Permit applicants regularly working within the jurisdiction of Mornington Shire Council will be familiar with DDO2 and its requirements that include inter alia:
All cladding and trim must be coloured and maintained in muted tones of green, brown, beige or other colours approved by the responsible authority. The external finish of all buildings must be of a low reflectivity (less than 40% reflectivity) to minimise glare and reflection of light. This requirement includes roofing materials, unless the pitch of the roof is 5 degrees or less and is not overlooked from any adjoining buildings, land or roadways.
In a recent case reported in the Victorian Planning Reports (Vol42), Gregg v Mornington Peninsula SC [2011] 1555, the Tribunal was asked to retrospectively approve a shale grey colourbond roof on a dwelling.
Applicant’s familiar with this provision will be aware that Mornington Shire Council has a schedule of preferred colours that designers are encouraged to use that meet Council’s satisfaction. Shale grey is considered too light in shade and is not on the list.
In the Gregg case the Tribunal granted the retrospective permission sought by the permit applicant, but indicated that the Tribunal wholly supported the principle of restricting low reflective materials in areas sensitive to glare.
The Tribunal was keen to distinguish the facts of this case from others that might follow and noted the following:
15. In all the circumstances, I consider it acceptable to approve the proposal and allow the retrospective approval of the Shale grey colourbond roofing that was installed in 2010. Some particular factors I have relied upon here are as follows:
- there is no suggestion from Council that there was a deliberate flouting of the requirements of the Planning Scheme – the practical issue more seems conflicting information about the new roofing in the application plans arising from a drafting mistake;
- Mr Gregg tabled several letters from nearby neighbours indicating that they have views to but no problem with the “as constructed” nature of the Shale grey upgraded roof built in 2010;
- there are a number of other nearby properties with comparable roof treatments – hence somewhat lighter roofs are already part of the local neighbourhood character;
- this is not a dwelling on a bare site but a property with substantial perimeter landscape screening, which I accept will over time provide additional screening of the available views of the roof from the public realm and minimise any “glare” issues;
- whilst I acknowledge Shale grey is a lighter colour than Pale eucalypt, it is a question of degree rather than a dramatic colour difference; and
- it seems sensible to avoid a situation where any one dwelling has two different colourbond roof colours involved, which I agree would look strange.
16. Whilst it is more a secondary consideration, I am also mindful that the cost of rectification here is quite substantial.
Clause 1 is currently preparing for a VCAT hearing relating to a very similar matter and looks forward to publishing the outcome or our matter as a follow up to this piece.
Seek Professional Advice
Information contained in this publication should be considered as a reference only and is not a substitute for professional advice. No liability will be accepted for any loss incurred as a result of relying on the information contained in this publication. Seek professional advice in specific circumstances.
Copyright
If you would like to reproduce or use for your own purposes any part of this publication please contact enquiries@clause1.com.au for assistance.
Clause1 Pty Ltd
Phone: 03 9370 9599
Fax: 03 9370 9499
Email: enquiries@clause1.com.au
Web: www.clause1.com.au