VCAT cuts Inverloch apartment block down to size

THE would-be developers of a $35 million, four-storey “residential hotel” in the middle of Inverloch, the Forte Group Pty Ltd have had their project cut down to size.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal handed down its decision on Thursday afternoon, May 11, in the case of the South Gippsland Conservation Society versus the Bass Coast Shire Council, and the council has largely prevailed.

The decision by council to remove the fourth floor of the proposed building, and its rooftop bar, stands but the tribunal "has not proceeded on the basis that the 9.5m maximum height specified in DDO10 is mandatory".

The tribunal conceded that the building can exceed that limit by 1 metre, but it found the plan to build 4.37 metres above the limit to be unacceptable.

The tribunal has also sought to reduce the impact on The Glade community park by calling for the building to be setback.

But the tribunal also found that the design and colours proposed for the 42-apartment development are acceptable.

"The design adopts a contemporary architectural form broken down by expanses of glazing, windows and openings. Combined with the curved edges and colour palate incorporating predominantly lightweight materials, the design objective of DDO10 calling for a development utilising contemporary coastal design principles and landscaping has been met."

The South Gippsland Conservation Society has acknowledged receipt of the VCAT decision but president of the group, Ed Thexton has declined to comment until a meeting of members has been called.

He has however noted that the group was concerned about the “bulk and height” of the building adjacent to the Inverloch foreshore and community park, and notwithstanding VCAT’s decision to reduce the height, he remained concerned.

The decision follows five days of hearings about the project, proposed to be built on the former site of Inverloch Marine at 2-4 The Esplanade, Inverloch, on January 30, 31 and February 1, 2 and 3 this year.

VCAT decision

• Subject to the removal of the top floor and the incorporation of an increased setback at ground level intended to improve the proposal’s interface to the public open space reserve, the proposal is acceptable.
• An increased setback to the reserve is intended to provide greater opportunity for an appropriate treatment to effectively integrate the proposal with that interface.
• The visual impact of the proposal as modified by permit conditions, is consistent with the development expectations for the site, established by the relevant planning scheme provisions.
• In relation to building height, my assessment of the proposal’s height has not proceeded on the basis that the 9.5m maximum height specified in DDO10 is mandatory. A discretion exists to exceed 9.5m. I note in this respect that the proposal, minus the top floor will still exceed the 9.5m by about 1.0m. I am untroubled by that exceedance. The 4.37m height exceedance associated with the top floor however is not acceptable.
• My decision to require the top floor to be removed is informed by several factors.
• Firstly, the review site is akin to an island site in the sense that it is the only site with a foreshore interface to which DDO10 has been applied. The site specific basis of DDO10 lends weight to the proposition that adherence to the preferred height ought to be accorded greater weight than in those circumstances where, for example, a DDO is applied across a precinct in which there are many individual sites each with their own characteristics including site area, dimensions and interface conditions.
• In circumstances where precinct wide DDO’s are applied, the consideration of an acceptable height for individual developments, and the extent to which a preferred height is exceeded, can appropriately have regard to those individual site characteristics.
• These circumstances do not apply in this case.
• The application of DDO10 to this site has been arrived at following a strategic planning exercise which identified the site as having both development potential but also sensitivities associated with its interface to Glade Park. The design objectives combined with the building height and setback requirements are intended to achieve an outcome that balances those conflicting features of the site.
• The permit applicant submits that the height exceedance associated with the top level in this proposal is justified by the proposal’s architectural integrity. I do not agree.
• While the proposal responds acceptably to the DDO10 design objectives in terms of its orientation to and integration with the foreshore, these features of the proposal are unrelated to the building height.
• The top level does not present as part of an integrated architectural whole. I agree with the Council submission that the top level detracts from the architectural integrity of the building because its dark metal cladding is dominant compared to the lighter materials pallet of the rest of the building. When viewed from The Esplanade and Ramsey Boulevard the top level appears heavy and out of place.
• I also agree with the Council that the introduction of the 11 metre height limit for dwellings or residential buildings in residential zones, is not relevant to my consideration of this proposal in which a height limit applies via the site specific DDO10.
• While the building is oriented to the public open space reserve with the retail premises opening onto the reserve, I agree with Ms Roberts that this important interface condition needs to be improved to achieve an acceptable outcome.
• I do not agree with Mr Czarny’s evidence that the proposal is entitled to borrow and benefit from the amenity of the park. An acceptable proposal is required to make a contribution to the park’s amenity.
• I have therefore required an increased setback at that interface to enable an improved landscape and functional integration treatment to ensure the proposal contributes positively to the Glades Reserve as required by DDO10.
• In relation to other aspects of the proposal’s built form, my findings are summarised as follows:

1. The proposal provides a reasonable level of permeability through the setbacks and building composition which includes glazing and visually permeable balconies to the north-eastern corner of the building to provide for views to the Glade Reserve.
2. An appropriate presentation to the street is provided, with an activated frontage at the corner location of the ground floor retail premises, together with the entry foyer and lounge.
3. There is an appropriate mix of materials and finishes including brick, concrete, aluminium, timber, metal and glazing, all of which contribute to reasonable levels of articulation.
4. The internal amenity of the apartments is acceptable having regard to the short-term accommodation to be provided.
5. The shadow diagrams accompanying the substituted plans demonstrate that the proposed building does not cast significant shadows over the abutting public open space. The amenity and functioning of that space is not unacceptably disrupted by shadow impacts.
6. The standards, objectives and decision guidelines of Clause 55 are relevant to the consideration of the proposal. Mr McBride-Burgess provided a comprehensive analysis of the proposal against Clause 55 and identified a number of standards that are not met.[25] The consideration of these issues is appropriately undertaken having regard to the review site’s strategic context and its identification as a key development site in the IDF. It is also relevant that DDO10 is the primary determinant of the review site’s built form outcome encouraged by the planning scheme. In these circumstances I am satisfied that where standards of Clause 55 are not met, the relevant objectives are met.
7. The wall along the north-western boundary exceeds the length and height specified in Standard B18 of Clause 55. The existing non-residential buildings located on the adjoining properties are constructed to the common side boundary with the review site. There is no adverse amenity impact on those properties associated with the proposed boundary wall. The proposed on-boundary construction presents an equitable development opportunity for the neighbouring sites.

• In relation to the submissions and Ms Robert’s evidence that the proposal fails to reflect the coastal character of Inverloch, I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable. The design adopts a contemporary architectural form broken down by expanses of glazing, windows and openings. Combined with the curved edges and colour palate incorporating predominantly lightweight materials, the design objective of DDO10 calling for a development utilising contemporary coastal design principles and landscaping has been met.