The objectors in this case will be subject to the same constraints. It will not be open to the objectors to raise and rely upon issues relating to all aspects of the planning permit application. They will be confined to addressing those issues where the need for a permit is not exempt from third party objection, notice and review, namely the dispensation from car parking under clause 52.06 and any flooding issues arising under the Special Building Overlay. They will need to rely upon the responsible authority to raise other issues associated with the building that may arise from the need for a permit under the Business 1 Zone.

7 I also note that one of the third party objectors who would otherwise have appeared at the hearing (ie. Mr P.R. Stephenson) did not appear at the hearing but instead provided a letter dated 13 July 2005, which I have taken into account in reaching my conclusion.

8 I also note that Mr Molesworth indicated at the outset that his client had unsuccessfully sought "further and better particulars" from Council, in terms of what Mr Molesworth claimed was the inappropriately "bald" assertion by Council that "the proposal is not consistent with the objectives or intent of the Bayside Planning Scheme". In response, Ms Bowdern indicated that she had run many other appeals for Bayside involving the same "grounds of rejection" without query by the permit application. While it was common ground at the hearing that I was not required to make any formal finding on this point, I do note in passing that common sense suggests that it would be helpful for Council to be at least somewhat more specific when non-compliance with the provisions of the Planning Scheme is alleged.

9 A further "housekeeping" issue which arose during the hearing was a query/challenge from Ms Bowdern on behalf of Council whether the photomontage documents relied upon by the Applicant correctly show the height of the adjoining new development at No. 9 Waltham Street. In particular, it was put by Ms. Bowdern that the photomontage incorrectly shows the 9 Waltham Street development as being higher than Ms Bowdern understood the endorsed plans actually allow.

10 In this regard, I made directions at this point in the hearing that Ms Bowdern must within a few days after the hearing provide the Applicant and the Tribunal with a copy of the endorsed plans for the No. 9 Waltham Street development. In the final result, the endorsed plans subsequently provided by Ms Bowdern actually confirmed that the height of the No. 9 Waltham Street development is essentially correctly shown in the photomontage provided by the Applicant here. This was reinforced in the letter dated 2 August 2005 from Perry & Associates on behalf of the Applicant, with the two relevant paragraphs from this letter providing as follows:

It is apparent after viewing the plan prepared by Malcolm Elliot Architects with the Drawing No. TPA6, Drawing Title: Existing & Proposed Elevations Streetscapes & Sections, Revision A and dated Jan 2004, that the mixed use development at 9 Waltham St is in fact 16.2m high.

This means the proposed development at the above-mentioned address [ie. the subject land] will be 3.97m shorter than the approved development at 9 Waltham Street. The difference in height also takes into consideration the 500mm increase in building height for the proposed development brought about by the redesign of the basement car park.

11 As alluded to above, a further issue which arose early in the hearing was the fact that it was common ground that the application plans do not pick up a 500mm increase in the height of the top of the ramp, which has been required by Melbourne Water. In this regard, the Applicant advised that to deal with this Melbourne Water requirement which arises from the relevant flood level for the subject land, a 500mm increase would be required in the basement level. In turn, this would mean that the overall height of the proposal would be 500mm greater than shown on the application plans, or perhaps somewhat less if the design could be "juggled" for the building to "absorb" some of this extra height. To remove any doubt, I have taken this extra height of 500mm into account in the findings set out in this decision, and have set out in the Condition 1 sub-clauses an overall maximum potential height of the revised proposal of 12.23 metres.

12 After the hearing, I carried out a view of the site and locality during a week day lunch time period. My view included driving around all the relevant streets that form part of the Sandringham Village, together with walking around the locality and viewing the subject land from various different vantage points.

13 I refer to the following useful description of the site and locality from page 2 of Council's written submission.

The site is irregular and triangular in shape, with a frontage to Waltham Street of 28.32 metes, an eastern boundary of 30.33 metres (along the rear ROW), a western boundary of 26 metres and a total area of 474 square metres. The site currently contains the Sandringham Post Office which ceased operations several years ago and is currently used as office accommodation.

•

A single storey red brick 1930's Post Office building that has been vacant for several years.

There is no significant vegetation on the subject site.

Coles Supermarket, Waltham Street shops with public car parking at the rear.

A ROW that runs between Abbott Street and Waltham Streets and provides rear vehicle access for the shops/apartments and residences fronting Station Street.

The adjoining properties at 1-7 and 9 Waltham Street are new four (4) storey retail/apartment developments currently under construction and the brick Telephone Exchange building and access yard.

Waltham Street shops and Sandringham Train Station.

Waltham Street is a busy one-way street with parking restrictions. There are numerous public car parks located within the immediate vicinity of the subject site.

The Waltham Street streetscape is characterised by a variety of architectural styles, with the subject site and several of the 'older' buildings characterised by Edwardian features including red brick and cream render. The site is located in the Sandringham Urban Village which is experiencing large scale redevelopments including four storey contemporary apartment buildings of a similar scale and mass to the proposed development in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.

14 The following paragraph from page 5 of the Perry & Associates planning report is also useful in terms of the general neighbourhood.

The subject site is located within an area known as the Sandringham urban Village. The Sandringham urban Village has a unique character and comprises a range of activity centre facilities. The different services that exist include a Coles Supermarket and a number of independent retailers, the Sandringham Railway Station and associated bus interchange, a public library (the Sandringham Library), a range of specialty retail and commercial services, and a significant number of communal car spaces with varying time restrictions.

15 I refer to the following useful description of the proposal from pages 5 and 6 of the Perry & Associates planning report.

•

Demolish the building on the site (not subject to a planning permit).

•

Develop three shops and eight apartments on the site, and the construction of a basement car park.

•

The key aspects of the proposed development are:

s a basement car park with a total of 10 car spaces (1 car space for dwellings 2 - 8 and 1 car space for each of the three shop tenancies);

s three ground floor shops - 30m2, 75.5m2 and 78.0m2;

s 1 ground floor car space (1 car space for dwelling 1 - this car space is accessed from the Right-of-Way);

s eight two bedroom dwellings.

•

Car parking dispensation in accordance with the Sandringham Urban Village Strategy.

The residential dwellings are located on the first, second and third floors. Key details of the eight dwellings are as follows:

16 The subject land is zoned Business 1 under the Bayside planning scheme. I note that pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Business 1 zone, a permit is not required here for the basis use of "dwelling" and "shop".

17 The subject land is also included within a Special Building Overlay under the planning scheme, with a planning permit being required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works pursuant to cl.44.05-1 in this regard. In summary, the main upshot of the Special Building Overlay is that Melbourne Water does not object per se to the proposal, but has required certain conditions and footnotes to be attached to any permit that issues. I have also referred above to the requirement which has come to light for the level of the basement to be raised by 500mm to deal with the flooding issue.

18 Although the ResCode provisions of cl.55 do not strictly apply here due to this being a four storey proposal, it was common ground at the hearing that the ResCode provisions are still a useful guide. Hence, I have still considered the relevant ResCode provisions in this light. The cl.52.06 parking provisions and the usual cl.65 general criteria have also been taken into account.

19 In terms of the relevant State and Local Policies, the following summary from pages 5 and 6 of Council's written submission is of assistance.

The following sections of the State Planning Policy Framework are relevant with respect to the proposal.

To encourage the concentration of major retail, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural development in to activity centres (including strip shopping centres) which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community.

To achieve high quality urban design and architecture that:

Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community.

Enhances liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm.

Promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts.

The following sections of the Local Planning Policy Framework are relevant with respect to the proposal:

To promote sustainable development of shopping centres within a regional context.

Identify the role and function of shopping centres in terms of servicing the needs of the Local community and the demand for tourism.

Encourage renovation and use of shop top dwellings.

Enhance opportunities for appropriate services catering to village residents in the context of residential development, strengthening the role and viability of activity centres.

The key issues raised in this part of the scheme are:

•

The visual amenity of main roads and streets is critical in determining the overall sense of identity and character of the City.

•

The City's gateways require special treatment in recognition of their impact on first impressions and the image they project of the city.

•

Protect and enhance the valued aspects of living, working and recreating in Bayside such as its cultural heritage and 'bayside' character; leafy streetscapes, artworks and vistas.

•

Road crossings, footpaths seating, building entries, and community services need to be designed to meet the needs of the community, particularly those members with limited mobility.

•

Ensure that safety and security remain key elements in determining streetscape design.

This policy applies to the Sandringham Urban Village area shown on the Sandringham Urban Village Height Plan forming part of this policy.

•

To protect and enhance the character, heritage, streetscape and pedestrian environment of the Sandringham Urban Village.

•

To encourage development of Sandringham Shopping Centre as an active, safe, attractive coastal, commercial, community and housing node.

•

To maintain a human scale and diverse and active building frontage at street level.

•

To protect the foreshore, dwellings, public and private open space, public pedestrian areas and solar collectors from overshadowing.

•

To maximise views of the bay and public street areas.

•

To minimise overlooking of private open space associated with dwellings.

•

To improve energy efficiency in building design and urban form.

•

To maintain consistency with urban design and development objectives in the Bayside Coastal Strategy, 1997 and the Victorian Coastal Strategy.

The key policy areas of this part of the scheme are:

•

Buildings and works compliment Sandringham's unique character with sympathetic contemporary design that respects heritage places.

•

Follows the general 2-3 storey height of buildings at the street frontage in the shopping centre.

•

Respect the form and orientation of adjoining buildings.

•

Have a public face' to building elevations with detail in the facade treatment, windows, entrances and balconies.

•

Incorporate decorative or distinguishing features on corner buildings to add variety and legibility to the streetscape and highlight key locations within the shopping centre.

•

Building materials include the use of red brick, cream render and other complimentary materials that respect Sandringham's Edwardian character influenced by key buildings.

•

In the retail core area, a fourth storey be permitted on corner sites or other sites where the setback of the fourth storey from the street frontage has a minimal visual impact from the ground level.

•

Balconies and rooftop courtyards providing views of the street be encouraged in commercial areas.

The Sandringham Urban Village Strategy, 1998, is a reference document for this part of the scheme. This will be referred to in the assessment.

20 In addition, I refer to the following useful passage from page 7 of the Perry & Associates planning report, which picks up the local policy of cl.21.05 (Housing) from the planning scheme.

Clause 21.05 Housing discussed Council's approach to designating areas for medium density housing. Bayside Council must balance the amenity of existing residential neighbourhoods with development pressures and to designate areas for medium density housing. The following extract is relevant:

"Council's approach to the provision of additional dwellings is to primarily direct new medium density housing to residential opportunity areas in and around activity centres." (Clause 21.05-1 Overview)

The Council's expressed strategy to accommodate additional population includes the following:

"Encourage higher density housing principally in activity centres and residential opportunity areas as identified on the Strategic Framework Plan, particularly those with good access to public transport networks (eg. Sandringham Urban Village)." (Clause 21.05-3 Objectives, strategies and implementation)

The proposed retail tenancies at ground floor level increases the total amount of retail floor space in the Urban Village by approximately 184m2.

21 I shall not repeat the submissions of the parties in any detail, as copies of the relevant written submissions are retained on the Tribunal file, but will more concentrate on the key issues.

22 Suffice to say that during the hearing Ms Bowdern put submissions to me defending the Council grounds of refusal. Mr Molesworth in response on behalf of the Applicant relying on the three experts who gave evidence at the hearing, and otherwise putting to me that the proposal is of a high quality, is appropriate for the area, shall not cause any unacceptable amenity concerns, and is generally deserving of approval. Mr Molesworth also reinforced that this is not a "use appeal" but a "buildings and works and car parking dispensation" one, given the operation of the relevant planning controls to the proposal.

23 In relation to the submissions from Mr Armstrong (who owns a former bank building nearby), he put to me that the proposal should be refused on the grounds of unacceptable traffic and parking impacts, ie. the request for car parking dispensation is not appropriate and on that basis the proposal should be refused. Although Mr Armstrong made passing reference to his concerns about the heritage values of the former Sandringham Post Office which will be demolished if a permit is granted, as I mentioned at the hearing, the fact is that this building is not subject to a Heritage Overlay (and is not on the Victorian Heritage Register), hence there is no scope for me to take into account heritage issues here.

24 With respect to the submissions made by Mr Uglow on behalf of Coles Myer, it would be fair to say that he gave a somewhat "rambling" submission, with the result that Mr Uglow needed to be reminded several times that the focus of the hearing was not protecting the position of the Coles Myer Supermarket, but rather assessing the planning merits of the proposal. However, Mr Uglow did make some valid points regarding the traffic and parking aspects of the proposal which I have taken into account. In particular, he raised concerns about whether there is currently inadequate on-street car parking available in terms of the level of activity in the Sandringham Urban Village, and he also queried whether the traffic issue of the after hours deliveries to the Coles Supermarket loading bay (which is the other side of Waltham Street from the subject land) could cause undue noise problems for those future internal occupants facing toward Waltham Street.

25 The balance of my decision will concentrate on the key issues I see arising in this appeal, on which I need to make my findings. To the extent that broader issues were discussed during the hearing, I consider any other such issues to be so peripheral as to not require specific findings.

26 I see the key issues in this appeal to be as follows:

•

strategic policy support for the proposal;

•

traffic and car parking issues;

•

neighbourhood character/streetscape/design issues;

•

potential amenity/privacy impacts on nearby residents.

27 I shall now examine each of these issues in more detail below.

28 In summary, I am satisfied that there is a strong level of strategic policy support in the Bayside Planning Scheme for this type of proposal.

29 In terms of State planning policy, the proposal will promote the key Melbourne 2030 objectives of greater urban consolidation and greater residential densities in existing activity centres. The proposal is also consistent with the policy objective under Clause 17.01-1 (Activity Centres) of greater clustering of uses in activity centres.

30 In relation to local policy and the Council MSS, I good starting point here is Clause 22.04, being the Sandringham Urban Village Policy. While I appreciate Clause 22.04 deals with a variety of matters including the need for good quality and responsive urban design and amenity concerns, it is an important starting point that this policy promotes the encouragement of the "development of Sandringham Shopping Centre as an active, safe, attractive coastal, commercial, community and housing node" (my emphasis). It is clear that provision for housing plays an important part in the vision for the Sandringham Urban Village, which is not surprising given the broad social and economic benefits that can flow from a boosted local population living in the Village itself, against the background of the Village being widely recognised as having been in decline in the 1990s.

31 In addition, it is significant that Clause 22.04 includes the following statement in relation to the design of new buildings - "In the retail core area, a fourth storey be permitted on corner sites or other sites where the setback of the fourth storey from the street frontage has a minimal visual impact from the ground level". While the site is unusual in having roughly a triangular shape, it was common ground at the hearing that the site can be treated as a "corner site" and therefore comes within the policy statement set out above. Bearing in mind that there are only so many corner sites in Sandringham Village, and not all of these corner sites may be suitable for re-development, there seems a good case here (as a matter of good planning) for the subject land being developed (subject to an appropriate design response) to its full potential of four stories. While I am not suggesting this justifies "open slather" or poor quality design by the Applicant, the relevant provisions of Clause 22.04 indicate to me that it would be a "lost opportunity" if the subject land was developed to less than four stories, in a similar way to the situation in the case of Doncaster Road Property Partnership v Manningham City Council P1769/2004 (ie the proposed Mercedes Benz dealership on Doncaster Hill).

32 Weight also needs to be given to the consistency of the proposal with the relevant "Housing" objectives under Clause 21.05, with this policy including the following strategy - "Encourage higher density housing principally in activity centres and residential opportunity areas as identified on the Strategic Framework Plan, particularly those with good access to public transport networks (eg. Sandringham Urban Village)." Clearly this proposal will promote this strategy in spades.

33 To the extent that the relevant policies include what might be described as "checks and balances" in terms of seeking good quality and respectful design that sits comfortably in the Sandringham Urban Village (for example, I refer to the policy objective "To protect and enhance the character, heritage, streetscape and pedestrian environment of the Sandringham Urban Village"), for the reasons set out below, I consider these policy "checks and balances" are satisfied here.

34 In making my findings set out above, I also rely on the helpful planning evidence of Mr Frank Perry given during the hearing and the supportive Council Delegate Report.

35 I rely on and accept here the traffic engineering evidence here of Mr Steven Williams, whom I consider was a credible witness. In summary, subject to some minor issues I will deal with, I see no traffic or parking issues which justify the refusal of the proposal.

36 With respect to traffic matters, I recognise that the situation is somewhat unusual in that Waltham Street is a one-way street. However I accept the evidence of Mr Williams that the extra traffic generated by the proposal will have no real negative impacts on the local road network. Indeed from my visit during a weekday lunchtime period, my impression was that while there was plenty of general activity and some degree of traffic, I had no undue difficulty driving around the local streets.

37 In relation to the availability of local public transport and on-street parking, it was common ground at the hearing that the Sandringham railway station is a short stroll nearby. There are also several bus routes which have a stop at the Sandringham Village.

38 With respect to on-street parking, Mr Williams' report indicates that (excluding the commuter car parking spaces for the railway station) that there are in the order of 353 on-street car parking spaces available in the Village. Mr Williams carried out various car parking survey work at relevant times chosen in consultation with the Council traffic engineers. At page 8 of Mr Williams' report, the parking Table 3.1 summarises these surveys as showing that between 54 and 70 spare on-street car parking spaces were available at the relevant survey times. Mr Williams relies on this in stating that "As a results of these surveys clearly show the existing parking system has significant spare capacity during the busiest periods of the day". I consider that no real challenge to this conclusion arose from cross-examination of Mr Williams and his conclusion matches up with my impressions from my view of the site (where I was able to find an on-street park fairly smoothly and observed various other spare on-street parking spots available).

39 With respect to off-street parking on the subject land, the proposal includes a basement car park with 10 spaces plus an additional space accessed off the laneway. While the proposal before me includes the need for car parking dispensation, it was common ground at the hearing that in reality whether dispensation is involved depends on which set of parking controls are applied. As usefully set out at pages 12-15 of Mr Williams' report, it is true that under Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme the proposal requires dispensation of 21 spaces, while 15 spaces dispensation is required under Clause 55.03.

40 However, it is important to recognise that that under the relevant parking provisions of the Sandringham Urban Village Strategy, in fact no dispensation is required. This is because this Strategy only requires one space per dwelling as a minimum and one space per new small commercial occupancy (ie under 100 square metres). While all three methods of assessment need to be considered as a starting point, in the circumstances here I consider it appropriate that much greater weight should be given to the "no dispensation" situation under the Strategy. In my view, the Strategy correctly recognises that where a Village such as this was recognised as being in decline in the 1990s, and Council is serious about reinvigorating the Village, there has to be some reasonable flexibility in the on-site car parking requirements. This is consistent with the approach taken in other strip shopping areas such as Brunswick Street where it is recognised that greater flexibility is needed for the greater good and vitality of the whole area.

41 In summary, I am satisfied that the 11 on-site car parking spaces provided is a satisfactory result, and that to the extent that dispensation is required under Clause 52.06 and/or Clause 55.03, such dispensation is appropriate.

42 In terms of the design of the car park ramp and the basement area, it was common ground at the hearing that (due to Melbourne Water flooding requirements) the whole basement level needs to be raised in a way that is not shown in the application plans, which is picked up in Conditions 21 and 24 of the proposed permit conditions. In addition, the architect Mr Manderson suggested two possible revised car park ramp and layouts including that set out at concept plan A4a of his report dated 21 July 2005. I think the possible A4a layout with a longer access ramp seems the preferable outcome and hence this is incorporated into the Condition 1 sub-conditions, along with the requirement for appropriate "warning lights" at each end of the ramp, to warn a driver/pedestrian that another vehicle is already coming the other way on the ramp.

43 My findings on these traffic and car parking issues are consistent with the fact that the Council Delegate Report records that Council's traffic engineers had no real concerns with the proposal.

44 As a final issue here, having inspected the site, I do have concerns about the interface between those new dwellings with habitable rooms facing on to Waltham Street, and the operation of the Coles Supermarket loading bay across the other side of the street. In this regard, I note Mr Uglow indicated during the hearing that after-hours deliveries to the loading bay are common. In all the circumstances, and in particular giving weight to the "noise attenuation works" condition that Member O'Leary imposed as part of approving the No. 9 Waltham Street development, I see it as being appropriate to insert an equivalent but simpler "noise attenuation works" permit condition here. As there was not the opportunity at the hearing to review the extent of any necessary works to any openings of the Waltham Street elevation of the new building, with particular reference to potential after hours noise from the loading bay, I am satisfied this can be dealt with via the new Condition 1 sub-clause at a later stage "to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority", presumably with the benefit of an appropriate noise report.

Design/Neighbourhood Character/Streetscape Issues

45 A good starting point here is my impressions from my inspection of the Sandringham Urban Village. The area I particularly concentrated on was the streetscape in Waltham Street, Abbott Street to the rear, and the laneway running adjacent to the subject land.

46 While I appreciate that different parts of the Village have somewhat varying characteristics, it needs to be said that the built form character of the Waltham Street/Abbott Street/laneway precinct already includes being able to view some existing buildings that are quite tall and prominent. In particular, when standing in Waltham Street on the other side of the street from the subject land, there is already an imposing view of:

•

to the left, the two other 4 storey modern unit developments at 1-7 and 9 Waltham Street, that are currently being constructed; and

•

to the right and a little further away, the three storey rear extension of one of the Station Street dwellings (I understand this is the rear of the 36B Station Street dwelling). In addition, about three lots further to the right again is the rear of the former period bank building, which is close to being the same height as a modern three storey building.

47 If one then walks down the laneway towards Abbott Street, the first section of this walk involves passing the aforementioned three storey rear extension before reaching Abbott Street. If one then stands on the opposite side of Abbott Street and looks back to the subject land, the nearest sections of the 1-7 and 9 Waltham Street properties stand out. However if one takes in a more panoramic approach, from this spot one can also see the large older freemasons centre building to the west (the rooftop of which looks about the equivalent of a modern three storey building), plus there is a substantial attractive art-deco style building on the corner of Abbott and Station Streets that again is close to a modern three storeys in scale.

48 In summary then, it cannot be said that this particular section of the Village has a low-rise flavour. Rather, the northern end of Waltham Street already has a four storey and bold streetscape on the same side of the street as the subject land, and there are other substantial existing buildings as I have mentioned.

49 In this context, the proposal here is for a four storey building of a contemporary design, stepping down to three stories at the southern end of the subject land. It seems useful here to assess the northern (four storey) half of the proposed building compared to the southern (stepping down) half.

50 It seems fair to say that at the hearing there was only muted criticism of the four storey nature of the northern end of the proposed building. While Ms Bowdern at one point queried whether the Applicant's photo montages correctly show the height of the new No. 9 Waltham Street building, it has since been established that her concerns are unfounded, in that the montages correctly show the northern end of the proposal here as being approximately the same height as the closest section of the No 9 building, but with the balance of the No 9 building then rising up significantly higher again further to the north.

51 I note here that the copy endorsed plans for the No. 9 building provided to me by Ms Bowdern confirm that the highest point of the No. 9 building is about16.2 metres. Even allowing for a 500 mm increase in height of the proposed building on the subject land to deal with flooding issues, by contrast the highest point of the proposed building on the subject land is about 12.25 metres, being in the order of four metres lower than the highest part of the No. 9 building

52 With particular regard to this height comparison with the No. 9 Waltham Street building, I am satisfied that the northern end of the proposed new building here will sit very comfortably in the streetscape and is an appropriate, contemporary design. I consider that the design here will sit comfortably alongside the No 1-7 and No. 9 Waltham Street buildings in terms of both scale and design approach and detailing. The use of substantial glazing at the upper levels should provide an appropriate recessing and/or "lightening" of the upper levels of the proposed building.

53 Turning to the southern half of the proposed building, both Ms Bowdern and the relevant neighbours expressed unhappiness about the bulk of this half of the building, relative to the neighbouring streetscape and existing built form. Ms Bowdern queried whether the design has gone far enough at the southern end in terms of stepping from four stories down to three. Mr Armstrong put to me that the scale and bulk of the proposal is generally excessive and that in particular the nearby buildings further to the east (such as the rear of his former bank building) will be overpowered by the proposal (even if it steps down from four to three stories).

54 While I at least see more of an argument to be had here in terms of the interface between the three storey treatment of the southern end of the proposal compared to the neighbouring buildings, in all the circumstances I consider a stepping down from four to three stories to be appropriate. As I have mentioned above, the reality here is that the built form in the locality already includes some substantial buildings, which in turns allows a three storey southern end of the new building to sit comfortably in the streetscape.

55 The position might be different if all the existing buildings to the east were single storey, but this is hardly the case. In fact, it is interesting that the relevant photo montage provided by the Applicant which shows the Waltham Street streetscape is misleading, in not showing the reality of the very imposing three storey rear elevation of what I understand to be the 36B Station Street dwelling. My impression is that (contrary to what this photo montage indicates) a person standing on the other side of Waltham Street will see only a marginal difference in height between the three storey southern end of the proposed building and the three stories at the rear of the 36B Station Street dwelling a little further to the right.

56 For similar reasons to set out above, I am also satisfied with the general scale and design treatment of the southern end of the new building. The design should create some visual interest and the treatment of the "stepping down" to three stories seems in order.

57 My only proviso here is that, as I indicated near the end of the hearing, I actually like the proposed "design feature" on the southern end of the Waltham Street façade shown in blue in the relevant "Waltham Street elevation" photo montage, whereas the application plans show this feature as having been dropped (with a fairly bland section of wall instead, with a single rectangle shaped window). Particularly given that the northern end of the 1-7 Waltham Street new building will have a fairly bold design feature on the corner (apparently showing some nautical influence), in my view this creates a good argument for an equivalent similar design feature on the southern end of the new building on the subject land, instead of the single window, which should give this corner of the new building more visual presence. While I am content for the design detail here to be resolved on another day, some nautical influence may be appropriate given the bayside location and the nature of the No. 1-7 architectural feature, and some form of blue colouring may have merit.

58 Looking at this aspect of the application plans, the best approach here seems a design amendment which:

•

deletes the second floor kitchen window facing Waltham Street (there should be adequate natural light to the kitchen from other sources) to make room for the new design feature; and

•

either simply utilises the external wall of bedroom 2 below for the lower part of the new design feature, or otherwise uses some of this lower wall space for the design feature and uses the balance of this lower space to create a new window onto Waltham Street for this bedroom 2 (this bedroom 2 otherwise seems to have pretty modest natural light).

59 To the extent that there were neighbourhood character concerns about the proposal, for the same reasons set out above, I consider the proposal can sit respectfully within the existing character of the local neighbourhood.

60 In making my various findings in this part of my decision, I also rely on firstly the architectural evidence from Mr Chris Manderson, secondly the relevant comments in the Council Delegate Report, and thirdly the two recent Tribunal decisions in relation to the No. 1-7 and No. 9 Waltham Street new buildings (see the Tribunal decisions [2003] VCAT 671 and [2003] VCAT 148). In relation to the Delegate Report, at page 57 under the heading "Neighbourhood Character" the report states as follows.

The proposal is considered to be appropriate for the site and will not detract from the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character.

It is considered that the proposed development will sit comfortably in the Waltham Street streetscape and will incorporate appropriate articulation and a variety of external materials and finishes to minimise potential impacts to the streetscape. The ground floor, splayed corner and upper level are appropriately setback from the street frontage to minimise visual bulk to the street and to ensure that the building compliments the developing streetscape.

61 There was some discussion during the hearing of the acceptability or otherwise of any amenity impacts of the proposal. There was a particular focus here on those residents living east of the subject land, whose properties face on to Station Street but back onto the laneway abutting the subject land. A good example was Mr Armstrong, who was a submitter at the hearing.

62 Reviewing the shadow diagrams and the articulation of the eastern façade of the new building and from my inspection of the locality, on balance I am satisfied that there are no unacceptable overshadowing or visual bulk issues here. While it is true that there will be some extent of afternoon overshadowing of the rear of some of these adjoining properties which back on to the laneway, it seems fair to say that there is already fairly intensive development on the eastern side of this laneway and it has a somewhat "hard edge" character. In addition, the subject does not directly abut the eastern properties but there is the intervening presence of the laneway.

63 In relation to "visual bulk", I consider the designer of the new building has made an effort to create real articulation and visual interest on the eastern side of the new building, which should create visual interest and a more recessive effect of new built form, which in any case is stepped down from four stories to three at this end.

64 While I accept that there might otherwise have been a real privacy issue of east-facing residents in the new building overlooking the dwellings further to the east, I am satisfied that the proposed new privacy screens on the relevant new eastern windows/balconies (see concept plan 5 in the architectural report) is a sensible design response that should provide reasonable privacy protection to these existing residents further to the east.

65 In relation to the possibility of the new building impinging on Mr Armstrong's views out of the rear of his dwelling (ie the old bank building) or the views of any other nearby neighbour, there are many Tribunal cases which reinforce the principle that there is no inherent "right to a view". Nor does the Planning Scheme here impose any policy preference for "sharing of views". While I appreciate Mr Armstrong's outlook will change somewhat, I am not satisfied that this in itself justifies or refusal or even a reduction in scale of the new building, bearing in mind:

•

that the southern end of the new building scales down from four stories to three; and

•

that the rear of Mr Armstrong's own building and of the No. 36B Station Street dwelling are quite high and imposing built form in this part of the Village (in which case it is less surprising that others might want to "join the club" and build higher buildings that will inevitably have some impacts on viewlines).

66 I also make the general point here (as per Mr Perry's evidence) that residents living in a location like Station Street dwellings in an activity centre cannot expect the same amenity levels as a resident in the "residential hinterland".

67 For the reasons set out above, I consider the proposal to be a worthy contemporary design that will positively contribute to the re-generation of the Sandringham Village and sit comfortably in the streetscape, in a manner which is consistent with the relevant State and local policies. Hence my orders above that a planning permit should issue for the proposal.

68 However I accept that a number of design improvements came out of the expert evidence and the hearing process, and the conditions I have set out include a number of new Condition 1 sub-clauses picking up these design improvements.