1. Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority 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 drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on October 15 2002 but modified to show:

a) Landscaping of the subject land, generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by "habitat" dated March 2003, save that advanced screening vegetation is to be provided along the southern boundary to reduce direct views from balconies towards the property to the south;

b) The provision of an automatic external lighting system capable of illuminating access to each garage, car parking space and pedestrian walkways. Lighting shall be located, directed and shielded and of limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond´ the site.

c) A schedule of external building materials and colours, including details of cladding and roofing materials, shall be submitted for approval by the Responsible Authority and upon approval such schedule shall be endorsed to form part of the planning permit.

d) The provision of a permanent 1.7 high screen along the side of balconies to dwellings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and along at least 1.5 metres of the front (southern end) of each balcony. All screening to the front of each balcony must be tapered to an eventual height of 1.2 metres.

e) The provision of a more gradual splay on the approach to the garage of dwelling.

f) Deletion of the visitor car space and replacement with landscaping.

2. Before the development starts, three (3) copies of a detailed landscape plan prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and show the following details:

a) The provision of at least three canopy trees within the front setback.

b) The provision of at least nine suitably dense trees with a minimum height of five metres at maturity, along the southern boundary, to prevent overlooking into the adjoining property.

c) A survey of all existing vegetation, abutting street trees, natural features and vegetation.

d) Buildings, outbuildings and trees in neighbouring allotments that would affect the landscape design.

e) Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:

- providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective.

- minimising the potential of any overlooking between habitable rooms of adjacent dwellings.

f) The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.

g) A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) which includes, botanical names, common names, pot size, mature size and total quantities of each plant.

h) Landscaping which meets the requirements set out in condition 1a) and 1 f).

Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

3. Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule shall be completed before the building is occupied.

4. No air-conditioning equipment or other plant equipment must be visible from outside the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. All piping (except for stormwater down pipes) and ducting above the ground floor storey of the building shall be concealed, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. The drainage of the site, including the discharge of stormwater from the property, must be to the requirements of the Responsible Authority. The discharge of water from the property shall be controlled around its limits to prevent any discharge onto any adjacent property or streets other than by means of an underground pipe drain discharged to a point nominated by the Responsible Authority and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. All dividing walls and floors must be constructed to limit noise transmission to 45 STC (Sound Transmission Class) in accordance with Part F (5) of the Building Code of Australia.

8. An automatic lighting system must be provided maintained and operated along the rear right of way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings, works permitted and use of the buildings/land must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any Statute, Statutory Rule or other By-Law or for any other reason) without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

a) does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or

b) is not completed within three (4) years of the date of this permit.

Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards the owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order.

Responsible Authority: Mr J Boyle, Planning Officer.

Applicant: Mr D Scally, solicitor with Best Hooper.

Respondent/Objectors: Mr A Di Federico, Mr P Giandinoto, Mr P Tirpkou, Mr T Bell,

Mr G Goldenberg and Mr U Pillera appeared in person. Mr B Theos appeared for Mr G Theos.

1. This was an application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the Responsible Authority's failure to grant a grant a permit within the prescribed time with respect to permit application D 490/2002. The permit application seeks permission to construct seven triple level dwellings on land at 129 Darebin Boulevard, Reservoir.

2. The permit application was lodged with the Responsible Authority on 27 June 2002. By letter dated the 14 August 2002, the Responsible Authority requested that the permit applicant provide further information. The requested information included an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of ResCode (clause 55); details of external materials, finishes and landscaping; measures to prevent overlooking and the provision of visitor car parking. The information was submitted to the Responsible Authority on the 13 September 2002.

3. The Responsible Authority then required notice of the permit application to be given and in response it received eleven objections. Mr Boyle summarised the grounds of objection as follows:

* The development will devalue neighbouring properties.

* A seven dwelling development will create additional noise in the area.

* Approval of development will effect the possibility of other developments in the area being approved.

* The development will result in increase traffic along Darebin Boulevard.

* A limited number of visitor car spaces have been provided.

* The development will cast shadow over the adjoining properties.

* Seven dwellings will detract from the family lifestyle of the area.

* The quality of lifestyle will change due to increase in traffic.

* The development will attract renters who are not welcome in the street.

* Seven dwellings will make the street overcrowded.

* The development will block views from balconies located on properties located along Manoel Avenue.

* The development is considered out of character with dwellings in the street.

* The development will result in greater drainage pressure on sewage and drainage infrastructure, which may lead to flooding.

4. On the 3 December 2002, the Responsible Authority held a "consultation meeting" which was attended by objectors and the applicant's representatives. The matters in dispute were not resolved.

5. The application for review against the Responsible Authority's failure to make a decision within the prescribed time was lodged with the Tribunal on the 19 December 2002.

6. The Responsible Authority subsequently considered the permit application on the 23 December 2002 and decided that it would grant a permit subject to conditions.

7. At the hearing, Mr Boyle, Mr Scally and Mr Bell tabled and spoke to written submissions. The other objectors made oral submissions and spoke to the matters raised in their respective statement of grounds. In addition I was also presented with other material relevant to the consideration of the proposal. This material included plans, maps, photographs of the land and surrounding area and various diagrams.

8. Mr Scally called expert evidence from Mr Stephan Koenig, a town planning consultant, Mr Ernest Mensforth, a traffic engineer and Mr Robert Thompson, a landscape architect. All three experts were made available fro cross examination.

9. The submissions, evidence and other material have been considered.

10. I dealt with a number of preliminary matters at the commencement of the hearing.

11. First, Mr Theos, Mr Giandinoto and Mr Tirpkou had not served their respective statement of grounds with the permit applicant. Mr Scally, however, offered no objection to them being heard.

12. Second, it seemed that some of the objectors had not been served with the expert reports. Despite this, the affected objectors offered no objection to the matter proceeding on the understanding that they could make further submissions if caught by surprise with respect to the matters set out in the evidence. None of these persons requested leave to make further submissions after hearing the expert evidence.

13. Third, Mr Scally applied to amend the permit application and the application for review to make Iloray Pty Ltd the applicant. After some discussion, the other parties offered no objection to this and I allowed the amendments to the applications as requested under clause 64 in schedule 1 and section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

14. After the hearing I inspected the subject land and locality. My inspection included viewing the subject land from the upper level balconies of a number of dwellings that front Manoel Avenue and from the rear garden of Mr Giandinoto's property.

15. The subject land is located on the west side of Darebin Boulevard, opposite the junction with Ayr Street, Reservoir. The land has an irregular quadrilateral shape with a frontage to Darebin Boulevard of 33.53 metres, a depth along its northern boundary of 97.53 metres, a lesser depth of 82.75 metres along its southern boundary with the width reducing towards the western end with the rear boundary measuring 21.53 metres. The land has an overall area of about 1948 square metres. The land is vacant being devoid of buildings and vegetation other than unkempt grass. I understand that the land has been vacant from many years.

16. The land and surrounding properties are set on sloping terrain that falls towards the Darebin Creek located to the east. The land falls by about 10 metres from its high point, located towards the north-west corner, down to the low point, located at the frontage. The fall is relatively steady from the rear down towards the frontage, although there is a small batter towards the front boundary which presents a sharper decline.

17. The subject land's north side boundary is in common with a number of properties. These include the side boundary of Mr Giandinoto's property that also fronts Darebin Boulevard and the rear boundaries of the number of properties fronting onto the south side of Manoel Avenue.

18. Mr Giandinoto's property is occupied by a relatively large double storey brick dwelling which is setback about 5-7 metres from the common boundary with the subject land and has its main outlook towards the open spaces adjacent to the Darebin Creek including Bundoora Park and the golf course.

19. The rear boundaries of three properties fronting Manoel Avenue (Nos 7, 9 and 11) are in common with the balance of the subject land's northern side boundary. Mr Di Federico, Mr Pillera and Mr Theos and their families occupy these properties. Mr Tirpkou and his family occupy the property at No 5 Manoel Avenue which is to the north-west of the subject land. All of these properties are occupied by substantial double storey brick dwellings. It is relevant to note that these dwellings have been design with upper level living/family room areas connecting to reasonably large balconies that provide for expansive views towards the Darebin Creek and its adjacent parklands. The extent to which these views are available directly over the subject land varies, depending on the location of the property.

20. The property immediately to the west or rear of the subject land has been developed with a medium density housing development comprised of double storey dwellings.

21. The property to the south is essentially occupied by a single storey dwelling which is elevated in part due to the slope of the terrain in the area whilst dwellings also exist opposite the land to the east.

22. Darebin Boulevard and Ayr Street meet adjacent to the subject land in the form a "Y" shaped junction that includes some traffic islands. The road alignment immediately in front of the subject land has been curved with the nature strip width extended resulting in a narrowing of the road pavement. There is no practical opportunity for kerbside parking in front of the subject land.

23. Contextually, the subject land is located within an established residential area with the majority of properties occupied by large and somewhat "grand" double storey brick veneer dwellings reflecting outer suburban styles from around the 1970's through the late 1980's. Garden areas a generally established and well presented, however, the impression is that buildings dominate over vegetation. The rising of the topography from the Darebin Creek results in a multi-level or "layered" development form up the slope in the surrounding residential areas with many properties having the benefit of expansive views.

24. The proposal involves the construction of seven, three storey dwellings on the subject land. Each dwellings provides for a double garage and storage at the lowest level; main living areas, kitchen and amenities in the middle level with three bedrooms at the upper level. Whilst all the dwellings have the same amount of bedrooms, the overall size of the living space floor area ranges from about 142 square metres to 195 square metres excluding garages, storage and balconies. The proposed dwelling density is about 1 per 278 square metres with the building site coverage of about 32 per cent.

25. The proposed dwellings are to be constructed in two blocks separated by a 6.6 metre open space area that will also provide for a visitor car space. The easternmost block comprises three attached dwellings whilst the rear or westernmost block contains four attached dwellings. The dwellings are designed to step up the slope of the land from the front up towards the rear. They also have an angled frontage facing towards the common driveway area which is to extend along the southern side boundary. Main external materials include face brickwork, timber panelling, some render with the roof covered in tiles.

26. The lowest level of the dwellings is designed to be cut into the natural ground level in the form of a semi basement that will present as a full storey when viewed from the south. The garage space is sufficient to accommodate two vehicles side by side. Separate storage areas are provided.

27. Pedestrian and vehicle access into the site is via the common driveway. Entry into each dwelling is from the lower level via stairs leading to the middle level. Access to the upper most level is via internal stairs.

28. Open space for each dwelling is provided in the form of ground level courtyards that are mainly located adjacent to the subject land's northern boundary. The courtyards are accessed from a living area within each dwelling. Furthermore, each dwelling has the benefit of a balcony off the lounge room facing towards the south-east. These balconies will provide expansive views towards the Darebin Creek and adjacent parklands.

29. The private courtyard areas, the front setback and the non paved areas along the common driveway are to be landscaped in accordance with the plan prepared by Mr Thompson.

30. Pursuant to the Darebin Planning Scheme, the land is located in a Residential 1 Zone, the provisions for which are found in Clause 32.01 of the Planning Scheme ordinance. There are no overlay controls applicable. The purpose of the Residential 1 zone is:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.

In appropriate locations, to allow educational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs.

31. "Dwelling" is an as of right use within the zone, although a permit is required pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 for the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot. In addition to the decision guidelines at Clause 65, the Planning Scheme requires that consideration be given to the provisions of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). The proposal must be assessed against the provisions of Clause 55.

32. The SPPF sets out generally policies for planning in Victoria, with those relating to Settlement (Clause 14), Housing (Clause 16) and Design and Built Form (Clause 19.03) particularly relevant to the consideration of this proposal. The general thrust of the policies for Settlement and Housing is to encourage the consolidation of existing urban areas, to make better and more efficient use of infrastructure and to provide for a wider variety of housing, including well designed medium density housing which respects neighbourhood character. The policy for Design and Built Form encourages development that achieves architectural and urban design outcomes that make a positive contribution to neighbourhood character and enhance the public realm.

33. In relation to the LPPF I note that the most relevant policies are those set out at Clauses 21.11 (Housing and Communities) and 21.12 (Urban Character) of the MSS and the local policy relating to urban character at Clause 22.04.

34. The objectives for housing and communities at Clause 22.11 are:

* To facilitate appropriate housing development which is responsive to urban character.

* To provide a range of housing types to cater to diverse housing needs.

* To integrate housing development with urban facilities and services.

* To promote urban renewal and re-use of buildings for housing purposes in appropriate locations.

* To ensure appropriate interface treatments between housing, the environment and other urban land uses.

35. The objectives for urban character at Clause 21.12 are:

* To ensure that new and infill development is responsive to the site and locality.

* To manage change which has regard to the existing urban character.

* To treat interfaces between industrial, commercial, residential and the natural environment sensitively.

* To demonstrate good urban design principles in public spaces, buildings and streetscapes.

* To increase awareness of urban character principles by working in partnership with the building industry and the community.

* To contribute to urban character by placing art in public places.

36. Strategies to achieve these objectives include the application of the principles set out in the Urban Character Study [UCS]. Under the UCS, the subject land is located within precinct "G3" which is typifies by, amongst other things, relatively generous sized suburban lots set within a curvilinear subdivision pattern; dwellings from the 1960's to 1970's with newer dwellings interspersed; large "box like" dwellings constructed in brick with hipped tiled roofs and often with under-croft garages where set on sloping terrain; two storey and occasionally three storey dwellings are common; and gardens are a mixture of low level and established.

37. The policy at Clause 22.04 seeks to bring about outcomes whereby development complements and respects the urban character of the area, to retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to the urban character of a particular locality and to ensure that infill development within established areas is responsive to architectural and streetscape elements in the neighbourhood. Various design aspects are required to be considered as set out in the policy.

38. After having considered the submissions and evidence presented by the parties, the relevant matters under the Planning Scheme and the legislation together with the details of the proposal, it seems to me that the key issues in this matter are:

* Is the land a suitable candidate site for medium density housing?

* Is the development of this site for medium density housing supported by the purpose of the zone and planning policy?

* Has the proposal been designed to be respectful of neighbourhood character?

* Will the proposal bring about any unreasonable impacts n the amenity of surrounding residential properties?

* Does the proposal achieve compliance with the requirements of clause 55?

Is the land a suitable candidate site for medium density housing?

39. After having reviewed the attributes of the subject land, I am in no doubt that it is clearly a candidate site suitable for some form of well designed medium density housing.

40. First, the land is very large, with an area of just under 2000 square metres. By way of comparison, it is about three times the size of most conventional suburban blocks.

41. Second, although the land is slightly irregular in shape, it nonetheless has good proportions with a wide frontage and a generous depth along both side boundaries.

42. Third, the land is devoid of buildings, trees and shrubs nor are there any easements that constrain its development potential.

43. Fourth, although the land is set on sloping terrain, the slope is relatively mild and does not present untoward difficulty in terms of development potential.

44. Fifth, the land is located within an established residential area. All infrastructure services are readily available. Whilst Mr Goldenberg suggested that the drainage and sewerage infrastructure would have difficulty coping with the demands associated with this proposal, there was no evidence to back this up. In particular, there was no indication that the Responsible Authority's engineers have concerns about infrastructure capacity.

45. Sixth, I note the concerns raised by Mr Goldenberg about possible vehicle access difficulties to and from the land given its location near the junction with Ayr Street and the absence of kerbside parking in front of it. I agree that these are issues that require specific and careful consideration in the preparation of an appropriate design response. However, on reviewing the submissions and evidence and having inspected the subject land during the afternoon peak traffic period, I am unable to accept that the road and traffic conditions are such that they render this land unsuitable for medium density housing.

46. Taken overall, I find that, as a matter of principle, the subject land has attributes which make it a good candidate site for some form of well designed medium density housing.

Is the development of this site for medium density housing supported by the purpose of the zone and planning policy?

47. On this issue, I think it relevant to point out that the application requires permission for the construction of the buildings and not for the use of the land for medium density housing. Each "unit" is considered to be a dwelling. "Dwelling" is an as of right use within the zone. Whether or not a dwelling sits on its own or is part of a medium density housing development makes no difference in land use terms. Dwellings forming part of a medium density housing development have the same status as single dwellings on a lot within the Residential 1 zone. Furthermore the purpose of the zone does not simply call for the provision of one house on each lot. Rather the second purpose statement makes it clear that the zone is to cater for the provision of dwellings "at a range of densities" to meet the needs of diverse households.

48. I reject any notion that this development should not be allowed because it might attract people who rent rather than own their dwellings. The planning scheme certainly does not make any distinction in the assessment of properties which are to be owner occupied or rented. The standard to be achieved is the same. In any event, circumstances change and it is not unheard of that dwellings that were once owner occupied are subsequently put on the rental market. The simple fact of the matter is that the provision of rental accommodation provides significant social benefits to our community and should not be frowned upon on the basis of unsubstantiated assumptions.

49. In relation to planning policy, I accept Mr Koenig's evidence that the development of the subject land for medium density housing is supported by the policies set out in the SPPF and LPPF. The policies in the SPPF clearly call for the consolidation of existing urban areas. Increasing residential density though the development of medium density housing is one of the main ways in which this policy is implemented. It is also relevant that to note that the Council's own local MSS recognises that there is a need to develop a range of housing types to cater for diverse needs and for such housing to be provided in locations which have access to urban services and facilities.

50. The subject land has attributes which make it suitable for medium density housing. The purpose of the zone clearly contemplates the development of medium density housing. I also consider that planning policy supports and encourages suitable sites to be developed at increased density and in a manner which adds to the diversity of housing found in residential areas. As such, I find that the proposal is in accordance with those aspects of the purpose of the zone and planning policy which call for medium density housing development on sites like this.

51. I have no difficulty at all coming to the conclusion that the development of the land for medium density housing accords with the purpose of the zone and the general thrust of the planning scheme's housing and urban consolidation policies.

52. This is not to say that the purpose of the zone and planning policy encourage such development at all costs. Rather the purpose of the zone, the policies within the SPPF and LPPF and the provisions of clause 55 make it clear that medium density housing needs to be designed in a manner which is respectful of neighbourhood character. This leads me to the next key question.

Has the proposal been designed to be respectful of neighbourhood character?

53. In considering this issue, the first point to be made is that the notion of development which is "respectful" of neighbourhood character does not imply that such development must be the same as what already exists. If policy, the purpose of the zone and the objectives of clause 55 were calling for the development that is "more of the same", then they would say so. Rather, the notion of "respectful" development must embrace the need for change and diversity in the type of dwellings that are provided and an increase in the intensity of development in circumstances where this is encouraged by planning policy and the purpose of the zone.

54. It was asserted by the objectors that the proposal has not been designed to be respectful of the character of the neighbourhood. Particular aspects of the development which they criticised included the number of the dwellings, height and bulk of the buildings, the continuity of the built form along the length of the site and that one "gap" in between units 3 and 4 is insufficient.

55. Mr Boyle and Mr Koenig both provided a detailed assessment of the proposal against the UCS. In particular, they both referred to the context of the land, namely, that it is located within an area characterised by large double (and in some cases triple) storey dwellings. They also referred to other elements which contribute to neighbourhood character including the setbacks and the positioning of buildings, roof forms, materials, building articulation and landscaping.

56. On reviewing this proposal, it is clear that it involves the construction of substantial buildings. However, after having had the benefit of inspecting the land and surrounding area, I cannot find that the scale of the proposed dwellings is out of place in this particular neighbourhood. The land is located in an area where there is a significant presence of large dwellings which have floor areas much greater than those proposed in this application. Some would be double the size and more.

57. It was submitted by Mr Giandinoto and Mr Di Federico that the provision of one "gap" in between the two building is insufficient to break up the continuity of the built form. I do not agree. The "gap" provided in between units 3 and 4 is over 6 metres wide. It is significant in size and allows good opportunity for substantial landscaping to be provided.

58. I accept the submissions of the Responsible Authority and the evidence of Mr Koenig that the proposed development has been designed in a manner which has taken into account the character of the neighbourhood. The dwellings have appropriate front and side setbacks, the form is more articulated than most of the surrounding housing, the roof form and pitch is consistent, materials reflect contemporary finishes yet do not "jar" when compared to surrounding development and the use of a single driveway continues the pattern of development along the streetscape. The non paved areas within the front setback, driveway and rear courtyards are all to be landscaped and this will enhance the appearance of this development.

59. Whilst this proposal involves the development of substantial buildings, when viewed in context, the height and bulk of the buildings is not out of place. I find that this proposal has been designed to be respectful of neighbourhood character in the terms required by the purpose of the zone, planning policy and the provisions of clause 55.

Will the proposal bring about any unreasonable impacts n the amenity of surrounding residential properties?

60. The objectors submitted that the proposal have unreasonable impact on amenity on a number of grounds:

61. A number of the objectors residing in dwellings fronting onto Manoel Avenue expressed concern that the proposed development would infringe on the expansive views that they currently enjoy. There is no doubt that the proposed development will interrupt those views, and in some cases, in a relatively significant way.

62. In considering this issue we refer to the following extract from the Tribunal's decision in Ariss and Morrow v Surf Coast Shire (1995/843 and 2048 unreported, editorial comment 14 AATR 294-5) which conveniently sets out the accepted principles on the issue of views:

(b) views form part of the existing amenity of a dwelling and their loss is a relevant consideration to be taken into account;

(c) the availability of views must be considered in light of what constitutes a reasonable sharing of those views; and

(d) added emphasis will be placed on considerations (b) and (c) if the question of views is specifically addressed under the Planning Scheme.

63. In considering the above, I note that the expansive views enjoyed by the Manoel Avenue residents have been over vacant land. Whilst the proposal will diminish the views of the Darebin Creek and adjacent parklands, this is not to say that all views will be obliterated. After having viewed the parklands from the various upper level balconies, I find myself in agreement with Mr Koenig that some views will remain. They will certainly not be as expansive as those currently enjoyed, however, in the absence of anything in the planning scheme which specifically requires the impact on views to be taken into account, I would not reject this proposal on the basis of loss of views.

64. Concern were raised about the increase in traffic and the ability for vehicles to leave the site safely given the proximity of the access point to the junction of Darebin Boulevard and Ayr Street.

65. There are two points to be made on these issues. First, the proposed development will not generate a significant amount of traffic. If commonly accepted traffic generation figures are applied, the proposed development would result in about 49-70 movements per day with up to 7 movements in the peak hour period. When consideration is given to the nature of Darebin Boulevard and the number of vehicle movements proposed, I agree with Mr Mensforth that the increase in traffic will be difficult to discern.

66. In relation to concerns about the safety of vehicles leaving the site, I note that the proposal has been designed so that it is possible for all vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. This is an appropriate design response having regard to the number of dwellings proposed and the proximity of the access point to the junction. I accept Mr Mensfoth's evidence that vehicle access is satisfactory.

67. There is no practical ability to provide kerbside parking immediately in front of the subject land given its location near the junction.

68. In response, the proposal has been designed to provide double car garages for each dwelling. This is reasonable in terms of meeting the needs of residents. In addition, the entry points into the garages are angled, and I agree with Mr Mensforth that the area in front of the garages is sufficient to allow at least one car to be parked in tandem. Whilst the car space will not be marked on the ground, from a practical viewpoint, it will be possible and likely that visitors will avail themselves of the opportunity to park their cars on site in front of the garage appurtenant to the unit which they wish to visit.

69. It was on this basis that Mr Mensforth agreed with Mr Scally's submission that in the circumstances it would be better to delete the dedicated visitor car space and for this area to be set aside for more landscaping. I agree that this is an appropriate outcome.

70. I appreciate Mr Bell's concern that the deletion of the visitor space would mean that the standard B16 at clause 55.03-11 is not complied with. However, the provisions at clause 55 make it clear that whilst a standard should normally be met, alternative design solutions can be considered and found to be acceptable if the relevant objectives are met. In this case, I am satisfied that the design response, which from a practical point of view allows a visitor space in tandem with each garage, meets the objective at clause 55.03-11.

71. There was no evidence to support claims that the proposal will cause unreasonable overshadowing or loss of daylight. The shadow diagrams clearly show that the relevant standard is easily complied with and the distances between buildings are such that compliance is also achieved with the daylight standards.

72. The assessment of this issue requires consideration to be given to the context of the land and surrounding properties which are set on sloping terrain. Many of the surrounding dwellings are double storey. In this environment, overlooking from property to property is a fact of life. When standing on the various balconies of properties in Manoel Avenue, I had little difficulty looking into adjacent backyards.

73. In this case, the potential for direct overlooking to the north has been managed by limiting the number of windows and using either obscure glazing or screens.

74. The potential to overlook towards the south is more problematic given the slope of the land. However, it seems to me that units 1 -3 will essentially have an outlook over the front of the property to the south and this should not be a problem. Whilst the potential for overlooking from units 4-7 is greater, when consideration is given to the context of the land, I would consider the screens to be used on part of the balconies together with more advanced landscaping along the southern side of the driveway, this should provide reasonable protection from overlooking. Mr Thompson indicated that a reasonably dense screen can be created quickly along the southern side of the driveway, and I consider it appropriate that permit conditions should require this to occur.

75. The objectors raised a number of other issues which I will briefly set out my findings on. In summary:

* There was no evidence to substantiate the claim that the activities of residents of the proposed dwellings will result in noise that is unacceptable in a residential area.

* Property devaluation is not a planning consideration. Even if it were, no evidence was presented to demonstrate that this would occur.

* I was not persuaded that the proposal presents undue difficulty with garbage collection. The Council is responsible for this function and it raised no concerns on this issue. Garbage trucks and other collection vehicles may impede traffic, however, on any objective assessment, this will be for a very limited time and there was nothing that demonstrated that the problem would be so severe, that it warrants special attention.

76. In light of the above I have come to the conclusion that the proposal will not bring about unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the area.

Does the proposal achieve compliance with the requirements of clause 55?

77. Many of the matters relevant to the assessment of this proposal under clause 55 have already been covered in earlier sections of these reasons. In relation the other matters, Mr Boyle and Mr Koenig set out comprehensive assessments of the proposal against the requirements of clause 55. In general terms, these assessments demonstrated that the proposal achieves a satisfactory level of compliance. I accept the submissions and evidence of Mr Boyle and Mr Koenig in this regard.

78. having regard to the relevant matters to be considered, I find myself in agreement with the Responsible Authority that the proposal is worthy of a permit.

79. The land has attributes which make it a suitable site for medium density housing and its development for this purpose is supported by planning policy and the Residential 1 zone provisions. The proposal has been designed to be respectful of neighbourhood character. Amenity impacts will not be unreasonable. The proposal achieves satisfactory compliance with clause 55.