MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2003] VCAT 277

It is ordered that a permit is granted for five dwellings at 26 Riverview Street, Avondale Heights, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and 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 three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the DSP Architects Plans dated 18 April 2002 and numbered 22141 TP1A and TP2A, but modified to show:

c) Ground floor levels not exceeding 0.5 metres above NGL at any point;

d) External levels having regard to Condition 1(c);

e) Dwelling 5 setback not less than 5 metres from the rear boundary;

f) Roof pitches a maximum of 27°, without raising ridgelines;

h) A schedule of external materials, colours and finishes;

i) Boundary fences to 1.8 metres high to be provided if required.

2. Before the developments starts a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:

c) Proposed landscaping, including canopy trees within the rear setback.

3. Before the development starts a drainage plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.

4. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

5. Before any of the dwellings are occupied, or before any later date approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. The areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and the associated access lanes as delineated on the endorsed plans must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, be:

a) provided and completed prior to occupation of any of the dwellings;

b) made available for such use at all times and not used for any other purpose;

c) be properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans;

These areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

a) the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit.

b) the development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of this date.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order, pursuant to s.85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

For the Responsible Authority: Mr M Waldon, Consultant Planner

Respondent/Objectors: Mr L Richards, Mr E Bates and Mr F Sottile (for Mr G Sottile).

For the Applicant for Review/: Mr N Hadjigeorgiou, Consultant Planner.

1. This is an application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by the Permit Applicants for review of the failure of the City of Moonee Valley (the Responsible Authority) to grant a permit within the prescribed time.

2. There being no objection I ordered that Mr L Richards and Mr G Sottile be joined as parties pursuant to Clause 64(2) of the Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal Act 1998.

3. Mr Hadjigeorgiou, for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, tendered revised plans which provided for reduction in levels of some of the dwellings. It was decided that the hearing would address the plans dated 18 April 2002 which accompanied the Practice Note letter from the Responsible Authority.

4. Mr Hadjigeorgiou, in his written submission for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, described the proposal as follows:

The front dwelling has a direct abuttal to Riverview Street and with a 'typical' two storey dwelling that is well articulated and will present as a high quality home in the area.

Each of the other dwellings will be constructed to have the form of a single storey

dwelling but incorporate a small second level dwelling within the roofline. Dwellings 1, 2 and 5 are comprised of three bedrooms and open plan living areas, while dwellings 3 and 4 are comprised of two bedrooms each. All of the dwellings have their main living areas and private open space areas facing north.

The buildings are stepped down the site to follow the natural topography of the site. The first three dwellings are attached, however the orientation of the roof forms and the stepped arrangement minimizes any impact of the buildings. Dwellings 4 and 5 are also attached but are separated from the front buildings. This 4m separation is amplified at the upper level by the orientation of the roofline.

The provision of open space is well in excess of the ResCode requirements and of dimensions, which will facilitate its use and capacity to be landscaped.

Open space areas are substantial for all the dwellings ranging from a minimum of 56m2 up to 128m2. All of the open space areas have northern orientation and the main living areas also face north and directly access the open space areas. The material used and the form of the dwellings are quite appropriately derived from the typical form and materials found in the area.

Car parking within the site is provided in the ratio of two car spaces, in an enclosed garage, for the three bedroom dwellings and one car space in an enclosed garage for the two bedroom dwellings. An independent visitors space is provided between the garages of dwellings 3 and 4.

The front dwelling has been setback between 10 and 11.5m and the majority of the existing vegetation in the front will be retained. An arborists report is appended to this report and outlines the health of those trees proposed to be removed.

5. Mr Waldon, in his written submission for the Responsible Authority, described the subject land and the locality as follows:

The site known as 26 Riverview Street, Avondale Heights is an almost rectangular shaped piece of land located on the east side of Riverview Street. The site has dimensions of 23.3m (west-front), 70.3m (north), 26.3m (east-rear) and 66.9m (south) comprising a total area of 1,685m2. There is a fall of between 3m-4m from the front boundary down to the rear boundary.

The site is improved with double storey, brick veneer dwelling, setback approximately 23m from the frontage with a large balcony to the rear. This dwelling fronts and has vehicular access from Riverview Street. A copy of the title reveals that there is an easement running the length of the rear boundary and that there are no covenants applicable to the land.

There is mature vegetation scattered on the site, including several large canopy trees within the front setback.

The area is predominantly residential being double storey, detached and post-1960s in architectural style. Dwellings are predominantly constructed of brick, are double and triple fronted, with hipped roofs and eaves. Front setbacks are in order of 15-20m along the east side of Riverview and 8-10m along the west side.

Adjoining the subject site to the east is parkland, which leads down to the Maribyrnong River.

6. The level of the rear of the subject land has been raised by filling.

7. The subject land is covered by the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme and is in a Residential 1 zone which is subject to Clause 32.01. A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot, pursuant to Clause 32.01-4. Clause 55, Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings, applies to the proposal.

8. The subject land is covered by Schedule 1, Skyline area, to Clause 43.02, Design and Development Overlay. Clause 43.02-2 Buildings and Works, provides that a permit is required to construct building or carry out works, but does not apply if a schedule specifically states that a permit is not required. Paragraph 2.0 of Schedule 1 provides that a permit is not required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works in a residential zone if they are not more than 6 metres above ground level. A permit is therefore required because the proposal will exceed 6 metres above ground level.

9. Reference was made to the following planning policies:

* Clause 21.19 Recreation, leisure & public open space.

10. Mr Waldon tendered a copy of "Maribyrnong River Interface Urban Design Guidelines, December 1991". Mr Waldon submitted that the Responsible Authority had adopted Amendment C28 which provided that this document be a reference document to Clause 21.11, Maribyrnong River Corridor Policy. My copy of the Planning Scheme indicates that at least this part of Amendment C28 was approved by the Minister with effect 19 December 2002.

Grounds on which Application would have been refused

Prior to Council reaching a decision n this matter, an Application for Review has lodged with the Tribunal on 29 June 2002. Council's planning officers have subsequently formed a view on the application and determined that they oppose the application, generally on the following grounds:

1. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.

2. The proposal fails to meet the objectives of ResCode with regards to neighbourhood character and infrastructure, site layout and building massing, amenity impacts, on site amenity and facilities and detailed design.

3. The proposal fails to eet the requirements of Council's Residential Design Provisions and Principles and the Maribyrnong River Interface Urban Design Guidelines.

4. The development is an inappropriate design response for the subject land.

12. The proposal was advertised to owners and occupiers of surrounding land and by two notices on site. There were seven objections, which Mr Waldon summarised as follows:

* Would set an ugly precedent for development along the Maribyrnong River.

* Doesn't comply with the Maribyrnong River Urban Design Interface

* Impact on traffic movement - parking and heavy traffic use

13. The proposal was referred to other departments at the Responsible Authority. The Drainage Engineer had no objection to the proposal subject to inclusion of conditions. The Traffic Engineer considered that there were no traffic engineering objections subject to conditions. Mr Waldon submitted with respect to the response of the Landscape Architect:

The landscape plan was referred to Council's Landscape Architect, who stated that the landscape plan required further information before endorsement. In particular it is advisable that the applicant consult a qualified landscape architect to resolve the design details.

The submitted plan includes all existing trees to be retained and removed.

* The proposal fails to respect neighbourhood character by:

- inappropriate roof pitches, mainly from the use of attic style for some dwellings;

- inadequate setback given the 12m and 15m setback for neighbouring properties (only 9.5m provided);

- the use of porch pillars, bay windows, window proportions are atypical of the street;

- double storey dwellings along the length of the site fails to respect or respond to the open space corridor to the rear of neighbouring sites

- gaps between buildings are typical to the area and are poorly acknowledged within the design

* The proposal fails to respond to local policy, particularly the Maribyrnong River Corridor policies - Clause 55.02-3 (see below)

* The street setback does not meet Standard B6 - Clause 55.03-1

* The height of buildings does not respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character, particularly as the 2-storey form continues to the rear of the site - Claude 56.03-2

* The design fails to integrate with public open space adjacent to the development - Clause 55.03-6

* Access to objectives are not satisfied, particularly at the rear of the site where some reversing for the full length of the site will at times be required - Clause 55.03-8 and 55.03-11

* The provision of parking is considered marginal and will result in some reliance on on-street parking - Clause 55.03-11

* Overlooking will be possible from both ground floor and first floor windows, Clause 55.04-6

* Design detail fails to respect the existing neighbourhood character - Clause 55.06-1.

15. Mr Waldon provided a detailed assessment against Clause 22.11, Maribyrnong River Corridor Policy, and referred to Clause 21.19, Recreation, leisure and public open space.

The proposal which is adjacent to the riverside parkland does not blend with the landscape of the River Corridor and does not contribute to a safer and more aesthetic environment along the edges of the parkland.

Only one dwelling has any frontage to the open space and this dwelling does not incorporate elements that increase natural surveillance (blank walls at ground level, windows and balconies at first floor are from bedrooms), general safety and public accessibility of the public open space within the Maribyrnong River Corridor is further at risk with no details of the boundary fencing between the subject site and public open space.

The design of the development is such that only one dwelling fronts onto the River and the parkland and only one dwelling to the street.

No fencing details have been indicated, the policy encourages low or no fences fronting onto the park and where fencing is required for security purposes, it is to be transparent mesh and dark in colour.

Retaining walls and structures along the River parkland edge frontage, except where it is evident that erosion exceeds acceptable levels are discouraged. It appears from the plans provided that no walls are proposed.

The proposal does not maintain a vegetation dominated skyline when viewed from the River and adjoining parkland and to protect existing views to the River from adjacent streets and public spaces. Nor does the proposal provide reasonable sharing of views to the River and adjoining parkland from private properties. However it must be noted (and has been upheld at Tribunal) there is no right to a view. Notwithstanding the Tribunal has also upheld that views should be respected.

Given the open space corridor along the rear of the subject site and surrounding properties; building and roof forms of the dwellings are quite dominant given the subject site is located on prominent ridge and within the skyline when viewed from the River and from within the riverside parkland.

The design of the dwellings down the spine of the land has resulted in a lack of respect of existing view corridors to the River and parklands from existing nearby properties.

The new buildings on the site are not located to minimise views of the buildings from the River frontage and adjacent parkland due to minimal stepping down with the slope, the dwellings positioned down the spine of the land and the scale of the dwellings.

The built form does not respond to nor complements the River and its natural setting. The proposed dwellings are generally built below the dominant tree canopy height and do not exceed 9 metres in height. However the dwellings are not designed to follow the contours or step down with the site and in some areas their ground level is raised. The dwellings are attached down the centre of the site with only a 3.5m separation between Dwellings 3 and 4. This results in a dominating monolithic building mass down the spine of the land and as such does not respect the built form character of the immediate streetscape and is likely to create a feeling of enclosure to neighbouring properties.

It is acknowledged that the subject site is an appropriate site for medium density development, however the site has significant constraints, which limits the yield, which can be provided on the land. Such constraints include the distance from public transport, the open space corridor that extends along the rear of the site and the slope of the land, the neighbouring frontage setbacks etc.

The proposal cannot be supported due to its failure to meet provisions of ResCode, Council's objectives for the Maribyrnong River Corridor, and Council's Residential Design Provisions.

18. Mr L Richards, a Respondent/Objector of 30 Riverview Street, which is to the north of and separated from the subject land by No. 28, made an oral submission. Mr Richards said that he had lived at 30 Riverview Street for 30 years. It had been devoid of vegetation and he had planted over 30 trees, some quite large. Mr Richards submitted that his land was probably twice as big as the subject land, but his dwelling was single storey. His main objection to the proposal is the overuse of the subject land compared with the existing residence, which would detract from the area and be out of character with the area. Mr Richards made reference to the Maribyrnong River Interface Urban Design Guidelines, and its reference to protecting views. Mr Richards submitted that there would be increased traffic and parking problems as a result of the development.

19. Mr E Bates, a Respondent/Objector of 22 Riverview Street which abuts the subject land on its northern boundary, made an oral submission. Mr Bates made reference to the Tea Gardens National Park, and submitted that his view was not as badly effected as others. He was concerned about the historical value of the area and the impact or the proposal on the skyline.

20. Mr F Sottile, on behalf of his parents, Mr G Sottile and Mrs V Sottile of 24 Riverview Street which abuts the subject land on its southern boundary, spoke to the letter of objection that his parents had submitted to the Responsible Authority. Mr & Mrs Sottile have lived at 24 Riverview Street for over 30 years having raised their family there, and they submitted that they would not like to see the character and quiet nature of the area change. Mr & Mrs Sottile submitted:

In respect to the above development there are a number of grounds on which the submission contravenes existing Council Planning Scheme objectives.

A) The Moonee Valley Planning Scheme, Schedule 1 To The Design and Development Overlay: Skyline Area, has three of it's Design Objectives as:

1) "To protect areas along the Maribyrnong River from visual intrusion caused by the inappropriate siting of appearance of buildings and works".

2) "To encourage development in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

3) "To protect and enhance the skyline when viewed from the river and its banks".

4) Clause 55.02-5: Integration with the street objective, stipulates that "Development next to existing public open space should be laid out to complement the open space.

I believe the siting of unit 5, it's height in respect to the boundary adjoining the public open space, and the 2nd storey balcony overlooking the boundary all combine to be in contravention of the Planning Scheme overlay for this area and totally out of character with the way in which the adjoining properties address this boundary, ie: all existing properties are discreetly well set back from this boundary (all are over 20 metres behind the boundary), allowing each adjoining property their own share of the river valley views, without trying to dominate the public open space and the other adjoining properties.

21. Mr & Mrs Sottile made reference to Clause 22.06.7, Avondale Heights Residential Design Policy, which is part of Clause 22.06, Residential Design Policy, and submitted that the proposal contravenes the policy. Mr G Sottile said that they had bought 24 Riverview Street in 1970 for the view, and if dwellings 4 and 5 did not proceed they would agreeable with the proposal.

22. Mr Hadjigeorgiou, for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, in an oral submission submitted that the proposal is for double storey dwellings stepped down the subject land. Attic style is used to replicate single storey development and roofs are articulated so as to have gaps between dwellings. Mr Hadjigeorgiou submitted that the proposal does not demonstrate double storey mass at the rear because of the attic design. Mr Hadjigeorgiou discussed the levels proposed compared to the floor levels of the dwellings to the north and south and submitted that they were similar. He submitted that the front setback is greater than what is required by ResCode and that the proposal is articulated down the south side and at the front. He further submitted that the upper levels are recessed. Mr Hadjigeorgiou submitted that the underlying consideration in ResCode is about using land more effectively, and acknowledged that some dwellings in the area are setback further than what is proposed. Mr Hadjigeorgiou noted criticism of the proposed car parking and vehicle manoeuvrability on the subject land. He submitted that two visitor spaces had been provided when only one was required, and one could be deleted, and there is ample on-street parking. Mr Hadjigeorgiou submitted with respect to overlooking that there is a distance separation between upper levels and adjacent properties.

23. Mr Hadjigeorgiou submitted with respect to views that it is not unreasonable to have some restriction of a view angle provided that there is still a substantial view corridor, and this would be the case.

24. Mr Hadjigeorgiou, in his written submission for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, submitted:

The capacity to have only one dwelling front the street is a positive outcome of the proposal.

The location of the car parking to the rear and out of vision is a positive and typical of the pattern in the area.

The built form proposed maintains the visual image of only one building facing the street even though the other dwellings will sit behind the front dwelling.

The extent of development down the site takes advantage of the long distance views to the east and north, which are features of the area.

The location of the private open spaces to the north so that good solar access is obtained is a positive feature of the proposal.

The roof form and the height of the buildings are respectful of the neighbouring dwellings. The streetscape drawing demonstrates that the front dwelling will sit quite comfortably in the street.

The attached response to the objectives of ResCode demonstrates the suitability of this proposal for this site.

The built form proposed maintains the visual image of only one building facing the street even though the other dwellings will sit behind the front dwelling.

The roof form and the height of the buildings are respectful of the neighbouring dwellings.

The location of only one dwelling to face Riverview Street continues the subdivisional pattern and width of frontage of the area.

The maintenance of only one crossing to the site is appropriate, as is the capacity of vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

The density of the proposal is quite low for a site in this location.

The provision of on site car parking is more than adequate to service the proposal. Visitor parking can easily be accommodated within the site and if necessary along Riverview Street.

The provision of open space is more than adequate for the likely end users of these dwellings and for this location given the location of Maribyrnong River Reserve.

The open space areas are all orientated to the north and all have direct access from the main living area of the dwelling. The proportion and area of each open space results in a functional and useable space.

The only area of common property is the access way, which limits the future management responsibilities of the Body Corporate.

It is submitted the proposal has responded in an appropriate manner to the site.

The policy for Design and Built Form and at Clause 19.03 states, inter alia, that:

'Development should achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising impact on neighbouring properties'

The proposal in our submission responds in a very positive manner to the objectives and policies outline above. The proposal maintains the streetscape character of Riverview Street by maintaining only one dwelling to front the street, it better utilises existing infrastructure by locating new dwellings within an established neighbourhood on a site that is currently under-utilised and it makes a positive contribution to the interface of private land and the public land of the Maribyrnong River Reserve.

Finally the proposed layout and detail design have been well thought out to produce a design that respects the amenity of the neighbours, enhances energy efficiency and contributes to the design quality of the area.

The Residential Design Principles require the following matters to be responded to:

* Roof form and pitch - ensure consistent with neighbourhood

Comment: The proposed hip 26.5 degree pitch proposed for the front dwelling which integrates this proposal with the area and is consistent with that found in the area. The rear dwellings have a steeper roof pitch at 35 degrees however this is considered appropriate as it provides an outcome for the site, which results in the buildings being read as single storey built forms.

* Private and Public Realm - Provide for garden and canopy trees in setback areas.

Comment: The front garden areas are quite substantial and maintain the open garden character of the street. Because of the substantial setbacks, many existing trees are retained and proposed canopy trees can be accommodated within the front garden areas. To the rear the interface with the river valley is quite appropriate given there is a minimum setback of approx. 2m and increasing to over 4m to a single storey wall and that landscaping along this section will in fact enhance the cumulative affect of the landscaped area at the top of the escarpment of the Maribyrnong River Valley.

* Predominant setback - must be consistent with the predominant street setback

Comment: The setbacks in the area ranges from zero (being the corner property garage) to between 7.5m and 15m along Riverview Street. This proposal has a staggered setback, which varies from 9.6m to 117m. It is submitted that this setback is appropriate and maintains the high quality setbacks found in the area.

* Building articulation - ensure adequate articulation of walls and building facades

Comment: The front building form is well articulated with the entrance, porch and the living area being set forward and the garage being setback behind the dwelling and not visible from the street. The upper level of the front dwelling is recessed behind the front and side walls.

In addition the roof form also adds to the articulation of the buildings. The rear four dwellings are also well articulated and read as single storey built forms. On these dwellings the bedrooms/lounge rooms articulate the ground level and the garages are recessed behind the front of the dwellings.

The alignment of the upper level varies down the site so that the last three dwellings run on an north-south axis.

Finally a 3.9m gap is provided between dwellings 3 & 4. This separation combined with the upper level separation leads to a separation of some 9.7m. The stepping down of the dwellings so as to follow the contours of the site further enhances the articulation.

* Building Form - shape and form consistent with location

Comment: The proposal has only one dwelling fronting the street and this maintains the rhythm of frontage widths. The orientation of the dwelling is also consistent with the orientation of other dwellings within Riverview Street, which is directly to the street frontage.

The front setback is equal to or greater than the typical front setback of many dwellings in the street.

Side setbacks are generally greater than the predominant neighbourhood setbacks. The dwellings are setback at least 6.5m from the southern, approx. 5.5m from the northern boundary.

The location of the rear open space areas to the north is another positive feature of this proposal and assists to increase the cumulative landscape effect of the adjoining dwellings to the north rear yard. Adequate area exists in the rear and front yards to plant substantial trees.

* Building Bulk or Scale - scale and bulk to be minimised through use of materials and forms

Comment: The proposal is for-a typical two storey at the front of the site and, that form of the new dwelling is consistent with the form new dwelling in the area. The rear dwellings while comprising of two levels have been designed in such a manner as to read as single storey dwellings with attic rooms in the second level.

The presentation of the rear dwellings typical of a single storey dwelling.

The materials used including face and rendered features and the articulated built form reduces the impact the proposal will have on the area.

In addition the location of the buildings towards the central part of this wide site reduces the impact of the proposal to the adjoining properties.

Comment: The existing fence is a high fence this can be retained or alternatively an optional 1m high painted timber fence which is consistent with other fences within this area can be proposed.

* Landscaping - Landscape front setback and provide for adequate areas for good quality landscaping.

Comment: The site has substantial areas which can be landscaped to a high standard. In particular the front garden areas have adequate area and dimensions to facilitate canopy trees and the rear garden areas have a northerly orientation which will facilitate good landscaping opportunities.

* Spaces Between Buildings - provide gaps between buildings and between sites

Comment: The front dwelling is centrally located on the site with substantial setbacks to the north and south boundary and this assists to maintain the pattern of development within the street. The rear dwellings have a wide 4m separation between dwellings 3 & 4 which taken together with the roof form provides for a generous separation between the buildings.

Avoiding dominant building forms in prominent positions within the river corridor view shed.

Comment: In the first instance this proposal is not in a prominent position within the river corridor view shed. This site and building will not be capable of being seen from most of the river corridor.

In the second instance, the proposed built form will not result in a dominant form. The proposed buildings towards the rear of the site are all single storey forms with the upper level continued predominantly in the roofline.

26. Mr Hadjigeorgiou also responded to the grounds on which the Responsible Authority relied.

27. I have considered these submissions, the relevant planning provisions and planning policies, and I have conducted an inspection. I consider that a permit should be granted for the proposal, subject to conditions for reasons that I will discuss below.

28. I do not consider that the proposal is an overdevelopment. The building site coverage is only 37.2%, setbacks from boundaries are appropriate, use of an attic style for dwellings other than the front dwelling, reduces bulk and mass. The pitch of the front dwelling at 26.5° is what will be seen in the streetscape and this respects the character of the area. The use of attics for Dwellings 2 to 5 reduces the area of the upper level when compared to the ground floor level. The 35° pitch proposed for Dwellings 2 to 5 was criticised, but Mr Hadjigeorgiou submitted during consideration of conditions that roof pitches could be 27° without raising the ridge lines. I note that the upper level for Dwellings 3, 4 and 5 is only of the order of 56% of the lower level, the upper level of Dwelling 2 is 67% of the lower level, whilst the upper level of Dwelling 1, the front dwelling, is 89% of the ground floor level.

29. I consider that the provision for car parking is adequate. I accept the submission of Mr Hadjigeorgiou that it would be desirable to remove the rear visitor space. This would improve vehicle manoeuvrability on the subject land.

30. There has been extensive filling placed towards the rear of the subject land. I consider that the proposal should relate to natural ground levels rather than filled levels. I consider it appropriate that ground floor levels be not more than 0.5m above natural ground level at any point and that outdoor areas should be changed accordingly. This may in fact reduce the bulk and mass of the proposal, particularly at the rear, and overcome some overlooking and view concerns.

31. There was concern about integration of the proposal with the Maribyrnong River Valley. The Maribyrnong River Interface Urban Design Guidelines, December 2001, are particularly relevant in this respect. I consider that the proposal integrates well with the Maribyrnong River Valley, particularly at the rear boundary of the subject land, with respect to views from neighbouring dwellings of the subject land and more distant views, and views from the valley. I consider that the relatively new residential development to the north is not as well integrated with the Valley.

32. I have had regard to the ResCode assessments provided by Mr Waldon and Mr Hadjigeorgiou, and I consider that the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives with respect to neighbourhood character, site layout and massing, an amenity both on-site and off-site. The proposal was assessed against the Residential Design Principles and it is my conclusion that those principles are generally satisfied. The roof pitch of the front dwelling is consistent with roof pitches of the neighbourhood. Mr Hadjigeorgiou agreed that roof pitches could be 27° without lifting ridgelines. There is opportunity for appropriate landscaping.

33. For the above reasons this application is allowed subject to conditions. It is appropriate for a permit to be granted, and I will so order.