Project No. 7603, Design Response, TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04, SE, SD01, SD02, SD03 and CS

1. Pursuant to cl 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the permit application is amended to include the following:
   • Landscape Plan (Job No. 24-519, Drawing No. TP01, dated November 2024) prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd.

1. In application P634/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2. In planning permit application PP-1238-2023 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 39 Camellia Crescent Norlane VIC 3214 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Eskinder Ukubamichael, town planner, Greater Geelong City Council

Application under s 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) - to review the refusal to grant a permit.

General Residential Zone Schedule 1 - General Residential Area ('GRZ1')

Clause 32.08-7 - construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

The subject land is located on the north-east corner of the intersection of Camellia Crescent and Iris Street. The land is irregularly shaped, with a frontage to Camellia Crescent of 17.28 metres, a curved splay of 8.24 metres and a frontage to Iris Street of 24.85 metres. Overall, the subject land has an area of approximately 791.7 square metres.

The land is developed with a single dwelling and associated out buildings. Vehicle access is provided via a single width crossing to Iris Street. There is no significant vegetation on the land.

A large street tree is located in the Iris Street nature strip.

1. Reasons for this decision were given orally. The following are the oral reasons in written form, with minor editing.

1. This is an application to the Tribunal by Vanessa Desiree Aniag ('applicant') for a review of the decision of the Greater Geelong City Council ('Council') to refuse a planning permit for the construction of four two-storey dwellings on the land at 39 Camellia Crescent, Norlane. The grounds of refusal address matters of policy, neighbourhood character and non-compliance with selected requirements of cl 55 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme ('scheme').
2. Before the hearing, the applicant prepared and circulated amended plans of the proposal. There being no objection from any party, at the commencement of the hearing I amended the planning permit application by substituting the amended plans for the application plans.
3. Having considered the submissions, with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the scheme, assisted by my site inspection, I have determined to set aside the Council's decision and grant a planning permit.
4. I will commence with a brief description of the proposal:
   • Three of the dwellings are to front Camellia Crescent, the fourth is to front Iris Street.
   • The dwellings are all attached on the ground floor, with detached first floors.
   • The dwellings each provide 3-bedroom accommodation.
   • Car parking is provided in garages, accessed via separate driveways. Two of the dwellings have vehicle access via Camellia Crescent and two via Iris Street.
   • Secluded private open space is provided in the form of courtyards, with additional open space being provided in the front setback.
   • Garden area is 40.4 percent, site coverage is 49.6 percent and 41.1 percent of the site area will consist of permeable surfaces.
5. Details of the site and its context were comprehensively addressed in the parties' submissions, supplemented by extensive reference to photographs.
6. The site is within an established residential area characterised by a predominance of single storey, detached dwellings, with examples of medium density housing present. Medium density housing includes examples of two and three-dwelling developments. Front yards generally do not contain trees or vegetation, except for lawn. There is limited front fencing.
7. The adjacent properties to the north and east support single storey dwellings.
8. The submissions also comprehensively detailed the relevant planning context, which can be summarised as follows:
   • The land is within the General Residential Zone - Schedule 1 (General Residential Area) ('GRZ1'). The purpose of the GRZ1, as recently amended by planning scheme amendment VC267 ('VC267'), includes:
     • To encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area.
     • To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
   • The schedule to the zone does not contain any neighbourhood character objectives, decision guidelines or variations to cl 55 standards.
   • The land is not affected by any overlays.
   • Clause 02.04-3 of the Planning Policy Framework includes a 'Housing and settlement framework plan' in which the site is located in an 'Established urban area' that is intended to accommodate 'modest infill housing'.
   • The subject land is also within the area of the Corio Norlane Framework Plan Map at cl 11.03-6L-02, which seeks to 'facilitate the urban renewal of the Corio Norlane area.'
   • Clause 02.03-1 (Settlement) identifies Corio and Norlane as providing 'affordable housing that is close to the Geelong CBD, Avalon Airport, Geelong Port and surrounding industrial land and the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct, with convenient access to Melbourne via road and rail' and is an area 'that should be targeted for infill and higher density housing'.
   • Relevant strategic directions for Corio and Norlane include:
     • Support urban renewal to encourage an increase in the resident population.
     • Encourage the diversification of housing types.
   • In relation to neighbourhood character, cl 15.01-5L provides objectives to 'manage the impact of urban change on existing neighbourhoods' and 'protect areas with a significant garden character'. Strategies to achieve the objectives include 'supporting medium density housing that respects the existing neighbourhood character in the General Residential Zone areas' and 'retain existing vegetation wherever possible'.
9. VC267 came into operation on 31 March 2025. Relevantly, the amendment changed the purpose and decision guidelines of the zone and the requirements of cl 55.
10. There is no dispute between the parties that the application takes the benefit of the transitional arrangements in relation to the provisions of cl 55. However, the Council submits the transitional provision at cl 32.08-7 has the effect that the provisions of the zone - including the purpose, as in force immediately before the approval date of the amendment, continues to apply. The applicant submits the transitional provision is relevant only to the provisions of cl 55.
11. Further, the applicant says it is relevant and of consequence that the purpose of the GRZ has changed from requiring development that 'respects the neighbourhood character' to requiring development that is 'responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area'. The applicant says the change in language from 'respects' to 'responsive' 'allows for a more liberal consideration of character'.
12. In the Council's submission, the development is inconsistent with the preferred future character of the neighbourhood and is anticipating too much from the land. The Council submits the proposal is not in an area identified for increased housing and does not represent modest infill development
13. In the Council's view, the non-compliant front setbacks and attached ground floor form will provide limited opportunities for landscaping, or for views through to the rear of the development of any landscaped backdrop and this points to an overdevelopment of the land. Reference was made to the bulk and mass of the development when viewed from diagonally across the intersection.
14. Reference was also made to internal amenity concerns for Dwelling 3, due to its western orientation, single aspect living area.
15. The applicant submitted that the development is an acceptable response to the site and its context having regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the scheme. In summary, the applicant submitted:
    • There is a softening in the language used in the purpose of the zone as it relates to neighbourhood character, which is reinforced by the intent of VC267 to 'facilitate quicker and more efficient decision making'.
    • Sites in the area are not characterised by landscaping, including canopy trees.
    • The site and surrounding dwellings are comprised of aging former public housing stock that is due for renewal as it provides very poor-quality accommodation. The scheme seeks increased housing diversity in this area. This is reflected in the zone purpose and policy.
    • There are none of the usual indicators of overdevelopment, such as non-compliance with Garden Area, site coverage, permeability, private open space, secluded private open space, overshadowing and overlooking. These standards are all met or exceeded.
    • When viewed from the corner, the building is well-articulated, with staggered setbacks, upper floor setbacks and contemporary, hip and gable roof forms which break down the mass of the first floor.
    • The front setback non-compliance of Dwelling 1 is a result of the front porch having a height of 3.63 metres, so it is not an allowable encroachment under standard B6. This can be addressed by permit conditions requiring the porch height to be reduced to less than 3.6 metres.
    • There are no detrimental off-site amenity impacts.
    • There is adequate space for landscaping throughout the site, including canopy trees, as demonstrated by the landscape plan circulated with the amended plans.
    • Three of the dwellings have dual aspect living areas, including northern orientation. Dwelling 3 has a westerly aspect. Daylight to the living area of that dwelling could be improved by the inclusion of a skylight over the kitchen, which can be addressed by conditions.
16. The Council submits the attached form of the development, with prominent first floor and minimal upper floor separation between the dwellings is indicative of high-density housing and is discordant with the 'modest infill housing' sought.
17. The term 'modest infill housing' is not defined in the MPS or elsewhere in the scheme. Having regard to the strategic directions and the scaled approach to housing embodied in the scheme, and to the site and its context, I consider that the proposal represents a modest infill development.
18. The subject land is sufficiently well-located to services and facilities to support the redevelopment. It is within an established urban area where the necessary infrastructure exists and is approximately 450 metres from the nearest activity centre.
19. The proposal represents an acceptable response to settlement and housing policies.
20. The MPS at cl 02.03-5, together with policy at cl 15.01 and the objectives of cl 55.02 seek development which makes a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.
21. In relation to neighbourhood character, the scheme at cl 15.01-5L seeks to 'manage the impact of urban change', which is an acknowledgement that over time change will occur. This is expressly the case for Norlane, where the scheme seeks revitalisation and renewal.
22. I agree with the applicant that the transitional provisions introduced by VC267 do not extend to the purpose of the GRZ. I must apply the purpose of the zone as it exists today. To the extent that this brings about conflict with state and local policy which seeks medium density housing that 'respects' the existing neighbourhood character, I am persuaded by the applicant that this proposal is both respectful of and responsive to, the emerging character of this neighbourhood.
23. The front setbacks are less than what is required by standard B6 of cl 55, as in force immediately before the approval of VC267, in-part, because of the height of the front porch of Dwelling 1. I have required the height of the porch to be reduced to less than 3.6 metres, in which case the proposed minimum front setback is 7.5 metres, increasing to 8.33 metres for the first floor. This is an acceptable response as it is consistent with the prevailing setbacks in Camellia Crescent, so meets the objective of cl 55.03-1, which is 'to ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site'. In reaching this view, I have considered the decision guidelines, notably:
    • The design response.
    • Whether a different setback would be more appropriate taking into account the prevailing setbacks of existing buildings on nearby lots.
    • The visual impact of the building when viewed from the street and from adjoining properties.
24. The dwellings will sit comfortably in the context of the adjoining dwelling in Camellia Crescent, which has a setback of 7.6 metres. The ground floors of the dwellings will not protrude forward to an unacceptable degree and the first floors will not protrude forward at all.
25. Nor will the dwellings appear as discordant elements in the streetscape, having regard to the variation in setbacks evident in the street. The establishment of landscaping in the front setback will assist in their assimilation into the streetscape.
26. I agree with the applicant that the landscape character of the neighbourhood does not include substantial planting or canopy trees in front or rear setbacks. The landscaping plan confirms the development will be suitably landscaped to achieve an outcome that will be consistent with policy and make a positive contribution to the landscape character of the neighbourhood. A total of nine canopy trees are proposed. This includes three in the front setback where the development addresses the intersection, one of which is a species capable of attaining a height of 12 metres at maturity, the other two capable of attaining a height of 7 metres at maturity. I agree with the applicant that the extent of landscaping exceeds that presently existing on the land and on many other properties in the street.
27. The proposal is an acceptable response in an area identified for urban renewal. It is respectful of, and responsive to, the modest medium density residential character which is emerging. The development is of a scale that is consistent and compatible with the landscape and neighbourhood character.
28. Subject to conditions it will not result in unacceptable internal amenity.
29. I will grant a permit subject to conditions.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the application plans (Project No. 7603, Design Response, TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04, SE, SD01, SD02, SD03 and CS, all dated 10 February 2025, prepared by Planning & Design) but modified to show:

(a) Internal elevation plans including:

1. West elevation plan for dwelling1.
2. East elevation plan for dwelling 3.
3. North elevation plans for dwelling 2 and 3.
4. South elevation of dwelling 4.

(b) A source of daylight for the first-floor corridor of Dwelling 1, comprising a skylight or highlight window.

(c) Skylights above the kitchen and the corridor adjacent to the meals area of Dwelling 3.

(d) The Dwelling 3 west-facing, first-floor, master-bedroom ensuite window increased in size.

(e) Bin and recycling enclosures and clotheslines for all dwellings.

(f) Initiatives contained within the Sustainability Design Assessment report, including:

1. A notation that all external lighting will be controlled by motion detectors.
2. A notation of the proposed maximum illumination power density of the development.
3. Credit 'Waste 2.1 - Operational Waste - Food & Garden Waste' un-claimed, or compost bins must be provided.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
2. All buildings and works must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Plan and Sustainability Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. No alterations to these plans may occur without the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. Concurrent with the submission of plans required by Condition 1 of this permit, a Sustainability Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. When approved, the Sustainability Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Sustainability Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Sustainability Design Assessment Report submitted with the permit application (prepared by Planning & Design, dated 15 February 2024).

1. Concurrent with the submission of plans required by Condition 1 of this permit, an amended Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. When approved, the Landscape Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale, fully dimensioned and a digital copy must be provided. The plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd (Job No. 24-519-L, Drawing No. TP01.dwg, dated November 2024) but amended to show:

a) The Plant Schedule symbol for Corymbia citriodora 'Scentuous' (Dwarf Pink Lemon-scented Gum') changed from 'CcBc' to 'CcS' to be consistent with the annotations on the plan. > > b) Information regarding xeriscaping and/or the use of drought tolerant species. > > c) The removal of the street tree in Iris Street, with an annotation that removal and replacement of the tree is to be carried out by the responsible authority at no cost to the Council.

1. Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the occupation of the development.

1. All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plants replaced, all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Concurrent with the submission of plans required by Condition 1of this permit, a fee must be paid to the responsible authority for:

(a) Removal of the street tree, including the stump, in Iris Street.

(b) The purchase of a replacement street tree in a minimum 40 centimetre container.

(c) Planting the replacement street tree.

(d) The aftercare and maintenance of the replacement street tree for a period of no less than two years.

1. All works associated with street tree removal and replacement must only be undertaken by the responsible authority.

1. The site stormwater system must be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority such that the site stormwater discharge is not increased by the proposed development. An appropriate on-site detention system designed in accordance with the Infrastructure Design Manual.

1. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Any new vehicle crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover must be constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. All disused or redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the area reinstated with footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The external faces of walls on or facing boundaries are to be cleaned and finished to the same standard as such walls within the development site to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit, or

(b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months of expiry of permit of the commencement date.

An extension of time to complete the development may be requested if:

• The request for an extension of time is made within 12 months after the permit expires; and
• The development started lawfully before the permit expired.

[1] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.