1. It is already established that in this case an eight-dwelling development is conditionally permissible under the transitional arrangements from the R1Z to the NRZ. It is also the case that under the NRZ provisions in the Bayside Planning Scheme, refusal of this application will limit any future development on the site to no more than two dwellings. I also note that decision on this matter requires balancing between Precinct F1 character objectives being essentially for a spacious garden setting interface with the bay foreshore to predominate over built form, and what I consider to be a general failure to have achieved that outcome along Beach Road. However, this does not provide licence to discard the objectives sought within Precinct F1 nor some consideration of the purpose of the NRZ in ongoing decision making.
2. While a development proposal for eight dwellings at the review site may be argued for or against on the basis of dwelling or population density, it does not follow that a two-dwelling development will necessarily occupy a lesser footprint than an alternative development with more than two dwellings.
3. The review site is physically suited to medium density development, and has a level of policy support for this. Its large residential lot size and proximity to the Sandringham activity centre and the Sandringham railway station and bus services are all appropriate for such development, albeit that the site is not within a Residential Opportunity Area (cl. 21.02-5). Also, the review site can rightly be considered a transition site between the intensive development on the 'Red Bluff Hotel' site and the residential sites to the south, and good design can be used to moderate the stark interface between the sites as viewed from the public realm particularly from the south along Beach Road.
4. I agree that the adjacent 'Red Bluff Hotel' redevelopment cannot be considered a precedent for the wider area due to its 0.4ha 'strategic development site' size and position. However, the redevelopment exerts a dominating impact on the review site, and any design on the review site particularly on its north side, will be strongly influenced by this. There is therefore a stronger case for the proposed development than if it was to be located elsewhere within the Precinct F1 or NRZ hinterlands. Conversely, any development on the review site will impose limited impact on the 'Red Bluff Hotel' site redevelopment. This was given inadequate recognition in the Council's reasoning as presented to the Tribunal. The main potential external amenity impacts from the proposed development would therefore relate to 173 Beach Road.
5. It is therefore reasonable to afford some 'slack' from literal interpretation of local policy and precinct guidelines, and design standards, for development on the on the review site, particularly on the north side and where no adverse third-party impacts occur.
6. While the current proposal has four dwellings fronting the street (two horizontally by two vertically), I find the design and materials selection to be generally no more or less appropriate to the Port Phillip Bay environment than those of many other local developments. In this context the applicant's argument that the proposal is not 'out of character' has merit.
7. I note that some recognition of the interface between the 'Red Bluff Hotel' site redevelopment and the review site has been incorporated into the design of the front face of the upper storey dwellings on the 'Red Bluff Hotel' site. There, the front roof line and the fronts of the balcony walls on the southern seven of eleven dwellings that front to Beach Road are progressively stepped and sloped back, albeit marginally, presumably to provide a transition to any residential development on the review site.

1. Ultimately, the 'neighbourhood character test' reverts to the extent to which the development incorporates features sought under Precinct F1, and perceived character implications if developments with similar features were to be commonly replicated in the area. My answer is that the proposal does not adequately demonstrate preferred Precinct F1 elements.
2. The collective effect of several matters relating to the bulk and scale of the proposed development contribute to my decision. These generically relate to neighbourhood character at cl.55.02-1, but more specifically relate to site coverage (cl. 55.03-3), street setback (cl. 55.03-1), landscaping (cl. 55.03-8), and provision for any vegetative screening in side setbacks. AS I have previously inferred, a more liberal approach could be adopted to consideration of these matters if the proposal could be contexted only against the development on the former 'Red Bluff Hotel' site.
3. The collective impact of the specific matters I have identified above will impact on the dominance of the proposed development including appearance of separation between buildings, and the potential for adequate front and side landscaping, within character Precinct F1. In particular, the following elements will provide the main contributions to this.
   • The 56% site coverage, exceeds the 50% preferred maximum by around 45m2. This must 'squeeze' side and rear setback features of the design. I do not accept the applicant's proposition that this is not a significant matter, particularly when aggregated with other compliance considerations.
   • The proposed front setback predominantly comprises vehicle ramp, pedestrian walkway and secluded private open spaces for Dwellings 1 and 4, both of which are largely decked, such that that loss of front garden space has not been avoided. While the applicant agreed that the front fence of the POS could be setback marginally further to provide additional landscaping space, it was also stated and I agree, that such small increase would make little difference for landscaping potential. The applicant also stated that a requirement to further setback the front of the dwellings to provide additional landscaping space would be fatal to the project. I therefore find that this component of the design does not provide a satisfactory outcome.
   • The average 9.38m front setback (being 7.48m for Dwelling 1 and 11.28m for Dwelling 4) can be argued to exceed the Council's 9m minimum expectation under its cl. 55 standards. However the front projection of the upper-level Dwelling 8 well forward of the ground-level Dwelling 4, and the Dwelling 5 balcony forward of Dwelling 1, together with the timber balcony and facia treatments, and the front fence heights 'compacts' the frontage, and would effectively negate the benefit of staggering back the ground level setbacks between the two adjacent sites. (I note here that I do not have other concerns about this timber design treatment within the variable architectural styles along Beach Road.)
   • Precinct F1 seeks to minimise the dominance of car parking structures, in part by underground car parking accessed from the front of the site being provided only where other options are not possible due to site constraints. It also seeks for garage doors to not dominate the façade and for the front setback area being retained as predominantly garden space. In this instance basement car parking may realistically provide the only option for eight dwellings on the site, but this does not alter the position that the vehicle access provision via the 6m wide ramp is a dominant element of the proposal's street presentation that impacts adversely on the capacity for vegetative landscape treatment at the front of the development.
   • These above findings are exacerbated by the high solid front fencing, which is nonetheless permissible in a Road Zone Category 1.
   • The main provision for vegetative landscaping is in the rear setback as there is minimal capacity for such treatment in the narrow ground level side setbacks in the front and middle sections of the site.
4. I find that the unbroken building length on both the north and south sides on the ground and upper levels at 35.62m and 39.9m of the 51.83m site length respectively is unsatisfactory on the southern side of this site. While proposed articulation and materials use at the upper level would moderate the impact, I again consider that the unbroken length with shallow courtyard setback areas along the mid-section at the ground level merely transfers the hard edge of the development on the 'Red Bluff Hotel' site one lot further south, rather than provide an appropriate transition to the residential lot to the south within Precinct F1.
5. Overall, I cannot identify where the treatment of the above matters demonstrates reasoned consideration of the Precinct F1 objectives, and I find against the proposal based on this basis.

1. I note that the Council is not opposed to the proposal within the DDO1 as such, and has not opposed it based on traffic and access matters, as the revised plans incorporate conditional changes required by VicRoads. I also identify that while the Council's reasons for refusal include perceived inadequacies regarding layout, grades and internal dimensions of the basement carpark for the manoeuvrability of vehicles, it did not seriously pursue this matter with Mr Fairlie the traffic expert, who provided contrary evidence.
2. I also accept the primary evidence of Mr Fairlie, and the advice of the Council's traffic engineers on the matters of traffic and off-site parking. I consider that vehicle movement into or out of the basement would not be associated with more danger to pedestrians or cyclists than movements associated with other residential driveways surrounded by high street fences. I have not addressed the matter of varying the car parking requirement or waste removal issues that were also covered by Mr Fairlie, as I have determined to refuse the permit for other reasons.
3. There are no clear criteria for buildings to have relationship to the foreshore setting. I consider matter to be highly subjective and that the Council did not substantiate its contention that the proposed development lacks such relationship.
4. The proposed development complies with ResCode overshadowing standards, which do not seek to prevent overshadowing. Subject to compliance with ResCode standards, some level of shadowing over a residential swimming pool in a rear open space, is not a reason to refuse a proposed development.
5. The design would effectively prevent overlooking onto the property at 173 Beach Road. Consistent with this I note that the Council was concerned about excessive use of high-level windows along the southern face of the development. I also note that the dwelling at 173 Beach Road was developed before ResCode, and some design features of that building do not satisfy current ResCode Standards. This includes lateral vision from north facing windows and from the dwelling's upper-level balcony. Therefore any development on the review site will have visual impact from the neighbouring property. This cannot be a basis for rejection of a new proposal where such proposal complies with ResCode objectives. An option open to existing residents where such new development occurs, is to 'retrofit' elements of their own premises such as installation of screenings on balconies, to reduce lateral amenity impacts.
6. The following matters were identified as issues by the Council but given that my decision is based largely on other matters they do not require discussion.
   • Solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows of the neighbouring dwelling to the south.
   • Private open space provision for Dwelling 8 relative to standard B29 in cl. 55.
   • Compliance of the screening fence separating the two roof decks with the DDO1.
7. I have given limited attention to comparison between the current proposal, and that pertaining to the previous permit that has now lapsed. While Mr D'Amico proposed that the previous permit remains a relevant consideration and explained changes to the site footprint, elevation and other features, I have considered the current proposal on its own merits.
8. There is no identified heritage value associated with the existing derelict dwelling, which is proposed for demolition.

1. For the reasons identified, I affirm the decision of Bayside City Council for Permit Application number 2013/577/1, and no permit is to be issued.

[1] Applying the Residential Zones. Planning Practice Note 78. Dept. of Transport, Planning, and Local Infrastructure. December 2013.