1 The applicant shall within 21 days of this date provide amended plans to the Registrar, council and those previously notified, including the objectors in accordance with the oral direction of the Tribunal.

2 The other parties shall have a further 14 days to lodge comments with the Registrar.

3 A decision will be made on the papers.

Mr. Richard Umbers, Town Planner of Peninsula Planning Consultants Pty Ltd

1 This is the review of a refusal to grant a permit for 2 double storey dwellings.

2 The land has an area of 736 m2 and falls 3.6 metres to the front. It is in a residential area of mainly single storey dwellings.

3 There is a bus route some 300 metres to the south of the subject site while buses do run along Centre Road some 800 metres away. It is some 2 kilometres to the Clayton Railway Station from the subject site.

4 This is to construct a double storey dwelling with living areas and main bedroom on the ground floor and two bedrooms, a bathroom on the upper floor. It is to have a single garage with a separate visitor parking space. The existing dwelling is to have private open space of approximately 64 square metres while the new dwelling is to have 80 square metres. Site coverage is to be 44.6% for both dwellings.

5 The application was received on 8 March 2005. Further information was requested at the end of that month and then some four months later in August. Amended plans were submitted in August. Further information was again required in September and the application was then advertised resulting in three objections that related to issues such as neighbourhood character, overlooking, overshadowing, height of the development, visual bulk and overdevelopment. The responsible authority held a preliminary conference with the parties but no resolution was reached. The application was then considered under delegation.

6 A decision was made to refuse the application on the following grounds:

1. The proposal would detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the neighbourhood through the visual domination, its minimal setbacks, the scale, bulk and siting of the dwelling, and the overall height of the proposed dwelling.

2. The proposal is not consistent with, and does not meet, the objectives and standards set out in the SPPF, LPPF, and the Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone, Clause 32.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

3. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenity of abutting properties through its visual bulk its scale, massing, inappropriate setbacks and overshadowing.

4. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.

5. The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston, Planning Scheme, in particular Standard B1 - Neighbourhood Character, Standard B2 - Residential Policy, Standard B5 - Integration with the Street, Standard B10 - Energy Efficiency, Standard B12 - Safety, Standard B15 - Parking Location, Standard B17 - Side and Rear Setbacks, Standard B18 - Walls on Boundaries, Standard B22 - Overlooking, Standard B26 - Dwelling Entry and Standard B31 - Detailed Design.

7 The land is zoned Residential 1 and is not affected by the overlays. The normal SPPF and LPPF policies together with the MSS and local policies apply to this application. Clauses 55 and 65 of the scheme are also considered in any assessment of the application.

8 Under cl.21.05 of the planning scheme, the site is placed in an incremental housing change area where the responsible authority states in its policy that "the type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average size lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained". However, one of the core objectives of the cl.21.05-3 is:

To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for changing housing needs of current and future populations etc.

retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average size lots.

10 There are a number of other objectives referred to by the responsible authority in its submission however, I believe that previously quoted was the major instrument used by the responsible authority in its assessment of this application. It seems that this incremental housing change areas are ones that are located a good distance from good public transport and other urban facilities.

11 In relation to neighbourhood character the residential development policy of cl.22.11 relates to retention of existing character and particularly in relation to rear yards of properties. It seems that this clause while not prohibiting double storey dwellings is an attempt by the responsible authority to promote a single storey character and certainly single dwelling character within an area covered by the incremental change areas. In relation to double storey dwellings the responsible authority has principles and design objectives that were listed in detail by Ms. Mustica in her submission.

12 The design principles in brief encourage two storey houses to be located at the front of the site, ensure upper storey components towards the rear of the site are extensively designed, have roof forms of an attic style.

13 Both Ms. Mustica and Mr. Umbers spoke to written submissions whereas Mr. & Mrs. Roseman made brief oral submissions. I do not intend to dwell on all the information that was put before me but rather concentrate on what I believe to be the major issues here.

14 There are a number of issues that I find difficult to deal with and one is the responsible authority's calculation of average lot sizes in areas. Mr. Umbers submitted a lot size calculation that apparently is kept by the responsible authority and used as an unofficial (under the counter) policy in dealing with dual occupancies. In Clarinda, which is in Area 1, there is an average lot size of 608.5 square metres which, from the responsible authority's calculations, means that the average lot size for dual occupancy would be 304.25 square metres. It is interesting because if one looks back on the history of the municipalities, Springvale, Oakleigh and Moorabbin which were the three pre-amalgamation municipalities in this particular area, the minimum lot size adopted by all those municipalities was under columns 3 and 4 of the Uniform Building Regulations. This would lead to the majority of lots being between 500 and 700 square metres which in actual fact covers 75% of the lots in Area 1. However, this is a point that really is not worth discussing because the ResCode provisions do not give any weight to density in pursuit of urban consolidation.

15 The issues that were of most concerned to Mr. & Mrs. Roseman were overshadowing and overlooking as well as the visual bulk of buildings so close to their boundary. All these matters are easily resolved by:

1. lowering of the building; and

2. moving it away from the southern boundary.

16 If the building is lowered by 1 metre on its south side and placed on a slab rather than strip footing and moved a minimum of 2 metres away from the south boundary at ground floor level with a further setback at first floor level this will significantly reduce its impact on its neighbours. It will reduce any impact it may have on the streetscape. This will require a total re-design of both the ground and first floors of the premises to reduce their size and it will require moving the garage on the northern side to be placed in such a way that habitable rooms attached will have good solar access and not just one window. I explained this in detail at the hearing and in an oral direction told Mr. Umbers exactly what I required in relation to that. Both Mr. Umbers and Ms. Mustica are experienced enough to understand that a good design can reduce a lot of the detrimental impacts of a development in a rear yard whether it be single or double storey. In my view the street has already been impacted by the presence of two large double storey dwellings, being number 28 and the dwelling next to it, and these are part of the neighbourhood character. Whether there are no two storey dwellings in rear yards in the immediate neighbourhood is immaterial although, as Mr. Umbers pointed out, there is one within reasonable proximity of this proposal that was approved by the responsible authority. I think that speaks for itself and find that the approach taken by the responsible authority in this one could be said to be inconsistent bearing that in mind. However, having said that, I do believe the responsible authority was correct in its assertion that this development is not a well designed proposal, in its context.

17 There is no prohibition of two storey dwellings within the City of Kingston nor should there be. They are a normal form of urban development. there is no prohibition of two storey dwellings in rear yards in the City of Kingston and nor should there be. These are found throughout the metropolitan area. The proposed dwellings are acceptable in a two storey form provided they do not have major impact on neighbours, reduce the amount of site coverage and allow a reasonable size dwelling to be built in a large rear yard. In this instance I find that this proposal will be well designed if the directions are followed to the letter.