1. With respect to planning permit application no GE/PP - 19144/2006, the responsible authority's decision to refuse the grant of a permit is affirmed. No permit is granted.

Mr P Barber, Urban Edge Consultants, appeared for R and C Shamai, S Wright, T Tescher, H Sharp, P and D Dobbin, A and M Wiser, J Rapke and S Frydman. Ms Wright, Mr Frydman and Mr Dobbin also spoke

1. 332 Alma Road Pty Ltd has applied for a permit to construct a 3 storey building over basement car parking to be used for a residential building that is to provide accommodation for aged persons in the form of a Supported Residential Service [SRS].
2. After receiving 48 objections against the proposal, the Glen Eira City Council decided to refuse the grant of a permit on 6 grounds. The grounds of refusal are set out in detail in the Notice of Refusal issued on the 17 August 2007. However, in summary, the grounds of refusal say that the proposed development would have adverse impacts on the amenity of the area; the proposed use and development is too intensive for the land and constitutes an overdevelopment that is not supported by planning policy; various standards at clause 55 are not met and the car parking layout is unsatisfactory.
3. The respondent objectors essentially support the council's position, and maintain that the proposed use and development is inappropriate for the site and locality given the level of development proposed and the impacts on amenity.
4. The council and objectors maintain that the decision to refuse the application should be affirmed.
5. The applicant maintains that a permit should be granted. It was submitted that the proposal has responded appropriately to planning policy and the neighbourhood character. It was also asserted that the proposed building would provide a good standard of amenity for future residents; the impacts on the amenity of neighbours have been managed appropriately; satisfactory car parking is provided and traffic impacts are acceptable. It is also asserted that the current proposal has been designed to overcome deficiencies that led to the tribunal's decision to refuse a permit for 10 apartment style dwellings in a 3 storey building for this site[1]. The applicant submits that a permit should be granted.

1. The site is located on the north side of Alma Road, roughly midblock between Cantala Avenue and Kooyong Road. The site is rectangular with a frontage of 21.63 metres, depth of about 56 metres and an overall area of 1,222 square metres. The site is occupied by a double storey interwar period dwelling and associated outbuildings. The site is set on sloping terrain, falling by about 3 metres from the rear boundary down towards the frontage.
2. The site is located within an established residential area with all surrounding properties used and developed for housing.
3. The site's east boundary has an abuttal with 3 other residential properties. The southernmost of these is a property comprising a 3 storey townhouse, which is the westernmost of a 5 townhouse development. This townhouse, known as 5/11A Kooyong Road [the Frydman property], is setback off the common boundary with the site, and provides for a smaller courtyard area to the rear with in built spa and entertainment area. To the north of this townhouse is a 2 storey block of flats on a property fronting Kooyong Road. The property occupied by these flats has its rear boundary in common with the middle section of the site's east boundary. The northernmost section of the site's east boundary is in common with another property fronting Kooyong Road that is occupied by a 3 storey block of flats. That property is irregular in shape and also extends around so that it abuts the site's northern or rear boundary.
4. The site's west side boundary abuts 2 residential properties. The southernmost part is in common with the side boundary of the property known as 330 Alma Road [the Dobbin property] which is occupied by a single storey interwar period dwelling. The rear section of the west boundary is in common with the rear boundary of the property at 2 Cantala Avenue [the Shamai property]. Both these properties present backyards adjacent to the common boundary with the site.
5. As noted by Mr Sayer, there are a range of facilities in reasonable proximity to the site including public transport, local shops and recreational facilities. Alma Road is a major east-west road, providing one lane of traffic in each direction and carrying approximately 8600 vehicles per day.[2]

1. Like the previous proposal for this site, the current proposal involves a 3 storey building over basement.
2. However, the nature of what is proposed is somewhat different. In the previous case, an apartment style development comprising 10 dwellings was proposed.
3. The current proposal involves the construction of a 3 storey building over basement level car parking to be used for the purpose of a residential building. The building is to provide accommodation for person aged 55 years of age and older[3] and is to be operated as a Supported Residential Service [SRS]. Although an operator had not been formally identified at the hearing, it was submitted that it was likely that the SRS would operate as a managed facility providing residents with accommodation, meals and medical/personal care services as required.
4. The accommodation is to comprise 53 units, which essentially provide for a sleeping area, en suite and kitchenette. Some units also have the benefit of courtyards at ground level and small balcony areas [marked as terraces on the plans] at the upper levels. A number of communal areas are to be provided within the building, providing for lounge, dining and dayroom activities.
5. Two communal outdoor areas are also proposed. These comprise a long, 5.5 metre wide courtyard that stretches along west side boundary and an area marked as a "private garden retreat" in the front setback.
6. The basement level provides 28 car parking spaces, a recreation room, laundry, store and cleaner's room. Vehicle access to the basement is via a ramp that extends from a crossing located at the site's southwest corner.
7. The building has been designed in a contemporary style, providing for a staggered façade reflecting the size of individual units to Alma Road. The building is concentrated toward the east side of the site with terraces extending to the side boundary in some cases. The setbacks to the west and north are more substantial, with the rear section of the uppermost level, adjacent to the backyards of the residential properties to the west, stepped back to provide setbacks exceeding 9.5 metres.
8. At the commencement of the hearing, a set of amended plans were tabled showing changes to the proposal. The changes shown accord with the recommendations of Mr Malinas, the traffic engineer called on behalf of the applicant. The changes modify the car park layout and widen the access ramp. An implication of these changes is that the number of units is reduced from 51 to 53. Mr Chiappi invited a condition requiring these changes to be put in place.

1. Under the planning scheme, the site is within the Residential 1 zone. "Accommodation", a land use term that embraces a range of residential uses, is a Section 2 or permit required use in the zone.
2. A permit is required under the zone provisions for the construction of buildings and works associated with a section 2 use.
3. Further, the zone provisions require a proposal for a residential building to be assessed against the provisions of clause 55. Clause 55 sets out objectives to be met and standards that should be met. In this case, the schedule to the Residential 1 zone sets out variations to the standards at clause 55 with respect to site coverage, setbacks and private open space.
4. The site is also affected by the Development Contributions Overlay. Under this overlay, a payment or contribution towards drainage works is required. The matters under this overlay were not in dispute and I will refer to it no further.
5. General decision guidelines are at clause 65. These require a range of matters to be considered including planning policy, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.
6. There is a raft of planning policies that are in some way applicable to the consideration of this proposal. The details of the relevant policies were set out in the report prepared by Mr Sayer and referred to in the submission presented on behalf of the council by Mr Camera. I do not propose to set out all of the details in these reasons.
7. However, in summary, the policies fall into 3 main categories. The first category includes policies within both the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks that support and encourage development that works toward the consolidation of the existing urban area to make better use of existing infrastructure and to provide housing that responds to community need. The second category of policies includes those that call for development that is well designed and respectful of neighbourhood character. The third category includes policies that call for development that does not have unreasonable impacts on amenity.
8. While the policy frameworks as a whole must be considered, many of the issues in dispute centred on the policies at clauses 22.08 [Minimal Change Area Policy] and 22.10 [Aged Persons Housing Policy]. I will refer to the policies in more detail as appropriate later in these reasons.

1. In coming to my decision on this matter, I have considered the findings of my colleague, Member Naylor, in the previous case. There are good reasons for this. In Leonella Cox v Macedon Ranges Shire Council[4], the tribunal observed:

Consistency in decision-making is important and, if an Applicant satisfactorily resolves concerns expressed by a Tribunal, then there is a reasonable expectation that a proposal should be approved if there are no substantive reasons such as a change in policy to do otherwise.

1. In this case, it is clear that the planning scheme controls and policies, particularly the Minimal Change Area Policy, remain the same as those considered by Member Naylor.
2. However, the tribunal in Leonello Cox went on to acknowledge that one tribunal is not bound by a decision of another. I accept and agree with this. Nonetheless, I also accept and agree with the views expressed by the former Planning Appeals Board in Benc v Doncaster and Templestowe as quoted in NC Lynn v City of Prahran & ors[5]:

In the case of a different but similar application which has been prepared in accordance with the advice of the Board, equity or fairness demands that considerable weight be given to the fact that the applicant has endeavoured to accommodate suggestions as to what would be appropriate.

1. As I have already noted, unlike the previous proposal which involved apartment style dwellings, the current proposal involves a residential building. While the nature of the "accommodation" is different, nonetheless, many of the findings made by Member Naylor, particularly with respect to the application of policy, appropriateness of the built form, response to neighbourhood character and amenity impacts are relevant to the consideration of the current proposal. Accordingly, I will refer to the previous tribunal's findings as appropriate in the consideration of the merits of the current proposal.

Is the use of the site for a residential building appropriate?

1. The council and objectors submitted that the subject site is not suited to being used for a residential building providing accommodation for aged persons. In this regard, the grounds of refusal assert that the proposal would be contrary to the purpose of the Residential 1 zone. Further, it was submitted that the site is unsuited for this purpose as it is not well located in proximity to a range of services and facilities. As such, a location within or on the fringe of an activity centre would be preferred.
2. In considering these matters, the first point to be made is that the proposal involves a residential use. While Mr Abromwich expressed concern that the nature of the proposed use remains unclear, I do not share this concern.
3. The proposal seeks to provide a form of residential accommodation. It will be a place where people live. It involves the provision of small bedsit style units with basic facilities. These facilities are however supplemented by a range of common areas and facilities. It is to be managed. The age of residents is to be restricted to those over 55.
4. I accept that the planning scheme does not provide a definition for a SRS; however, the description of the use is not out of keeping with a residential building, which embraces a boarding house and hostel, and in any event, is the permission being sought by the applicant.
5. I do not accept that this use is inappropriate within a residential area. The purpose of the zone includes:

To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

1. In my view, the above purpose, which refers to meeting "......the needs of all households...." should be interpreted to include development that provides accommodation that is suited to the needs of aged persons. Such persons may still have a degree of independence, but also require some assistance for some day to day needs in a managed environment that provides safety and security. In my view, a facility like this is fundamentally residential in nature and therefore not out of place on land zoned for this purpose.
2. State and local policy recognise the importance of responding to the variety of housing needs. At clause 11.03, the planning scheme makes it clear that planning needs to recognise social needs, including providing for a range of accessible facilities, including affordable housing that responds to the needs of aged persons. Further, on reviewing the MSS, it is clear that there is a prima facie need for a residential accommodation of this type. At clause 21.03, the MSS acknowledges that Glen Eira has a significantly higher proportion of people aged 60 years and over compared to the metropolitan average; a trend which is likely to continue. At clause 21.04, the MSS includes an objective which seeks to improve access to housing for residents with special needs. This would include the elderly. It is clear that there is a need for this type of residential accommodation.
3. In its objectives, the policy at clause 22.10 expresses a clear preference for aged persons housing to be guided to locations that are well served by public transport, shopping and community facilities.
4. It is true that the site is not located within or near an activity centre; however, I do not consider this to be fatal. It is desirable for residential facilities like this to be located near public transport, shops and open space. However, in my view, it would not be appropriate to say that only sites within activity centres or on the fringe of such centres are appropriate. I have come to this conclusion for three reasons.
5. First, sites that have all of the attributes necessary to facilitate this type of use are not easy to find. Given the nature of the facility, a suitable site will need to be reasonably large and free of difficult constraints. It would also be desirable for the site to be located in an area where the surrounding built form and located in an area which is able to accommodate a building of the type needed to facilitate the use. The Minimal Change Area policy in the planning scheme also limits or reduces the areas where a suitable site may be found. The specification that a site must also be either within or on the fringe of an activity centre adds another layer of constraint.
6. In this case the site is large, with an area exceeding 1200 square metres. It is relatively free of constraints. It is also located in an area where robust building forms, including two and three storey flats and large double storey houses already exist and form part of the neighbourhood character. Bearing in mind the conclusions reached by Member Naylor in the previous case, a 3 storey building could be contemplated on this site. Further, while the site is not within or on the fringe of an activity centre, it is nonetheless close to a range of facilities.
7. I accept that not all of the residents will be able to walk even modest distances to facilities and public transport. However, others will be able to walk the 50 metres or so to the bus, and a few hundred metres to the tram and local shops.
8. Second, even if distance to facilities is a problem, it is something that can be overcome. It is not uncommon for the management of this type of facility to organise a small mini bus for residents, whether on a regular or irregular basis, for trips to facilities and various activities. The numbers on any given day may be small enough for such trips to be facilitated by the manager's car. Taxis are a form of public transport that is viable for short trips in particular. The distance to facilities is not a factor that would make this site unsuited to the proposed purpose.
9. Third, it is not reasonable to expect that this type of accommodation would only be provided in ideal circumstances. Setting the benchmark this high would, in my view, unreasonably constrain the potential to provide a form of residential accommodation which accords with the purpose of the zone; is supported by planning policy, and responds to a local need.
10. In principle, this site is suited to being used and developed for the purpose proposed.

1. Although the use is appropriate for this site, that in itself does not mean that any form of development facilitating such use constitutes an acceptable outcome. The development form must also be appropriate having regard to both the policy and physical context that applies.
2. In this regard, it was submitted on behalf of the council and objectors that the proposal does not respond appropriately to the direction given by policy and the neighbourhood character. In particular, Mr Camera noted that the site is located in an area designated under the policy at clause 22.08 for Minimal Change. He argued that given that policy context, the proposed building represents an overdevelopment, being too expansive and visually dominant. Further, it was argued that the proposal's failure to meet the amended clause 55 standards, as set out in the schedule to the Residential 1 zone, with respect to setbacks and site coverage, are indicative of overdevelopment.
3. The Minimal Change Area policy at clause 22.08 is fundamentally directed toward ensuring that the low scale/low density character of Glen Eira's residential areas is respected. While seeking to limit the degree of change in Minimal Change Areas, the policy advocates a targeted approach toward the provision of medium to higher density housing which is directed to specified locations. In principle, the policy encourages the development of new single dwellings, extensions to existing dwellings and, primarily, two dwelling developments on conventional sized lots. The policy does, however, go on to say that developments of more than two dwellings will be considered in Minimal Change Areas provided it is clearly demonstrated that the standards for site coverage, rear setback and private open space in the schedule to the Residential 1 zone are met. The policy then goes on to identify circumstances where a development comprising more than two dwellings could be achieved. The policy says that these circumstances could include:
   • Where the site is in an area characterised by larger than conventional lots
   • Where the site is significantly larger than the majority of the properties immediately abutting the title boundary and properties directly opposite.
   • Where the prevailing development in the street and neighbouring street is predominantly characterised by multi-unit development.
4. In response to the direction given by the above quote in the policy, Member Naylor, found:

26...........The above quote states the circumstances "could include any of the following", hence the list is not exhaustive as there could be other circumstances not mentioned. This means (and rightly so) developments of more than two dwellings can be considered in minimal change areas having regard to the particular circumstances of the site and its achievement of the amended clause 55 standards in the Residential 1 zone schedule. The opportunity to propose more than 2 dwellings on a site accords with the other general and specific policy requirements (mentioned above) as the emphasis is to encourage development that contributes to neighbourhood character, and to minimise building bulk and impacts on neighbouring properties.

27 In my opinion, the Minimal Change Area policy does not seek to prevent increases or changes in housing. It does not preclude the construction of a three storey building on this site. Instead, it seeks new development that is respectful of the neighbourhood character, and that takes account of its interface with existing residential development on adjoining sites. Hence, the question in this case is whether the proposed three storey building represents an acceptable fit within this neighbourhood context.

1. I agree with the above view.
2. Member Naylor then went on to consider neighbourhood character issues and in doing so noted:

31. Respecting a neighbourhood's character does not mean that there can be no change, instead it means that a development should try to fit in. The Department of Sustainability and Environment's general practice note "Understanding Neighbourhood Character" suggests two broad approaches to respecting neighbourhood character. The first is to respect the scale and form of surrounding development and the second is to respect the architectural style of surrounding development. Deciding whether one or both of these approaches should be used in each proposal depends upon the identified characteristics of the neighbourhood.

1. After considering the context of the site, Member Naylor went on to find that:

33. In light of these characteristics, I am of the opinion the proposed development should be respectful of the scale and form of surrounding development rather than the architectural style of the neighbourhood as there is so much variation in the architectural styles found in this neighbourhood. Indeed, I note the Council has focussed their concern upon the scale and form of the proposed building.

35 The site therefore has higher building forms with large footprints to the rear and the east (side) that, in my opinion, create an opportunity for the construction of a building form of a similar scale on this site. However, this opportunity is tempered by the minimal change area policy requirements that new development display an appropriate transition to lower scale neighbours such as the dwellings to the west. One of the specific policy requirements elaborates on this by seeking changes in building height that are graduated both across the width and along the length of a site. Hence, the design for this site must respond to each of these interfaces.

1. Although Member Naylor ultimately decided to refuse the previous proposal, the fundamental reasons for this related to the inappropriateness of the interface with neighbouring properties to the west and east. In this regard, Member Naylor did not find the 3 storey height of the proposed development, the front setback and the height and design of the front fence to be inappropriate. This is relevant given that the current proposal involves a 3 storey building, the minimum setback to the street frontage is similar and no change to the front fencing is proposed.
2. Although the upper level of the current proposal is wider than what was previously proposed, for reasons that I will discuss later, the width could be reduced.
3. The entry to the basement was also to be located at the southwest corner of the site. No concerns were raised about this position. The current proposal is the same in this regard.
4. It is my conclusion that subject to a minor change to the width of the uppermost level, the proposed building would be acceptable from a streetscape point of view.
5. However, it is also necessary to consider the impact of the building from neighbouring properties, a matter that I discuss in the next section of these reasons.

Will the proposed use and development cause unreasonable impacts on amenity?

1. It is clear that Member Naylor found scope for a 3 storey development on this site. However, in deciding to refuse the previous proposal, Member Naylor found that the proximity of the building to the secluded open space areas of the adjacent properties to the west at 330 Alma Road and 2 Cantala Avenue would result in unreasonable amenity impacts. In particular, Member Naylor said:

40. I find that the overall size and shape of the proposed building fails to adequately respond to the amenity of Ms Shanai's property[6] and Mr Dobbins' property..........

42. I find the inclusion of a 4 metre rear setback in this design creates a sense of openness and separation where it is not warranted (adjacent to the sideage of a block of flats and a car park). As a result, it also creates visual bulk in proximity to the private open space areas of 330 Alma Road and 2 Cantala Avenue. In my opinion, the sense of visual bulk and the perception that there may be overlooking is exacerbated by the retaining wall along this boundary, the proximity of windows and the overhanging balconies that are setback a minimum of 2 metres from the boundary. I am also of the view these features limit the opportunity for any meaningful landscaping that could assist to break up the appearance of the proposed building[7].

43.Whilst the specific policy requirements discourage two storey or multiple storey dwellings at the rear; I have already found that the characteristics on the east side of this site do create an opportunity to build a medium scale building such as that proposed. However, the two and three storey sections of such a building need to provide an appropriate transition to the rear private open space areas of the two properties to the west. The specific policy requirements seek a graduation in building height across the length and width of the site and, in my opinion, this means that any third storey would need to align with the house at 330 Alma Road (and I note apartment 9 generally does this).

44 In order to achieve an appropriate graduation in height at the rear of the site, I am of the opinion a two storey building form may be appropriate with a smaller rear setback if the western interface is appropriately dealt with. What I mean is there needs to be adequate landscaping opportunities, including opportunities for trees along this boundary, and a greater separation between any proposed building, including balconies, and the western boundary. However, these comments should only be considered as suggestions to assist all parties in the event that a revised design is prepared.[8].

1. Ironically, Member Naylor formed the view that a design response that sought to comply with the revised rear setback standard resulted in a poor design outcome. While I accept that there is nothing wrong with complying with standards, it is important to look at the overall outcome that is achieved in deciding whether it is acceptable.
2. On reviewing the proposal, I agree with Mr Sayer that the suggestions made by Member Naylor have been taken on board, and subject to a minor change, the interface with the properties to the west would be acceptable. In particular, the ground and first floor levels of the building, where directly opposite the backyards of the properties to the west, are provided with a minimum setback of 5.5 metres. Unlike the previous proposal, there are no balconies that intrude into the setback. Further, although the uppermost level extends beyond the line of the dwelling at 330 Alma Road, substantial setbacks, measuring between 9.6 and 11.2 metres are proposed.
3. The appropriateness of this also needs to be read in the context that the "ground" floor level is substantially lower than the ground level of the adjacent backyards. Essentially, the visual impact is akin to a 2 storey building, with the uppermost level setback 9.6-11.2 metres.
4. Further I consider that sufficient opportunity has been provided for landscaping that would soften the view toward the building from the west.
5. The front part of the uppermost level has however been pushed closer to the side boundary in common with 330 Alma Road. In my view, the previous proposal was superior in this regard, in that the upper level was well setback from this dwelling and provided a satisfactory transition. To achieve an acceptable transition, I would require the deletion of Unit 41.
6. Subject to the change outlined in the previous paragraph, I find that the current proposal has responded appropriately to the interface with the properties to the west.
7. However, the same cannot be said with respect to the interface with Mr Frydman's property. With respect to the scale and positioning of the building to the east boundary, Member Naylor said:

39. In regard to the overall size and shape of the building, I note that there is a fairly hard edge with minimal setbacks proposed along the east boundary; a generous setback from the rear boundary of at least 4 metres, and a setback of 2 metres or more from the west boundary. I support the minimal setbacks from the east boundary given the existing brick walls along this boundary, and the lack of sensitive interfaces with the blocks of flats and car parking areas of the properties fronting Kooyong Road. However, I do feel the amenity of Mr Frydman's private open space area has not been adequately addressed and I will comment on this later in my decision[9].

1. On reviewing the plans for the previous proposal, only a small portion of the building was to be constructed to the east boundary, with the first and ground floor levels progressively stepping back. For the most part, the first floor level was setback 2 metres from the east boundary with the upper level setback between 3.3 and 3.9 metres. Terrace areas did not extend into the setback area.
2. This has changed markedly with the current proposal. A setback of 2 metres is now proposed along the entire length of the east boundary at all levels. Further, terrace areas at first and second level extend into this setback and are provided with screen walls on the boundary.
3. While I accept that much of the site's east boundary is in common with properties occupied by older style flats which do not present a sensitive interface, the same cannot be said of Mr Frydman's property. In my view, the reduced setback, the proximity of the building and the extension of the terrace areas to the boundary represent an unacceptable visual impost on the amenity of the secluded rear courtyard of 5/11A Kooyong Road. Overlooking concerns have been dealt with by the screens on the side boundary; however, these also add to the sense of bulk and visual imposition. The design outcome is not appropriate.

1. Satisfactory on site parking would be provided. Three factors have led me to this conclusion.
2. First, under the local policy at clause 22.10, between 26 and 36 car parking spaces are required to be provided. The provision of 28 car parking spaces as proposed meets the lower end of the range required under the local policy.
3. Second, Mr Malinas gave evidence that surveys undertaken by his firm of aged care facilities revealed an 85th percentile demand of about 0.38 spaces per bed. Application of this rate would result in a requirement for 20 spaces. The proposal easily meets this requirement.
4. Third, the council's traffic engineer accepts that the provision of 28 spaces is satisfactory.
5. In relation to the car parking layout, Mr Malinas agrees that a number of changes are required. These changes involve modifying the ramp grade to conform to the relevant Australian Standard[10]; widening the ramp to allow two way access; repositioning supporting columns within the basement and ensuring that minimum height clearances as specified in Mr Malinas' report are achieved. All of these changes result in a satisfactory car parking layout.
6. The suggestion that a car park management plan be prepared and implemented is also appropriate. Such plan can specify how car parking is to be allocated for staff, residents and visitors. As part of the plan, it may be that a limit is placed on the number of spaces for residents to ensure that sufficient spaces are available for staff and visitors.
7. Concerns were raised about deliveries and the need for an ambulance bay.
8. I am not concerned about the absence of a loading bay. Te evidence of Mr Malinas, which I accept, was that most deliveries to and from the facility would be made by vans that could be accommodated within the basement car park. I would expect that deliveries by larger vehicles to be far less frequent and not sufficient in number of render it unacceptable for delivery trucks to park on Alma Road for short periods while deliveries take place.
9. Mr Malinas agreed that ambulances would not be able to access the basement. He suggested that ambulances could either park on street, outside the site or, alternatively, prop on the relatively flat part of the ramp down to the basement.
10. It was submitted that, on average, 1 ambulance would attend the site each week. I agree that this is relatively low occurrence, but frequent enough to warrant the provision of a suitable place for an ambulance to prop on site. I would have thought that this could occur at the front of the site, utilising the flat part of the entry ramp, provided that there is satisfactory space for vehicles to access the car park. This is a change that could be dealt with by permit condition and not fatal to the proposal.

1. Objectors raised concerns about the impact of the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed use.
2. While the proposal will generate more traffic than the existing residential use, I agree with Malinas that the overall increase would be very low, about 150 vehicle trips each day. This amount of traffic would not have an appreciable impact on Alma Road and I am satisfied that it can be accommodated within the road network.
3. I do not accept that the potential for long queues backing up from Kooyong Road or the proximity of the basement entry to Tennis Grove would render the access difficult given the low volumes involved.

1. Mr Dobbin expressed concerns about noise impacts, particularly associated with air conditioning and other plant equipment. However, such equipment needs to comply with relevant noise guidelines.
2. There is also potential for "people" noise given the increase in residents. This, however, needs to be put into perspective. At most times, residents will be inside the building. When there are residents outside the building, the numbers are likely to be limited and I doubt that raucous behaviour will occur.

1. Mr Frydman expressed concerns about overlooking into his property.
2. This issue has been addressed with the east facing balconies and windows screened by structures that are at least 1.7 metres above the floor level of the units and/or terraces. Reasonable steps have been taken to prevent overlooking; however, the screening measures are unsatisfactory in other respects as discussed earlier in these reasons.

1. The provisions of clause 55 and the policy at clause 22.10 require consideration to be given to the whether the building has been designed to provide future residents with an acceptable level of internal amenity. The objectives of the policy include:

To ensure that aged persons housing is sited and designed to maximise the amenity of its residents.

1. The provision of well located and designed open spaces, good access to daylight and providing a pleasing outlook outward from internal spaces are features that contribute to internal amenity and are required to be considered under clause 55 and the policy at clause 22.10.
2. On reviewing the design and layout of the proposed building, I find myself in agreement with the views put forward on behalf of the council and the objectors that the proposal has failed to achieve a satisfactory standard of internal amenity.
3. First, I turn to the treatment along the east boundary. I have already expressed concerns about the impact of terraces built to the boundary on the amenity of Mr Frydman's property. However, I also consider that the terraces including limiting daylight access to units at the lower levels and providing units with a poor outlook.
4. The location of terraces at the upper level necessitates facilitating daylight access to units at the lower levels via relatively small light courts and voids. While the daylight is likely to meet minimum standards, the outlook onto these small void spaces for residents and the overall amenity for residents is poor. The importance of providing a reasonable outlook needs to be considered in the light that the residents are aged persons, that there are likely to be times when they will need to stay in their rooms for an extended period due to their age, illness etc.
5. The reliance on the front setback as part of the open space for use by residents is also questionable. The provision of secluded private open space in front setbacks is generally not supported for medium density housing, and I do not see why a different approach should be taken with this residential use. This is particularly so in this case given that Alma Road is not a quiet residential street, rather it carries sufficient volumes of traffic that can have an impact on the amenity of open space in front setbacks by way of noise.
6. The relationship between the front dining/recreation room and the front open space represents a reasonable approach toward linking internal and external areas. It is unfortunate, however, that this approach was not taken with respect to the relationship with the open space along the west boundary, which is the outdoor area that would provide residents with the better amenity given its size and secluded location. The main communal areas at ground level do not have an outlook over this space. Further, units at ground and first floor level do not have an outlook toward it; rather they are also designed to have windows facing light courts/void spaces.
7. I appreciate that this may have been done to prevent opportunity for direct overlooking and to mitigate the impacts of westerly sun. However, given that the height of the first floor level would be akin to ground level, I do not see the potential for overlooking as a constraint to providing an outlook toward the west. Further, there are many design techniques that can be used to mitigate westerly sun. In my view, the failure to provide a satisfactory visual link between the interior of the building and the main secluded outdoor area is an unfavourable aspect of the design.
8. A recreation room has been provided at the basement level. This is a large space; however, as noted by the objectors, it has a poor outlook onto a 2.4 metre light court. Again, the degree of outlook is restricted.
9. Other communal areas at ground, first and upper levels are either totally internalised and/or have restricted outward views.
10. In my opinion, the design has failed to come to grips with the internal amenity issue. Although the units themselves are small, this does not make them inappropriate as they would suit the needs of some older people. Some are also provided with outdoor terraces which add to the amenity they offer. I accept that it is not reasonable to expect that all units will have the same level of amenity. Some will be better than others.
11. However, when the proposal is considered in totality, I have not been able to come to the conclusion that the amenity for residents would be satisfactory.

1. I have reached the conclusion that no permit should be granted. I accept that the site is suited to being used and developed for residential accommodation as proposed. Such use and development is supported by the purpose of the zone and planning policies. Although the site is within a Minimal Change Area, I agree with Member Naylor that an appropriately designed 3 storey building can be accommodated on this site.
2. While the building proposed in this case is substantially better than the previous proposal in terms of the interface with properties to the west, the interface with Mr Frydman's property is poor and unacceptable. Further, the proposed development has not been designed to a satisfactory standard having regard to internal amenity. The matters of concern cannot be overcome by permit conditions and therefore a refusal is issued.
3. It may be that the level of development sought is too ambitious. A reduction in the level of development may be required to rectify problems that I have identified.

[1] 332 Alma Road Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2006] VCAT 192

[2] This is based on traffic volume estimated by GTA - page 4 GTA evidence report.

[3] Mr Chiappi submitted that the applicant would agree to a condition stipulating that residents must be at least 55 years of age.

[4] [2003] VCAT 630

[6] This was the property at 2 Cantala Avenue

[7] 332 Alma Road Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2006] VCAT 192 at paragraphs 40 and 42

[8] 332 Alma Road Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2006] VCAT 192 at paragraphs 43 and 44

[9] 332 Alma Road Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2006] VCAT 192 at paragraph 39