(i) Full dimensions of the proposed development, including dimensions of units, open space and all setback distances.

(iii) All internal and external fence heights and styles.

(iv) Reduction of floor levels of all units to minimise overlooking.

(v) Lattice to be erected adjacent to all habitable room windows that are less than 2 metres from a boundary.

(vii) Root barriers to be installed to protect Unit 4.

2. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(i) The development and use is/are not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit.

(ii) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

3. Before the use commences, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan must be:-

(i) Fully constructed in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must show existing and proposed levels of driveways and car parking areas, together with drainage layout, invert levels, surfacing and vehicular crossing proposals.

(ii) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

(iii) Constructed to the absolute minimum standard of 100mm depth of reinforced concrete or other approved hardstanding sealed surface.

(iv) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and be drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby authorised, the whole site shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping shown on the endorsed plan. Such landscaping shall include at least five trees more than 4m high at time of planting. Other planting shall be of reasonable mature species all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Responsible Authority: Mr J Sumner, Senior Town Planner.

Applicant for Review: Mr T C Radisich, Town Planning Consultant

Respondent/Objectors: Mr & Mrs Hooper appeared in person.

Application under S.77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for review of a decision to refuse to grant a permit.

Four single storey dwellings behind an existing house.

1. By application dated 12 August 1999, permission was sought to construct four single storey dwellings behind an existing house with access via the existing driveway. This driveway is located to the north of the house. A double garage is provided to each dwelling plus four visitor spaces, not in tandem.

2. A permit has been issued for nine units on land immediately north of the subject site.

3. Prior to the hearing, Mr Radisich circulated plans which contained minor amendments to the plans considered by the Responsible Authority.

"1. Realignment of the access driveway and relocation of bed 1 window of unit 1 to facilitate two visitor parking spaces at right angles to the driveway east of unit 1.

2. Increasing garden area in front of units 1 and 4.

3. Increasing separation between units 3 and 4 - with a resultant decrease in the width of the east side private yard of unit 4 - and narrowing of unit 3 to enable two visitor parking spaces between units 3 and 4.

4. Provision of canopy planting opportunities in the private yards of units 1 and 2; in front of unit 3; in front of unit 4; and on the north side of the driveway east of the new car spaces.

5. Extension of trellis screen along the northern boundary adjacent to Unit 1."

5. These plans were substituted at the hearing for those which accompanied the application. There was no objection to this course by any party.

6. The proposal has a site density of 1 unit per 433m2 (GDG 1:200m). The site coverage is 41% (GDG 60%).

7. The surrounding area consists of houses on lots generally smaller in area than the subject site. The Knox Club exists on a large site to the rear (west of the subject site).

8. Mr Sumner said that the proposal was refused for the following reasons:-

(i) The proposal has failed to take into account the substantial gardens and canopy trees of the neighbouring area.

(ii) The proposal will result in overlooking of neighbours and visual bulk along the boundaries.

(iii) The density proposed does not reflect the site characteristics (slope) adequately.

(iv) Inadequate consideration has been given to the general garden and landscape styles of the area - well established with canopy trees.

(v) The existing dwelling shows an extension of the carport towards the front of the dwelling (a permit has already been issued for this work). This will create substantial visual bulk.

(vi) Unit 3 is set back 2m from the south boundary (Hooper) and has a bedroom and kitchen overlooking that property. Unit 4 also has similar overlooking.

9. Mr & Mrs Hooper emphasised and adopted the various points made by the Responsible Authority. On the question of overlooking they said:-

"This intrusive construction will adversely and permanently affect the amenity of the area. In our case the south facing windows of Unit 4 (including that of the kitchen where a person spends considerable time) will significantly overlook our property. We will have no privacy in our backyard. We have trees planted along this, our northern boundary, but as they are mature, and were not planted originally to provide privacy, their canopy is high in the air and their trunks will not block out any view of our yard. Even in the amended plans there is no consideration given to us - no suggestion of a new 6' fence (to replace the old existing standard height one) or tree and shrub planting along their southern boundary (the rear of unit 4). This is a type of stand-over development. This development is intrusive with its disregard for our rear secluded private open space and shows total contempt of us."

10. Mr Radisich gave the following response to the foregoing submissions:-

* The density of the proposal is 1:500 square metres (overall) which is well below the prescribed density benchmark.

* The existing dwelling on the appeal site is an element in the existing streetscape that contributes to the existing character of the area. This dwelling is to be retained and the proposed dwellings are to be sited behind it and so will have little impact on the streetscape.

The driveway into the site will accommodate considerable landscaping, and opportunity exists in the proposal for additional canopy tree planting. This will complement that on the adjacent properties to the south and on the Knox Club property.

* The proposal will integrate well with the neighbourhood with the provision of appropriate building setbacks from the side boundaries. Principal living areas have been designed for solar access. The layout responds positively to the site with the dwellings clustered on the rear portion of the site, with an open aspect to Pach Road and with an open landscaped driveway into the site.

* The proposed dwellings are sited such that there will be little opportunity for overlooking into adjacent properties or into habitable room windows. Any valid concern regarding this can be properly addressed by condition requiring appropriate screening.

* At present the site enjoys one crossover which will be utilised for access into the rear of the site. An additional crossover will be provided for separate access into the garage to the existing house. More than adequate provision is made for on-site parking with two dedicated car spaces per dwelling in lock-up garages, and opportunity for four further on-site parking spaces.

All parking on the site is designed and located so that there is little likelihood of any off-site impacts with respect to vehicle noise or movement within the site.

* Each dwelling has been provided with private open space which exceeds the minimum prescribed 40 square metres, and with convenient access from living areas. All open space areas receive some direct sunlight.

"From the ... assessment it is evident that the proposal satisfies the requirements of the Good Design Guide, and having regard to the density, site coverage, provision of offsets and open space, it is submitted that the proposal is not an overdevelopment of the site.

The site is a large site which will have a development density consistent with that of detached housing. Adequate provision is made for private open space, on-site parking and access, and landscaping, and no issues with respect to privacy flow from the proposal."

12. In my opinion the proposal is more than reasonable and should be permitted. While Mr Sumner endeavoured to present the proposal as an overdevelopment, this is simply not so as the figures for density and site coverage (above) show clearly.

13. The density of the proposal is quite low as is the site coverage. There is ample room in the area set aside for landscaping for trees with "spreading crowns". Overlooking can be handled satisfactorily simply by the provision of lattice on top of the dividing fences. Such lattice is already shown on the application drawings.