1. Pursuant to Section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, Denise Carriere is joined as a party to the proceeding.
2. The decision of the Responsible Authority in relation to permit application no. WH/2009420 is affirmed. No permit is granted.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.01-4 (construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the Residential 1 Zone).

Clauses 10, 11.04, 15.01, 16.01, 21, 22.03, 22.04, 55 and 65.

The review site is located on the south side of Farleigh Avenue. It is a regular allotment with a frontage of 17.07 metres, a depth of 48.77 metres and an overall site area of 832.5 square metres. It is occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling. Surrounding land similarly supports single storey dwellings. Existing multi-dwelling development in the street is in the form of two-unit developments (historically referred to as dual occupancy), and are all single storey.

I undertook an inspection of the site and surrounds after the hearing.

1. The Whitehorse City Council has refused to grant a permit for the construction of three, two-storey dwellings on the review site. Its reasons for doing so relate to neighbourhood character, streetscape and amenity considerations. The Applicant, Ardcon Building Designers and Consultants, has applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision. Mr Heng, Mr Bognar and Ms Carriere support the Council's position and oppose the grant of a permit.
2. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, assisted by my inspection, I have decided to affirm the Council's decision. My reasons follow.
3. There was no evident dispute between the parties regarding the site's suitability for redevelopment for medium density housing, although the size and number of dwellings were issues in contention. The site has a number of characteristics which indicate that it can be developed for more than one dwelling to further the 'urban consolidation' objectives of the Planning Scheme. These include its area, dimensions, regular proportions, absence of significant vegetation, and minimal slope. It is in an established area with access to all necessary infrastructure and is proximate to a range of services, including public transport. I will therefore not undertake an analysis of the proposal against the policies of the Planning Scheme which relate to increasing densities within the existing urban areas of Melbourne. I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with these policies.
4. In my view, the principal issue in this matter is whether the development represents an acceptable response from a neighbourhood character perspective.

Will the development respect the neighbourhood character?

1. State planning policy promotes development which will contribute positively to urban character, enhance the public realm and is responsive to its context[2].
2. The Local Planning Policy Framework provides local expression to these broad policies. In addressing housing policy, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) identifies three categories of change in the municipality. These are Substantial Change (centred on activity centres and other areas that are capable of accommodating increased residential densities); Minimal Change (areas that have recognised heritage, environmental and landscape significance); and Natural Change (all other areas)[3]. The review site is within an area of Natural Change.
3. According to the Residential Development Policy[4]:

Areas of Natural Change apply to the majority of the municipality and are areas that will undergo a modest level of change to accommodate future increases in dwelling stock, which seek to achieve the Desired Future Character of the area.

1. The objective of Clause 22.03-5 is to encourage development which responds to the prevailing neighbourhood character in the 'natural change' areas of the City. This Clause locates the review site within the Garden Suburban Area. The statement of desired future character refers to generous front and side setbacks, retention of existing gardens and trees, and provision of adequate space around new development for planting of canopy trees.
2. Council argues that the development will not integrate with the established streetscape due to its two-storey scale and limited front setback for the upper level. It is also argued that the ground level parapet form of Dwelling 1 fails to respond to the prevailing pitched roof forms that characterise this neighbourhood. While there was reference to the extent of two-storey development down the length of the lot, this concern lay mainly with the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. A further concern of the Council is the inability to provide canopy trees throughout the site.
3. I am not troubled by the development's presentation in the streetscape. Although not common in the immediate area, a two-storey scale is prevalent throughout suburban areas, and can be readily assimilated into established single storey streetscapes without manifesting as an unacceptable planning outcome. This, however, is dependent upon a design response which reflects a graduation in height from the neighbouring single storey dwellings. The upper level of Dwelling 1 is set back between 0.9 metre and 1.5 metres further from the frontage than the ground floor level. While this serves to reduce the visual impact of the upper level, I consider that this differential setback should be at least 1.5 metres. I acknowledge that this modification can be readily achieved by a condition, had I been of a mind to grant a permit, and is not fatal to the application.
4. I am not persuaded that the provision of a ground floor parapet form in the streetscape is inappropriate. While it is true that all dwellings in the area have pitched roof forms, I consider that the combination of a lower level parapet form and an upper level pitched roof represents a sufficiently respectful outcome when consideration is given to the design objective at Clause 22.03-5.1 that refers to interpreting the valued built styles of the area in a contemporary design approach. Adequate reference to the prevailing pitched roof forms of existing development is provided by the first floor level.
5. My concern with respect to neighbourhood character, and my principal reason for refusing the grant of a permit, relates to the extent of two-storey development in the rear part of the site. It has now been long established that neighbourhood character is not confined to the streetscape. It also encompasses what exists at the rear of properties - within that portion of sites that can be referred to as the 'backyard realm'. One's perception and appreciation of an area's character is also influenced by what occurs in these more secluded locations, not just within the public realm.
6. As stated earlier, the objective of Clause 22.03-5 is to encourage development which responds to the prevailing neighbourhood character. It is evident that the neighbourhood is characterised by low profile buildings. Within the streetscape, this manifests in the form of single storey dwellings, many of which are original housing stock dating from the post-war period. Typically, development is sited toward the front of properties, with the area to the rear being set aside as secluded private open space (the 'back yard'). Where development is present in these rear areas, it is in the form of either modest outbuildings or, where redevelopment of sites has occurred, single storey dwellings. Two-storey development in the rear yard realm is not a characteristic of this locality.
7. Within this context, Dwellings 2 and 3 will present as dominant forms, which would stand in marked contrast to the existing character. The proposal concentrates the two-storey mass toward the rear of the site, where it is least able to assimilate with the prevailing pattern and height of development. It does not represent a sympathetic or sensitive response, and would detract substantially from the character of this neighbourhood. The development would appear as an anomalous element within its local context.
8. The size of the first floor level of all dwellings is similar. Indeed, Dwelling 2 has the largest upper level, and the first floor area of Dwelling 3 is only 4 square metres less than that of Dwelling 1. This does not reflect a transition to an increasingly sensitive area as one progresses down the length of the site. It is also notable that the greatest separation between the upper levels occurs between Dwelling 1 and 2 (in the order of 10 metres) and is adjacent to the buildings on adjoining lots. In contrast, the separation between the upper levels of Dwellings 2 and 3 is 2.6 metres, accentuating the mass of the development in that part of the site where it will be most visible. There is no obvious attempt to moderate the extent of built form toward the rear of the site in recognition of open character of this area.
9. I acknowledge the Applicant's willingness to reduce the extent of the first floor level of Dwelling 2 to achieve a greater separation between the rear two dwellings. This is not sufficient to overcome the concerns I have about the siting of two-storey development at the rear of the property. It will still result in a highly visible and dominant built form as it presents to adjoining and nearby rear yards. A different design response is required. I am not persuaded that the provision of landscaping is adequate to address this issue, nor do I consider that this is the correct approach in achieving a design which responds positively to its context.
10. Landscaping should complement a development. It should not be used a means of seeking to substantially screen from view a building that is otherwise an inappropriate outcome within its context. In any event, there is insufficient opportunity for the provision of meaningful landscaping on the eastern side of the development due to the driveway and the siting of the Dwelling 3 garage. The result would be that Dwellings 2 and 3 will be very visible from this aspect.
11. This is similarly the case adjacent to the rear boundary, where Dwelling 3 has a southern setback of only 1.0 metre, widening to 3.0 metres at the rear of the garage to provide a paved service area. There is no opportunity to plant trees in this location. The inability to provide canopy trees adjacent to the eastern and southern boundaries is not consistent with the desired future character of providing adequate space around new development for canopy trees.
12. My conclusion, therefore, is that the development does not represent a design response that is appropriate to the site, nor does it respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
13. Given this, I do not need to make a finding on the other issues raised in the parties' submissions.
14. I will affirm the Council's decision. No permit is granted.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.