The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is granted for the development of two double storey attached dwellings at 22 Bayview Street, Williamstown, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:-

1. Before the development starts, in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

1. Increase the front setbacks (both ground and first floor) to reflect an appropriate 'average' between the existing (adjacent) dwellings at 20 Bayview Street and 24 Bayview Street, Williamstown. The proposed front building line of the proposed dwelling component must reflect the 'average' between the adjacent dwelling's (on either side) building line. Proposed encroachments (such as balconies, porches, etc.) are to reflect and 'average; between the encroachments on the adjacent dwellings on either side. The ground level component of the proposed northern dwelling (referred to as 22A on the plans) is to have a minimum front setback, including an encroachment of not less than 3.8 metres. Whilst the southern proposed dwelling (22B) is to have a minimum front setback, including any encroachments of not less than 6.0 metres. 2. Bedrooms 1 on the first floors of the proposed dwellings setback so that they do not project further east than ground floor walls.

1. The storage lofts above the garages of the dwellings deleted.

1. The introduction of a solid horizontal, parapet structure in-lieu of the lower part of the front transparent balustrading. The upper section of the front balustrading to be a wire type. The intent of such a provision is to effectively minimise the impact of the upper storey component and any dividing wall on the front streetscape. The encroachment of this structure should not encroach the front building line (of the proposed) respective dwellings by more than 300mm. 2. Except for the part of the ground floor roof on the boundary, the provision of eaves to both proposed dwellings. 3. The front dividing wall between the two dwellings modified to appear substantially less dominant at the property frontage, especially at the first floor level and when viewed from the south of the site. 4. The respective front first floor balconies reduced in width (to create a separation between the side of the respective front balconies and the central dividing wall) in order to eliminate the need for a substantial dividing wall. 5. The use of a zincalume roof, or a neutral 'grey' colorbond roof, having a colour and finish that is similar to unpainted corrugated iron. 6. The first floor side walls of both proposed dwellings (north and south elevations), are to be predominantly clad in weatherboard. These weatherboards to have a horizontal profile to minimise the impact of visual bulk on adjacent properties on either side of the subject land. 7. The wall height of the upper storey component reduced, whereby the 'springing height' of the upper storey roof cannot exceed a height of 2.4 metres. 8. Both of the proposed garage openings widened from 5000mm to a minimum of 5200mm.

1. Both garage doors facing the rear laneway to have remote controls.

1. Screening of first floor windows on side elevations to meet Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-06. 2. Screening of Bedroom 1 windows of both dwellings to meet Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-06. 3. A schedule of external materials and finishes showing the materials, colour and finishes of all external walls, roof, fascias, external doors, roller doors and window frames. 4. All plant and equipment (including air condition units, heating units, hot water systems etc) which is proposed to be located externally shall be identified on the plans and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 5. Provision of a screened area at the front or side of each dwelling for bin storage.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a landscape plan prepared by a suitable qualified practitioner must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. This plan must show all existing and proposed planting with an emphasis on drought resistant plants. This landscaping plan must include the provision of the following:
   • The provision of four advanced, native canopy trees having a pot-size of at least 40 litres at the time of planting. Each proposed dwelling must have one such tree within the front yard and one within the rear secluded open space.
   • Details outlining the provision for two street trees within the nature strip, directly in front of the site (one in front of each proposed dwelling). A notation must be included stating that this tree is to be supplied and planted by the Responsible Authority, entirely at the expense of the owner/developer of the property that is the subject of this permit.
   • Details confirming that all paved areas within the rear secluded open space of both dwellings are porous paving on a sand base.
3. Prior to the endorsed landscape plan being made available, a bank guarantee of $1,000 is to be lodged by the owner with the Responsible Authority to ensure the satisfactory establishment of landscaping works. Once landscaping has been completed in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan a 12-week establishment period will commence. The bank guarantee will be returned after landscaping has been initially maintained for that period to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. After the establishment period, the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and thereafter must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6. Street numbers contrasting in colour to the background must 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.
7. All service pipes (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. 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 the retaining wall shall be the sole responsibility of the developer.
9. 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.
10. Before the occupation of the buildings, areas set aside for pared vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

1. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 2. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

1. Surfaced with an all-weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

1. All basic services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage and telephone for the proposed dwellings shall be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The Applicant/owner shall be responsible to meet the costs of all alterations to and reinstatement of, the Resistible Authority and other Public Authority "assets deemed necessary and required by such authorities for the development. The Applicant/owner shall be responsible for obtaining the prior specific written consent of the Council or other relevant authority to such alterations and reinstatements and shall comply with conditions required by the said authority in relation to the execution of such works.
3. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
   2. 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 tis made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

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

Mr. Daniel Bowden, Town Planner, Daniel Bowden Pty Ltd.

Mr. Mark Waldon, Town Planner, St-wise Pty Ltd, appeared on behalf of City of Hobsons Bay.

Ian Mathers, Stephen Bartlett, Sharon Draper-Lee, Bernard Lee, and T. Kenney appeared in person. No appearance from E & C Szyska, R & B Harry, F & B Mangani, C & H Richards, and Maree Jones.

1. This is an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against Council's refusal to grant a permit to develop the site at 22 Bayview Street, Williamstown, for two double storey attached dwellings. The Tribunal notes that Council Officer recommended approval of the development subject to a number of conditions, including setting the building further back from the street, privacy protection and design details.

1. The Tribunal records leave granted to Mr. Bowden's request to substitute the name of the review applicant from Daniel Bowden P/L to Ms. D. Bussey and Mr. B. Adersley of 116 Hannan Street, Williamstown.

1. The review site is located on the east side of Bayview Street opposite the Jawbone Conservation Reserve and the Williamstown High School Bayview campus, Williamstown. It is regular in shape, with a frontage of 12.19 metres, a depth of 40.84 metres, and a site area of 498 sq m. It is a cleared site.
2. To the north is a Victorian house with a two storey extension towards the rear. To the south is a part single storey and part two storey house. At the rear is a right of way, opposite which are the rears of dwellings fronting Hannan Street. This ROW is used as the rear access for properties that front Bayview and Hannan Street and developed with garages, various outbuildings and boundary fences.
3. The review site is located at the southern end of Bayview Street, an end of the street that has experienced substantial redevelopment, mainly two storey dwellings either as single dwellings or medium density developments. The first floors of these dwellings enjoy extensive views to the bay.

1. The proposal is to develop the site for two double storey side-by-side dwellings facing Bayview Street. Both dwellings provide three bedrooms with a double garage accessed from the rear laneway. The front room of the first floor of each dwelling is a living area, optimising on uninterrupted views of the Bay.
2. The northern dwelling is setback 4.8 metres and the southern dwelling setback 5.8 metres. The first floor balconies, however, intrudes into this setback area. they are 2 and 2.5 metres deep respectively.
3. The buildings are constructed to the side boundaries for part of the ground floor, although the front three rooms of the dwellings are setback 1 metre off their respective side boundaries.
4. The garages at the rear have each a storage loft above. This loft is accessible by a pull down ladder.
5. The design of the development has a terrace house appearance, with hipped roofing, masonry walls for ground floor and weatherboard cladding for first floor walls. A central dividing wall with a maximum depth of 3 metres partitions the building into the two proposed dwellings.

1. The review site is in the Residential 1 Zone of Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme ("the Scheme"), under which a permit is required to develop more than one dwelling on a lot. The provisions of Clause 55 apply.
2. The site is affected by the Design and Development Overlay (DDO4 Foreshore Height Limitation), limiting height of building to 2 storeys.
3. Other relevant provisions and policies from the Scheme are Clauses 11, 12, 14, 16.02, 21.06 (Residential), 22.10 (Neighbourhood Character Policy for Hobsons Bay East), and 65.

1. At the hearing, parties presented written and oral submissions.
2. There appears to be a confusion of which set of plans the Tribunal is dealing with, and that the permit applicant has submitted different sets to Council and respondents, attempting to find an alterative that is acceptable to them. The Tribunal confirms that the design to be considered and determined on is the one Council made its decision on.
3. Decision was reserved. The Tribunal indicated that it would inspect the site before doing so.

1. The main issue of this review is the design response of the development to the neighbourhood character in terms of streetscape and interface, and its impact on the amenity of adjoining dwellings.

Neighbourhood Character - Front Setback and Building Mass from Street

1. Mr. Waldon submitted that despite Council officer's recommendation to approve the development, this officer had raised several reservations. Council is of the view that the proposal would impact on the streetscape due to an inadequate setback by having a front setback that does not meet the street setback standard of Clause 55.03. Standard B6 requires a minimum setback of 6.3 metres where a setback of 4.8 and 5.8 metres have been proposed. This means the two storey form will be too prominent. Council officer's report also identified other design shortcomings, such as the prominent dividing wall between the units, lack of eaves with exposed rafters, and unsatisfactory choice of external materials.
2. He contended that the design would require too many adjustments in order for it to respond appropriately to the neighbourhood character.
3. Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Mather, residents of No. 24 Bayview Street to the north of the site, were critical of the documentation of drawings as of poor quality and being inaccurate. They also submitted that the development is an overdevelopment of the site due to a setback that fails the street setback standard of ResCode. They described the development as an overly high and bulky building, and the loft at the back as overpowering and intimidating.
4. They suggested that their own house extension should be used as an example of how to achieve a new building on a narrow lot and causing low impact on neighbours.
5. Ms. Draper-Lee and Mr. Kennedy are residents from Hannan Street. Their properties abut the laneway at the rear of the site. Their concerns are the view of the two storey massing when viewed from their properties. They objected particularly to the lofts above the garages which have windows looking towards the rear of Hannan Street properties.
6. Ms. Draper-Lee pointed out that Hannan Street is affected by a Heritage Overlay, and that should be taken into account when assessing this proposal. She noted that developers of Bayview Street have used the previous townhouse development as a precedent to make their development bigger, and that the Tribunal should bear in mind that this lot is narrower than the other townhouse development in Bayview Street.
7. With regard to the use of the laneway for vehicular access, she was doubtful whether the garage openings, recommended by council engineer to be increased in width, are practical. Her experience is that manoeuvring will be difficult, considering that her garage is 6 metres wide.
8. Mr. Bowden, on the other hand, submitted that the design of the proposal and the formulation of permit conditions have been negotiated with Council officers. He commented that the plans seen by the objectors have to be modified according to permit conditions, all of which were agreeable to his client.
9. With regard to the configuration of the proposal, the side-by-side approach is a character of development in the part of Bayview Street opposite the foreshore. The southern end of Bayview Street has been developed to such an extent that the older style dwellings have become an exemption rather than the role.
10. He noted that the recommended conditions included a number of modifications to the development, such as increased setback, treatment of the central dividing wall, reduction in the size of the balconies facing Bayview Street, and choice of building materials. His client has no objection to any of the recommended modifications.
11. With regard to the loft, he submitted that they have a maximum height of 5.5 metres. It is centrally located, accessible only by a pull down ladder, and fitted with obscure glazing. To him, the fact that two storey building structures are visible from Hannan Street properties does not mean they are unacceptable. As for the proposed use of the laneway for car access and the loft above the garage, he cited Council policy as encouraging use of laneway for access and car storage.
12. The Tribunal's inspection of the site and area confirms the recent development at the southern end of Bayview Street, and that a side-by-side double storey configuration is part of the character of this part of the street. In that regard, the proposed configuration is consistent with the existing neighbourhood character.
13. It agrees with the parties that the front setback is inadequate, and that the central dividing wall and the protruding first floor balconies at the front accentuate the height and scale of the when viewed from Bayview Street.
14. It accepts Council Officer's recommendation to require a further setback from the street.
15. The Tribunal now turns its mind to the interface of the proposal with adjoining dwellings.
16. The matter of interface that the Tribunal concerns itself with is the scale and bulk of two storey massing adjoining any built form or open backyards of the neighbours. In that regard and with respect of No. 24 Bayview Street, the extent of the two storey built form in the proposal is comparable to the first floor extension of No. 24, except for part of bedroom 1 that overhangs the ground floor of the development. The first floor of the southern dwelling (22B), however, faces the secluded private open space and backyard of No. 20 Bayview Street. The Tribunal understands that the residents of 20 Bayview Street are neither party to the proceeding nor objectors to the proposal.
17. The Tribunal is satisfied that, subject to the pulling back of the first floor at the rear of both dwellings to align with the rear setback of the ground floor, the proposed two storey massing of the northern dwelling (22A) is comparable to the two storey massing of 24 Bayview Street, and acceptable as an interface with No. 20 Bayview Street by reason of the softening effect of the substantial tree in the backyard of that dwelling.
18. As for respondents' concern that the two storey building structure can be visible from Hannan Street properties, the Tribunal notes that the proposal meets the visual bulk standards of Clause 55.04 in the areas of building height, side and rear setbacks, and walls on boundaries. The first floors of the redevelopment will be setback 14.5 metres from the rear boundary (as required by permit condition). The laneway (3.68 metres wide) adds to the separation. This is reasonable in the context of the site in an urban zone and under the guidance of Clause 55.4.
19. As for respondent objectors' concern that the proposal would impact on the heritage significance of the properties in Hannan Street, the Tribunal does not agree. The proposal does not affect the intactness, the fabric or the heritage setting of Hannan Street properties.
20. Similar to Council officer, the Tribunal finds the treatment of the front of the development unsatisfactory: the protruding central dividing wall that is 3 metres forward of the front façade with the first floor overhanging the ground floor, and the depth of the balconies that are 2 and 2.5 metres deep respectively.
21. Council officer's recommended conditions are to reduce the size of the wall and the balconies. The Tribunal adopts these recommendations.
22. The last remaining neighbourhood character issue is the proposed loft above the garage.
23. Respondents have commented on the excessive bulkiness of the two storey section at No. 28 facing the laneway. The Tribunal's inspection of the laneway reveals that there are other two storey massing at the rear apart from the one at No. 28.
24. The Tribunal finds a two storey massing in the proposed lofts abutting the rear laneway opposite the open backyards of Hannan Street properties (although one is a low scale garage opposite) not sympathetic to that part of the laneway. They should be deleted from the development. A permit condition to modify the design will be imposed to achieve this.

1. This is not an issue raised by Council. To council, its proposed privacy protection condition will enable the development to meet all the amenity impact standards of Clause 55.04.
2. Residents of Hannan Street are concerned with first floor windows having views of the backyard of their properties and that no details have been provided to show how the first floor windows are to be screened.
3. Council officer's recommended permit conditions included those with regard to first floor windows on side elevations and Bedroom 1 looking towards the east having to meet StandardB22 of Clause 55.04-6, but none for the benefits of Hannan Street properties.
4. The Tribunal accepts this approach. It notes that Standard B22 does not require screening of the first floor windows of Bedroom 1 with regard to the Hannan Street properties. The first floor will be setback 14.5 metres from the rear boundary. Standard 22 requires screening if these windows are within 9 metres of the viewing arc.
5. Mr. Mather and Bartlett had another amenity impact concern: that the proposal would be detrimental to their house, the extension of which was designed along ESD principles. Their view is that the proposal would interfere with the natural light and ventilation of their house.
6. On this, the Tribunal agrees with Mr. Bowden that the proposal meets the amenity impact assessment of ResCode, particularly those relating to setback and daylight. The proposal acceptable due to its compliance with the relevant standards of ResCode.

1. The Tribunal finds the design of the two proposed double storey side-by-side dwellings, subject to modifications as stated in permit conditions, an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character of the area and meeting the amenity impact requirements of Clause 55.
2. Council's submitted without prejudice conditions were reviewed by the parties. The Tribunal initially expressed concern with the wording of some of the requirements of Condition 1 and others such as landscaping bond. Mr. Bowden indicated that his client has no objection to them, and that they have had previous discussion over them.
3. The Tribunal adopted most of Council's conditions in addition to the those imposed by the Tribunal to further modify the design of the development.

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority to refuse the application is set aside and a permit is to issue subject to conditions stated in this order.