The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied. A permit is granted for the development of a double storey dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling at 50 Gordon Grove, Preston, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit No. D/553/2007 issued by the Responsible Authority on4 August 2008 modified by:

1. Inserting the following additional requirements to Condition 1:

"(k) The existing common paling fence with No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive be retained and structure made secure.

(l) Increase the setback of Unit 1 (proposed new dwelling) to a minimum of 3 metres from the Pleasant View Drive boundary.

(m) The proposed 1 metre side setback from the southern boundary be increased to a minimum of 1.5 metre for the ground floor and an additional 500mm for the first floor."

1. All reference to "Unit 2" in Condition 1(b), (d), (f) be replaced by "Unit 1".
2. Inserting the following additional requirement in Condition 5:

"(k) The increased west and side (southern boundary) setback areas be planted with screening small trees or shrubs to soften the built form of the development."

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 an application under sec. 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against Council's Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to develop a double storey dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling facing Gordon Grove, Preston.

1. Mr. De Fazio sought clarification of the extent of heritage control over the subject land and nearby land, as his reading of the schedule of Heritage Overlay HO92 refers the entire site of 5 acres covered by the former mental hospital as under the address of 131 Wood Street. This address previously covered a 5 acre parcel of land used as a mental hospital, including the Victorian mansion now with the address of 1-5 Pleasant View Drive, the current clinic (Northern Community Care) now fronting Wood Street and Pleasant View Drive with the address of 123 Wood Street, and a recent subdivision of 29 new residential lots fronting a new Pleasant View Drive and an extended Lyonsville Avenue.
2. Both Council and Mr. Dalton submitted that only the land now known as 1-5 Pleasant View Drive, (the grounds of the mansion) is subject to heritage control.
3. The Tribunal's finding is that the schedule in the ordinance must be read with the HO map in the Darebin Planning Scheme. The map shows HO92 covering the ground of 1-5 Pleasant View Drive Only. As such, the current Northern Community Care land and the new subdivision to the east and south of the No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive are not subject to heritage control.

1. The review site is located on the east side of Gordon Grove and rectangular in shape. It has a second street frontage to Pleasant View Drive. It has a front and rear width of 15.24 metres, a depth of 35.76 metres, and a site area of 549.19 sq m. It is developed with a single storey house facing Gordon Grove. This house is proposed to be retained.
2. Despite its 15.24 metres width, only part of it has a direct frontage to Pleasant View Drive. The lot alignment is such that 6.49 metres of this width is overlapped by a curved and narrow strip of land that belongs to No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive, meaning that the review site has in fact an 8.75 metres frontage to Pleasant View Drive and not its entire 15.24 metres width. A 2.2 metres high paling fence separates the site from the narrow strip of land that belongs to No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive.
3. Considering that No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive is subject to a Heritage Overlay, the very narrow strip of land (6.49 metres) in front of the review site is also subject to heritage control.
4. To the north and south of the site are properties in Gordon Grove which are developed for single dwellings of single and two storey heights. The two properties to the north in Gordon Grove also have a second street frontage to Pleasant View Drive. The properties to the south facing Gordon Grove do not have this secondary frontage. They abut the side boundary of No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive.
5. No 1-5 Pleasant View Drive is occupied by a Victorian mansion in spacious garden and grounds. It is the residence of the review applicant.
6. The former hospital site was disposed by the then state government as surplus with the creation of separate parcels of land and lots in the 1980's: the current community care facility, the mansion, the 29 lots, and a new road in Pleasant View Drive and an extended Lyonville Drive.
7. The 29 residential lots have been developed for double storey dwellings. The approved subdivision plans show building envelopes for each of the lots, allowing for on-the-boundary construction. These lots are smaller than typical suburban house blocks, around 350 sq metres and frontage generally of 12 metres.

1. The proposal is to construct a two storey dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey weatherboard house on the land. This new dwelling will face Pleasant View Drive. It provides three bedroom accommodation and a double garage off Pleasant View Drive.
2. The building is setback a minimum of 2 metres from Pleasant View Drive and increased to 3 metres at the garage.
3. The first floor is recessed from the ground floor and designed in a conventional manner: a combination of face and rendered brick walls for ground floor, rendered finish for first floor walls, and hipped roofing.
4. Private open space is provided in the front setback area, and 47 sq m of secluded private open space in the form of a lawn area and a deck at the rear of the dwelling.

1. The review site is in the Residential 1 Zone of the Darebin Planning Scheme ('the Scheme') under which a permit is required for the development of more than one dwelling on a lot.
2. One of the properties to the south: No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive is affected by the Heritage Overlay (HO92).
3. The site is affected by the Development Contribution Plan Overlay.
4. Other relevant provisions and policies from the Scheme are Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15.12, 16.02, 21.05-2 (Housing), 21.05-3 (Urban Design), 22.04 (Urban Character), and 65.

1. The development of a second dwelling on a lot that has two street frontages is consistent with the general thrust of urban consolidation in the urban areas of Melbourne. The review site has convenient access to public transport and services. The issues here are the design response to the neighbourhood character, and whether the review applicant's concerns for the heritage significance of the area would be adversely affected by the proposal to an unacceptable level.

1. Council was satisfied that the proposed dwelling, presenting as a single two storey dwelling with articulated elevations to Pleasant View is consistent with the state and local planning policies of the Scheme, and that conditions of permit imposed to require modifications to the design would further improve the design.
2. In that, it is satisfied that the proposal:
   • Retains the existing dwelling facing Gordon Grove;
   • The design of the new dwelling adopts the contemporary design and scale of the new houses in Pleasant View Drive;
   • It has a low front fence and involves no loss of trees, such as the street tree in Pleasant View Drive.
3. On the other hand, Mr. De Fazio submitted that the proposal failed to have regard to the historic significance of the Victorian mansion and the character of the area in the following ways:
   • The proposed new dwelling will detract from the character of Pleasant View Drive which is a tree lined street;
   • Pleasant View Drive was the original entry to the mansion, and the design has failed to have regard to that;
   • The proposal fails to respect the preferred neighbourhood character and decision guidelines for Precinct E4;
   • Inadequate front setback;
   • The new houses in Pleasant View Drive should not be used as reference point for the design of the development. Other buildings closer should be used, such as No. 46 and 48 Gordon Grove;
   • Council now requires the retention of the 2.2 metre high paling fence, meaning that the proposal will be unable to provide a low fence design of Clause 55;
   • The street frontage presentation of the development (8.75 metres) is dominated by garage and driveway;
   • Proposed boundary-to-boundary construction is contrary to design guidelines for the precinct;

1. Needless to say, Mr. Dalton endorsed Council's assessment, and submitted that the new dwelling is well designed with articulated facades, and that the proposal compares favourably with the new houses in Pleasant View Drive. He disputed Mr. De Fazio's assertion that the original entry to the mansion was from Wood Street and along Pleasant View Drive.
2. The Tribunal's inspection of the site confirmed the existing development of the area: the now much smaller mental health care facility to the east of the site, the review applicant's imposing Victorian mansion with well established and tended gardens to the south, the other Gordon Grove properties which have their rear facing Pleasant View Drive, the compact appearance of the new dwellings on smaller lots in the new subdivision in Pleasant View Drive, and the semi-mature street trees that line Pleasant View Drive.
3. In terms of design response, the Tribunal supports Council's view that a two storey dwelling on the second street frontage of the site is a common suburban occurrence, and that the presence of on-the-boundary structures to the north and south of the site are attributes that justify an on-the-boundary construction.
4. However, the on-the-boundary construction at the southern boundary abuts a modest shed. It is no higher than the existing paling fence and is concealed from view in Pleasant View Drive. The proposed setback of the new dwelling at 2 metres at this point for the main house increased to 3 metres for the garage is less than the setback of the garage and sheds on the adjoining properties. It is also proposed to 'open' up the Pleasant View Drive elevation by demolishing the existing 2.2 metres high fence and replace with a 1.5 metre open fence.
5. The Tribunal considers the proposed setback from Pleasant View Drive inadequate and not in keeping with setback of buildings immediately adjoining and not in keeping with the established front setback of the new houses in Pleasant View Drive.
6. According to Standard B6, the front setback of the development should be 3.6 metres. The proposed 2 metres increased to 3 metres are well under this standard and the typical 4.5 metres setback of the new houses in Pleasant View Drive[1]. Together with the proposed removal of the paling fence, the proposal presents a building mass that is atypical of the area.
7. As a minimum, the Tribunal considers the front setback should be increased to 3 metres so that the building will line up with the garage to the north and reduce the protrusion of built form forward of the low height shed (setback 4.8 metres) to the south.
8. Together with the retention of the existing paling fence, which can act as a buffer to screen the built form and provide a layered appearance, the minimum of 3 metres can allow the planting of medium sized shrubs that can soften the proposed built form.
9. As well, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to increase the setback of the dining area from the southern boundary from 1 metre to 1. 5 metres, again for the purpose of planting in this gap to give the appearance of a detached dwelling.
10. These modifications will mean that the first floor will also have to be recessed from the southern boundary as a consequence in order to maintain the articulation of the southern façade.

1. The Tribunal has earlier in these reasons determined that the extent of heritage control is not the former 5 acres of land covered by the entire former mental hospital site but limited to No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive. It makes sense that those parts of the extensive area not part of the mansion are not covered by heritage control: the current north community care development occupying the land facing Wood Street is comprised of a collection of 1960's and later buildings, and the subdivided housing lots are developed in the 1990's and 2000's, all of which do not contribute to the heritage value of the mansion.
2. The Tribunal disagrees with Mr. De Fazio that the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the Victorian mansion. It is separated from the mansion by the properties at No. 44, 46, and 48 Gordon Grove, the extensive garden ground of the mansion and the two storey garage.
3. Mr. De Fazio's assertion is that Pleasant View Drive was the original approach to the mansion, and that this approach should be maintained by not permitting the development. The Tribunal's review of submissions reveals that there is no documentation of the original approach to the mansion from Pleasant View Drive. This road is of recent construction and now a typical suburban street with rollover kerb.
4. The only heritage consideration is the existing 2.2 metre high paling fence between the strip of land owned by No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive and the review site. As it sits on the boundary of No. 1-5 Pleasant View Drive, it is also affected the Heritage Overlay HO92. As such, a permit is required to demolish this fence.
5. This fence has no particular heritage significance. Its conditions suggest that it is not of 19th century construction.
6. The Tribunal, as suggested by Council for it to be retained, agrees that it should be retained not for heritage reasons, but as a buffer to screen and provide a layered appearance of the two storey structure already discussed earlier in these reasons.

1. Mr. De Fazio raised other concerns, such as inadequate vehicular access, inadequate permeability, and inaccuracy of submitted plans.
2. With regard to vehicular access, the dimensions of the crossover and the width of Pleasant View Drive meet the required access dimensions of Clause 55. The Tribunal notes that Council's Traffic Engineer offered no objection. There is no reason to refuse the proposed access.
3. With regard to permeability, the concern is that the proposal fails the 20% permeability test of Clause 55, if the site is taken to mean the land occupied by the new dwelling. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal will meet the 20% permeability, given its imposed condition requiring the further setback of the development from Pleasant View Drive and the southern boundary, and the landscaping of these areas.
4. With regard to inaccurate plans, Mr. De Fazio pointed out that there are many errors in the documentation of plans. These errors do not assist the responsible authority in its assessment of the proposal. Yet, it does not mean that, in this case assisted by a site inspection, there is inadequate information to make a decision.

1. The proposed development of a two storey dwelling on a second street frontage is consistent with the housing policies of the Scheme. The concern that the Tribunal had is the lack of front setback. Subject to further permit conditions requiring minor modifications to the design in addition to Council's conditions stated in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal is a satisfactory design response to the character of the area.
2. This order will also make a minor correction to the permit conditions. The new dwelling is referred to in Condition 1 as Unit 2, when the submitted plans labelled it as Unit 1.

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit is affirmed and proposed conditions varied.

[1] See building envelopes approved for the subdivision, a minimum of 4.5 metres setback.