Application under Section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 34.02-2 - construct a building or construct or carry out works

Clause 52.06 - reduce or waive the number of car spaces required

Clauses 11, 15, 16, 18, 21.02, 21.04, 21.05, 52.06 and 65.

The subject land is located on the western side of Mt Alexander Road, approximately 13m west from the intersection with Regent Street and Mt Alexander Road in Ascot Vale. The site is rectangular in shape with a total site area of 559m². It has a frontage to Regent street (northern boundary) of 12.28m, a western boundary to an adjoining laneway of 45.77m and a southern boundary of 21.97m. The eastern boundary is slightly skewed with a total length of 35.41m.

A 4.5m laneway abuts the western boundary. on the opposite side of the laneway are the side or rear of residential dwellings.

The subject site contains a single storey building previously used for mechanical repairs, with a pitched roof (running north-south), built to all boundaries.

1. In an interim determination on 4 November 2011 I indicated in application P1951/2011 that condition 1(e) on Permit MV/21267/2010 should be deleted. The condition required "Details of car parking to be located underground" with no related requirements that the plans submitted with the application showing a three storey building containing seven dwellings with double garages be in anyway amended.
2. This is an application to amend the permit to reinstatement in the preamble to what the permit allows reference to a three storey building rather than reference to a two storey building.
3. This reference made no sense in relation to what was applied for. I indicated I was unable to amend the preamble as there appeared to be no correlation with the condition under review and the preamble. As a result this application was made.
4. The application was advertised and one objection received by the owner/occupier of 2 Bank Street. This person was not a party to the conditions appeal.
5. The owner/occupier of 2 Bank Street has objected to the proposed amendment on the grounds that "locating a three storey building behind 2 Bank Street will have a major affect on our residential lifestyle and amenity, increase traffic and noise levels and reduce the value of our property".
6. The Responsible Authority indicated it had no objection to the proposed amendment.
7. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme, I have decided to allow the proposed amendment referring in the preamble to the permit to a three storey building rather than a two storey building. My reasons follow.
8. The 4.02m wall that currently sits on the boundary with 2 Bank Street is to be retained. The additional 4.96m of wall to a maximum height of 9.3m is located partly on and partly setback 1m from the common boundary. The extent of wall located on the common boundary is approximately 2m.
9. The proposed development is separated from the rear of the dwelling at 2 Bank Street by an outbuilding located along the boundary at the rear of 2 Bank Street and an area of private open space. Two large trees also intervene blocking to some extent any views towards the three storey building from the rear of 2 Bank Street.
10. Access to car parking for the seven dwellings is to be via a laneway that runs along the western boundary of the site. No 2 Bank Street has no access to or use of this laneway. No traffic from the proposed development will therefore pas by 2 Bank Street impacting in any way on its amenity or lifestyle, other than traffic expected along Bank Street generally.
11. The subject site is located within the Business 2 zone with an expectation that buildings will be slightly larger and sites built more intensively than in the Residential zone which abuts the subject land. Whilst the existing building on the subject land is built to the boundary the proposed development is only located on the boundary along its laneway abuttal and for the small portion of 2m with the common boundary of 2 Bank Street.
12. A small portion of the rear area of private open space of 2 Bank Street will be overshadowed for a short period between 12 to 3pm. Overshadowing is not considered to be so significant and outside the requirements of clause 55 to conclude that there will be any unreasonable impact on the amenity of this property.
13. There will be no noise impact as a result of the additional level. Nor any overlooking given the balcony on the upper level is proposed to be screened to a height of 1.7m along the common boundary.

1. The amendment allows for the reinstatement of the upper level of the proposed development. This will allow for each dwelling to contain a garage and sitting room at ground level, bedrooms and laundry at mid level and the kitchen and living room at the upper level.
2. The Tribunal considers condition 1(e) should be deleted in line with the Tribunal's views expressed in its determination dated 4 November 2011.
3. As a consequence of the deletion of condition 1(e) reference in what the permit allows should refer to a three storey building as applied for in the application for permit.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.