1. The applicant outlined that the group accommodation will be managed by an independent property manager with experience in short-term rentals and would be managed remotely and rely on an online booking system. The applicant's submission included an example of the short-term contract arrangement.

1. I have considered the proposed plans based on its merits when assessed against the relevant provisions of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme ('Scheme'), irrespective of the fact that this is a retrospective application, and the works to the existing dwelling, and the new buildings together with the solid colourbond fence have been built.[5] That built form outcome, and use of the buildings, for the purposes of Group Accommodation, as they exist does not give any party an advantage, nor does it place any party at a disadvantage. My approach is consistent with the principles referred to by Judge Osborn in Knox CC v Tylcany Pty Ltd & Ors.[6]

1. As outlined above, the proposal is for Group Accommodation and as agreed by the parties, clause 55 does not apply. The council's grounds of refusal include not meeting the objective and standards as outlined above. During the hearing, I questioned the grounds of refusal, and council conceded that clause 55 is not a relevant consideration in this review. They agreed that grounds 6 and 7 of the refusal fall away, because they agreed about the characterisation of the Group Accommodation as discussed above. However they also explored the option to rely on clause 55 as a guide when assessing on and off site amenity. The council continues to argue the proposal is not consistent with clause 65, as the use and development of the land is not orderly planning for the area.
2. The council argues that the use has evolved, and they do not dispute the Group Accommodation and its compatibility in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone ('NRZ'). They however, dispute scale and intensity of the use.

1. Having regard to the relevant matters under the Scheme, the submissions from parties, the traffic evidence and undertaken a site inspection of the review site and surrounding area, the key issues for the Tribunal to determine are:
   • Policy considerations, particularly neighbourhood character and landscape character.
   • Parking considerations and the relevant design standards.
2. I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions presented regarding the applicable policies and provisions of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme ('Scheme'), undertaken a site inspection of the review site and surrounding area, I have decided to set aside the decision of the responsible authority and direct that a permit issue.
3. In setting out the reasons for my decision I do not recite all of the documentation tendered by the parties, including Tribunal decisions.
4. I provide my detailed reasons as follows.

1. Clause 71.02-3 addresses integrated decision making. It identifies that Victorians have various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of the environment, economic wellbeing, various social needs, proper management of resources and infrastructure. It further identifies that planning aims to meet these needs and expectations. It states that decision makers should endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Having regard to this provision and the balancing exercise that is to be undertaken, what does the planning scheme inform us all about the expectations and land use for the review site:
   • The site is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone - schedule 6 ('NRZ6'). The purpose of the zone is to recognise areas of predominantly single and double-storey residential development and to manage and ensure that development is responsive to the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.
   • The NRZ6 relates to Garden Suburban and Garden Court Areas, Altona and Williamstown. The neighbourhood character objectives is to support visual separation between dwellings, provide front gardens that are visible from the street, provide canopy trees within front and rear setbacks and a high proportion of permeable garden area and support garages and car parks set back behind the dwelling façade.
   • The use is defined as Group Accommodation being 'Land, in one ownership, containing a number of dwellings used to accommodate persons away from their normal place of residence'. The use requires a permit. A permit is also required for buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use.[7]
   • Group Accommodation is included in the table to clause 73.03 and includes Accommodation. At clause 73.04-01 Group Accommodation is included in the Accommodation category.
   • The term Group Accommodation is another form of accommodation, they are like the standard of a dwelling, the main difference being that they are not owned individually and will not be subdivided. They are used to accommodate persons away from their normal place of residence.
   • The review site has the attributes of a strategic redevelopment site. It is a large, rectangular parcel of land of approximately 1,040 square metres. It is included in the Principal Public Transport Network ('PPTN'), walking distance to the train station and local neighbourhood shopping precinct and is in close proximity to the major activity centre in Altona. There are a number of local primary and secondary schools nearby including parks and open space and Altona beach and Esplanade.
3. The Built environment and heritage policy at clause 02.03-5 identifies that various parts of Hobsons Bay will need to accommodate population growth and evolving housing needs. The strategic direction is to encourage development that contributes to the preferred character or residential neighbourhoods in a manner that supports varying degrees of change and protection, retain and plant significant and substantial trees.
4. The Housing policy at clause 02.03-6 supports good quality design outcomes and directs housing growth to locations close to or in activity centres and 'Direct housing growth to locations in or close to activity centres and the Principal Public Transport Network, and to strategic redevelopment sites, to satisfy housing demand'.
5. Clause 16.01-1L applies to all land identified in the Residential Development Framework Plan at clause 02.04. The review site is identified in within an Incremental Change Area.
6. Neighbourhood character policy at clause 15.01-5S and 15.01-5L includes the site in the Incremental Change Area. All area objectives are to support development of two and three storeys depending on the area. Strategies include encouraging the retention and planting of trees and vegetation, ensure that buildings do not dominate the streetscape, minimise the dominance of car parking and provide substantial planting.
7. Integrated decision making means having regard to all the above and balancing competing objectives in favour of net community benefit. As outlined above, I am satisfied that the proposed use is supported by MPS, PPF and local policy.

1. The council and applicant agreed that Group Accommodation falls within the definition of clause 73.03.[8] This use of the land was not a ground of refusal by the council.
2. The existing building to the front of the review site presents as a two-storey brick dwelling that has been updated with a modern glass balustrade, monument-coloured render above the window openings and areas of exposed brickwork to the roof. From Rose Street, views to the ground floor are largely obscured by a two-metre high colourbond fence. On either side of the driveway, landscaped garden beds have been established, and the planted cypress trees will, in time, provide further screening.
3. At street level, the review site continues to present as a dwelling, with the single-storey buildings to the rear effectively screened by the two-storey built form and the existing garage/carport located at the driveways termination. While the use of the land has altered from the previous dwellings, I find the accommodation associated with the built form will remain as existing.
4. I do not share the same view as council that the built form would be out of character with the streetscape, given the two-storey built form at the front of the site will continue to address the street. I do not find that the collection of the buildings, that are located to the rear of the review site, and out of view from the streetscape, is not an inappropriate and unreasonable visual impact. The collection of these buildings, are all single storey, located along the boundary and provide a significant separation between buildings, providing adequate spacing.
5. It is the front fence that I consider to be out of character with the rest of the streetscape character. This is largely the basis of the councils concerns with the proposal. Mr English confirmed that the front fence has been erected for some time, and forms part of the neighbourhood character.
6. I acknowledge the front colourbond fence has been in existence for some time, but given it now forms part of the proposal, it is now entirely appropriate to consider an assessment the neighbourhood character.[9]
7. I observed on my site inspection that the review site is the only property within the street that has a high solid front fence that encloses the site. I agree with the council that the height of the front fence and its return needs to be reduced in height to compliment the character of the street. The existing fences within the street are low brick fences, vertical steel pickets or solid rendered walls (but not to the height of the fence of the review site).
8. It is out of character with the street and therefore I will adopt the council's position to include a condition to reduce the height to 1.2 metres. Furthermore, the reduction in the height will allow the review site to address the street, a consistent theme within Rose Street.
9. Council is also concerned about the lack of landscaping proposed throughout the site and contend there needs to be a landscape plan to include canopy trees to be planted within the front and rear setback and along the driveway. I do not share the same view as council.
10. Policy encourages increased landscape canopy cover to mitigate climate change, enhance the appearance and amenity of a site; provide front and rear setbacks with canopy trees to support garden settings and suburbs.
11. The review site is well landscaped given the existing conditions of the site. My observations on my site inspection showed the planting of Cypress trees along the northern boundary with shrubs. There is established vegetation and shrubs in the back yard and near to the existing bungalow on the southern boundary. There is limited landscaping within the front setback. The proposed site plan does provide some landscaping.
12. I am satisfied that the existing landscaping within the review site is sufficient and over time the Cypress trees will grow and establish additional screening and contribute positively to the streetscape character. I agree with council the front setback should include a canopy tree as encouraged by policy, and I have modified council's draft condition to reflect this.

1. Ms Spanio, representing the surrounding neighbours in Rose Street, argues that the proposal will impact the Rose Street community. The change to short-term accommodation, with its higher frequency of comings and goings, is said to alter the atmosphere of the area by no longer housing long-term residents. Concerns were also raised about increased noise due to the higher turnover of residents, given the proposal includes five short-term accommodation units.
2. Further, Ms Spanio raised concerns relating to how the property will be managed, particularly if issues arise. Matters such as security, the timely collection and return of bins to the property, and the ability to contact the manager were concerns raised. Ms Spanio expressed a desire for instant communication with the manager should problems occur, such as noise disturbance.
3. I agree with Mr English that the review site will continue to operate in a residential manner. Any amenity impacts to adjoining or adjacent properties, such as noise and disturbance, appearance of the site, will be no different to those that would reasonably be expected if the land were developed for a conventional medium density development.
4. With the exception of the former double-storey dwelling, all the single-storey units are relatively small and will occupy no more than two people. No doubt there will be noise from visitors, but this is incidental to any residential capacity, such as, but not limited to, the coming and going of people, people sitting out on the balcony, and/or visitors using the back yard.
5. The documentation submitted with the permit application detailed a proposed management agreement. The management agreement details the responsibility of the manager and the owner. Furthermore, the council proposed the draft Operational Management Plan to addresses the check-in and out procedures, complaints handling procedure, landscape maintenance, and noise. Mr English raises no issue with such a condition.
6. The complaints handling provision in this condition, including a complaint handling register, will help address the respondents concern. It is reasonable for a planning permit for a form of Group Accommodation to include measures to minimise off site impact. I have adopted council's draft condition.

1. Council is concerned that the proposed development does not comply with the design standards at clause 52.06-9 of the scheme, it does not comply with the design standard 1 (accessway) and 6 (safety). They say the sightline from vehicles exiting the review site onto Rose Street is compromised as the existing fence, mail boxes etc are not setback in accordance with the design standards at clause 52.06-9, posing risk to pedestrians and traffic.
2. The respondent is concerned about overflow of parking in the street.
3. There is no car parking rate specified at clause 52.06-5 for Group Accommodation in the Scheme. It is to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Council is satisfied that the proposed five spaces provided on-site, one space per unit, is satisfactory. The respondent is concerned that there is not enough car parking provided and there will be an increase in traffic along Rose Street.
4. The applicant relied on Mr O'Shea's traffic and parking evidence.[10]
5. As car parking has been assessed to the satisfaction of the council, it is not a matter for the Tribunal's consideration.
6. Council's Transport Engineers, as outlined in the council officers delegate report, has not raised any concerns with the proposal. Whilst I accept that it is still up to the council planner to undertake an assessment against the provisions of clause 52.06, the proposal must meet the design standards at clause 52.06-9 unless the council agrees otherwise. However, it is discretionary and, in this instance, I agree with the evidence from Mr O'Shea
7. Although the sight distances splay marginally falls short of the Design Standards, as demonstrated by Mr O'Shea, I find it acceptable given vehicle movements and the driveway width satisfactory. In addition, the condition to reduce the height of the fence, will furthermore allow , and the landscape buffer and will be improved by reducing the front fence height. For these reasons I do not share the same view as council and find the proposal is acceptable under clause 52.06. I have therefore deleted the draft conditions relating to this matter.
8. I agree with Mr O'Shea tht the draft condition proposed by council relating to line marking to the car spaces should be retained, given the nature of the use as short-term arrangement.
9. Waste management and bin collection as discussed by parties, I have addressed below.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing. I agree with council, given this is a retrospective application, I have retained the timeframes for the applicant to provide further material per condition 1. I have generally adopted the council's draft conditions subject to the matters outlined below.
2. Mr English opposed a number of conditions which I agree with for the following reasons.

1. Given clause 55 is not a consideration in my findings, I have removed all conditions relating to the standards as outlined in the council's grounds of refusal. This relates to a shelter to the entrance to each unit, relocation of the entrance to the existing buildings and dimension of the communal store.
2. I am somewhat puzzled by the council imposing a condition to exclude an individual mailbox. As previously discussed, clause 55 does not apply.
3. In any event, any group accommodation will require a mailbox as it is incidental and part of the services to a building used for accommodation. A visitor occupying the premises may require any sort of mail collection.
4. I have deleted this condition. It is up to the applicant as to how they address this matter, but it is not up to the Tribunal to determine how many mailboxes are required given it is not a relevant planning consideration in this instance.

1. The proposal will rely on the council's waste management services to collect waste and recycling. I do not share the same view as the council that collection should be via a private contractor. The council argue that given the increase in the density waste collection should be via a private contractor and not rely on council services. I disagree.
2. Given the small scale units waste collection will be placed in the bins provided by the council, this will be collected as per the service provided.
3. Details of waste collection requirements are commonly noted in the welcome packs provided to visitors in short term accommodation. Should the respondents have concerns about bins being left on the street after collection this can be addressed as a Local Laws matter.
4. The storage location of the bins was discussed amongst the parties. The proposal includes a 1.8 metre high screen abutting the internal southern elevation to the carport, screening the bins. This would be highly noticeable from the street given it is at the end of the driveway.
5. It is appropriate to screen the waste storage area, but I will modify the condition to move the waste storage area and screen immediately to the northern boundary adjacent to the carport. This will retain the existing landscaping adjoining the carport wall and will reduce its appearance from the street.
6. I have modified this condition.

1. In addition to the discussion raised above, the council has imposed a detailed landscape condition in accordance with the Hobsons Bay Landscape Design Guidelines. As outlined, I have modified the condition to reduce the number of canopy trees to be planted given the existing vegetation throughout the review site.
2. I have removed the draft condition requiring the planting of canopy trees as outlined above, except for two canopy trees to be planted within the front setback. I find this is a reasonable requirement as I have already discussed above.

1. I have modified the site and amenity plan to Operational Management Plan and included the requirements of waste management. I have also added a new condition to ensure that the Operational Management Plan is endorsed and forms part of the permit, for council purposes.

1. Council notified Melbourne Water of the planning application under s 52 of the Act. They are not a referral authority under s 55 of the Act, because the review site is not covered by a Special Building Overlay. Melbourne Water correspondence included conditions relating to the flooding matters. Given Melbourne Water are not a referral authority under the Act I have not included these conditions.

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

Construct buildings and construct and carry out works for use of the land for group accommodation.

1. Within 60 days of the issue of this permit, revised plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, 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 substantially in accordance with the advertised plans but modified to show to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) The site and floor layout plans to clearly identify and number each group accommodation dwelling.

(b) The front fence on and within 3 metres of the front boundary to have a maximum height of 1.2 metres.

(c) A direct pedestrian pathway between 'Group Accommodation Existing Bungalow Structure 1' and car parking spaces 1 - 3.

(d) All car parking spaces demarcated by way of line-marking and numbered.

(e) External lighting of a low-level height along the common driveway, and external motion sensor lighting to the entrances of each group accommodation dwelling in accordance with condition 9 of this permit.

(f) A direct pedestrian pathway provided between the entrance and common driveway or between the entrance and the street to the double storey 'Group Accommodation Existing Dwelling'.

(g) The bin area relocated to the northern boundary at the end of the driveway (adjacent to the car port wall). The bins must be screened and positioned so not to be highly visible from the street.

(h) The positioning of all existing and proposed plant and equipment (including air conditioning units, heating units, hot water systems, etc.) which is to be located externally. Such plant and equipment must be positioned to prevent unreasonable noise and visual impact.

(i) The site plan and elevations must show the existing natural ground levels and the proposed finished floor levels (FFLs) and site levels reduced to a common datum point (RL) or to Australian Height Datum (AHD). The elevation plans must also show the wall heights and overall height based on the RLs.

(j) A landscape plan including the location of all retained and proposed species. The landscape plan should be designed in accordance with the Hobsons Bay Landscape Design Guidelines, December 2021. An emphasis must be placed on maximising the use of native drought tolerant species and must include:

1. A minimum of two advanced canopy trees within the front setback of the double storey 'Group Accommodation Existing Dwelling'.
2. A notation indicating a canopy tree must be a minimum 1.5 metres high at the time of planting.
3. Any areas specified as lawn must not be artificial turf.
4. Any areas specified as a permeable surface, including details via a schematic cross section diagram showing the surface layer and substrate layers.

(k) A notation on the site plan and landscape plan stating that all stormwater infrastructure as required by condition 14 of this permit is to be located within the driveways and not in the areas set aside for landscaping unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Unless specified in a permit condition, this requirement does not apply if an exemption is available under the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
2. At all times what the permit allows must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of any document approved under this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be completed and thereafter must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The number of group accommodation dwellings must not exceed five (5) dwellings.
2. The duration of stay at each of the group accommodation dwellings must not exceed 90 days.

1. Concurrently with a request to endorse plans under this permit, an Operational Management Plan must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The Operational Management Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and include the following details:

(a) the responsibilities of the property manager and occupants.

(b) measures which are designed to ensure the orderly arrival and departure of occupants.

(c) measures to ensure the ongoing maintenance of landscaping.

(d) measures to limit noise emissions from the group accommodation dwellings.

(e) measures to ensure the responsibility of council's waste collection services are followed with bins taken out on collection days and returned on site after collection.

(f) a complaint handling process to effectively manage any complaints received. This must include a Complaints Register to be kept at the property manager's premises which records details of the complaint received, any action taken and the response provided to the complainant.

(g) contact details of the property manager.

1. Once approved, the Operational Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The endorsed Operational Management Plan must be implemented and thereafter complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Concurrently with a request to endorse plans under this permit, the waste management plan prepared by Traffix Group dated August 2024 must be amended, approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The waste management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and amended to include the following:

(a) nominate the property manager as responsible for on-site waste management

(b) the anticipated volumes of waste and recycling that will be generated and how they are determined

(c) the type and number of waste bins.

(d) a plan detailing adequate areas for waste bin storage and collection for the required type and number of bins.

1. Waste management and collection must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the approved and endorsed waste management plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be:

(a) Constructed.

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

(c) Surfaced with asphalt or concrete unless another surface treatment is approved by the Responsible Authority.

(d) Drained and maintained.

(e) Line-marked and numbered to indicate each car space.

At all times car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes. Once constructed, these areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Any vehicle crossings must be constructed in the location shown on the endorsed plan to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to commencement of the development the owner must prepare stormwater drainage design plans to the satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor. An application to Council must be made for a Legal Point of Discharge for the disposal of stormwater from the subject land and to determine the relevant Council standards for the stormwater drainage system design. An on-site storm water detention system will be required if the volume of stormwater exceeds the capacity of the legal point of discharge.
2. The owner must meet the costs of all alterations to, and reinstatement of, the Responsible Authority and other Public Authority Assets deemed necessary and required by such Authorities for the development. The owner must obtain the prior specific written consent of the Council or other relevant Authority to such alterations and reinstatements and must comply with conditions required by the said Authority in relation to the execution of such works.

1. All service pipes, (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All basic services including water, electricity, gas, sewerage, telephone and other telecommunication facilities must be installed underground. All above ground meters must be located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

(a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

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

(c) The use does not start within two years of completion of the development.

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 of the parties, evidence, 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.

[2] Nearmap August 2025 outline the review site (red arrow) and immediate site and surrounds.

[3] Photograph provided in the council's submission.

[5] The applicant confirmed that the front fence has existed since about 2008.

[6] Supreme Court of Victoria, Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375 (30 September 2004) where Judge Osborne states the permit applicant should neither be punished nor rewarded for undertaking work before a permit was obtained (Paragraph 13).

[8] I agree with the applicant referring to Tribunal decision in Stuckly v Hobsons Bay CC [2014] VCAT 295 (19 March 2014).

[9] The council has referred to Munjal v Casey CC [2010] VCAT 1026 and I have adopted the same principals as outlined by Senior Member Byard.

[10] Mr O'Shea considered any overflow could be absorbed within Rose Street parking, if I was to consider car parking in my assessment.