1. Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, 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.

2. The plans must generally be in accordance with the plans considered at the Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal hearing 199/56289 No. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A but modified to show:

a) Basement garages to have a minimum internal dimension of 6m x 5.5m.

b) Provisions shown in the basement or another part of the building for air conditioning and pool/spa plant and equipment.

c) A minimum separation of 7.5m between vehicle crossings in Campbell Street.

d) Reduction in the amount of hard pace surface in the front setback area of each dwelling and replacement with additional planting. Such planting to allow for establishment of at least 1 medium sized canopy tree in each front yard.

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

4. Prior to commencement of development a drainage scheme providing for the collection of stormwater within the site and for the conveying of the stormwater to Council's nominated point of discharge shall be submitted to and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Before occupation all buildings and works specified in this permit must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority must be advised in writing when all construction and works are completed to enable the site to be inspected.

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

* The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

* 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 three months afterwards.

7. Street numbers contrasting in colour to the background shall be fixed at the front boundary of the property as near as practicable to, or on the letterboxes. Separate unit numbers shall be placed adjacent to the front entrance of each dwelling, such numbers to be clearly legible from the access driveway.

8. All new service pipes, (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The alterations of soil levels involving an increased or decreased level at the boundaries must be retained by the provision of an adequate retaining wall, constructed of brick or masonry or other suitable alternative approved by the Responsible Authority, to buttress the soil against the possibility of shift. The construction of this retaining wall shall be the sole responsibility of the developer.

10. All brickwork on or facing the boundaries of the site must be raked and cleaned or rendered or bagged and painted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. A schedule of all external materials and finishes shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any buildings and works on the land. The schedule shall show the materials, colour and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames and paving (including car park surfacing).

12. The finished floor level of the additions to the dwelling(s) must not exceed a height of 1000mm above natural ground level, at any point.

13. All plant and equipment (including air conditioning units, heating units, hot water systems, etc.) which is proposed to be located externally shall be identified on plans and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and an endorsed prior to commencement of construction and shall include plan and elevation details.

14. Before the use and/or development starts, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a) constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

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

c) surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

d) drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

15. Before the development hereby permitted starts three copies of a landscape plan and planting schedule prepared by a qualified landscape architect drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including the location of all existing and proposed species including the additional canopy trees required under Condition 1(d). When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

16. Prior to occupation of either dwelling landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans must be suitably marked before any development starts on the site and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Ms R Linkhorn, Town Planner represented the Responsible Authority.

Mr J Glossop, Town Planner represented the respondent objectors.

Mr B Goold, Town Planner represented the Applicant for Review/Applicant Conversion.

1. The is an application for review pursuant to Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act against the decision by Bayside City Council to refuse an application for permit No. 1999/4332 for conversion of a double storey dwelling into two dwellings (dual occupancy).

2. The grounds of refusal of application 1999/4332 are:

a) The application is contrary to the intention of the Good Design Guide as it reduces the amenity of the neighbourhood and adjoining properties.

b) The construction of the alterations to the rear of the site will affect the privacy of the adjoining properties.

c) The proposal will be detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining properties due to visual bulk.

a) The application/development is not contrary to the intention of the Good Design Guide and would not reduce the amenity of the neighbourhood and adjoining properties.

b) The construction of the alterations to the rear of the site would not significantly affect the privacy of the adjoining properties.

c) The proposal would not cause detriment to the amenity of the adjoining properties attributable to visual bulk.

d) The proposed development has been sensitively designed in the architectural context - respectful of the established character.

e) The proposed development offers diversification in dwelling types and acceptable building profiles.

f) The proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide.

g) The proposed development would readily assimilate with the streetscape and be conducive to the built environment.

4. At the commencement of the hearing it was clarified that the plans dated March 1999 and reference 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A and 5A were the relevant plans in this application.

5. This proposal relates to an application to substantially alter an existing detached dwelling, including removal of rear building works, the front façade and undertaking works to create two separate dwellings - a dual occupancy. This includes providing two basement level garages with individual access to Campbell Street. The plans considered by the Tribunal show:

* A small single storey part of the rumpus room which is located at the southern extremity of the house would be demolished;

* The front of the building would be excavated to provide two double garages, an access ramp to each garage would be provided in the front;

* The division of the building would create two dwellings comprising:

Entrance, lounge room, dining room, laundry, family room, kitchen, WC/powder room and rumpus room at ground level and three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a balcony at first floor level.

Entrance, lounge room, dining room, WC/powder room, laundry, kitchen/rumpus room at ground level and two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a den at first floor level.

The front façade of the building would be substantially altered by deletion of balconies and providing a much flatter or mock Georgian appearance.

6. The subject site is situated on the southern side of Campbell Street, about 50m east of St Kilda Street. The site is regular in shape, with a frontage to the street of 20.12m and a depth of 38.8m. Total land area is 784sq m. As mentioned earlier it is occupied by a large two storey detached house, with a swimming pool in the rear yard.

7. Adjoining properties comprise a two storey dual occupancy development at 4 and 4A Campbell Street to the east. Two storey detached houses face St Kilda Street, to the west and a two storey dwelling on an L shaped block is located behind at No. 3 Elwood Street. Land in Campbell Street generally comprises single and two storey detached houses, however dwellings closer to the west of the street (towards St Kilda Street) contain proportionately more two storey attached housing.

8. Ms Linkhorn in her description of the area referred to an extract of the City of Bayside Urban Character and Streetscape Study, which described the neighbourhood as:

"Residential quality is good due mainly to a leafy and green environment. Generally established and substantial street trees and private front gardens. Some large lots though consistent grid subdivisions of rectilinear nature. Some notable non-residential uses. Varied architectural styles with some imposing mansions and period homes with `heritage' significance. New infill residential developments of contemporary and neo-classic styles tend to be ornate or ostentatious".

9. The subject site is zoned Residential C (Brighton) Zone (Clause 123 of the Bayside Planning Scheme). The relevant purposes of the zone are:

* To provide the opportunity for a variety of residential densities and dwelling types.

* To encourage higher residential densities in areas near rail transport stations and stops, near centres of commercial and community activity and near areas shown as district centres on the strategic framework plan, having regard to:

- the nature of the area, including the amenity and residential density;

- The capacity of surrounding roads to carry any increase in traffic;

- Whether the development will require improvements to the existing roads or essential services.

* To ensure that if land is used for a residential building, dual occupancy or a multi-unit development, adequate provision is made for daylight, privacy and landscaping and that the amenity of occupants of adjoining land is not impaired.

10. Under Clause 21-5 of the Bayside Planning Scheme a planning permit is required to develop two dwellings on a lot.

11. Other relevant controls and planning policies worthy of consideration in this matter are contained within:

s Clause 21-2 Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

12. The City of Bayside has prepared its new VPP based planning scheme, although it has not been adopted, nor gazetted. Under the new scheme the site will be located within a Residential 1 zone. Under the proposed Residential 1 zone a permit would be required to develop the site for two dwellings. No overlays are proposed.

13. At the review hearing all parties tabled and read from submissions. In addition, Mrs May and Mrs Murray made brief submissions. The Tribunal advised the parties it had viewed the site prior to the hearing. The Tribunal was also provided with photographs of the site, Campbell Street and abutting properties. A model was also provided. All of this information has assisted in the decision in this application.

14. The Responsible Authority submitted the proposal failed to meet the spirit and intent of the Good Design Guide particularly in relation to neighbourhood and streetscape character issues, the visual bulk of the proposal and the impact on privacy of adjoining properties. It also stated the development was inappropriate in the neighbourhood.

15. Mr Glossop's detailed case was summarised in Section 1.1 of his submission where he stated the application should be refused on the following grounds.

* The proposal is inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood;

* The proposal unreasonably impacts upon the amenity of surrounding landowners;

* The proposal to subdivide the existing dwelling facilitates a dual occupancy development that arguably would not be allowed if it had to be built from scratch;

* Given this, the proposal does not represent best practice in terms of contemporary Medium Density Housing design; and

* The proposal fails to comply with a number of the elements, criteria and techniques of the Good Design Guide.

16. Mr Goold's submission was best explained in his conclusion:

"The material advanced in this submission, complemented by a favourable planning report prepared by the professional officers of the Council are collectively demonstrative of a sensitive conservative development conducive of the built environment that would assimilate with the established character in the peculiar circumstances.

The proposal does not rely upon or exploit the minimum permitted standards of the Good Design Guide or Council's policy and to the contrary is designed to optimise the opportunity to create an enhanced outcome and infinitely superior to what could emerge from an as-of-right large house proposal or additions/alterations to existing."

17. The proposed conversion of an existing two storey detached house into a dual occupancy is found to be acceptable in this instance. The bulk of the building will largely be unaltered and whilst there will be alteration to the façade of the building, this is largely a cosmetic change rather than a substantial change to the whole building. The solid front fence will be removed and replaced by a transparent fence. When viewed in the context of other recent two storey developments undertaken, notably at No. 4 and 4A Campbell Street and No. 5 Campbell Street, the proposal will not appear at odds with the neighbourhood. The Tribunal therefore considers the proposed conversion to a dual occupancy will not substantially alter the character of the street, nor would it substantially increase the bulk of the building.

18. The objectors to the rear of the subject property expressed concern about loss of privacy. The Tribunal notes that the objectors live on a large L-shaped property and the dwelling is quite distant from the rear boundary. The rear extension proposed on the eastern side of the subject building would be over 13m from the rear property boundary. This is well outside the criteria in Element 7 of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing. It is noteworthy in the report to Council that the Officer had commented on the relative distances between the two buildings and stated that the proposal would actually improve privacy because a large existing balcony sited at the rear of the dwelling would be removed and replaced by a small balcony and a bedroom window. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal meets the intent and criteria of Element 7 of the Good Design Guide.

19. The applicants propose two basement level garages with access ramps to Campbell Street. These garages do not meet E8, T8 of the Good Design Guide. Objectors were concerned that due to the inadequate size of the garages, vehicles will be left out in the driveways or in Campbell Street. During the hearing, Mr Goold was questioned about the possibility of enlarging the garages. Mr Goold advised it was possible to correct this issue. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to place a condition on permit requiring compliance with the Good Design Guide. By doing so, this would also address one of the largest criticisms by objectors about the reliance on car parking in the setback area and Campbell Street.

20. The objectors raised concern about the various aspects of the proposed landscaping and in particular the rear landscaping around the swimming pool and the amount of landscaping within the front setbacks. The Tribunal considers the landscaping around the swimming pool should be addressed by a proper landscape plan. Similarly, the front landscape treatment should be improved by reducing the amount of hard-paved surface and making provision for at least one medium sized canopy tree in each of the front yards. It is considered the improvement of the landscaping in the front yard would make a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the site.

21. Concern was raised about the impact of the appearance of basement garages. It was claimed the building was already elevated and placing garages as shown would assist to accentuate the visual bulk of the building. The Tribunal notes there will be a change in appearance of the building, but as the actual floor levels and roof profile will not change any apparent increase in building bulk is considered minor. The Tribunal is satisfied that improved landscaping treatment at the front of the building will assist to ameliorate any perceived increase in building bulk.

22. Concern was raised about the lack of detail about plant and equipment for the proposed dwellings, such as air conditioning equipment. The Tribunal agrees. The Tribunal will impose a condition requiring plant for air conditioning, spa and the swimming pool to be placed inside a building (such as in the garage).

23. There was some reference about the inappropriateness of converting an existing building into a dual occupancy. Mr Glossop advised that developing a two storey dwelling and then converting it into a dual occupancy would provide an undesirable precedent for other developers in the locality and this would undermine the intent of the planning scheme and the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing. In this case the existing house was built 15 years ago as a separate dwelling. There is no evidence to suggest the applicant has intentionally or otherwise tried to undermine planning controls or policy in this application. As Mr Goold pointed out the introductory section of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing refers to conversion of buildings and states "techniques may not be relevant when existing buildings are being recycled, but regard must still be had to the design elements, objectives and criteria". In this case the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal meets the objectives, design elements and criteria of the Good Design Guide and subject to some modifications, notably improved landscape treatment and larger garage facilities, it is considered the proposal is appropriate.

24. On 21 October 1999, Mrs Cheryl May forwarded correspondence and a booklet known as `Living by the Bay', which contained some advertising material referring to the site. The Tribunal has not considered the content of this material as it was provided after the review hearing, there is no evidence of all parties being provided with such information, nor was there evidence of the parties being given an opportunity to respond to such information.

For the above reasons the application for review is upheld and the Responsible Authority must issue a permit with conditions addressing the matters raised in this decision.