The former Andrews residence at 230 Latrobe Terrace is historically significant at a LOCAL level (AHC A.4, H.1). It is associated with upmarket residential development in this part of Latrobe Terrace during the Federation era. In particular, the residence has associations with Arthur Tremayne Andrews, civil engineer and surveyor, who contributed much to community life in the early 20th century as Municipal Surveyor to the Borough of Geelong West (1908-1920s) and Municipal Engineer to the Shire of South Barwon (1911-1915), as well as being a successful businessman as part of the Andrews family stove-making business that operated largely in Geelong West from the late 1870s until the mid 1950s.

1. The main dwelling is setback 25 metres from the boundary with the subject site, and is situated on Latrobe Terrace, which in proximity to the site is a seven lane Highway. Due to the separation between the dwelling and the proposed building, I am satisfied that the proposed development, although taller than the historic building, will not overwhelm or dominate the historic dwelling when viewed from Latrobe Terrace, which is the primary view of the historic building.

DOES THE PROPOSAL PROVIDE ADEQUATE CAR PARKING?

1. McNicol Street is a narrow street, with a carriage way width of approximately 6.5 metres. Because of this, no onstreet parking is permitted along the western side of the street, and due to the site's proximity to the activity centre and railway station parking, is restricted to only allow 2 hour parking between 9am and 5:30pm Monday to Friday and 9am and 12 Midday Saturdays. Outside of these times parking is unrestricted in the street. During my site inspection, which occurred prior to the hearing, at approximately 8:30am I observed that most, if not all of the onstreet parking was occupied by vehicles.
2. Mr Certoma is concerned that the proposed development will further increase the demand for parking within the street.
3. The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme requires the provision of 9 spaces for this development, eight for the dwellings and one visitor space.[11] The application provides nine spaces in a mechanical parking system.

Clause 52.06-9 of the Geelong Planning Scheme contains the design requirements for carparking structures, including mechanical systems. The design standard states that mechanical spaces should not be used for visitor parking spaces, unless in a valet situation. However, given the parking situation in McNicol Street I am prepared to allow the arrangement in this instance. I acknowledge that a resident will have to guide the use of visitors in how to use the space, however this in my view, is not insurmountable.

I note that Council's traffic engineers did not raise concern with the use of the mechanical system by visitors, but did require some design changes to ensure that that basement is reasonably protected from flooding. I have revised the conditions to allow for the provision of a mechanical and/or automated flood protection gate at the entrance as suggested by the permit applicant as it will provide a level of flexibility to the method used to protect the basement from flooding. I have also retained the requirement for a Section 173 Agreement as the future occupants of the dwellings will need to be made aware of their responsibilities after the building as been constructed.

With this change in place, I am satisfied that the proposed car parking arrangements are acceptable.

DOES THE PROPOSAL CREATE UNACCEPTABLE AMENITY IMPACTS?

1. Mr Certoma submitted that the size and bulk of the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the adjoining dwellings due to visual bulk, loss of daylight to habitable room windows and overlooking. I will consider each in turn.

1. During the hearing Mr Certoma provided me with the building plans for the building shown on the floor plans as a garage at No. 7 Spring Street, located immediately to the north of the site. However the plans provided by Mr Certoma show that the garage also contains a two storey studio, which includes a south facing habitable room window on the first floor.
2. The first-floor window has a sill height of approximately 4.1 metres and is sited approximately 1 metre from the boundary. The finished floor level of the room containing the window is approximately 2.5 metres above ground.
3. Whilst the window isn't shown in the floor plans, a section diagram has been prepared which clearly shows the relationship between the existing studio and the proposed development:

1. Based on this diagram, I agree that the application is seeking a variation to the Standard B19 as the second floor has not been set back a sufficient distance from the window. However, when the sill height of the window is considered, the proposed wall is setback enough distance to allow light to penetrate this window. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development will not result in a loss of daylight to this window.

1. The properties which have the greatest potential to be adversely affected through visual bulk are the residential properties located to the north of the site which are orientated towards Spring Street. The plans indicate that the proposal is seeking a variation to Standard B17 for this development. The plans indicate that the 'offending' elements at the first floor and second floors are the windows, which have been designed with sun shade devices.

I find that the projects are acceptable and will not result in unreasonable visual bulk for the following reasons:

• Some landscaping will be able to be established along the interface with 11 McNicol Street, which will assist in softening the impact of the built form in this location;
• Whilst it will change the outlook from the first floor studio window, due to the sill height of the window above floor level (approximately 1.6 metres) it's main purpose is to provide light to the studio rather than to obtain views;
• The new built form will be separated from the secluded private open space of 5-7 Spring Street by the Studio/Garage, which will assist in mitigating the impact of the bulk of the built form when viewed from these spaces;
• The northern elevation has been articulated with a variety of materials and finishes as well as setbacks which will also assist in mitigating the bulk of the built form.
• The site is within a Residential Growth Zone, where apartment style, and therefore bulkier built forms, are anticipated by planning policy.

1. I therefore find that the built form will not result in any unreasonable visual bulk. I have required the provision of a landscape plan as a condition of permit.

1. Whilst the plans indicate that screens, including horizontal sun shades, have been placed where required to prevent overlooking on the adjoining properties, I am not satisfied based on the plans provided that the treatments chosen are sufficient to prevent the overlooking of the secluded private open space areas of the properties to the north, or the studio habitable room window. I have therefore required, as a condition of permit, more detail to be provided, including sight line diagrams to demonstrate that the screening methods chosen will prevent the overlooking of these spaces, and where necessary altered.

1. This proposal is also seeking to subdivide land. Having found that the built form is acceptable, it follows that I find the subdivision of this site to also be acceptable. For completeness, I have not altered the conditions relating to the subdivision of the land on the Notice of Decision granted by the Council.

1. There is no doubt that this three-storey built form will be highly visible from other nearby residential properties, and it is a taller form than what has been established to date within McNicol Street. However, this type of built form is anticipated by planning policy for the Residential Growth Zone. I agree with the applicant for review that there is likely to be other similar built forms constructed in the area, including on the adjoining vacant site to the south. However, this does not make this proposal unacceptable and each application must be considered on its merits.
2. Having found that this proposal is acceptable, for the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

[1] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[3] G21 regional growth plan 920130 page 16

[6] Ibid page 27 and Clause 16.01-2R of the scheme

[7] Planning Maps Online http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/pmo.jsp retrieved 11 February 2019

[8] Clause 32.07-9 of the scheme allows for built form over this height to exceed this height limit on this site as it is included within the Special Building Overlay.

[9] Nearmap aerial image dated 11 January 2019

[10] Extract from drawing P001 Rev D prepared by another dimension building design dated 26 March 2018

[12] Extract from drawing prepared by another dimension building design, P004A Rev D dated 26 March 2018.