes to safety and the perceptions of public safety

The development of 142 ## Street has diminished our choice. Our proposal will address all safety concerns associated with passive surveillance, whilst affording to us the choices associated with selectively dealing with overlooking and being able to use our balcony. If our proposal is successful our interaction with the street will be once again be restored.  At the moment we feel that we have no choice but to stay off the balcony because we have lost control of our outdoor privacy due to the level of observance and overlooking, or the glare that is reflected from 142 ## Street.  We no longer have the choice to cool our house down rapidly and naturally, in an energy efficient manner, which is the purpose for which it was designed.Our proposal will also alleviate safety issues we have relating to the safety of children.  As we will be expecting our first child in November, the balcony can also be used more confidently.  At this particular time we have concerns regarding safety issues relating to our child:

As this is the only outdoor area for our child at home, we feel that the proposal will enhance the physical safety of our child whilst on the balcony.

We have concerns regarding issues relating to children and ventilation in extreme summer conditions.  As we do not open our balcony doors due to the fact that our interiors are overlooked.We would like to reuse our outdoor space and restore passive surveillance to the street whilst maintaining privacy for our child when playing in the confines of our only outdoor space.

To Add Visual Interest to Our Property and The Streetscape

We believe that the structure we propose is appropriate to our streetscape and will not undermine the character of the overall development. Far be it from being detrimental to the character of a street, there are many cases where visual elements are placed on buildings simply to provide interest. (Refer P.10, P.31-P.36).Our proposal will provide visual interest as well as being functional.  We are intent on achieving quality and are not looking to compromise on construction or materials.

To cite an example where uniformity is intentionally broken to provide visual interest without detriment to the streetscape we refer to the dwellings at l42 ## Street. Four dwellings are rendered solid brick units and the fifth contrasts very sharply and is of a completely different design as it is clad in metal and features thirteen wire cables stretched vertically down the full length of the building simply as a design element.  (Refer P.10, P.15)

LPFF policies

Our application does comply with LPFF (Local Planning Policy Framework) policies, in that it does not restrict passive surveillance as claimed by City of Yarra, but will allow for enhanced street interaction, which we currently do not enjoy.

We have demonstrated by way of direct comparison that our proposed screening device for No ##street would be consistent with other screening devices or similar structures designed to add visual interest that have been previously erected within the City of Yarra and would certainly be appropriate in our area. (Refer P.37-P.52) If the City Of Yarra wishes that our application be assessed against Yarra City council’s policy then we would submit that it be tested against some of the sample exhibits that we have provided.

Our screen is in a multi use street that contains no heritage character. Yet some of the examples of privacy screen and other contemporary structures within and outside pristine heritage areas demonstrate that such structures are not merely functional but also add interest and diversity by way of their eclectic effect. (Refer P.53-P.55) Our structure will be less conspicuous and absorbed far to a greater degree, than any of the examples we will show. Therefore in accordance with City of Yarra objectives we believe that our proposal is not radical, but will retain respect for our streetscape by adding to the diversity and value of our street.

One of the Yarra City Planning Scheme objectives is to:

Maintain and strengthen the distinct character of each type of built form within the City

Yarra City Councils decision to refuse our application is not consistent with this objective as they consider that strengthening the distinct character of our dwelling will undermine the neighbouring buildings.

One of the Yarra Planning Strategies is stated as:

Ensuring new development achieves a high level of amenity and preserves the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Our proposal is consistent with this Yarra Planning Strategy, as it will ensure a high level of amenity that is currently not experienced. It will not impact on neighbouring properties and will contribute positively by adding visual interest to the eclectic character of our building and street (Refer P.18, P.23-P.26)

SPPF Policies

Our proposal is consistent with SPPF (State Planning Policy Framework) policies.

In particular we feel that the proposal is consistent with clause 12.05-01 as it will create an environment that will be of better quality, safer and more functional than the environment which has been created for us. Since the construction of 142 ## Street in March 2005 we very rarely venture out on to our balcony and no longer utilise it.  In the present circumstances we do not feel our environment is secure or safe as our balcony and interiors are overlooked by the first and second stories of 142 ## Street.

Our proposal is also consistent with 12.05-01

To create urban environments that are of better quality, safer and more functional, provide  more open space and an easily recognisable sense of place and cultural identity.



Contrary to Yarra Councils assessment, we believe that our proposal is also consistent with 12.05-02

Ensuring the design of buildings, public spaces and the mix of activities contribute to safety and perceptions of safety.

As mentioned our perceptions of safety will only be restored if we are able to reduce the level of observance from the building across the road. Passive surveillance will also be restored if we feel safe enough with our private spaces.

As well as covering Section 12.05-02 and 12.05-01 the Yarra Planning Scheme also provide guidelines for developments and redevelopment to contribute to cultural identity.  Whist our proposal was initially for an aluminum louver frame we did verbally state to council that we would consider a combination of timber and metal structure to complement other structures within our street. From the exhibits gathered it is evident that the materials and designs available to us are consistent with other structures that reside within the City Of Yarra and surrounding suburbs, within our street and also consistent with other structures we documented in pristine heritage areas. (Refer P.59-P.66) As we have mentioned, we note that there are many situations where visual interest is added to a uniform structure by applying a distinguishing design element. Our street comprises of back fences, roller doors, light industry and four contemporary apartment blocks that present far more diversity amongst each other than our screen would present within our apartment block.

One of the objectives of the Yarra Planning Scheme is stated as:

To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria

Council’s decision to refuse our application is in conflict with this objective. At the moment our living areas are often darkened areas with blinds drawn. This has gone on for one and a half years.

Yarra Planning Scheme objectives are meant to ensure development achieves a high level of amenity.

We feel that Council’s decision on this matter is inconsistent with this objective.

Heritage Overlays

Council has already acknowledged in its assessment that the proposed screening “will have no impact on the heritage significance of the precinct.” It cites Clause 22.02-3.3 of the Yarra Planning scheme as:

Will not visually dominate an existing heritage place or street in terms of size height and bulk when viewed from surrounding streets

Our building is mainly visible from ## Street and given its size relative to surrounding buildings it will not dominate the street, nor will it dominate the seven townhouses with our complex in ## Street. This can be visualised by referring to our exhibits. (Refer P.58) We note that on page one of the delegate report there are references to our dwelling being a double-storey building.  Our building features three levels and the screen will sit on the middle one. There will be no additional bulk as there is another storey directly above where the screen would be situated. We refer to a recent decisions approved by council which includes 142 ## Street. This building was converted from a one storey factory to a three storey apartment. This significant change in height and width satisfied councils Yarra Planning Scheme and councils heritage guidelines, as its increase in bulk was not deemed to aversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Similarly other buildings in the street have been converted from one storey buildings to larger two storey buildings.

Clause 4.01-04 of the Heritage Overlay states:

Whether the location, bulk, forms and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.

Council deemed that the height and bulk of the new or altered contemporary structures in ## Street due to their significant change in height and width did not undermine the character of surrounding buildings and the heritage place.  When considering the question of scale we would add that our screen is contained well within the front façade and within the boundaries of our property. Our proposal will have little or no changes in bulk and no changes in height beyond the buildings current height. We also emphasize here that the screen does not need to be a rigid structure and can be moveable or bi-fold.



To have our application assessed consistently against council policy, we would ask VCAT to consider the rendered walls of 142 ## Street before deciding if our highly transparent and flexible screen would constitute a blank wall.  Our screen would not be a blank wall as one of our design options is for an eight panel bi-fold screen made of cedar in combination with a metal such as aluminum. It would be possible to fold back a few or all of the panel doors and as mentioned the louvers would provide a degree of transparency to and from street level.

We note also that it would appear that clause 22.03 –3 cited by council appears to relate almost exclusively to situations involving historic buildings within heritage areas and is remotely relevant at best.



Yarra Council seems to be attempting to link the height of the screen with the height of the balustrades. The two are distinctly separate elements.  We disagree with the assessment that the screen will not conform because it breaks uniformity of the balustrades. An inspection of our exhibits will reveal that all the balustrades retain an individual style and all distinctly different to one another. The screen is a separate device capable of moving aside and will not form part of the balustrade.

We need clarification on the 9M rule. According to advice we have received from David Vorchheimer of Russell Kennedy Legal Group, the 9M rule is only applicable in a situation where a new building application is made. The permit may have restrictions placed on it to prevent overlooking occurring if an existing building is within 9M. Our advice is that council is attempting to apply the scenario in reverse.

Solutions Suggested by Yarra City Council

We were in contact with John Theodosakis from City of Yarra by phone around the beginning of February 2006.  It was at that time he had indicated that the permit would not be approved for a movable screen at the height specified on the application, however a fixed screen of 1,7 mtrs might be considered.  We indicated that the matter was of the utmost importance to us and wanted to reserve our decision until such time as an inspection could be arranged. Our representative David Vorchheimer of Russell Kennedy Legal Group finally arranged an inspection for the 16th of February 2006.  At first seeming undecided about what to say regarding the overlooking, the two Yarra City Council representatives commented several times that a positive determination would result in a precedent being set for neighbors. However they later responded by saying that “private space” was not something we were entitled to on a balcony.  We would like to comment that if their refusal for application is based on the premise that all the dwellings could result in identical screens, then this is not consistent with one of their key arguments.

The outcome of that meeting was for the City of Yarra representatives were the following recommendations:

Replacing the fixed glass panels of our six doors with opaque glass.

We believe that this will not solve the problem of energy efficiency and cross flow ventilation as it would still necessitate that blinds remain shut during glare periods. Also it would not encourage the passive surveillance lost due to non-use of the balcony,

Utilising trees

One of the Yarra City representatives suggested placing a row of trees or “tying” some sort of vine together along the length of the balcony to obscure the overlooking building. In hindsight we believe this idea to be impractical, as it is difficult to achieve adequate coverage. If successful coverage is achieved, passive surveillance to the street may be restricted, as trees would need to completely block to be effective. Trees are not capable of being moved aside as bi-fold screens are. The trees need to be maintained and could pose a danger to passers by below in high wind conditions.  We also have concerns about balcony storm water drainage, which would be easily blocked by leaves or debris falling in between decking.

Using electric fans where we sit in our living area in the summer

This does not encourage State Planning Policy Framework in the Yarra Planning Scheme,

Clause 16.02-1

State Planning Policy Framework in the Yarra Planning Scheme,

Clause 16.02-1

Improved energy efficiency of housing.

This suggestion is also impractical as fans do not ventilate the open plan space and does not cool down the large area as cross flow ventilation does.

Accepting a screen of a lesser height

We finally accepted this after some time the meeting on the 16th February. However, we did indicate to our representative to inform council that in the event of a rejection, our request to VCAT would be based on our original application.

Conclusion

Contrary to Yarra City’s assessment, we believe that our screening device will not be detrimental to our streetscape or our building complex.  Given that there are many buildings within the City Of Yarra and surrounds that do enjoy a high degree of outdoor privacy, we believe that we are entitled to use the balcony for the purpose for which it was originally designed. As a private space that will allow for surveillance rather than the opposite.

Private space is an absolute premium and is in high demand and short supply in the city we feel it is reasonable to maximise that potential particularly as it was once enjoyed and is now completely lost.

As there are numerous buildings which are interrupted in continuity without detriment to the character of their neighbourhoods, we believe that our proposal complies with State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Planning Framework.  Given that other similar structures also exist, our aim is to achieve a high level of amenity whilst addressing all safety concerns. What we are proposing is that the screens are moveable so that we do not create a rigid or permanent wall.

Yarra City Council claims that we are trying to “produce a private open space”. We are not producing any private spaces; rather we are attempting to reclaim the sense of place that existed when we purchased our property.

As enhancing amenity and promoting a perception of safety seems to be the basis for most of the policies we have referred to, it is our opinion that council has failed us on all of these.

Objectors

We have spoken to the objectors of ## Street and they have indicated to us that they will not longer object to our proposed screen as they had mistakenly believed that the screen was to be erected on the third level and not the second level of our dwelling.

Williamstown | The Next Melbourne Suburb Targeted For Inappropriate Development ?

I missed out at an auction today as a beautiful little renovated house in Williamstown ( Melbourne ) sold at a reasonable price. I won't bore you as to why I was late and missed out, suffice to say that in the end I was glad I missed out on the bidding. Why? I hear you ask. Because shortly after the auction crowd began to disperse and as I walked to my car across Ann Street, I spied a small placard in the front garden of a beautifully maintained Williamstown period home. I can't remember the exact wording on the placard except that it read something along the lines of "Save Williamstown" and the URL http://savewilliamstown.net

Back home, I jumped on the internet and went to http://savewilliamstown.net and lo and behold what did I find? Some developer has put forward a proposal to build high-rise apartments at the Former Port Phillip Woolmill site on Nelson Place in Williamstown. My heart sank, yet I breathed a sigh of relief because had I purchased the little house in Ann Street Williamstown without the knowledge of the high density dwelling proposal for Nelson Place I would have been one very unhappy home-buyer.

Here I was concerned about the fate of the vacant land on the corner of Heriot Place and Aitken Street Williamstown as it was behind the Ann Street property (which I was looking to buy) and ready for medium density development, when all along I had missed the bigger picture of what was occurring virtually across the road. Despite communicating to the real estate agent (sales man) regarding my concerns about potential issues of overlooking and of noise emanating from any nearby medium density development on Aitken Street, the real estate agent did not once mention to me anything about the nearby Nelson Place proposal between Ann Street and Point Gellibrand. What else would one normally expect from a real estate agent anyway? [bring out the healthy cynicism]

The potential for issues of noise and overlooking from any medium density development which may occur in Aitken Street would pale into insignificance when compared with the potential for overshadowing, aesthetic issues, degradation of neighborhood character, strain on current infrasturcture and heritage issues this proposed Nelson Place monstrosity would create as argued by the Save Williamstown group. Yes, I use the term monstrosity because the Port Phillip Woolmill site on Nelson Place proposal is a proposal for a 13-Storey development. Now that's a big development next to or near anyones front or back yard. Not to mention the heritage issues it raises.  It would be situated close to and dwarf the blue-stone Time Ball Tower in Point Gellibrand, which is a historic Williamastown landmark.

This development isn't even in a Melbourne 2030 activity centre from what I hear. Who even needs Melbourne 2030 as a justification to build high density homes any more? Some time ago in Williamstown I seem to remember that there was an uproar about a proposed development for Stevedore Street on some vacant land there. As I remember this proposal was also for high density housing. According to the Save Williamstown group, the ability of BAE Systems (at the Williamstown Shipyards) to apply for defence contracts may be compromised by buildings if the 46.5 metres high residential towers overlook the shipyards. I wonder what would happen if the ship yards are closed; would we then see more monster high-rise proposals on former Williamstown ship yard land also?

The Save Williamstown Group is looking for volunteers with expertise in various areas including the areas of town planning and expertise from various legal fields. If you think you can help this worthy cause please visit http://savewilliamstown.net  The Save Williamstown Group  has also organised a petition of over 3000 signatures opposing the Nelson place development. The petition was presented to Wade Noonan MP on 24th July. Copies of the petition were also presented to Hobsons Bay City Council by Councillor Angela Altair. Support for the cause appears to be strong and fundraisers and a rally have already taken place. Guest speakers have included luminaries such as the Former Victorian Premiers Joan Kirner and Steve Bracks. I do applaud Ms Kirner for supporting the cause, however (I do welcome but ) I find it ironic that Steve Bracks would be supporting the protesters of this development, when he is one of the principle instigators of Melbourne 2030 Policy. Admittedly, this Williamstown/Nelson Place development is not in a designated Melbourne 2030 activity zone, but I can't help but wonder why Steve Bracks isn't in keeping within the spirit of Melbourne 2030 by being pro development in this case. Forgive me for displaying such a high level of cynicism and do correct me if I am wrong, but Bracks does still live in Williamstown doesn't he?

Anyway, getting back on topic, If you have a website, forum or blog relevant to the topic of Williamstown, Williamstown history, Williamstown business, Williamstown tourism, Williamstown property, or Town Planning please spread the word.  Incidental visitors to the Save Williamstown site may increase the groups's network of supporters. Web sites targeting to those searching remotely related keywords might bring in some unlikely supporters too. In any case, the more exposure the group gets, the more likely they are to receive support

Victoria is fast becoming the Shoe Box State. During my house hunting endeavors I have seen many a beautiful period home or Californian Bungalow going up for sale just before a neighboring home is due to demolished, or right before re-development takes place on a neighboring property. [hmmm, that cynicism is kicking in again] When this occurs, the new development usually takes form of medium density units, which can be bad enough if one ends up with overlooking problems, or noise problems from proximity to those dreaded balconies which these developers seem to regard as mandatory. The proposed developments at Nelson Place and Stevedore street in Williamstown are especially disturbing because if successful they will set new precedents for massive high-rise buildings in otherwise quiet suburbs, possibly rivaling the high rise developments we have already seen in Richmond or Prahran, Melbourne. It would seem that we haven't learnt from the planning mistakes of the sixties which resulted in the wholesale destruction of heritage buildings in Melbourne and the erection of ugly eysores, have we?