1. In essence, council says the proposed shed is too big based on the existing neighbourhood character and would not respond to the preferred landscape character sought by the Design and Development Overly. Council considers that the proposed shed (in combination with that already in existence on the land) is contrary to the general size of sheds located on other properties in the area that are within a 200 to 500 metre radius of the site.
2. Council says that the site already benefits from an existing large shed on the land adjacent to the existing dwelling and that this should be sufficient for the storage needs of the applicant. Council says the addition of a further shed on the land will reduce the amount of land that could be provided with further landscaping which is an outcome sought by the DDO.
3. The applicant says the proposal is for storage of collectible and classic cars and that the size, scale and siting of the shed is not excessive, being commensurate with the size of the site. He says:
   • the proposal is responsive to the character of the area which includes sheds of similar size;
   • the area is not heavily vegetated;
   • the proposed shed, by virtue of its siting behind the existing dwelling on the land, will not visually dominate the setting; and
   • additional landscaping could be provided to further screen views from the street.

1. The site is in the Low Density Residential Zone ('LDRZ'). No permit requirement is triggered under the LDRZ for the development of the shed. The only permit trigger arises from the Overlay which triggers a permit requirement for outbuildings where the total floor area exceeds 100 square metres.
2. Surrounding development is characterised by low density residential development comprised mostly of detached storey dwellings on one hectare lots. Most lots are also developed with one or more outbuildings with vegetation largely confined to boundary planting in the immediate vicinity.
3. Clause 43.02-2 establishes this proposal as a VicSmart application which must be assessed against clause 59.05. In assessing an application, the responsible authority must consider as appropriate[2]:

The statement of significance and the objectives contained in the schedule to the overlay and whether the buildings and works will adversely affect that significance or the objectives.

Whether the proposal meets any requirements specified in the overlay or the schedule to the overlay.

Any relevant decision guideline specified in the overlay and the schedule to the overlay.

1. DDO4 applies to the Langwarrin Rural Residential Area. Schedule 4 contains no statement of significance. Design objectives include:

To maintain and enhance the well vegetated, rural residential character of land around the fringe of Langwarrin in recognition of its contribution to housing diversity and its landscape quality.

To ensure that development densities are consistent with the landscape character of the area.

To ensure that new development responds to established and preferred landscape character and built form in terms of building height, scale and siting.

To protect water quality, particularly in the Western Port catchment.

1. The immediate character comprises large parcels of land set within a semi-rural environment with some boundary planting but generally broad views across the land, towards large dwellings and outbuildings. Setbacks of built form from boundaries are generous. Very obvious is the presence of larger shedding, which is common on low-density residential living lots that occur in the area.
2. I agree with the applicant that the review site and sites immediately surrounding it are sparsely vegetated. The proposal will not result in the removal of any significant vegetation from the land. I understand council's concerns to be that a large outbuilding reduces the area of the site that could be revegetated, which is what the DDO4 seeks to achieve. While I agree that approving the proposal will reduce the land available for replanting, it must be acknowledged that the applicant, absent the approval of this application, is not required to revegetate the site.
3. The scheme does not limit the size of sheds or outbuildings but does require consideration where such structures exceed 100 square metres. There is no metric about what an appropriate size should be. There is nothing that supports a proposition that a refusal is warranted merely on the basis of a proposed shed being one of the bigger sheds or the biggest shed in its locality, or that the cumulative size of all sheds on the land is relevant.
4. The scheme does not reference limits on the size or scale of outbuildings. There are no requirements for new outbuildings to match the size of those existing in the immediate neighbourhood. Variation is possible and it remains important for any new outbuildings to respond to their physical and landscape settings.
5. In summary, I find that the proposal is acceptable as:
   • The siting of the shed behind the house and adjacent the existing shed will ensure it does not appear visually dominant when viewed from the street.
   • The siting of the shed does not affect any existing vegetation and is within the building envelope affecting the site. There is also limited earthworks proposed that may transform the shape of the land.
   • The open setting of the buildings will remain the dominant feature.
   • The limited site coverage will allow ongoing opportunities for the applicant to undertake further planting at their discretion.
   • The imposition of a permit condition to require further additional screen planting on the site, which is unopposed by the applicant, will enhance the existing landscape setting.
   • The existing boundary planting will continue to maintain a role of filtering views of the proposed shed from the adjacent properties.
   • While the size of the shed is large, as I observed during my site inspection, there are many examples of large outbuildings located on surrounding properties.
   • The size, height and siting are consistent with the character of the area.
6. Despite its size, I do not find the proposed outbuilding to be an overly dominant building in the context. It is sited with generous setbacks from the neighbouring properties and the street.
7. I do not accept that the outbuilding will have any unreasonable adverse visual impact from the south-west as asserted by council. I find that with the very limited viewing aperture from this elevation, together with the existing landscape planting along the internal driveway, that this will appropriately act to provide some level of screening of the proposed outbuilding from the street.
8. This does not mean that the outbuilding is either required to be invisible under the scheme or even screened from view. The site is in an area in which outbuildings are highly visible from the streetscape in generally open settings. The proposed landscaping sought by council's draft conditions (unopposed by the applicant) will achieve the landscape outcomes sought by the DDO4, as well as providing some level of screening of the proposed outbuilding.
9. The presence of existing vegetation around the boundaries of the site and that of the existing dwelling and planted trees within the site itself, which are not proposed to be removed, together with additional landscaping to be imposed by a condition on the permit, lead me to conclude that the proposed shed presents as an acceptable outcome under the provisions and policy of the planning scheme. The proposal will not significantly impact the landscape values of the area.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal. I have imposed a condition (which is unopposed by the applicant) to require the planting of eight indigenous canopy trees on the site.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Construct a building or carry out works for an outbuilding where the total floor area of all outbuildings exceeds 100 square metres

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a) Landscape plan in accordance with Condition 4.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, a landscape plan consistent with Frankston City Council's Landscape Plan Guidelines (2020) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions to show:

(a) Indigenous canopy tree planting along the western side of the southern boundary.

1. A minimum of eight (8) indigenous canopy trees with a minimum mature height of 8 metres.
2. Trees to be a minimum of 1 metre in height at time of planting.
3. Tree to be provided within a mulched garden bed.
4. Species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) A planting schedule of the proposed tree, including botanical names, common name, pot size, size at maturity.

1. Within two (2) months of the development approved under this permit being completed (or if the timing is unsuitable for effective planting and establishment as agreed by the Responsible Authority, not later than the end of the following May), the landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged trees are to be replaced.

1. Stormwater drainage must be connected to the stormwater Legal Point of Discharge as nominated, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(a) The development has not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit; or

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

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.