1. The proposal is for the construction of four, two storey dwellings accessed via a central driveway requiring access to Phillip Island Road which is a category 1 road zone and the removal of vegetation to allow for that construction of that access way.
2. Each of the dwellings is comprised of three bedrooms and living areas with an attached single car port. Effectively two bedrooms are provided on the ground floor with the living and bathroom amenities, while on the first floor there is one bedroom with an open plan kitchen, living and dining room and balcony accessed from the living room. Private Open Space(POS) areas for dwellings two and three are provided at the rear of the dwellings while the open space areas for 1 and 4 are provided within the front setback area. These ground floor POS are in addition to the provision of POS on upper level decks
3. Units 1 and 4 are located closest to Phillip Island Road with front setback distances of approximately 4 metres and 4.3 metres respectively.

Clause 32.01-4 which requires the permit for the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot:

Clause 42.02 Schedule 2 which is a vegetation overlay requiring the permit be granted for the removal or lopping of trees with the circumference of greater than 30 cms and clause 52.29 which requires the permit for the creation of a access onto a road zone category 1.

1. There are a range of policies within the Bass Coast Planning Scheme that influence the development of land within Phillip Island. Importantly there was general consensus that policies of containment within existing urban settlements is supported within the planning scheme.
2. While the coastal spaces recommendations report identifies Surf Beach as a 'hamlet', the fact that Surf Beach is serviced with both reticulated water and sewerage distinguishes the township from that typical 'hamlet' classification. Nevertheless the character of the township is one of low to medium density housing with predominantly one and two storey built forms.
3. The Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast 1998 provides the following relevant guidelines:-

(a) New development in existing settlements should respond to their context and be of an appropriate scale and form.

(b) The former structure should maintain and enhance the established coastal landscape character of the area as expressed in the dominant forms of the surrounding environment.

1. The Responsible Authority's vision articulated in its municipal strategic statement is to increase housing densities in proximity to commercial centres, community facilities and services.
2. At clause 22.06 - Township the policy identifies the following relevant objectives:
   • Encourage high quality residential development that is responsive to the opportunities and constraints of a site.
   • Consolidate development within township boundaries of each estate identified on the structure plans.
   • Limit building form to a maximum of two storeys in height or 7 metres from natural ground level to the top of a wall or 8 metres from natural ground level to the ridge line.
   • Apply the design guidelines of the Phillip Island and San Remo Design Framework.
   • Reflect the context of the existing buildings on the street when determining the setback requirements.
3. The Responsible Authority has prepared a new MSS through Amendment C85. The amendment has been adopted by council and has been forwarded to the Minister for approval.
4. The proposed MSS statements include objectives which state at clause 21.05-1 'hamlets with low spatial growth capacity will be encouraged to contain growth within existing urban and appropriately zoned land primarily through infill and defined settlement boundaries'.
5. In clause 21.06-1 Housing the objectives include:

Objective 1 - to increase housing densities and the consolidation of urban areas in appropriate locations and restrict increased housing densities and the consolidation of urban areas in inappropriate locations.

Strategy 1.3- discourage increased housing densities in towns without the appropriate infrastructure or services to support such development or where there are particular environmental or character features including the townships of ....Surf Beach and Cape Woolamai.

1. Specific implementations under clause 21.06-1 include:

Development should achieve the following densities:

• One dwelling per 300 square metres of land located within 400 metres of the main commercial activity centre or community facility.
• ......
• One dwelling per 600 square metres of land located on more than 800 metres away from the main commercial activity centre or community centre.

1. The observation in this particular application is that the dwelling density recommended is one dwelling per 600 square metres of site area. The proposal is being developed at a density of one dwelling per 270 square metres.

1. The Tribunal has considered the submissions of Mr Ciavarella and Mr Bennett in some detail and undertaken the inspection of the site and surrounding area
2. While there is no question the policies of the Bass Coast Planning Scheme support containment of townships, that support is qualified by requiring development occurs in a manner that is respectful of the neighbourhood character and the planning scheme policy objectives.
3. While in many locations within Phillip Island that character is evolving as new development takes place, there are nevertheless key factors in the consideration of neighbourhood character that will continue to apply.
4. It is clear in Surf Beach for instance the small single storey holiday homes are giving way to newer contemporary two storey homes.
5. While the planning policies both existing and proposed through Amendment C85 seek to limit the intensity of development in townships such as Surf Beach, there remains an underlining policy of containment and making more efficient use of well located land.
6. Mr Bennett in his submission stated:

It is submitted that the state planning policy framework provides broad encouragement for the provision of well designed medium density housing in established residential areas to meet the needs of all households, and for such development to be respectful of the character of those areas.

The subject land being a relatively large lot located in an established residential area close to convenience retail, public transport and recreation facilities is ideally suited to development at a higher density than that currently existing.

The proposed development is consistent with the policy in that achieves a design that provides for a higher level of amenity for the dwelling occupants in a contemporary building style of a detached form that is relatively common in the area.

1. Mr Bennett submitted that while the policy encourages medium density development adjacent to commercial centres or activity nodes the policies do not mandate that medium density housing can not occur away from such centres.
2. However what is clear in my view is that the policies are encouraging a more tempered approach to medium density development in areas away from commercial centres and activity nodes.
3. There are a number of factors that support the development of this site for a medium density development including its accessibility to the main road, being located within an existing township and being a relatively large parcel of land.
4. However there are also a number of constraints to the site that need to be factored into any development of this land. These constraints include an absence or distance to a commercial or community facility, the form of development nearby including setbacks of dwellings and the irregular shape of the allotment itself.
5. Thus looking at this specific proposal, I find there are a number of factors which weigh against the grant of a permit. These include the setback of dwellings 1 and 4 from Phillip Island Road. The proposed setbacks are in my view too close to provide an acceptable streetscape response or an acceptable amenity response for future residents.
6. Dwelling 1 is setback approximately 4 metres at its closest point to Phillip Island Road (with the upper level coming much closer). While it is submitted that this aligns with the side setbacks of 2 Page Street, I cannot accept that this is an appropriate response. I also find the location of private open space areas within the front setback area to also be problematic but believe that could be resolved through permit conditions and appropriate landscape treatment. I acknowledge that the POS aareas for these dwelling can be provided on the upper level balconies, these too are located close to Phillip Island Rd.
7. However dwelling 4 in my view is a less acceptable proposition.
8. Dwelling 4 has a setback of approximately 4.3 metres from the frontage and does locate its principal private open space area within the front setback area . The dwelling immediately next door at 159 Phillip Island Road is setback between 9.6 and 11.1 metres. While the upper level decks of 159 Phillip Island Road come closer to the frontage I can find no justification to permit a setback of 4.3 metres in this location on streetscape issues alone.
9. The setback from a busy main road such as Phillip Island Road assists in enhancing not only the amenity of future residents of the site but also provides for the capacity to adequately landscape the review site. This landscaping within the front setback area maintains the township feel of settlements such as Surf Beach.
10. As mentioned above the provisions of private open space within the front setbacks areas of dwelling 4 results in a very poor amenity outcome for future residents.
11. Vehicle accommodation within the site is also another matter that I have some concern about. While all of the dwellings are provided with two car spaces in the form of either a tandem or an adjoining second space, the manoeuvrability of vehicles for dwellings three and four is less than ideal to ensure all vehicles leave the site in a forward direction.
12. While on site visitor parking is not required as a consequence of the number of dwellings in this development I would have thought that a proper design response may have provided some capacity to accommodate a visitor car space within the site as visitor space parking on the main road reservation would be a poor outcome for any proposal on the site.
13. Thus I am of the view that the proposal is an inappropriate design response for the site.
14. This design response also leads to a continuous built form across most of the rear of the site. This is also inconsistent, in my view, with the existing and evolving neighbourhood character of development within this area.
15. I believe the site can be developed for a medium density outcome and that three dwellings may be better suited and capable of being designed on the site. However the irregular shape of the land makes the design response a more challenging proposition.
16. I also make the observation that the design style chosen for this proposal is acceptable but would be careful to ensure that designs did not include projecting balconies that project too far into the front setback areas.
17. As a consequence of the above I will uphold the Responsible Authority's decision and direct no permit be granted.