94 In addition to which, I note that the only change to the frontage of the site will be the creation of a second driveway and new garage for the existing dwelling to be retained. These works, in my opinion, will not significantly change the existing streetscape appearance of the review site.
95 In regard to the Council's concern that this proposal is an overdevelopment of a site, I am of the opinion that such a circumstance would be evident through poor siting of the dwellings, amenity impacts such as overlooking and overshadowing, inadequate provision of private open space and inadequate or difficult car parking arrangements.
96 However, I find that this design response provides dwellings with appropriate areas of car parking and private open space and the layout has appropriately dealt with the potential amenity impacts upon neighbouring properties by way of overlooking and overshadowing. Therefore, I do not agree with the Council's concern.
97 My concerns with this proposed design response are matters of design detail and they are discussed in the following paragraphs.
98 Mr Umbers and Mr Peake both stated that dwellings 3 and 4 need to be modified to include a tandem car space as they contain a separate multi-purpose room that could be used as a third bedroom. Having reviewed the plans, I note that dwelling 3 is of 'type B' design containing a multi-purpose room without a door and dwelling 4 is of 'type A' design containing a multi-purpose room with a door. In total, dwellings 2, 4 and 5 are of 'type A' design and dwellings 3 and 6 are 'type B' design; however dwellings 2, 5 and 6 all provide two car spaces, with a tandem car space in front of the single garage. Mr Peake suggested that dwellings 3 and 4 can be modified by moving the garage and rooms behind 1.0 metre further away from the common driveway to accommodate a tandem car space. This change will not unreasonably impact on the amount of private open space provided; therefore I am of the opinion that Mr Peake's suggested modification should be included in the plans.
99 The other observation I wish to make in regard to these 5 dwellings, which equate to a quarter of the dwellings proposed, is that they have the capacity to contain 3 bedrooms. Therefore, I find there is a diversity of one, two and three bedroom dwellings provided in this proposal.
100 Ms Davis expressed concern about the setback of dwellings 10 and 12 from her property as she is thinking of building a new dwelling in the vicinity of these dwellings. I note that dwellings 2 to 6 are setback 3.6 to 4.6 metres and dwellings 10 and 12 are setback 1.2 metres from her property. I find that the setback of dwellings 10 and 12 is appropriate and will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of Ms Davis' property as the dwellings are single storey. There is a new a 1.7 metre high timber paling boundary fence proposed along this common boundary, which will prevent any views between the two properties. The Council requested a condition be included on the permit requiring 1.8 metre high boundary fencing, however I am of the opinion the proposed 1.7 metre height is satisfactory.
101 The visitor car parking provided complies with standard B16 in clause 55. Two visitor spaces are provided at the rear of the development and two are provided in the middle, adjacent to dwelling 21. I asked Mr O'Brien about the appropriateness of the visitor spaces outside dwelling 21, as they are located on a bend and are hidden behind a corner. He stated that they may have sightline issues.
102 Mr O'Brien expressed a preference for these visitor spaces to be deleted and kerbside parking utilised instead, given the proposed width of the access road. Mr Peake advised that the initial proposal contained kerbside parking but was changed to formal visitor spaces at the request of the Council.
103 I find the two visitor spaces outside dwelling 21 to be unacceptable as they are hidden behind a corner and proposed landscaping and will have sightline difficulties. In addition to which, they are located outside the front door and living room window of dwelling 21 and will, in my opinion, detrimentally affect the amenity of this dwelling. Therefore, these two visitor spaces should be removed and relocated as kerbside parking spaces within the front 70 metres of the proposed access road that has a width of 5.4 metres.
104 The Council questioned the location of the rear visitor parking spaces and Mr Peake suggested that they can be swapped with some of the resident parking spaces. I have no concern with the location of the visitor parking spaces at the rear of the development.
105 Mr Umbers advised that the garbage collection will occur on the site and each dwelling will put out its own bin, other than the courtyard of dwellings (7 to 15) which will be provided with a bin collection area. I find that the proposed bin collection area for dwellings 7 to 15 to be poorly located immediately adjacent to the living areas of dwelling 7 and will require that it be relocated elsewhere on the site.
106 The Council expressed concern about the shadow cast onto private open space areas of dwellings 16 to 21 by the fence along the property boundary. I note that these private open space areas have a north westerly orientation and have a depth of between 3.0 and 4.3 metres. All of the dwellings are single storey and I am satisfied that the private open space areas will be useable with a reasonable level of amenity based on the sunlight they will receive.
107 I am not satisfied with the streetscape appearance of dwellings 16 to 21 as the single garages are set forward of the front façade of each dwelling, thereby dominating the streetscape. I find that the layout of these dwellings needs to be altered so that the garages are sited approximately 1.0 metre behind the front façade of each dwelling. The result of this alteration will be the front rooms of each dwelling being the dominant element in the streetscape. I accept that this alteration may result in modifications to the areas of private open space, but I am of the opinion that 40 square metres should still be able to be provided for each dwelling.
108 I also note that a pedestrian footpath along the southern side of the proposed access road does not extend past dwellings 16 to 20. Instead the pedestrian pathway runs between dwellings 6, 8 and 9 into the communal courtyard open space area. Given I have required the bin collection area to be relocated, I am of the opinion that the pedestrian footpath should continue around dwelling 7 and adjacent to dwelling 15. This modification could include the removal of the pedestrian footpath between dwellings 8 and 9 if the permit applicant wishes.
109 I queried the overshadowing of the private open space area for dwelling 9 and Mr Peake provided a shadow diagram illustrating that the area will receive adequate sunlight throughout the day, which is satisfactory.
110 The rear 40 metres of the review site is intended to be available as a recreation space in the short term. This design solution is satisfactory subject to the removal of the comments on the site and ground floor plan relating to the alignment of the road and the drainage reserve for reasons I have already outlined.
111 Melbourne Water nominated floor levels for some of the proposed dwellings based on the anticipated flood level of the waterway corridor. These levels would necessitate the raising of the floor levels of dwellings 12 and 13. However, I have already commented that there is uncertainty regarding the design and extent of the waterway. Melbourne Water's letter comments additional survey information has already changed the recommended floor levels and they may change again with remodelling of waterway. Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to include these modifications in the permit conditions.