a) The north facing first floor windows with fixed obscure glass to a height of 1.6 metres;

b) An acoustic fence or wall on the western boundary adjoining and extending beyond the carport of Dwelling 3. The height and extent of this wall and the materials and construction to be in accordance with the advice of a qualified acoustic engineer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

An endorsed copy of the plan shall form part of this permit.

2. Siting, dimensions, appearance and design of all buildings and works and the use of all buildings and areas must accord with the endorsed plans and must not be changed without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to the commencement of the use a landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority has been submitted and endorsed. The landscape plan must show the location, quantity and size at maturity of all proposed plants, the botanical names of the plants, the location of all areas to be covered by lawn or other surface materials and provide a specification of works to be undertaken prior to planting.

4. The garden areas and plants shown on the endorsed plan must be established prior to the use commencing and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the access lanes shown on the endorsed plan must:

(a) Be completed prior to the commencement of the use to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) Be maintained to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(c) Be properly formed to such levels that it can be used according to the plan.

(d) Be drained and surfaced with an all weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(e) Not be used without the permission of the Responsible Authority for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

6. Boundary walls must be constructed and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. All plumbing pipes, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external view. This does not include external guttering or associated rain water down pipes.

8. Mailboxes must be provided for each dwelling.

9. All stormwater must be collected from the site by a drainage system, traverse common property or an casement, and be connected to an outlet approved by the Responsible Authority.

10. All service meters must be located in front of the dwellings in a location easily accessible to the various authorities.

11. Electricity supply connection points and fuse boxes must be accessible from common areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. All telecommunications connections and power connections to the site must be underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. A clothesline must be provided to each dwelling and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. This permit expires if development is not commenced within 12 months from the date of issue or the buildings and works are not completed within 24 months of the date of issue unless either of these dates are extended by the Responsible Authority in writing. An application for extension of time may be made in writing within 3 months after the expiry date.

Mr. E. Patterson, Town Planning Consultant, appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority.

Mr. St. Bitmead of Fastnet Consultants, appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

1. This is an Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) brought by Fastnet Consultants for review of a decision by the City of Moreland to refuse a permit.

2. The proposal is for the construction of two, two storey dwellings, numbered 2 and 3 on the plans, to the rear of the existing dwelling on the subject land. The proposed dwellings are attached and of an attic style. Dwelling 2 includes the master bedroom and main living areas at ground floor level with two bedrooms above, and Dwelling 3 comprises living areas at ground floor level with two bedrooms above. Each of the dwellings is accessed via a separate driveway and parking is provided for by way of a carport with a visitor space in tandem. Open space is provided to the rear of each dwelling and is north facing with good access to the main living areas.

3. Open space for the existing dwelling is located in the side setback of that dwelling by way of a fenced area, the fencing being located off the boundary to allow for landscaping on the street frontage. The area proposed as open space is at present occupied by an outbuilding which is to be demolished. The car parking arrangements for the existing dwelling, including the existing crossover, will remain. The development is set back a minimum distance of 3.2 metres from the rear boundary and with the exception of the carport just over 3 metres from the west boundary. The proposed front setback is 3 metres for Dwelling 2 and just under 5 metres for Dwelling 3.

4. The subject site lies on the north-west corner of Volga and Mikado Streets and is rectangular apart from a 4.23 metre corner splay. The Volga Street abuttal is 14.57 metres and Mikado Street 39.57 metres. The overall site area is 747.48 square metres. There is a 3.05 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement located along the western boundary of the site. The existing dwelling fronts Volga Street and is set back 7.7 metres from the street. This dwelling, with the exception of the outbuilding which is to be removed, is set back some 8.5 metres from Mikado Street. The Volga Street frontage of the site is defined by a low paling fence behind which there are a number of mature trees which it is intended to retain.

5. The proposal has a wall height to the eaves of 3.8 metres and a height to the main pitch of the roof of 6.5 metres.

6. All surrounding properties are residential. Volga and Mikado Streets are both characterised by single storey dwellings constructed during the 50's and 60's. Property sizes are generally of the order of 700 square metres. Dwellings are typically modest and well kept with open front gardens and setbacks of the order of 7.5 metres. Mikado Street has a 15 metre wide road reserve with a 7.6 metre wide carriageway, on either side of the carriageway is a footpath and grassed naturestrip. There are two prunus trees in the naturestrip in front of the site. There is a similar footpath and grassed naturestrip along Volga Street and the Mikado Street..

7. The subject land lies in the Residential 1 Zone under the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The development of land with more than one dwelling requires a permit under the provisions of the zone. The Responsible Authority is required to have regard to the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies, the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing Revision No. 2, April 1998, and any local variation incorporated in the Scheme in assessing a proposal for a multi unit development of this type.

8. The Responsible Authority's Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is contained at Clause 21 of the Scheme. The MSS, with respect to medium density housing, has among its objectives, the encouragement of medium density housing, the promotion of housing choice, while at the same time requiring that developments have a high quality amenity and make a positive contribution to the preferred character of the neighbourhood. The MSS incorporates a number of reference documents, including the Moreland Housing Strategy which locates the proposed development within an area designated as Urban Village.

9. The Responsible Authority received the application in June 1999. Advertising was required and a total of six objections and a petition with 24 signatures was received. The Responsible Authority referred the proposal to their Engineering Department (Traffic Unit) who responded as follows:

"A site inspection found an existing house with a vehicle crossing within 9.0 metres of the Volga and Mikado Streets intersection. The proposal is to retain this crossing and provide two 3.0 metre width crossings in Mikado Street. The location of the existing crossing is considered a safety hazard for the property occupier and the general public and should not be permitted to continue. The question of whether two vehicle crossings on Mikado Street frontage contravenes the MDH Guide point E8. C5 "Car parking facilities should not dominate the development or street frontage" it is noted that the amount of street frontage taken up by vehicle crossings is 15% which is less than 33% of the frontage, as allowed by MDH Guide point E8. T12.

Council's VCP requires that the number of vehicle crossings be minimised. Referring to VCP Section 4.4 Guidelines for Multiple Vehicle Crossings part 4.4.2 Dual and Multi-Unit Development part 4.4.2.2 Multi-Unit Development part (H) Consideration of General Provisions in Section 3 and Amenity Guidelines of this policy.

Section 3.1 - Two crossings are proposed which is not consistent with this subsection.

Section 3.2-

1. Mikado Street is a short local street and not likely to generate high pedestrian traffic hence, impact on pedestrian safety is considered minimal;

2. The loss of open space and/or vegetation within the road reservation is considered minimal;

3. Minimal impact on the pattern and character of the area;

5. The proposed vehicle crossings will result in the removal of 3 on street parking spaces;

6. The effect on traffic flow should be minimal;

7. Vehicular movements in and out of the property should have a minimal impact;

8. The number of existing vehicular crossings will increase by two as there are no crossings on this frontage; and

9. The ability to provide alternative access to the property - this can be achieved by consolidating the vehicle crossings into one 5.5 metre width crossing.

10. The Responsible Authority held a residents meeting attended by the objectors and the applicant. The applicant offered some concessions at the meeting including reducing the overall height of the proposal by 150mm enclosing the west side of the carport to Dwelling 3 in brick and providing obscure glazing to the first floor north-facing windows to a height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level. The Responsible Authority subsequently resolved to refuse the permit on the following grounds:

1) The bulk, scale and roof form of the proposed new dwellings is not consistent with or respects the existing character.

2) The setback and attached form of the two new dwellings is not consistent with the streetscape and detracts from the amenity of the area.

3) The private open space for the existing dwelling is located to the south and does not comply with the objectives of Element 9 (Private and Communal Open Space', of the Good Design Guide.

4) The development does not comply with Council's Vehicle Crossing Policy due to the proposal for multiple crossovers in Mikado Street.

5) The proposal is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the area.

11. It is the Tribunal's view, after hearing the submissions before it and visiting the subject site, that the issues in this appeal relate to the impact of the proposal on traffic safety and street parking, and the impact of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining dwellings specifically the dwelling to the west. A central aspect of the traffic issue was the failure of the proposal to meet with the Responsible Authority's Traffic Department's recommendations with respect to crossovers.

12. It was argued that Mikado Street is uniformly a single storey detached dwelling location. The Responsible Authority had reference to its Urban Character Study, a referred document in the MSS, when assessing proposals of this sort. The subject site lies within Precinct 6 which is described as:

"This large, gently sloping area is characterised by its formally planned, usually regular grid subdivision including some passive open space, schools and small shopping centres.

It is also distinguished by the large number of post-War, public and private suburban houses remaining from the original subdivision.

However, many of these houses have been modified, detracting from the consistency of the area, as does the house replacement although it is relatively limited.

While there are some two storey houses in this area, it is the predominantly single storey scale which determines the area's character.

The inconsistent street tree planting means that the impact of overhead services to be quite strong."

13. The Precinct assess the building style as "quite important" in the area, and building scale as "very important". The design recommendations with respect to building scale state:

"The scale of new buildings or additions should complement the prevailing building scale of the area."

"The design should complement the existing building styles in building and roof materials, massing, roof form and detailing and that new design should be respectful of but not necessarily replicate the prevailing building style of the neighbourhood."

14. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development is of a scale and bulk that is not inconsistent with the street presentation of dwellings in the neighbourhood. The second storey in being located within the roof form is recessive and does not present a confronting manner to the street. The Responsible Authority argued that the gable roof form was not typical of the street, however it is not a form that is absent from the area and the design incorporates a tiled roof element over the porch that is reflective of the gable form. The two dwellings have varying setbacks from Mikado Street providing a transition to the dwelling to the west. The design is simple and reflective of the style of existing dwellings in the street without being imitative. The proposal further results in the removal of an unsightly outbuilding on the Mikado Street aspect of the subject site and the replacement of a high solid paling fence with open landscaping in front of each of the dwellings. It is the Tribunal's view that overall the proposal will be an improvement in the presentation of the site and will be an asset to the character of the area.

15. Mr. Dunstan had particular concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the amenity of his dwelling which adjoins the subject site to the west and has a bedroom and bathroom window oriented towards the site. His dwelling is separated from the subject site by a distance of approximately 1.8 metres. His concern related to the potential for overshadowing and overlooking of this property, and further the impact of noise associated with the carport being located on his boundary. The Tribunal considers it appropriate that an acoustic treatment be provided to the side of the carport extending beyond its rear to ensure noise protection to the adjoining property. It was argued by the applicant that this was difficult because of the easement. It is the Tribunal's view that, it is a difficulty that is not insurmountable.

16. With respect to overshadowing, the only impact on the adjoining property to the west is during the morning, and that impact is limited to the hours from 9 to around 10.30am when it falls over a small section of the front setback. The Tribunal notes that the intervening fence between the two properties is higher than the standard side boundary fence, and that in all probability, the shadow will fall within the shadow of this fence around 10am. This degree of overshadowing is not significant. The shadow falls within the front setback of the adjoining site and does not impact on any windows or any private secluded open space. The Tribunal appreciates that Mr. Dunstan has an attractive and well cared for garden, however in the Tribunal's view, there will be no impact on this property with respect to overshadowing.

17. Mr. Dunstan also had concerns regarding the potential for overlooking of his private open space from the first floor north-facing windows. The applicant has indicated a willingness to screen these windows to a height of 1.6 metres. In the Tribunal's view, this is a satisfactory solution that will serve to protect the privacy of Mr. Dunstan's property and the private open space of the dwelling immediately to the north.

18. Mr. and Mrs. Stone had concerns regarding the privacy of their private open space which is located on the opposite side of Mikado Street from the proposed development. The potential for overlooking is associated with the first floor bedroom windows of the development. These windows are located 3 metres and 5 metres respectively from the frontage of the site and separated from the property on the opposite side of the road by a 15 metre wide road reserve although overlooking is a possibility from these windows. It is the Tribunal's view that the distance of separation and the use of the rooms concerned as bedrooms ensures that the overlooking is not unreasonable. Further the sill height of these windows is approximately 1 metre above finished floor level which would further tend to moderate the degree of overlooking that can occur.

19. The concerns of the Responsible Authority's Engineers related to the inappropriate siting of the existing vehicle crossover. The Tribunal agrees that this crossover is closer to the corner of Volga and Mikado Streets than is recommended in the Responsible Authority's Vehicle Crossing Policy, and would, in the Tribunal's view, be inconsistent with Vic Road's policy in general. The Tribunal however is of the view that it is inappropriate to move this crossover given the location of the existing trees on site and the benefit of retaining these. The alternative of providing a dual crossover to a carport for the existing dwelling in common with Dwelling 2, would in the Tribunal's view be impracticable given the site layout and would be an additional impact on Mikado Street.

20. The concerns of a number of the objectors focused on problems they perceived would be associated with carparking and the conflict between street parking and cars exiting and entering the site. The proposed development provides for parking on site in excess of the Good Design Guide requirements. The Tribunal is of the view that given the modest size of the units, the car parking provided for will be more than adequate. The Tribunal therefore does not see that there will be an excessive demand for parking on the street as a result of the proposal. Visitors may well be provided for on-site, as is quite likely, if one of both of the units only has one car associated with it.

21. The Tribunal was not provided with any information that would indicate there was any problem with the availability of street parking in the area. The Tribunal appreciates that Mikado Street is quite narrow, however in the Tribunal's view, it is of sufficient width for a vehicle to be able to reverse out of the site without being interfered with by a car parked alongside the naturestrip on the opposite side of the street. Similarly cars parked outside the subject site will not limit the ease of access of vehicles accessing the property opposite. The number of crossovers to Mikado Street are not in the Tribunal's view excessive given the length of abuttal to that street.

22. In conclusion the Tribunal is of the view that the proposed development is a modest one that will not impact in a negative manner on the character of the area or the amenity of adjoining neighbours. The Tribunal is further of the view that the development is one that is supported by planning policy, both at the State and Local level, and in particular, by the Municipal Strategic Statement which encourages increased densities in Urban Village locations.

23. In view of the above conclusions the Application for Review is allowed, and the Responsible Authority's decision is set aside.