Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC [2003] VCAT 1635 | Case summary | Zoe

VICVCAT

Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC [2003] VCAT 1635

[2003] VCAT 1635

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2003-11-07|Before: Mr J, Mrs J

At a glance

AI case summary

Result

procedural. Interim decision: Applicant given 28 days to lodge amended plans and a list of amendments; Responsible Authority and objectors given 14 days thereafter to lodge written submissions limited to the...

Key principles

The State and local planning policy frameworks (SPPF Clauses 14 and 16 and Local Policy Clause 22.06.04) support medium density housing on the review site and therefore the site...
ResCode/Clause 55 setback standards are applicable and the proposed front setback of 11 metres complies with the ResCode standard (being the average of adjoining properties), so...
The proposal must provide on-site visitor parking required by Clause 55 (two visitor spaces for seven dwellings); reliance solely upon on-street visitor parking is inappropriate...
Design changes are required to address overlooking, inadequate private open space and internal amenity (including reducing the size of Dwellings 5 and/or 6, modifying first-floor...

Issues before the court

Whether the policy framework supports medium density housing on the review site despite its distance from transport and shops.

Plain English Summary

VCAT reviewed an application for seven double-storey dwellings at 46 Surrey Drive after the Council failed to decide. The Tribunal found the site suitable for medium density development under State and local planning policy, accepted the front setback and overall built form as acceptable in context, but required changes: provide two on-site visitor car spaces, redesign or remove certain east-facing lounge windows to prevent overlooking, improve private open space (especially for Dwelling 1), and fix internal overlooking between Dwellings 5 and 6 (likely by reducing dwelling size). The Tribunal ordered the applicant to lodge amended plans within 28 days, allowed 14 days for submissions on the amendments, and reserved final determination pending those materials (Orders and Reasons [14], [17], [25]-[27], [31]-[33]).

AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.

Deep Dive

1,835 words · generated 06/08/2026

What happened

Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd sought a permit to construct seven double-storey dwellings with associated semi-basement garages at 46 Surrey Drive, Keilor East. The Moonee Valley City Council did not grant a decision within the prescribed time, so Checkpoint brought a review under s79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The matter was heard in VCAT’s Planning and Environment List, Member Rachel Naylor presiding, with a hearing on 24 October 2003 and a decision dated 7 November 2003.

The Tribunal received expert evidence (planning, traffic engineering, landscape), inspected the site and the surrounding neighbourhood, and considered a prior Tribunal determination concerning the same land that proposed ten dwellings (Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley City Council and Others (2000/14891)). The Tribunal concluded the site is suitable for medium density housing in principle, having regard to State and local planning policy, but identified several specific design deficiencies that must be remedied before a permit can be granted. Instead of imposing permit conditions to cure the problems, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to lodge amended plans within 28 days and permitted the Responsible Authority and objectors 14 days to make written submissions confined to those amendments; the Tribunal would then make a final determination (Orders 1–3; Reasons [31]–[33]).

Key operational findings included:

Policy support for medium density redevelopment in principle (Reasons [11]–[13], [31]).
The proposed 11 metre front setback for Dwelling 1 complied with the ResCode averaging approach and was acceptable (Reason [14]).
Overall building form and bulk were acceptable in context (Reasons [15]–[16]).
Clause 55 requires two visitor car spaces for seven dwellings and these should be provided on site rather than relying on on-street parking in the cul-de-sac (Reason [17]).
Specific changes required to avoid overlooking (convert/delete first-floor east lounge windows, sill height 1.7m where necessary), to improve private open space (notably for Dwelling 1), and to remedy internal overlooking between Dwellings 5 and 6 (Reasons [25]–[27]).
Some design changes were noted as desirable (relocate bin storage, improve west elevations, modify turning area kerb line) (Reasons [23]–[24], [28]–[29]).

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's reasoning is grounded in the planning policy framework and a site-specific assessment of amenity impacts.

Policy foundation: The Member emphasised that Clauses 14 and 16 of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) encourage urban consolidation and opportunities for increased residential density, and that these Policies require development to respect neighbourhood character. The Member therefore read the SPPF as supporting increased density across metropolitan Melbourne generally, not only in precincts immediately adjacent to shops and public transport (Reason [11]). This guided the starting point that medium density on the site is consistent with planning objectives.
Local policy alignment: Clause 22.06.04 (Keilor East Residential Design Policy) contemplates moderate to significant infill on vacant sites and explicitly maps the review site as an area of 'moderate infill potential'. The Member relied on that local policy text to support the site's suitability for redevelopment (Reason [12]).
Contextual built-form assessment: The Tribunal accepted the Council officer's assessment that surrounding buildings are generally large, that double and triple storey dwellings are present, and that the proposed mix of forms, roof treatments and materials reduces perceived bulk (Reasons [15]–[16]). The Tribunal conducted its own site inspection and thus treated the officer's analysis as corroborated by on-site realities.
Compliance with standards: The Tribunal applied ResCode (Clause 55) standards pragmatically: it adopted the ResCode averaging approach to front setbacks and found the proposed front setback acceptable (Reason [14]). It also applied Clause 55's parking requirement to conclude two visitor spaces were required and should be on site given limited adjacent on-street capacity (Reason [17]).
Amenity-focused modifications: Notwithstanding policy support for density and acceptable bulk, the Tribunal identified concrete amenity problems, overlooking (internal and external), inadequate private open space for particular dwellings, and the lack of on-site visitor parking. The Member considered these matters capable of being remedied by changes to the design and thus invited the Applicant to lodge amended plans rather than deciding by conditions (Reasons [25]–[27], [31]–[33]).

In short, the Tribunal balanced strategic policy support for medium density with on-the-ground amenity protections, accepting density in principle while insisting on specific design amendments.

Before and after state of the law

Before (as reflected in submissions and the parties' positions):

The Responsible Authority emphasised isolation from transport and facilities and raised built form, bulk, parking and privacy concerns.
The objectors stressed loss of amenity (noise, overlooking, driveway proximity).
The applicant and its experts argued the proposal was appropriate and compliant or capable of amendment.

After (the Tribunal’s effect on the matter):

The Tribunal affirmed that SPPF Clauses 14 and 16 and Local Policy Clause 22.06.04 can support medium density redevelopment on sites even if they are not in immediate proximity to shops or public transport, provided neighbourhood character is respected (Reasons [11]–[13], [31]).
The Tribunal clarified that compliance with ResCode principles (setbacks, parking obligations, private open space) remains decisive for amenity outcomes; where these are not met or create amenity risks, the Tribunal expects practical design amendments rather than purely conditioning a permit (Reasons [14], [17], [25]–[27], [32]).
Procedurally, VCAT exercised its s79 review power to require amended plans and further submissions before a final determination, reflecting an approach of iterative design modification in the Tribunal process (Orders 1–3; Reasons [32]–[33]).

The decision does not create new statutory law but demonstrates VCAT’s application of planning policy and ResCode standards in balancing densification and amenity in contested redevelopment contexts.

Key passages with plain-English translation

Policy support for density (Reason [11]):
- Text: "Clause 14... encourages urban consolidation and requires that development respect the neighbourhood character. Clause 16... encouraging opportunities for increased residential densities... I find that these two Clauses encourage increases in housing density across metropolitan Melbourne regardless of the proximity of a property to shops and public transport."
- Plain English: The Tribunal reads the State planning policies as endorsing higher-density housing generally across Melbourne, but this must still fit with the local neighbourhood character. Being a bit farther from shops or trains does not automatically bar medium-density development.
ResCode setback acceptance (Reason [14]):
- Text: "Adopting the Rescode Standard, the required setback for Dwelling 1 would be 9 metres... the front setback is considered acceptable and in this instance, complies with the Standard offered in Rescode."
- Plain English: Using the usual method of averaging neighbouring setbacks, the proposed 11 metre front setback is okay.
Visitor parking requirement (Reason [17]):
- Text: "This proposal for seven dwellings generates a requirement, pursuant to Clause 55, of two visitor car spaces... it is inappropriate for this proposal to rely solely upon on-street visitor parking... ample room on the review site... to accommodate the required two visitor spaces."
- Plain English: Clause 55 says seven units need two visitor parking spaces, and because the cul-de-sac has limited on-street spots, the development should provide those two spaces on-site.
Overlooking fix (Reason [25]):
- Text: "I am of the opinion that the lounge room windows in the east elevation should either be deleted or changed to highlight windows with a sill height of 1.7 metres above the floor level."
- Plain English: The Tribunal wants the east-facing lounge windows removed or made into high windows so people inside cannot easily look into the neighbour's property.
Conclusion (Reason [31]):
- Text: "I find that the State and local planning policy frameworks... support medium density housing developments... however the provision of private open space, overlooking both internally and externally, the provision of visitor parking and other minor matters require further consideration."
- Plain English: The Tribunal says the site should be developed for medium density, but the plans must be fixed to sort out parking, privacy and private open space before a permit is issued.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is most directly applicable where:

A proposal seeks medium-density residential redevelopment of a vacant or large lot in an established suburban area.
Local policy maps the site as suitable for moderate infill (Clause 22.06.04 style designations).
There is tension between strategic policy favouring consolidation and on-the-ground amenity concerns (privacy/overlooking, private open space, parking).
The site is at the head of a cul-de-sac or within a streetscape where on-street parking is limited by multiple crossovers and achieving on-site visitor parking is feasible.
Evidence includes planning, traffic and landscape expert reports, and the Tribunal conducts or has conducted a site inspection.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal may accept the principle of densification while requiring concrete design amendments to protect neighbour amenity, and may order amended plans and further submissions rather than immediately imposing conditions or refusing the application (Reasons [11]–[17], [25]–[33]).

How later courts have treated it

The present decision is a VCAT planning list determination and is an exercise of Tribunal fact-finding and policy application to a particular site. The judgment expressly engages with an earlier Tribunal decision concerning the same land and follows/relies on aspects of that earlier determination where consistent (Reasons [10], [13], [19]). This decision functions as an instance of the Tribunal applying state and local policy plus ResCode; later cases addressing similar issues typically cite reasoned VCAT decisions to support approaches to density versus amenity trade-offs, but any binding effect is limited. Practitioners should check subsequent VCAT and court authorities for developments in the interpretation of the SPPF, local policies and ResCode standards since 2003.

Still-open questions

Extent of "regard" to Melbourne 2030 in isolation arguments: The Responsible Authority invoked Melbourne 2030's encouragement of medium density near activity centres. The Tribunal accepted SPPF Clauses 14 and 16 as a broader basis for densification even when track proximity is limited (Reason [11]). How this principle applies where local policy or site constraints are stronger may require fresh factual analysis in other cases.
When Tribunal will prefer amended plans over permit conditions: The Member considered the necessary changes could not be adequately achieved by permit conditions and therefore required amended plans (Reasons [32]). The precise threshold for preferring amended plans rather than conditions remains a practical, case-by-case determination depending on how substantial the design changes are.
Quantification of amenity impacts: The decision identifies particular remedies (highlight window sill heights, reduce dwelling sizes) rather than attaching generalized tests. Future disputes may focus on how much reduction in dwelling size or what landscaping quantitatively remedies overlooking or noise concerns.
Interaction with adjoining lot potential: The Tribunal observed the neighbouring lot retains medium density potential irrespective of this application (Reason [30]). How the cumulative impact of adjacent medium-density developments should be assessed remains an area for careful factual and policy analysis in subsequent applications.

Final reminder: This is general legal information only, not legal advice. I can make mistakes. Before you rely on this analysis or act on any draft or the deep dive, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.

Judgment (48 paragraphs)

[1]

Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC [2003] VCAT 1635 (7 November 2003)

[2]

Application under s.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Moonee Valley Planning Scheme; Seven Double Storey Dwellings; Neighbourhood Character; Building Form and Scale; Visitor Car Parking; Traffic and Access; Private Open Space Provision; Overlooking of Adjoining Property.

[3]

[2003] VCAT 1635

[4]

1. The Applicant has been provided with the opportunity to prepare amended plans. Copies of such amended plans together with a list specifying the amendments made are to be lodged with the Tribunal and supplied to the Responsible Authority and Mr & Mrs Ryle & Others within 28 days of the date of this Order.

[5]

2. The Responsible Authority and Mr & Mrs Ryle & Others then have a further 14 days within which to lodge a written submission limited to such amendments with the Tribunal. Copies of such written submissions are to be provided to each of the parties and the Registrar is to be advised in writing that this has been done. If any party considers that a further hearing is necessary or desirable, that party should say so in his or her written submission stating why it is said to be necessary or desirable and what matters, limited to the amendments made to the plans, should be considered in such a hearing.

[6]

3. Upon cessation of this 14 day period, the Tribunal will then consider the amended plans and the submissions received, and make a final determination on this matter.

[7]

Mr J Cicero of Best Hooper Solicitors. Mr Cicero called Mr E Zagami to provide expert planning evidence, Mrs K Partenio to provide expert traffic engineering evidence and Mr R Thompson to provide expert landscape evidence.

[8]

Mrs J Ryle & Mr J Harding on behalf of Mr & Mrs Ryle & Others

[9]

All parties made written and/or verbal submissions. Photographs and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. All of the material presented to the Tribunal is retained on file and has been taken into consideration. The review site and surrounds were inspected subsequent to the Tribunal hearing.

[10]

4. This is an Application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 brought by Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd to review the failure to grant a permit in application no. MV/1570/2003 within the prescribed time by the Moonee Valley City Council ("the Council").

[11]

5. The permit application sought approval to construct seven double storey dwellings with associated semi-basement garages on the review site.

[12]

6. The parties were advised orally of the reasons for this decision at a Decision Hearing on 7 November 2003, and they are repeated below.

[13]

7. In giving these reasons for my decision, I do not propose to set out the details of:

[14]

* The background to the Council's consideration of the permit application and decision.

[15]

8. Essentially, the relevant background facts in relation to these matters were set out in the written submission presented by Mr Waldon on behalf of the Council. I have inspected the review site and surrounds, and have also had the benefit of an extensive array of photographs and other material, which have provided me with a good understanding of the land, the proposal and its context.

[16]

9. In coming to my decision I have considered the matters raised in the submissions and evidence, the relevant matters under the Planning Scheme and legislation together with the details of the proposal for which a permit is being sought.

[17]

10. I have also had regard to a previous Tribunal determination, Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley City Council and Others (2000/14891), relating to a proposal to develop the review site for ten dwellings. I find that there is no conflict between my decision that this proposal is appropriate subject to alterations, and the reasons why the Tribunal determined to refuse the previous proposal.

[18]

11. Mr Waldon submitted for the Council that the State Planning Policy, Melbourne 2030, encourages medium density housing around activity centres, and this is not the case here as the review site is not within easy walking distance of either shops or public transport. However, I note that Clause 14 of the State Planning Policy Framework ("the SPPF") encourages urban consolidation and requires that development respect the neighbourhood character. Clause 16 of the SPPF contains the objective of encouraging opportunities for increased residential densities to help consolidate urban areas. I find that these two Clauses encourage increases in housing density across metropolitan Melbourne regardless of the proximity of a property to shops and public transport.

[19]

12. Mr Waldon also referred to Clause 22.06.04, Keilor East Residential Design Policy, of the Local Planning Policy Framework, and submitted that this proposal, containing seven dwellings, was at odds with this policy. I disagree and note this Clause states that "there is need to provide a greater diversity of housing opportunities, whilst recognising that there is still a strong demand for larger homes to accommodate families with children. The suburb is well suited to provide opportunities for increased re-development on vacant sites and larger lots". The first objective of this Clause is to "recognise that there is moderate to significant additional infill development opportunities on vacant land and development sites". The map contained in this Clause identifies the review site and surrounds as being in an area of 'moderate infill potential'. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the development of this vacant review site for medium density housing is in accordance with this Clause.

[20]

13. I also note that this matter was raised in the previous Tribunal case relating to a proposal to construct ten dwellings on the review site, Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley City Council and Others (2000/14891), and the Tribunal found that:

[21]

"The isolation of the site from public transport and all facilities is not a matter that necessarily excludes the subject land from multi-unit development under local policy. The isolation of this area is recognised in the policy, yet it still designates the subject land as part of an area in which moderate infill may occur."

[22]

14. Mr Waldon submitted that the Council has no issue with the form and materials of the proposal, but is concerned about the extent of the built form, particularly its bulk and height. He also submitted that the front setback of 11 metres was not appropriate in the bowl of the court. In regard to the front setback, I disagree with Mr Waldon's submission and, instead, I adopt and agree with the assessment contained in the Council officer's report dated 18 June 2003 which states:

[23]

"The standard offered states that the acceptable front setback for a new development should be the average of the two adjoining properties. The front setback for Dwelling 1, facing Surrey Drive is proposed to be 11 metres. The adjoining residence to the east is setback 32 metres from the street, whilst the parcel of land to west is vacant. Adopting the Rescode Standard, the required setback for Dwelling 1 would be 9 metres.

[24]

As has been discussed previously, the front setback is considered acceptable and in this instance, complies with the Standard offered in Rescode."

[25]

15. In regard to the extent of the built form, particularly its bulk and height, I have inspected the neighbourhood and I agree with Mr Cicero's submission that the building forms dominate the neighbourhood. I also adopt and agree with the assessments of Building Form and Building Bulk or Scale contained in the Council officer's report dated 18 June 2003 which states:

[26]

"The overall form and shape of the proposed development is one which is considered to complement surrounding buildings which are generally large in size. There is a good mix of double and triple storey dwellings within the context area of the site. Considering the surrounding pattern of built form, the proposed building forms are considered acceptable."

[27]

"The bulk of the development has been generally minimised by incorporating various roof forms, split levels and includes a mixture of building materials which assist in enhancing the proposal's appearance. The overall three dimensional building envelope is appropriate for the site, particularly given its context.

[28]

The dwellings are comparable with respect to height of surrounding properties and can also be directly compared to other dwellings within the context area with regard to scale. Bulk and scale are not perceived to be issues with this proposal."

[29]

16. I consider this to be a balanced and accurate assessment of the built form, scale and bulk characteristics of the neighbourhood and this proposal. Mrs Ryle expressed concern about the height of Dwelling 1 above the street level given the natural ground level sits high above the street. However I find that, due to the slope of the land in this neighbourhood, tall building facades of two to three storeys in height is not unusual. Therefore, I consider that the incorporation of a two storey building on top of the existing natural ground level at the front of the review site is both reasonable and appropriate.

[30]

17. Mr Waldon submitted that the proposal will result in an unacceptable reliance on on-street parking due to its failure to provide on-site visitor parking. I note that this proposal for seven dwellings generates a requirement, pursuant to Clause 55, of two visitor car spaces. Having inspected the review site and Surrey Drive, and considered the layout of the proposal, I am of the opinion that it is inappropriate for this proposal to rely solely upon on-street visitor parking. I find that the review site is located in the bowl of a court that contains a number of crossovers/driveways, therefore the number of on-street spaces immediately adjacent to the review site are limited. There is ample room on the review site, adjacent to Dwelling 7, to accommodate the required two visitor spaces and I am of the opinion that they should be provided on site.

[31]

18. Mr Waldon, Mrs Ryle and Mr Harding all expressed concern about the impact of the traffic generated by this proposal upon the amenity of Surrey Drive. I adopt Mrs Partenio's expert traffic engineering evidence on this matter, that the traffic generated using either her calculations or Mr Harding's calculations "is not expected to compromise the safety or function of the surrounding road network".

[32]

19. I note that this matter was raised in the previous Tribunal case relating to the review site, Checkpoint Holdings Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley City Council and Others (2000/14891), and the Tribunal found that:

[33]

"Mr Tucker's evidence on traffic and parking, incorporating the revised ground levels, was generally accepted, and the parties agreed that there was no need to call him for cross-examination on his statement. The issue of developing this lot at the head of a cul de sac for 10 units is not one of capacity of the road to accept the additional traffic, but of protection of the amenity of the neighbouring properties."

[34]

20. Mrs Ryle expressed concern about the noise of the vehicles upon her adjacent property given that the driveway is located close to the common property boundary for approximately the first 30 metres and her dwelling contains three bedroom windows and one study window facing the common property boundary with the review site. I note that this was of a matter of concern in the previous Tribunal case as the Tribunal found that:

[35]

"The access road itself is in my view too close to Mrs Ryle's house to be acceptable for a road serving so many dwellings."

[36]

21. I note that this proposal has reduced the number of dwellings from ten to seven and that the visitor car parking provided on site will be reduced from four to two spaces. Accordingly, I consider that the traffic to be generated by this proposal is both an improvement and an acceptable outcome. I note that Mrs Ryle's property will benefit from the landscaping proposed between the common property boundary and the proposed driveway, particularly for the first 40 metres or so, as it will contain 40 low level native rosemary bushes of approximately 1 metre in height and 14 evergreen Acacia melnoxylon (Blackwood) feature trees that will grow to an average height of 6 metres.

[37]

22. I consider that the landscape treatment and the reduction in the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site is reasonable having regard to the amenity of Mrs Ryle's property. I note that there is no fencing along the common property boundary between Mrs Ryle's house and the review site. Whilst this is not a requirement or a feature of this proposal, I note that it could be incorporated by the two property owners at any time in the event that either party considers that further separation is required.

[38]

23. Mrs Partenio's expert evidence included a recommendation that the turning area and kerb line between Dwellings 6 and 7 be modified in accordance with the plan attached to her evidence. I agree with this recommended modification and consider that the surplus land at the rear of the turning area should be landscaped.

[39]

24. I note that the design response proposes to widen the existing driveway at the Surrey Drive frontage to enable two vehicles to pass each other on the review site, and that this will involve alterations to the existing retaining wall adjacent to the site's frontage. I accept and adopt the evidence of Mrs Partenio that the proposed alterations to the existing driveway will provide appropriate sight lines for vehicles exiting the review site. I am, however, concerned about the proposed location of the garbage bin storage area on the eastern side of the entrance to the review site. Given that alterations are to be made to the existing retaining wall, I consider that a more appropriate design response would be to locate this storage area on the western side of the driveway, out of direct sight from the bowl of the court.

[40]

25. Mr Waldon submitted that the proposal will overlook Mrs Ryle's property to the east. There is only one dwelling proposed adjacent to the eastern boundary, being Dwelling 7 located in the rear north east corner of the review site. The east elevation contains two bedroom windows and a study window at lower ground level with a pittosporum hedge and a range of feature trees planted along the common boundary. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there will be no unreasonable impact upon the amenity of Mrs Ryle's property from the lower ground level windows. The dwelling also contains a kitchen window and two full length lounge room windows in the first floor level of the east elevation. I consider that the lounge room windows will overlook Mrs Ryle's property and I question the necessity of these windows given the proposal provides full length lounge room windows across the entire northern ground floor elevation. I am of the opinion that the lounge room windows in the east elevation should either be deleted or changed to highlight windows with a sill height of 1.7 metres above the floor level.

[41]

26. I have had regard to the internal amenity being created by this proposal and I am of the opinion that modifications are required to Dwellings 1, 5 and 6. I find that there is direct overlooking between the living area and small principal private open space area of Dwelling 5 and the entry and living area of Dwelling 6. I consider that the minimal separation between these two dwellings has impacted upon this problem. I note that both of these dwellings are large as they each contain three bedrooms and a study; and I am of the opinion that the size of one or both of these dwellings should be reduced to improve the size of the private open space area adjacent to the living area of Dwelling 5 and to improve the amenity of the two dwellings from direct overlooking. I reiterate that the size of the dwellings should be reduced rather than reducing the proposed setbacks.

[42]

27. I am concerned about the provision of private open space for Dwelling 1. The plans and elevations submitted with the application depict the principal private open space area as south facing and located on the elevated frontage of the review site. I note that it appears, due to the dwelling being cut into the natural slope of the land, that private open space directly accessible from the living areas cannot be provided to the north (rear) of the dwelling. I consider that this design should be reconsidered in an effort to improve the provision of a suitable private open space area, adjacent to a living area of Dwelling 1.

[43]

28. During the hearing, Mr Cicero tabled a western side elevation of Dwellings 1 to 6 and I find that the west elevation of Dwellings 1 to 4 appear rather plain in contrast to the materials and finishes of the east elevation. I consider that the west elevation of these Dwellings should be of a similar quality of finish to that proposed on the east elevation.

[44]

29. During the course of the hearing, I noted that there are some inconsistencies between the location of windows on the plans and elevations (e.g. Dwellings 2 and 7), and that not all elevations were submitted with the permit application. I consider that plans and all elevations should be provided as part of the preparation of amended plans to address the concerns raised in this interim decision.

[45]

30. Finally, Mr Waldon and Mrs Ryle expressed concern about the impact the approval of this application would have upon the future development of the adjoining vacant lot to the west. It should be noted that this lot has medium density housing development potential irrespective of the approval of the development of the review site. Any application for the development of the adjoining lot will have to be assessed on its merits in the same way that this application has been, having regard to the planning policies and controls of the Planning Scheme.

[46]

31. I find that the State and local planning policy frameworks of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme support medium density housing developments in this neighbourhood. Therefore I consider that the review site is suitable for medium density housing, however the provision of private open space, overlooking both internally and externally, the provision of visitor parking and other minor matters require further consideration.

[47]

32. I am satisfied that the concerns I have expressed are capable of being addressed by modifications to the proposed design, however I do not think that the changes necessary to achieve an acceptable outcome are appropriately achieved by way of permit conditions. I have therefore provided the permit applicant with the opportunity to respond to my concerns by preparing an amended proposal and submitting it to me for further consideration. The orders I have prepared also provide for the opportunity for both the Council and the Respondent Objector, Mr and Mrs Ryle & Others (the other party to this hearing), to make further written submissions on the proposed amendments.

[48]

33. In the event that the Permit Applicant chooses to respond to the opportunity provided by me to prepare an amended proposal, and I find the amendments to be satisfactory and appropriate, I will order that a permit be granted subject to appropriate conditions.