The Responsible Authority is directed under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to issue a permit which allows the use and development of three dwellings on the land at 177 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:-

1. Buildings and works shall not commence until amended plans which are generally in accordance with those dated June 2000 and presented to the Tribunal are submitted to show:

a) crossovers at least 3.0 metres wide and with a curb return of 1.5 metres between the vehicle crossover and the existing road pavement;

b) the edge of the vehicular crossover at the southern approach of the driveways shall be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary, to improve entry conditions;

c) for the new access point, all car parking spaces shall be designed to allow all vehicles to drive forward when both entering and leaving the property.

d) deletion of the circular driveway to the frontage of the site to provide for adequate landscaping.

and such plans shall be to the satisfaction of and approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works hereby permitted must accord with the endorsed plan(s) and must not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any Statute, Statutory Rule or for any other reason) without the further consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. No new buildings or works shall be erected and no existing buildings shall be enlarged, rebuilt or extended without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:

a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be the ~.

c) Drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

5. Concrete vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveway to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and any existing crossing or crossing opening shall be removed and replaced with footpath, nature strip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Before the commencement of buildings and works (including demolition) a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and, when approved, shall become an endorsed plan under this permit. Such plan shall incorporate:

(a) A survey of all existing vegetation to be retained

(b) Buildings and trees on neighbouring properties that would affect the landscape design

(c) A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation including botanical names; common names; pot sizes; sizes at maturity; quantities of each plant; and details of surface finishes of paths and driveways.

_7) The existing oak tree to the rear of the site is to be retained. Within 3.5 metres of the base of its trunk and adjacent to the northern boundary, no excavation works should take place. This will result in the construction of the driveway and turning area above soil grade.

A temporary chain mesh tree protection fence is to be erected prior to the commencement of buildings & works around the oak tree at a distance of 3.5m from the trunk and is to remain insitu until the construction is complete (other than as required to undertake the construction of the above-grade paving). No vehicular or pedestrian access or soil excavation is to occur within this area, nor is any storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste to occur within this tree protection area._

8) Mature trees (2 metres minimum height when planted) shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in the following areas:

a) one (1) in the front open space area of Dwelling 1;

b) one (1) in the private open space area of Dwelling 1

c) one (1) in the private open space area of Dwelling 2;

d) one (1) in the private open space area of Dwelling 3;

or otherwise three (3) trees in locations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

9) The landscaping as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be completed prior to occupation of the site or such latter date as the Responsible Authority may agree upon pursuant to a written application. The approved landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plan(s) to be retained must be suitably marked before any development (including demolition) starts on the site and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

11. Prior to commencing works, the existing mature street tree adjoining 177 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena, shall be removed, with all works to the to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including:

b) traffic management during the removal of the tree.

12. A new street tree shall be provided and planted and hereafter maintained by the owner of the property for a period of 12 months from the date hereof, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. All pipes and vents servicing the building(s) below the eaves line shall be hidden from the view of other residents and users of the street by a suitable screen, or be installed in service ducts.

14. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plan(s) attached hereto shall be confirmed at subfloor inspection stage in relation to any permit granted under the provisions of the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 1994. Such confirmation shall be by way of a report from a licensed land surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. A development contribution in accordance with the provisions of the Development Contributions Plan applicable to the site must be paid to the Glen Eira City Council prior to the commencement of Buildings and Works. The amount payable is $176.00.

16. The walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. Unless the buildings; and works hereby permitted are commenced within two years of the date hereof and completed within two years from the date of such commencement or any extension of such times granted pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act, this permit shall lapse. The Responsible Authority may approve an extension of time if written request is made within 3 months of the expiry date.

Mr. Evan Patterson of Terrain Consulting Group appeared for Brichon Developments

Ms. Kate Adam appeared for the Responsible Authority.

1. Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to refuse a permit to

3. The permit application described the proposal as " construction of 2 x attic two storey, 1 x single storey (dwellings)". The plans submitted at the hearing and dated `June 2000' indicated three dwellings, those two nearest the street having a second floor within an attic, the third dwelling being single storeyed.

4. The land is situated in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. It located within Residential 1 zone and the Development Contributions Overlay of that scheme.

* The proposal is not consistent with the overall intent and objectives of the Good Design Guide to provide a positive design outcome.

* The proposal is not consistent with the incremental change policy of the Municipal Strategic Statement in that it does not represent an incremental change when judged against the existing character of the site and immediately adjoining sites.

6. The grounds of application for review are as follows.

* The development proposed is consistent with the overall intent and objectives of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing and will provide a positive design outcome.

* The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

* The development proposed is complimentary to the existing neighbourhood character of the area.

7. The land is situated at 177 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena

9. The site is located on the west side of Murrumbeena Road, about 20 metres north of the intersection with Kangaroo road.

10. The site is occupied by a single storey, post-war, brick dwelling with low-pitched tiled roof. The dwelling faces Murrumbeena Road and is set back about 7.5 metres. There is a single vehicle cross-over adjacent to the site's southern boundary, with a driveway along the southern side of the site to two tandem garages that abut the boundary with a combined length of 15 metres.

11. I have adopted Mr. Patterson's description of the locality.

_"The surrounding area is generally characterized by single storey interwar and post-war ... housing, interspersed on occasion by multi storey 1970s style apartments and more contemporary examples of medium density housing.

The south boundary of the site is abutted by two properties described as No. 179 Murrumbeena road and no. 80 Moonya Road. No. 179 Murrumbeena Road abuts the south boundary of the site for a length of 46.0 metres and contains a single storey dwelling setback 7.5 metres from the front boundary. Vehicle access to this site is obtained via a single driveway that extends along the south boundary leading to a garage located towards the rear._

No. 80 Moonya Road is orientated towards the south and abuts the south boundary of the subject site for a length of 14.9 metres. This property contains a single storey brick dwelling that is setback approximately 11 metres from the south boundary of the subject site. The rear section of this property abutting the subject site is fenced off as a form of service yard and contains a small shed.

The adjacent property to the north of the site (No. 175 Murrumbeena Road) similarly contains a single storey brick dwelling setback 10.5 metres from the front boundary. Vehicle access to this dwelling is obtained via a single crossing located adjacent to the north boundary of the subject site. Further to the north of this property at No. 173 Murrumbeena Road is a 1970s style double storey apartment block.

The adjacent property to the west (rear) of the site fronts Moonya Road (No. 78) further to the south. This property contains six double storey dwellings that have been sited on a north to south axis with private open space on the west side and a shared driveway extending along the east. The dwellings have been constructed in a contemporary style that borrows Tudor elements.

To the east of the site is Murrumbeena Road which contains four lanes of traffic and is categorised as a `Primary Road'. Approximately 20 metres to the south of the site is the intersection to Kangaroo Road which is controlled by traffic lights.

Opposite the site on the east side of Murrumbeena Road is residential housing comprising a row of three storey 1970's style apartments and a two storey dwelling.

12. To this I add the following points. The area on the west side of Murrumbeena Road, when considered in a slightly broader context, contains quite a variety of buildings. While there may be a majority of housing from the inter-War period, there is also a wide variety of more recent detached dwellings, mostly single storeyed but some two storeyed, and a number of 1960s-style, two storeyed flats - most notably at No. 173, 167 and 163 Murrumbeena Road. As noted by Mr. Patterson, there are also 6 two-storeyed units on an allotment abutting the rear of the site and fronting Moonya Road.

13. The site is an area with good access to a range of community services. In particular, there is a public bus route along Murrumbeena Road.

14. I have adopted the description provided by Ms. Adam of the proposed development.

"Units 1 and 2 are to take the form of attic style buildings and the rear unit, Unit 3, is to be single storey.

Each of the Units is to accommodate living/dining areas, kitchen, laundry and three bedrooms. The attic style dwellings feature two of the three bedrooms at first floor level.

On-site parking is to be provided for each of the dwellings in the form of single garages with an adjacent visitor car space for Units 2 and 3, and a tandem space for Unit 1. The garages are integrated into the built form of the dwellings.

The existing vehicle crossover is to be retained and utilized to provide access to the single garage and tandem car space, servicing Unit 1. A new crossover is proposed to provide access to the driveway which is to extend along the northern boundary of the land, servicing the two rear Units. This 3.0 metre wide driveway is also to provide pedestrian access, including for Unit 1, whereby the entrance is located adjacent to the driveway. Turning areas proposed, ensure that vehicles accessing the rear two Units, are able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. It is noted that the proposal demonstrates a circular driveway within the front setback of Unit 1, providing an opportunity to enter and exit the site in a forward direction however, reducing the opportunity for landscaping.

Each of the dwellings will be provide with secluded open space area, accessible from a living area. Each open space area is located to the west of the dwelling and enjoying a part of the northerly orientation.

Unit 1 is to have a 37 square metre courtyard. The minimum dimension of this areas ranges between 3.0 and 4.5 metres.

The courtyard for Unit 2 is to have 40 square metres, within one area. The minimum width of this space is 4.0 metres.

The courtyard of Unit 3 is nominated as 44 square metres. The minimum width of this space is 4.0 metres. .....................

The front building line, including the garage, of Unit 1 is setback 7.5 metres from the frontage of the site. The bay window and wall of the bedroom, is then setback and articulated, ranging between 8.0 and 8.5 metres. The entrance to this Unit is somewhat shielded from the frontage of the site and is located adjacent to the driveway.

Each dwelling features the construction of garages along the southern property boundary. All external wall heights, of walls on boundaries, range between 2.6 and 2.8 metres.

The setback of the proposal from the southern boundary is generally 1.25 metres. It is noted that the exception is the garages, the car parking spaces for Units 2 and 3 established adjacent to the boundary, the open space areas and an ensuite, walk-in-robe and bathroom for Unit 3 constructed along the boundary, extending for (about) 5.5 metres.

The siting of the proposed driveway and landscape strip would result in a 5.0 metre setback to Unit 1 and 2 from the northern boundary. Unit 3 at closest point is setback 1.25 metres from this boundary.

The design of the development reflects conventional residential architecture and form, including pitched roof forms. External finishes are nominated as face brickwork and concrete tiles.

15. During the course of the hearing I was provided with a substantial array of information relevant to the decision to be made in this Application for Review, including submissions and photographs of the site. All this material remains on the Tribunal's file.

16. I have also inspected the site and its locality.

17. The application was lodged with Council on the 31st March 2000. The proposal was advertised on the 23rd June by mail to adjoining owners and occupiers and by an on-site notice.

18. Two objections were received, raising the following issues:

* need for replacement fencing along the side boundary

* loss of privacy and related requirements for more screen planting along the driveway

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER PLANNING CONTROLS AND POLICIES

19. The Planning and Environment Act 1987, s 84B, sets out the matters the tribunal must take into account in determining an Application for Review. Section 84B(2) also requires the Tribunal to take into account any matters which the Responsible Authority could have taken into account, for example, under s.60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

20. Other matters that are relevant to this application for review include the following.

* A number of state planning policies, including `Settlement', `Housing', `Design and Built Form'. These policies provide the framework necessary for councils to develop their MSSs and Clause 22 policies and I see no reason to quote them here, but have discussed them later.

* The MSS (Clause 21), which encourages increased medium density housing based on three categories of area which relate to encouragement of three different levels of redevelopment, with the least supported area being designated for "incremental change". This area includes the subject site.

* The MSS includes the usual requirements that new development should contribute positively to local neighbourhood character while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. There is reference to the objectives "To maintain and enhance Glen Eira's high quality residential amenity" and "To protect, maintain and enhance valued urban character and the environment." These objectives are to be met by compliance with a number of strategies, including use of the performance requirements of the Good Design Guide, retention of vegetation including street trees and the use of site responsive design.

21. Council has incorporated a policy of incremental change (MSS Clause 21.04-0) which states as follows.

_"Whilst higher densities of development will be encouraged in preferred strategic locations, elsewhere Council will seek to maintain the scale, character and amenity of residential areas. With regard to medium density housing, some incremental change will be catered for provided it is consistent with surrounding use, character and scale."

_Also, "Incremental change could vary from location to location within the municipality. It could mean, for example, a dual occupancy on a conventional sized site in a location predominantly characterised by detached housing. It could also mean several dwellings on a site where the site is significantly larger than conventional sized sites in a given location. The level of development would be limited to the extent that change could be said to be incremental. Conversely, incremental change could mean no increase or in fact a decrease in the number of dwellings per site for locations in which higher densities of development are not encouraged but already exist.

Incremental change does not mean no change. However, the extent of change should be tempered as significant areas of the municipality have also been earmarked for higher densities of development.

Development of the Housing Strategy and related strategic work may identify locations where the desirable level of change may be constrained by infrastructure or special character. Desirable levels of what constitutes incremental change will become more apparent following this further strategic work."

22. As described by Ms. Adam, the Residential Framework Plan set out in the MSS

"encourages highest residential densities in the following areas:

Urban Villages (Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick) Phoenix Precinct (centred on Monash University, Caulfield Railway Station and Caulfield Racecourse) Within the commercial areas of neighbourhood centres (ie. shop-top housing).

Medium density housing is encouraged in the following areas:

Neighbourhood centres (commercial centres which serve as a for individual neighbourhoods and provide a mix of small convenience retailing and service uses), mixed use areas, around railway stations and along tram routes. Large transitional sites with future redevelopment potential

Elsewhere, Council seeks to maintain the scale, character and amenity of residential areas. Residential areas should remain largely unchanged. However, with regard to medium density housing some incremental change will be catered for provided it is compatible with surrounding use character and scale."

23. While Council submitted that the proposed development did not conform to some minor aspects of the Good Design Guide, the issue of real significance in this matter relates to the application of the policy of incremental change that Council applies to the area in which the subject site is located. The minor issue relates to the amount of private secluded open space. I will deal with the latter matter first. A second issue relates to the matter of conformance with neighbourhood character but, as discussed later, I have chosen to discuss that matter in the context of Council's `incremental change' policy.

24. Ms. Adams submitted that, although the provision of secluded private open space more than satisfied the requirements of the Good Design Guide, it did not satisfy the Guide's broader objective that this space should "provide sufficient private open space for the reasonable recreation, service and storage needs of residents." In this respect, Ms. Adams drew attention to the configuration of the open space areas in relation to adjoining walls and fences, which she submitted were too confined and would cause nuisance to neighbours and render the spaces less useable than would be required. However, Ms. Adam did not submit any evidence or special argument to support her submission.

25. In my opinion, this proposal includes nothing that is particularly different from a large proportion of medium density developments in metropolitan Melbourne's middle-ring suburbs. The building/spatial relationships she referred to are the natural consequence of smaller areas of open space, which in this case are well in excess of the minimum requirements. Residents of dwellings with large rear yards can equally face problems of noise transmission across boundary (usually timber paling) fences. Situations like this require residents to make some social adjustments to deal with unavoidable closeness to neighbours and this must be presumed to be the typical outcome envisaged by the Good Design Guide. In my view, this proposal does not illustrate anything untoward in this respect and Council did not seek to demonstrate that either the proposal or its immediate setting had any unusual characteristics that would render the provisions of the Good Design Guide inappropriate in respect to this proposal.

26. I therefore do not accept Council's submission in respect to this issue.

27. Ms. Adam made no submission that there were any limitations on increased densities in the locality arising from infrastructure constraints.

28. Ms. Adam went to considerable lengths to convince me that I should give great weight to Council's `incremental change' policy. She submitted that "the degree to which a proposal forming the subject of a planning application is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework (including the MSS) should be the primary consideration of a Responsible Authority and upon review, the Tribunal. These policy frameworks - of which the MSS is an integral part -cannot be dismissed or treated lightly in the assessment and determination of planning applications. To do so would be contrary to the purposes and intent of the Act and Planning Scheme.

29. I accept Ms. Adam's point. However, the application of any policy still has to be `tempered' by considering whether the policy is meaningful in the particular (or any) situation. If this is not the case, it is appropriate to set the policy aside or vary its interpretation. I do not accept the attitude that, merely because a policy is incorporated into the planning scheme it will necessarily always (or ever) make sense. There have been plenty of examples, or situations, where approved policies can be found to be inapplicable, or not open to sensible or useful interpretation. On that basis, I still consider myself obliged to form an opinion as to whether the `incremental change' policy makes sense in the context of this matter.

30. Ms Adam's submission also implied that no weight should be given to the fact that the site was close to a range of community facilities. "Glen Eira is an established, middle ring municipality. Typical of such municipalities, Glen Eira is relatively well serviced by public transport, retail, commercial, community and open space facilities. When considered in this context, the vast majority of sites within the municipality would be proximate to such facilities and be considered suitable candidates for multi unit development. As with the approach that focuses on the existing pattern of development in the locality in determining whether a proposal constitutes incremental change, this approach similarly detracts from the planned approach advocated by the Planning Scheme."

31. Both Ms. Adam and Mr. Patterson referred me to the VCAT decision in Application for Review No. 1999/072060 Young Charmer Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council. In that case, which involved the application of the incremental change' policy, Member Baird reviewed a number of other Tribunal decisions relating to the application of the `incremental change' policy. After completing that review, Member Baird concluded "the policy cannot be applied on a blanket basis. In considering whether a specific proposal con be considered as acceptable or reasonable in terms of the extent of change it will introduce into a locality, or the influence it may have on the future character of an area, a number of factors are relevant including:

* the presence, or absence, of existing multi-unit developments or medium density housing in the immediate area

These factors must be considered on a case-by-case and site-by-site basis. The presence of overlay controls will set particular directions in relation to some of these considerations. There will also typically be a number of other relevant matters that require consideration, as in the case of any development, such as

* physical constraints, such capacity of the land as influenced by, for example, flooding,

* impacts on the amenity of the occupants of adjoining premises or dwellings

* internal amenity considerations and the requirements of the Good Design Guide

32. Ms. Adam respectfully criticised the Tribunal's reasoning in its decision in decision in relation to application No. 1999/07206: "This approach is purely based on an assessment of the existing conditions and does not take account of the strategic intent or future role of these areas. Under this limited approach, the MSS and the practice of identifying varying levels of change becomes redundant. Further, this approach perpetuates the sporadic location of multi-unit development throughout the municipality, without strategic direction."

33. In turn, I do not accept Ms. Adam's criticism. In order to explain why, and also why I have reached a decision in this matter that draws on the reasoning of Member Baird, I have set out my understanding of Council's residential strategy, the reasoning that seems implicit within it and my response to that strategy in terms of this decision.

34. Firstly and to simplify the following discussion, I have summarised Council's strategy as follows. Council has identified three types of residential area:

* areas for highest residential densities - I refer to these as areas `A' (designated urban villages, the Phoenix Precinct and within the commercial areas of neighbourhood centres)

* areas where medium density housing is encouraged - referred to as areas `B' (including mixed use areas, close to fixed rail transport stops, large redevelopment sites)

* other areas being, presumably, designated for minimal change - areas `C' ("Council seeks to maintain the scale, character and amenity of residential areas. Residential areas should remain largely unchanged, however, ...... some incremental growth will be catered for provided it is compatible with surrounding use character and scale").

35. A number of observations about Council's municipal strategy, aspects of metropolitan strategy and the operation of the housing redevelopment market which these strategies are is designed to influence, may assist. Assume that the housing market is equally interested in undertaking redevelopment in areas `A', `B' and `C' (though the market may, in practice, find that development is more profitable in areas `C' than `A' or `B'). Statutory planning, being by itself a largely negative process, can only be used to encourage the provision of a greater amount of housing in area `A' or `B' by limiting the amount of housing the market can construct in area `C' and then relying on the market to respond accordingly. Whether this approach would lead to an increase in housing redevelopment activity into areas `A' and/or `B', or merely a loss of redevelopment activity in area `C', would only be understood through careful research. Presumably, if Council's strategy is to have most higher density housing provided in areas `A' and `B' and if the market - reflecting to some extent the desires of the purchasers of this new housing - has no interest, then Council must impose its will on the market via its planning controls. A properly grounded housing strategy would, it seems to me, take account of Council's desired built-outcomes, the housing needs of the population in terms of building types and numbers, and also the ability of the housing industry to respond. Council does not appear to have such a housing strategy at this time.

36. However, to justify its intervention into the housing market via such planning strategy as it does have, Council must articulate some rationale for its strategy and this rationale must take account of metropolitan policy, which includes the consolidation of residential activities in areas that include both fixed rail transport and bus transport (my underlining). Council must also acknowledge that its current strategy for area `C' is not to prevent change per se, but to ensure that where change occurs it is "compatible with surrounding use character and scale."

37. In many respects, Council's housing strategy follows the conventional wisdom, including the encouragement of state policy, with respect to supporting increased housing densities close to some transport and other community facilities. However, there is no explanation of the purpose underlying that aspect of the strategy that seeks to minimise housing redevelopment in area `C'. If Council is seeking to limit housing redevelopment in areas `C' beyond what can be described as "consolidation of residential activities ............ (which) should be respectful of neighbourhood character", it would appear to be going beyond state policy. If Council is seeking to `encourage' increased housing activity in areas `A' and `B' by limiting redevelopment in area `C', that is something that would need to be clearly stated (although it is at least implied by the statement: "However, the extent of change (area `C) should be tempered as significant areas of the municipality have also been earmarked for higher densities of development"). Again, there is no basis on which the Responsible Authority has indicated that it will determine how to temper the extent of change.

38. If the policy for areas `C' is only another way of interpreting the state policy that the "Development in existing urban areas should be respectful of neighbourhood character" then Member Baird's interpretation of this matter is quite appropriate. If, as Ms. Adam contends, it means something different, then that needs to be explained because it is has not been at all obvious to a number of different divisions of the Tribunal. And it is not clear how a different interpretation of the policy would also be consistent with the SPPF.

39. Ms. Adam's submission also criticised previous Tribunal decisions on the grounds that "this approach perpetuates the sporadic location of multi-unit development throughout the municipality, without strategic direction." I have not seen any statement in Council's MSS, or elsewhere, that suggests that it is unacceptable for some multi-unit housing to be scattered throughout the residential area and it would be difficult to conceive why this might be so. It is as reasonable for a strategic direction to provide for a scatter of multi-unit development as for clusters of redevelopment and the former outcome appears to meet many housing needs.

40. Another difficulty that I have had in interpreting the `incremental change' policy is that it is almost impossible to convert it into any meaningful or objective measures (eg. an `incremental change in what: the height of dwellings, the amount of open space, building bulk, driveway crossings, neighbourhood character?). The question of what degree of change is incremental is almost impossible to explain and the possibility of getting any two independent people to agree on what is or is not an acceptable increment seems remote.

41. In the discussions at the hearing, Ms. Adam could only argue that two dwellings on the subject site would satisfy the definition of `incremental change' while three would not comply. However, she was not more specific on the matter.

42. A further difficulty is that the use of the word `incremental', as applied by Council, does not conform to its usual meaning. The Collins English Dictionary (Fourth Australian Edition) defines `increment' as "n 1 an increase or addition, esp. one of a series. 2 the act of increasing; augmentation. 3. Maths_. a small positive or negative change in a variable or function......"_. On this basis, and excluding the rather specialised mathematical context, the word refers to a process of change rather than the size of change per se. If, within a single storeyed residential neighbourhood, sites were progressively redeveloped with three storeyed dwellings on a site-by-site basis, this would comply with the dictionary definition of `incremental', as it would introduce change to the area bit by bit (ie. in increments). They would just be rather larger increments. The term has no connotations as to how big each `increment' is. The definition also applies `increment' only in the sense of an increase.

43. In effect, in almost all residential suburban situations other than for larger redevelopment sites, residential redevelopment always occurs in an incremental manner.

44. The above discussion illustrates the obscure nature of Council's policy as presently worded. Another illustration of the policy's lack of clarity, even to its drafters, is the contradiction within the policy itself: "incremental change could mean no increase or in fact a decrease in the number of dwellings per site for locations in which higher densities of development are not encouraged but already exist." `No increase' is `no change', not incremental change. Likewise, not only is a decrease in the number of dwellings per site not incremental change in the ordinary dictionary definition but it is nonsensical in a context where the policy is about controlling residential infill at higher densities, not about managing residential decline or attrition.

45. If Council would like to rely as an alternative on the mathematical definition of `increment', it is necessary to define the relevant variable, which returns to my point earlier, ie. that there is no objective measure for incremental change.

46. I assume that what Council is seeking is a policy that will ensure that, in areas designated as appropriate for `incremental change', any change that occurs does so only through a process of small changes on any site. In my view, this is not very different to a policy that states that any new development should be respectful of its neighbourhood. If a new development results in only small changes, it most likely will be `respectful of the neighbourhood'. If the degree of change is too large, the effect will probably not be `respectful'. Such a policy does not, in my view, add anything new to the existing provisions of Element 3 of the Good Design Guide but, rather, confuses the issue by seeming to introduce additional and different controls that turn out to be confusing to interpret_._

47. If we adopt an approach of accepting small degrees of change, then it is reasonable that the acceptability of small changes must be measured relative to the existing situation. If Council wishes the Tribunal to assess change relative to something other than what actually exists in the neighbourhood (ie. to some selective version of the local context) this needs to be justified as it is a quite novel proposal. I therefore concur with the Tribunal's comments in No. 1999/072060 Young Charmer Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council, as the criteria set out in that decision refer to matters that would be appropriate to consider in terms of ensuring that new development is respectful of the existing neighbourhood.

48. Finally, Council's policy does not exclude redevelopment in areas `C', but only requires that it "is compatible with surrounding use character and scale". This point is considered in a number of previous Tribunal decisions relating to the `incremental change' policy, wherein the various divisions of the Tribunal concluded that, as the use was not prohibited, it must still be considered on its merits.

49. Ms Adam criticised the proposed development as not complying with the Good Design Guide objectives for Element 3. She referred to the prevailing character of the locality as single storeyed. That is not true, as there are a number of two and three storeyed developments near by and opposite and two storey developments adjoining. In my view, these must be taken into account as part of the site's context. Ms. Adam referred to some of these as `aberrations'. I accept that, in some situations, an isolated building can be so uncharacteristic of an area that it can reasonably be referred to as an aberration. However, in this case, many two storeyed buildings occur in the locality and are certainly not an aberration. The second floor levels of the proposed dwellings are to be attic stories which, although within roofs of slightly steeper pitch, will have much more the scale of single than two storeyed dwellings. In this case, it is hardly necessary to refer to the two storeyed buildings anyway.

50. Ms Adams argued that the circular driveway would reduce the amount of area available for landscaping. Mr. Patterson indicated that his client would accept deletion of the circular driveway.

51. I also do not accept Ms. Adam's submission that car parking will dominate the streetscape or the development. The parking provision is typical of that provided in a large proportion of multi-unit developments.

52. Although the application did not include a professionally prepared landscape plan, I am prepared to accept that, on the basis of the relatively large areas of secluded open space, there will be reasonable opportunity to provide a number of trees with spreading canopies to the extent required to satisfy the Good Design Guide's Element 3 objectives.

53. I have concluded from the above that the proposal is reasonable, that it is not in conflict with Council's policy of `incremental change' (insofar as that policy can be interpreted), that it will be respectful of neighbourhood character and will not impose unreasonable loss of amenity on neighbours or future residents.

54. Mr. Patterson agreed to the principle of the proposed condition that required his client to pay for the costs of removing the street tree on the nature strip adjoining the site, but requested that his client be given the opportunity of obtaining the best possible price. It is in my opinion there is no reason to do more than state the required performance outcome - ie. removal of the tree without a prescriptive requirement for payment of a specified sum of money - as the permit condition.

55. For the above reasons, this Application is allowed subject to conditions. It is appropriate for a permit to be granted for three dwellings and I so order.