¾ The water supply must be located within 60 metres of the dwelling;

¾ Fire brigade vehicles must be able to get to within four metres of the water outlet;

¾ The water supply must be readily identifiable from the building or appropriate signage (see Appendix A: Figure 1) must point to water supply.

All below ground water pipelines must be installed to the following depth

¾ All fixed above-ground water pipelines and fittings, including water supply, must be constructed of non-corrosive and non-combustible materials or protected from the effects of radiant heat and flame.

If the static water supply is above ground the following additional standards must apply:

¾ All above ground static water supply must provide at least one 64mm 3 thread/25mm x 50mm nominal bore British Standard Pipe (BSP), round male coupling (See Appendix A: Figure 2);

¾ All pipe work and valving between the water supply and the outlet must be no less than 50mm nominal bore;

¾ If less than 20 metres from the building, each outlet must face away from the building to allow access during emergencies.

Access to the dwelling hereby approved must be designed to allow emergency vehicles access. The minimum design requirements are as follows:

¾ Curves in driveway must have a minimum radius of ten metres;

¾ The average grade must be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1o) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%)(11.3o) for no more than 50 metres;

¾ Dips must have no more than a 1in 8 (12.5%)(7.1o) entry and exit angle.

If the driveway from the road to the dwelling and water supply, including gates, bridges and culverts, is greater than 30 m long, the driveway:

¾ Must be designed, constructed and maintained for a load limit of at least 15 tonnes;

¾ Must provide a minimum trafficable width of four metres, and

¾ Be clear of encroachments 4 metres vertically (See appendix A: Figure 3).

A distance of 30 metres around the proposed dwelling or to the property boundary (whichever is the lesser) must be maintained to the following requirements during the declared 'Fire Danger Period' to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

• Grass must be no more than 100mm in height, leaf litter must be less than 10mm deep
• There must be no elevated fuel on at least 50% of the area. On the remaining 50% the elevated fuel must be at most sparse with very little dead material.
• Dry native shrubs must be isolated in small clumps more than ten metres away from the dwelling.
• Trees must not overhang the roofline of the dwelling.

Note: Non-flammable features such as tennis courts, swimming pools, dams, patios, driveways or paths should be incorporated into the vegetation management plan especially on the north and western sides of the proposed building.

Features with high flammability such as coir doormats, firewood stacks should not be located near the dwelling during the fire danger period. Clumps of hedges and shrubs with low flammability and/or high moisture content may be retained to act as a barrier to ember and radiant heat.

The land is in a bushfire prone area designed under regulation 804 of the Building Regulations 2006. The planning permit conditions mean the building is located within 100metres of vegetation with a low fuel load, which corresponds to a low category of bushfire attach under AS3959.

1. This permit will expire if the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit, or is not complete within four years of that date.

These periods may be extended if a request is 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.

1. This is a sec. 77 review under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against Council's refusal to grant a permit to construct a dwelling and use land as group accommodation at 65 Main Road, Hepburn Springs. The grounds of refusal were:
   1. The proposal fails to meet the purposes of the Residential One Zone.
   2. The proposal fails to meet all the relevant objectives of Clause 55 (two or more dwellings on a lot).
   3. The proposal would be detrimental to the neighbourhood character and amenity of the area in the design and siting of the new dwelling.

1. The Tribunal records leave granted to amend the application by substituting the plans circulated in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Note. These plans are dated May 2008.

1. The review site is located on the east side of Main Road approximately 45 metres south of Sixth Road, Hepburn Springs. This road is also known as the Daylesford Hepburn Road.
2. The site is irregular in shape, with a frontage of 30.53 metres and a site area of approximately 1424 sq m. The area on which the proposed dwelling is located is at the rear on a near-triangular piece of land at the eastern end of the site. This piece of land has a depth of 20.12 metres on one side, 22.39 metres on the other, and a width of 14.5 at the rear. It has an abuttal with properties in Sixth Street and Radium Avenue. The Main Road frontage is the highest point of the lot and falls sharply at the eastern end where the house is proposed. Topography of the land in the vicinity is undulating.
3. The review site is developed with a weatherboard house used as Bed and Breakfast providing five rooms for guests. The Tribunal understands that the proprietor/review applicant lives on site.
4. Due to the fall land, the weatherboard house, although single storey at the front, is three levels at the back. A gravel area behind the existing front fence is the parking area for the guest house. Other improvements to the land include a garden with a gazebo at the centre. There are also a number of canopy trees in the property. The site for the proposed house is cleared of trees.
5. To the north of the site is a hotel (The Savoia). There is a sizeable iron shed in this hotel complex facing the proposed house site. To the east of the house site is the backyard of No. 9 Sixth Street. This property has a colorbond shed and a hedge facing the proposed house site. To the southeast is the backyard of No. 12 Radium Road.

1. The proposal is to construct a part single storey part two storey dwelling at the triangular section at the eastern end of the land.
2. The upper floor is the ground level. It provides a study/office, a family room, an open plan lounge-meals-kitchen, a laundry with a toilet and a two metre wide deck off the lounge room. The lower floor provides a master bedroom.
3. No formal parking is provided for this dwelling, although the open gravel parking area at the front near Main Road is capable of accommodating 7 vehicles.
4. The design of the dwelling is completely modern, using vertical timber cladding and horizontal corrugated wall cladding for walls, and corrugated colorbond skillion roofing.
5. It became clear at the hearing that the intention of the dwelling is to provide the operator of the guest house her own quarters. It appeared that there were some difficulties in deciding the land use term for the proposed dwelling, and during the course of the application, there was agreement between Council and the permit applicant that the proposal is for a dual occupancy, comprising the existing house at the front used as a guest house and the proposed house as a second house on the land. Council also determined that the use of land is 'group accommodation'. The Tribunal will deal with the characterisation of the proposal later in these reasons.

1. The review site is in the Residential 1 Zone of the Hepburn Planning Scheme ("the Scheme") under which a permit is required for more than one dwelling on a lot. A permit is required for use and development for a caretaker's house. The provisions of Clause 55 apply.
2. The site is affected by the Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedules 1 and 2), and Wildfire Management Overlay, under all of which a permit is required for the proposal.
3. Other relevant provisions and policies of the Scheme are Clauses 11, 15.12, 16.02, 21.03 (Vision and Strategic Framework), 21.05 (Settlement and Housing), 21.09 (Environment and Heritage), 22.01 (Catchment and Land Protection), 22.02 (Mineral Springs Protection), 22.07 (Settlement) and 65.

1. At the hearing, it became clear that the intention of the proposal is to provide for a caretaker's house for the operator of the guest house. She is currently living in the guest house itself. Mr. Fetterplace advised that his client's intention is not for a dual occupancy but to live on site but away from the guests. This is the reason for the siting of the house away from the guest house and not in the centre of the site which is used as the communal amenity area for the guests. His client would accept a permit for a caretaker's house.
2. Decision was reserved. The Tribunal indicated that it would inspect the site before doing so.

1. Having regard to the submissions, the provisions of the Scheme and its inspection of the site, the Tribunal finds that the proposed dwelling is acceptable if it is a caretaker's house and not as a standalone second dwelling on the land.
2. The main issues of this review are the characterisation of the proposal, the design response to the immediate context of the site, and amenity impact on adjoining dwellings.

1. The Tribunal's understanding is that the proposal was described as a dual occupancy as there is no best 'fit' description for the proposal. The building on the land is currently used as a bed and breakfast. The definition of 'bed and breakfast' according to Clause 74 is defined as

A dwelling used by a resident of the dwelling, to provide accommodation for persons away from their normal place of residence.

1. Council's view is that if the operator of the guest house lives away from the existing dwelling, there will be two dwellings on the land: one in the guest house and the other in the new dwelling. In that case, the proper characterisation of the proposal is dual occupation and use of land as group accommodation.
2. Group accommodation is defined in Clause 74 as:

Land in one ownership containing a number of dwellings used to accommodate persons away from their normal place of residence.

1. If the proposal is characterised as a second dwelling and the use of the land described as group accommodation, Council is confident that the problem of identifying the guest house as a bed and breakfast is accommodated, as a bed breakfast use allows only one dwelling on site.
2. Council has no issue with a permit that describes the use of land as 'group accommodation', as tourism is a major economic factor for Hepburn Springs.
3. However, the Tribunal has some difficulty with characterising the land use of the site as group accommodation. Group accommodation refers to a number of dwellings used to accommodate persons away from their normal place of residence. The case here is that the second dwelling is not to provide accommodation for visitors but for the operator. As such, 'group accommodation' does not describe the outcome sought by the proposal.
4. If the proposal is considered to be a dual occupancy, there are inherent problems with the siting and design of the new house. One is the distance between the new house and the street and the second is the inaccessibility of the car parking spaces (located at the front) from the house.
5. Given the permit applicant's intent is for a caretaker's house rather than another unit on the land, and the design features of the development akin to a caretaker's house, the Tribunal concludes that the best fit land use term is a caretaker's house. Council has some difficulty with the description of the proposal as a caretaker's house, as it associates a caretaker's house with a commercial or industrial use. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed dwelling is a caretaker's house for the operation of the existing bed and breakfast establishment.
6. A caretaker's house is an inominate use in the Residential 1 Zone, and that should a permit issue, this use should be identified clearly in the permit and a condition to tie the development to this use. In the event of a subdivision of land in the future, there can be additional consideration in terms of allocation of car parking and vehicular and pedestrian access to the new dwelling.

1. In terms of design response to neighbourhood character of the area, the proposal will not have a streetscape impact to Main Road as the new house is set into the deepest part of the land and because of the screening effect of the house at the front and the high front fence.
2. It is the design response of the new dwelling to its immediate context that is the challenge.
3. Council's concern is that the new building is sited towards the rear of the site in an isolated corner. It considers the 'site' area of the house as the near triangular corner which has an area of around 195 sq m, and that a house within such a small area gives the impression of an intensive development, one that is "shoehorned" into a constrained 195 sq m part of the site. Council submitted that this is contrary to the existing character of dwellings set in spacious grounds. Its recommendation is for the new dwelling to be located in the garden area of the guest house. This area is on a gentler slope.
4. If the existing building on the land is not used for tourist accommodation and the proposal is for a dual occupancy comprising of two separate dwellings, the Tribunal would agree with Council that the siting of the second dwelling should be in the garden space of the land. However, the garden is for the amenity and enjoyment of guests and where there are native canopy trees. The loss of this garden, with the existing facilities in the gazebo, barbecue area and garden areas, will be detrimental to guests' enjoyment and the tourist accommodation business of the land. The loss of canopy trees will also be detrimental to the landscape qualities of the area.
5. The Tribunal considers that, provided the design of the new dwelling is compatible with the neighbourhood character of the area and not cause amenity impact that cannot meet the objectives of Clause 55, there should be no restriction for a the building to be located at the corner of the land.
6. In terms of the design of the new building, Council was critical of it in that it does not respect the design characteristics of the area, which typically have pitched roofs of around 30o. To the Tribunal, the design of the new building is compatible and respectful of the contemporary buildings recently constructed in Hepburn Springs.
7. The Tribunal now turns its mind to the design response to the adjoining dwellings of the area. By siting the new building at the rear of the site and with a part two storey built form, the proposal has abuttal to the rear yards of two properties: No. 9 Sixth Street and 12 Radium Avenue. The Tribunal is not particularly concerned with its abuttal with the Savoia Hotel to the north as that hotel has a substantial iron shed and its parking area abutting the review site.
8. With regard to No. 9 Sixth Street, the Tribunal's inspection of the site reveals that the two storey section of the new house faces a 'dead' corner of that garden, being the space between the common boundary and a shed. There is also some screening protection from a hedge. Nonetheless, the tribunal considers it appropriate to reduce the size of the deck on the upper ground floor, as this deck is within 1.2 metres of the rear boundary with No. 9 Sixth Street. A permit condition will be imposed to reduce the depth of this deck from 2 metres to 1.5 metres, a depth that still allows for use of the deck.
9. With regard to the interface with No. 12 Radium Avenue, the southern elevation of the proposed house presents a part single storey and part two storey building. The part two storey section is within 1.5 metres of the common boundary and recessed from the ground floor by between 500 and 600 mm. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to reduce the impact of the two storey section in such close proximity to the secluded private open space of No. 12 Radium Avenue. A permit condition is imposed to delete the toilet laundry from the upper floor.

1. The intent of the new house is to provide the operator of the bed and breakfast establishment of the land separate living quarters away from the guests. The review applicant accepts the concept of a permit for a caretaker's house instead of a dual occupancy.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the design of the dwelling, subject to minor modifications, is an appropriate response to the particular constraints and context of the site.

1. The decision of the responsible authority is set aside and a permit is to issue subject to the conditions stated in this order.