The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied. In permit application . P07/0429 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 42 Myers Drive, Shoreham. The permit allows the construction of dwelling additions and associated works in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit issued by the Responsible Authority on 28 August, 2007 modified as follows:

1. Condition 1 must be amended to include the following additional requirement;

(c) The relocation of the air conditioning unit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Mr Andrew Hooper of counsel, instructed by Barnes Planning

1. This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to grant a permit for the construction of an extension to a dwelling at 42 Myers Drive, Shoreham. The application is made on the following grounds:
   1. The proposal is inconsistent with relevant provisions of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.
   2. The design and scale of the proposed development will not integrate with the neighbourhood character.
   3. The height and bulk of the proposed dwelling additions would reduce and eliminate the views of neighbouring properties to Westernport Bay and Phillip Island, conflicting with the objectives of the Design and Development Overlay requiring shared view lines to be protected, and buildings designed to to be sited to avoid being visually obstructive.
   4. The proposal would adversely affect the amenity of the local area.

1. It is proposed to construct a double storey extension to the dwelling which currently occupies the site, and to undertake minor alterations to the façade of the dwelling.
2. The plans submitted with the application show a maximum building height of 7.5 m and a wall height of 7.5 m. The application plans therefore incorporated an additional height of 1.2 m above the apex of the roof line of the existing dwelling. Following the notification of the application and the receipt of objections, the applicant submitted amended plans showing the height of the extension being restricted to an additional 650 mm above the apex of the existing roof line.
3. I was advised that rudimentary height poles were erected and following further assessment of the application, the Council issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit. The Notice includes a condition which requires amended plans to be submitted, showing a reduction in the overall height of the extension so that no part of the dwelling extends above a Relative Level of 74.92 or no more than 500 mm above the apex of the existing dwelling.

1. Mr Cousins provided a useful description of the review site and its environs which, having inspected the site and the local area, I find to be accurate. I adopt Mr Cousins' description which is included below;

The review site is located on the southern side of Myers drive and is approximately 862sqm in area. It has a frontage of 18.29 metres and a depth of approximately 47.33 metres.

A modest double storey dwelling is setback 8.77 metres from the frontage with a small verandah (that provides access to the second storey) encroaching approximately 2 metres into this setback.The dwelling is clad in weatherboard and has low pitched corrugated roof. A carport is located under the western side of the dwelling.

The land slopes away from the front of the property to down to the rear which opens up views to Westernport Bay, Phillip Island and Bass Strait.

The site is heavily vegetated, with a thick screening of vegetation located along the frontage as well as along the side and rear boundaries. The front vegetation is dense enough to screen the front of the dwelling from the street as well as dwellings located in the general vicinity (particularly across the road). There is a small opening necessary for the driveway and access to the property. Only the very top of the roof can be seen from properties to the north of the Myers Road given vegetation cover and the slope of the land.

A post and wire fence runs along all boundaries but as previously mentioned boundary vegetation provides a much higher and efficient screen than what a 1 .8m solid fence could.

The general character of the streetscape is best described as variable with a combination of both single and double storey dwellings. The dwellings in the immediate vicinity are generally of older styles. Vegetation cover is varied with some lots having virtually no cover whilst others have enough to provide effective screening between properties.

Views of Phil!ip Island and Western Port Bay! Bass Strait are enjoyed by most of the properties in the immediate vicinity thanks primarily to the topography of the land that slopes roughly north to south. More often than not 180 degree views (or more) are granted which can include significant vistas such as The Nobbies and Seal Rock.

It is important to note that the dwellings located along the top side (north) of Myers Drive have elevated views with many of the dwellings being essentially single storey developments.

Single storey dwelling that is sited with views to Western Port Bay, Bass Strait and Port Phillip Island (The Nobbies, Seal Rock etc.). The dwelling although single storey is elevated above ground level as it is constructed on stumps.

• The dwelling is sited higher above Myers Road and due to the topography of the land has views across the top of the existing dwelling at 42 Myers Road.
• There is a medium cover of vegetation that is scattered to the front of the dwelling and more significantly to the rear.

• Double storey weather board dwelling that is setback less than 5 metres from the frdntage.
• There is a very limited cover of vegetation found on this site.

• Double storey dwelling located to the front of the lot but in a central location.
• There is a low cover of vegetation found on this site. South East (rear adjoining)
• There are a number of similar sized residential lots located in this region, most with single dwellings located on them. Due to the slope of the land and the screening found on the subject site these properties are not visible and proposal will have little to impact.

1. The review site is zoned Residential 1 under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. No permit is required to use land or to construct a dwelling on a lot greater than 500 m2 in area. A Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) affects the site, however no vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of this application.
2. The site is affected by two overlay controls under which permits are required for this proposal.
3. A permit is required under the Design and Development Overlay (DDO2) for a building which exceeds a wall height of 5.5 metres or a building height of 6 metres. The design objectives of the DDO1 are;
   • To ensure that the design of subdivision and housing is responsive to the environment, landform, site conditions and character of coastal and bayside residential areas and rural villages.
   • To ensure that development densities are compatible with the environmental and infrastructure capacities of the area, including the capacity of local streets, drainage systems and sewerage systems. Where reticulated sewerage is not available, particular consideration must be given to the ability to contain all waste water onsite and the impact of development on ground water conditions. Particular attention must be given to the impact of development on streamlines, water ways and wetlands and to avoiding the development of land susceptible to stream erosion or flooding.
   • To recognise areas where substantial vegetation cover is a dominant visual and environmental feature of the local area by ensuring site areas are large enough to accommodate development while retaining natural or established vegetation cover and to provide substantial areas for new landscaping and open space.
   • To ensure that new development has proper regard for the established streetscape and development pattern in terms of building height, scale and siting.
   • To protect shared viewlines where reasonable and practical.
   • To ensure that buildings are designed and sited to avoid being visually obtrusive, particularly in terms of creating a silhouette above a skyline or existing tree canopy line when viewed from surrounding streets and properties.
   • To ensure that subdivision and development proposals have proper regard to heritage values, including those of areas such as the Ranelagh Estate in Mt Eliza and the Sorrento Heritage Precinct.
   • To ensure that subdivision proposals will enable new buildings to be integrated with their site and the surrounding area in terms of the relationship to existing buildings, open space areas and the coastal landscape.
   • To recognise areas where a lower intensity of residential activity and traffic movement contributes to the amenity of the area.
   • To recognise areas, with limited access to infrastructure, services and facilities, including public transport, that are considered inappropriate for higher densities of occupation
4. The DDO2 requires consideration to be given to nominated standards and objectives of clause 54.
5. A permit is required to construct a building and to construct or carry out works under the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO2). The statement of the nature and key elements of the landscape refer to the landscape qualities of the coastlines and coastal hinterland areas. The landscape character objective to be achieved is;
   • To protect and enhance the visual, natural and cultural heritage values of coastal landscapes.
   • To protect coastal landscapes from visual intrusion resulting from the inappropriate siting, design or materials of buildings and works, including infrastructure service lines.
   • To encourage siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works that is responsive to the coastal landscape character.
   • To maintain vegetation as an important element of coastal landscapes.
6. The applicable policy framework emphasises the need for development to respond to infrastructure capacity issues, the character and landscape qualities of the area.

1. The parties at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. I inspected the subject land, neighbouring properties and the locality.

1. The principal issue in dispute in this matter relates to the impact of the proposed dwelling extension on the view lines obtained from properties located on the north side of Myers Drive. Mr Hooper conveniently summarised the relevant issue in his submission as follows;

The question for the Tribunal is therefore whether the increase in height (even if reduced to the extent required by the Council) will still unreasonably and unfairly impact on the shared view lines of the Applicants for Review.

1. Prior to addressing that issue, it is appropriate that I record my findings that the proposed extension achieves an acceptable outcome with respect to the permission required under the SLO2. The proposal will have no adverse impact on the landscape qualities of the coastlines and coastal hinterland areas. I also agree with the Council's assessment that in terms of the form, style and materials of the proposed extension, the proposal is acceptable in meeting the design objectives of the DDO2. The objectives of Clause 54 which are identified in the DDO2 as being matters to which consideration must be given, are also met.
2. In arriving at my conclusions on these matters, I have been influenced by the variable nature of built forms which are represented in this neighbourhood and, to the very limited extent to which the proposed extension will be visible from the public domain, the dwelling extensions will not be out of place. In my assessment, the most significant factor contributing to an identifiable character for this neighbourhood is the level of vegetation which exists in both private and public spaces, and this will not change as a consequence of this proposal.
3. Turning now to a consideration of the view line issue, the Tribunal has over a number of years formulated principles to be applied in cases relating to the consideration of the impact of developments on the views enjoyed by existing residents. These principles can be summarised as follows:

1. Views form part of the existing amenity of a dwelling and their loss is a relevant consideration to be taken into account;

1. The availability of views must be considered in the light of what constitutes a reasonable sharing of those views;

1. Added emphasis will be placed on considerations B and C above if the question of views is specifically addressed under the planning scheme[1].
2. The level to which the objectors had developed their own properties has been held to be a relevant consideration[2].
3. It is relevant to have regard to the importance of the view to be lost within the overall panorama available.[3]

1. I agree with these principles and, in accordance with their application, the initial task for me is to assess the impact of the view loss having regard not just to a quantitative assessment of the loss but also to the quality of the view to be lost within the overall panorama available.
2. The first point to be noted is that the proposed extension will not lead to an obliteration of the views currently available from properties on the elevated, north side of Myers Drive. Those properties will continue to gain the benefit of the panoramic views of the bay and Phillip Island over and through existing vegetation and over the roof line of the dwelling at 42 Myers Drive. What will occur as a consequence of the construction of the proposed extension is a very small intrusion into that panoramic view.
3. The impact of the proposal is entirely consistent with the concept of view sharing and with the outcomes sought by the Design and Development Overlay. In arriving at this conclusion, I make the observation that I do not regard the concept of view sharing as being synonymous with the protection of all existing views. The outcome being sought by the planning scheme is to ensure that where developments do intrude into existing shared view lines, a reasonable sharing of views continues to exist. I am satisfied that this proposal achieves that outcome.
4. Mr Hooper submitted that the form, height and scale of the proposed extension is excessive, is not site responsive, and does not contribute to any improved views for the residents of the dwelling. In his submission therefore, any increase in height above the existing roof line or above that permitted as of right under the DDO2 is unnecessary and has not been substantiated.
5. I acknowledge Mr Hooper's submission with respect to these matters. However, given the very limited level of intrusion into existing view lines associated with the proposed extension, and having regard to my findings with respect to the proposal's acceptable response to the objectives of the SLO2 and the DDO2, any further reduction in the height, scale and form of the extension is not warranted.
6. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that a permit should be granted.
7. The permit will include the conditions contained in the notice of decision to grant a Permit issued by the responsible authority. I have however included a condition requiring the air conditioning unit which has been erected on the roof of the existing dwelling to be relocated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. I note that the applicant was content to accept a condition to this effect.

[1] Tashounidis v Flinders Shire Council (1987) 1 AATR 116

[2] Centrum Architects Pty Ltd v Surf Coast Shire Council, Morling and ors (noted at 10 VPR 126)

[3] Healy and ors v Surf Coast Shire Council and McTaggart and Associates, P362/2005