SAVE WILLIAMSTOWN
SAVE WILLIAMSTOWN
VCAT accused of inconsistency on residential overshadowing
The Age
KEN HALEY
■This Sunday Age series on VCAT is a result of an investigation by Swinburne University
journalism students.
“Fighting for the light: Fitzroy resident Carol Skinner is angry with VCAT's decision to allow a two-storey development next to her home. Photo: Luis Enrique Ascui
Opponents of inner-suburban development projects in Fitzroy and nearby Brunswick East have accused the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal of ignoring residential codes designed to ensure development does not overshadow their properties.
VCAT last year approved a six-storey, mixed-use complex in Albert Street, Brunswick East - a thoroughfare of late-Victorian terraces featuring wrought-iron facades. All together, 64 residents objected to the building - comprising 120 flats, four offices and 124 parking bays - claiming it would blot out sunlight and ''visually overwhelm the surrounding low-rise houses''.
In a September decision that also took into account the vexed question of overshadowing, VCAT rejected a plea by five residents of Westgarth Street, Fitzroy, not to allow a second storey to be built on one of Melbourne's oldest houses.
Greg and Joy Emmett, who own the terrace at 63 Westgarth Street - built in 1850, before the gold rush, and extended in the 1970s - wanted to add an extra storey. Neighbours on both sides protested the extension would alter the neighbourhood's character and rob them of sunlight.
VCAT acknowledged the residential code's ''site coverage'' provisions would disqualify the Emmetts' proposal but said on small inner-suburban lots ''a higher site coverage is often reasonable''. Site coverage refers to the proportion of a lot on which building can take place.
The complainants' diagrams showed that at 3pm on an average day, sunlight at 65 Westgarth Street would shrink to a 13-square-metre patch. (This is one-third of the minimum-sunlight specification in ResCode.)
The tribunal upheld the Emmetts' right to build, despite conceding the lower penetration of sunlight was not in compliance with Yarra City Council's own residential code.
VCAT also accepted the proposal would increase site coverage at 63 Westgarth Street to 78 per cent, far exceeding the 60 per cent permitted under the code......
.......Planning Institute Australia president Brett Davis said VCAT was well known for giving state policy greater weight than a council or community might wish. He said a VCAT member's individual values could affect outcomes.
The site falls just outside Brunswick's Major Activity Centre (MAC), where many buildings similar to the proposed structure are situated. VCAT declared the multi-storey development would ''consolidate and intensify ... the MAC''.
A VCAT spokeswoman said overshadowing was assessed by councils, and the tribunal only got involved if there was an ongoing dispute.
Monday, 20 January 2014