1. Before the use and/or development starts, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided generally in accordance with the plans proposed by Design Consortia Australia dated 11 August 1999, but modified to show:

(a) Delete the upper storey of dwelling 3 (if necessary the ground level layout may be rearranged to provide for a second bedroom or study.

(b) Reduce the height (from base level) to dwelling 2 by 300mm.

(c) Reduce the size of the first floor of dwelling 2 by 25% with particular attention to reducing the height/bulk of the West facing wall to bedroom 2.

(d) Relocate the garage to dwelling 1 further under dwelling 1 and provide access at right angles to the western driveway.

(e) Replace the large front paved area with landscaping (which will include provision of a medium sized canopy tree.

(f) Relocate the entrance to the driveway 1.5m westwards to assist to increase the landscape area in front of dwelling 1.

(g) Set the front entry porch in line with the verandah (a hip or gable end may be incorporated into the verandah detail).

(h) Provide eaves (min 400mm) on all dwellings (except where roof/wall treatments are sited on boundaries.

(i) The planting of advanced canopy vegetation in each private open space area and in the landscape area in the front of the living room and toward the south-west corner of the site. This must include the species and planting size of each tree to be planted.

(j) The use of a cement rendered band around the middle section of each unit.

2. The layout of the site and size, design and location of the buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Before the development starts (or at a later date approved by the Responsible Authority in writing) a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm incorporating:

(a) A survey of all existing vegetation and natural features.

(c) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the location and size at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified.

(d) Paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill.

must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plan is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority it will be endorsed and will form part of this permit.

Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before occupation of the development and/or commencement of the use.

4 The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and all drainage works must be completed prior to the occupation of the building.

5 All work within the dripline of any tree on the subject site and adjoining properties with driplines that encroach upon the site must be supervised by a qualified landscape architect or horticulturist to ensure that the works are done in a manner which protects and minimises damage to those trees.

6 All car parking spaces shall be designed to allow all vehicles to drive forwards when both entering and leaving the property (VicRoads condition).

7 The edges of the vehicular crossover shall be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary, to improve entry and exit conditions (VicRoads condition).

8 The applicant shall pay the full costs of all roadworks, service relocations, signage and other costs associated with these works (VicRoads condition).

9 Existing vehicle crossovers shall be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerbing reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (VicRoads condition).

10 Prior to gaining approval from VicRoads to undertake works on the highway the developer shall:

(i) make a payment of $100.00 to VicRoads to cover the cost of surveillance;

(ii) provide evidence that the Contractor has a public liability insurance policy for at least $5 million that will be effective for the duration of the works;

(iii) provide the name, address, business and out-of-hours telephone numbers of the principle roadworks Contractor, and

(iv) provide at least seven days notice to VicRoads so that surveillance can be arranged. The VicRoads' contact in this regard is either Works Manager Mr Jeff Summerscales on telephone 0411 015 394.

(v) Worksite signing shall conform to the intent and standards included in VicRoads "Worksite Traffic Management, (Roadworks Signing and Code Practice)", incorporating AS1742.3-1996. Copies of this publication can be purchased from the VicRoads Bookshop at 60 Denmark Street, Kew.

(vi) Lane closure to facilitate works shall not be permitted prior to 10.00am or after 4.00pm.

* The development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit; and

* The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made.

Mrs J. Tait, Town Planner represented the Responsible Authority.

Mr R. Cooke, Mr D. Shore and Mr D. Walker Objectors represented themselves.

Mr R. Milner, Town Planner represented the Permit Applicant/Applicant for Review.

1. This is an Application for Review pursuant to Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act against the decision of Boroondara City Council to refuse an application to develop three (3) two storey dwellings on a lot.

2. The grounds of Refusal of Application No. BOR99/98 were:

1. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

2. The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the area.

3. The density of three dwellings is too high for this site.

4. The impact on visual bulk will have detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining land.

1. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zone.

2. The proposal is consistent with the relevant planning policies.

3. The proposal is consistent with the proper and orderly planning of the area.

4. The proposal has had regard to the objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

6. The proposal is consistent with the Council's Local Guidelines.

7. The proposal will not cause material detriment to adjoining residents and residents of the neighbourhood.

4. The amended plans considered by the Responsible Authority proposed three two storey dwellings sited lengthways along the site:

* Dwelling 1 - comprises basement double garage and dining, living, kitchen, foyer, study, WC and laundry at ground level. The first floor would comprise three (3) bedrooms, WC, bathroom, ensuite, walk in robe, at first floor level.

* Dwelling 2 - comprises living, kitchen, dining, foyer, laundry, WC and garage at ground level. The first floor level would comprise three (3) bedrooms, WC, walk in robe, bathroom.

* Dwelling 3 - comprises basement car park with dining, living, kitchen, laundry, bedroom 1, foyer, walk in robe, ensuite at ground level and two (2) bedrooms, bathroom, and WC and first floor level.

5. The subject site is situated on the northern side of Toorak Road, 253 metres west of Glen Iris Road. The site has a frontage of 15.24 metres, depth of 51.82 metres and land area of 789 sq metres. The site has a fall from north to south of about 4.5 metres. The site is currently vacant and has two mature trees.

6. Adjoining sites comprise single storey detached houses. No. 999 Toorak Road is set back about 8.3 metres from the street frontage, and No. 1003 Toorak Road is set back about 8 metres (to the car port) or 14 metres to the front of the house. Properties behind comprise single and two storey detached houses in generous landscape surrounds. Housing in the area is mixed in terms of the form of accommodation and architectural styles. Housing, particularly along Toorak Road has an eclectic mix and no one particular style predominates.

7. Toorak Road is a main arterial road which carries considerable amount of traffic volumes. There is a morning clearway on the southern side of Toorak Road and an afternoon clearway on the northern side of Toorak Road.

8. The subject site and all surrounding properties are zoned Residential 1 under the recently approved VPP based Boroondara Planning Scheme. The relevant purposes of the residential zone 1 are:

* To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies.

* To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

9. A permit is required under Clause 32.04-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme to develop more than one dwelling on a lot. This clause also requires assessment of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

10. Other relevant planning controls and policies in the planning scheme are addressed in the following clauses:

11. There was also reference to the Boroondara City Council's Medium Density Housing Policy. The Tribunal was told this policy was not contained within the Planning Scheme. This policy has been prepared as a variation to the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing but at this stage has not been formally exhibited, adopted nor has it faced the scrutiny of an independent panel. Its weight is therefore somewhat limited.

12. At the Review hearing all parties tabled and read from detailed submissions. I was provided with an array of information including photos of the subject site, surrounding properties and development in the nearby area. I inspected the subject site, No. 18 and 20 Range Road following the Review hearing.

13. Objectors and the Responsible Authority raised concern about the excessive bulk of the development. Objectors believed the rear parts of the development was excessively high particularly when viewed from various places on their properties. An inspection of Nos 18 and 20 Range Road revealed that some of the bulk of the rear of the dwellings 2 and 3 would be noticeable but other parts of the development would be obscured by vegetation on the objectors own properties. One viewing point through Mr Cooke's property was obscured by an old large melaleuca tree although its condition is somewhat questionable. That being said, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to consider the condition of the yard "as viewed" rather than to surmise about whether the conditions of Mr Cooke's rear yard will change in the near future. It is also noted that Mr Cooke's rear yard does have a noticeable change in level to the extent where there is virtually two terrace levels. The view from the upper level is substantially obscured whilst the view from the lower level is far more exposed.

14. There was also a view taken from Mr Walker's property but likewise the view was somewhat obscured by existing Cyprus trees and relatively small eucalypt. So whilst a majority of the bulk the buildings would not be totally visible from the rear yards of 18 and 20 Range Road some parts of the first floor particularly dwelling 3 would be quite noticeable.

15. The Tribunal is concerned that the combination of the bulk of the three storey buildings especially when viewed from an oblique angle from Toorak Road would be one of a bulky and overbearing nature. The Tribunal considers the combination of three by two storey dwellings and their elevated forms accentuates impression of bulk and mass of the development. The Tribunal considers front of dwelling 1 is stark and this also contributes to a bulky appearance. The Tribunal considers the bulk and appearance of the development could be ameliorated by the following means:

* Deleting part of the upper level of the dwelling 2 and in particular taking steps to ameliorate the height and bulk of the wall of bedroom 2.

* Reducing the size of the front entry porch and setting it back in line with the verandah.

* Relocating the garage of dwelling 1 so that its entrance is off the side driveway and replacing the driveway area in front of the living area of dwelling 1 with landscaping.

* Moving the entrance to the driveway 1.5 metres in a westerly direction to improve landscaping in front of dwelling 1.

* Introducing eaves to assist in articulation of the building (and to improve energy efficiency.)

16. The Tribunal gave consideration to allowing an attic style roof with one (1) bedroom in the upper floor to dwelling 3. However, this may have introduced a different architectural element to the development which was out of sync with the front two dwellings. Whilst the changes to dwelling 3 would theoretically render this a single bed room dwelling only the Tribunal considers that some internal changes can be made to introduce a second bedroom or study.

17. Mrs Tait raised concern about the expanse and appearance of the hard paved surface in front of dwelling 1. The Tribunal agrees it is large area and its expanse will not assist to ameliorate the visual impact of the elevated front of dwelling 1. The Tribunal considers the appearance of dwelling 1 could substantially be ameliorated by relocating the access to garage 1 and replacing it with landscaping including the provision of a further medium sized canopy tree.

18. The Tribunal is generally satisfied that an 8 metre setback from the front is acceptable in this location although it holds concern about the visual bulk of that dwelling. This bulk is accentuated by:

* The prominence of the front elevated portico/verandah detail.

19. The Tribunal considers that this starkness can be ameliorated by relocating access and placement of the garage under the dwelling. The Tribunal acknowledges that this change would result in greater excavation and this is likely to increase the cost of the project, but it considers that this is a necessary consequence of the size of the development on a site which has a number of site constraints including a substantial change in level, a relatively narrow street frontage and access to a busy road.

20. Mr Milner claimed the front landscape area on the western side of the drive would be adequate to screen the bulk of the dwellings, particularly when looking along the driveway. The Tribunal is somewhat disappointed that no detailed landscape plan was provided nor was evidence called from a Landscape Architect to demonstrate how landscaping would ameliorate the impact of the three larged two storey dwellings. The Tribunal is not satisfied

that the amount of landscaping proposed would adequately ameliorate the bulk of three elevated 2 storey dwellings.

21. During its inspection of the area the Tribunal viewed No. 1017 Toorak Road as it was claimed it had similar bulk and massing as the proposed development. The Tribunal noted a number of subtle differences between the subject site and 1017 Toorak Road, one of which was the presence of fairly generous landscaping on the western side of the property. Another is the apparent wider frontage than the subject site. The landscaping on No. 1017 Toorak Road tends to ameliorate the bulk of the three dwellings when viewed from Toorak Road. The Tribunal considers the subject site does not have the benefit of such a wide landscaping strip. The landscape strip along the side and at the front seemed insufficient in size to support the same level of vegetation as 1017 Toorak Road.

22. The Tribunal is satisfied that most overlooking has been addressed by the applicant. With the removal of the rear first floor level from dwelling 3 what overlooking may have occurred has now been eliminated.

23. There was not a lot of discussion about this issue although Mrs Tait expressed concern about the lack of eaves on development. The Tribunal is concerned about this issue especially given the siting and orientation of a number of rooms in the various dwellings and notably dwelling No. (2). Accordingly, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to require that eaves be placed on roofs with the exception of those areas which abut boundary walls.

24. Objectors and the Responsible Authority raised concern about the apparent high density of the development. The Tribunal does not see any fundamental reason why three dwellings at a density of 1 unit per 263 sq metres of land cannot be accommodated on the subject site. The Tribunal notes the site has close proximity to public transport, parks and other community services and it is located on a busy arterial road. The Tribunal heard that there was much debate within Council about this proposal and it is understandable that some Councillors wish to encourage medium to high density residential development on a main road. However there are a number of site constraints applicable in this case which mitigates against the development of three two storey dwelling in the form proposed. These include the topography of the land, the need to provide visitor parking on site because of clearways and busy traffic on Toorak Road, the relative narrowness of the site (15 metres) and the need to avoid overlooking to adjoining and nearby properties. Put simply some of the site constraints mitigate against three large two storey dwellings being placed on the site in the manner chosen by the applicants.

25. For the above reasons the Tribunal considers that various changes are required so as to reduce the impact of building bulk, improve landscaping particularly at the front and reduce and maintain appropriate access to a main road. The Tribunal considers that conditions can be imposed to address these matters and achieve a reasonable outcome for both the applicant, the Responsible Authority and objectors.