The review site is located on the west side of Broomfield Avenue, approximately 150 metres north of Heidelberg Road, Alphington. The site is regular in shape, with a frontage of 12.09 metres, a depth of 40.06 metres and an area of 488 square metres.

The site is occupied by a single storey Edwardian dwelling with a two storey addition to its rear. The site has no vehicle access.

Most properties in the street are developed with single dwellings. Approximately half the properties in the street have vehicle crossovers and driveways.

I inspected the site and its environs on 7 February 2018. The parties did not accompany the inspection.

1. Mr Jackel (the applicant) proposes to construct a vehicle crossover to his property and to pave an area in the front setback to park his vehicle. He also proposes to construct a 1.1 metre high wire fence along the front boundary.
2. In November 2017, Darebin City Council (the Council) determined to refuse to grant a planning permit for the proposed development. The applicant seeks a review of the Council's decision.
3. The Council refused the proposal on the following grounds:
   • The proposed vehicle crossing and provision for an on-site parking space is contrary to State and local planning policies regarding neighbourhood character and heritage conservation.
   • The proposed vehicle crossover is inconsistent with the pattern of development and appearance of the street.
   • The vehicle crossover is not sympathetic and respectful to the heritage place and does not positively contribute to the identified heritage values of the place.
4. The application was lodged pursuant to clause 93.07 of the scheme and is exempt from third party notification and review. Hence, there are no objectors or parties to this review.
5. The applicant says approximately half of the dwellings in the street have crossovers, and some residents park their cars within their front setback area. He says that many crossovers are located close to the trunks of the street trees, without any apparent ill effect on the trees. He says his proposal would be consistent with the prevailing character and it would not adversely affect the heritage value of the dwelling or the streetscape.

1. I must determine the following key issues in this matter:
   • Is a permit required to construct a front fence?
   • Would the development adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place?
   • Would the proposal adversely affect the health or appearance of the street tree in front of the review site?
2. To the extent that other issues were raised by the applicant in his statement of grounds such as the prolonged time for the Council to make its decision, I consider this matter is peripheral to the key issues in this case and does not require specific consideration in making this decision.
3. I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered both submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme, I have decided to affirm the decision of the responsible authority and direct that no permit be granted. My reasons follow.

Is a permit required to construct a front fence?

1. The applicant seeks planning permission to construct a front fence. It would comprise timber posts to 1.1 metres height, spaced at 1.9 metres. The fence between the posts would comprise interwoven vertical and horizontal wire strands that form a pattern of small squares. The fence would include a 0.95 metre wide gate for pedestrian use.
2. The parties are uncertain as to whether a permit is required for the fence. I am satisfied that no permit is required.
3. Clause 43.01-1 requires a permit to construct a fence that is visible from the street.
4. Clause 43.01-3 provides that no permit is required for anything done in accordance with an incorporated plan specified in a schedule to this overlay.
5. The site is affected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 297. This schedule to the Heritage Overlay species that an Incorporated Plan - Permit Exemptions (2011) is applicable in this area.
6. Part 3 in the Incorporated Plan sets out the heritage areas where no permit is required for specified works. The Broomfield precinct is one of the areas in which a fence might be exempt from requiring a permit.
7. Part 3.1 of the Incorporated Plan includes the following provision:

Construction of a front fence not more than 1.2 metres in height above natural ground level provided that this does not require the demolition of an existing front fence of a property shown as Significant or Contributory on the relevant precinct map or identified as a significant feature within the precinct.

1. While No.20 Broomfield Avenue is identified as a contributory building, it presently has no front fence. The new fence would be less than 1.2 metres in height. Consequently, it is my view that the construction of a new fence complies with the two matters that enable it to be exempt from planning permission. I am satisfied that it does not require a permit.

Would the development adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place?

1. The Tribunal must decide whether to grant a permit to construct a crossover to No.20 Broomfield Avenue and a paved car parking bay that would be located 0.5 metres from the site's southern side boundary. The bay would be 5.5 metres deep and three metres wide, and extend from the front boundary to the front wall of the dwelling. It would be paved with recycled bricks in a Herringbone pattern.
2. Planning permission is required pursuant to clause 43.01-1 of the scheme. The application is to be considered under clause 93.07 of the scheme as it is a VicSmart application under a Heritage Overlay.
3. The review site is within Heritage Overlay HO297 Broomfield Avenue precinct. The review site is a contributory building and the controls apply to the trees in the street.
4. The Statement of Significance for the precinct includes the following extracts:

It is an early 20th century residential precinct, which comprises a mix of Edwardian villas and interwar bungalows. The consistency of built form and the extent to which development into key phases is apparent are important characteristics of the precinct. The following elements contribute to the significance of the precinct:

• The houses in Broomfield Avenue including number 20
• The mature street trees and in the park at 495 Heidelberg Road
• Bluestone kerb and channel.

The Broomfield Avenue precinct is of local historic, architectural anaesthetic significance to Darebin City. It is significant as evidence of important phases of suburban development in Alphington, including the recovery in the first decade of the 20th century and the rapid development after World War I associated with improvements to the railway service, which provided fast and efficient transport from Melbourne's middle and outer ring suburbs to the city. The housing is characteristic of medium scale suburban housing in both the Edwardian and interwar periods.

Architecturally, the Broomfield Avenue precinct is significant as a representative example of an early 20th century residential subdivision in Darebin, which is notable for the consistent quality of its built form. The aesthetic qualities of the precinct are enhanced by the mature street trees and the parkland at the entrance to Broomfield Avenue.

No.20 Broomfield Avenue is one of a common housing type of double fronted villas, asymmetrical in plan with a hip roof extending to form a veranda or porch on one side of a projecting gabled bay.

The houses in Broomfield Avenue have consistent setbacks from the street frontages behind mature gardens. Fences are typically low and although none are original many have been sympathetically replaced timber picket woven wire reproductions. The mature street trees form a canopy of vegetation over the thoroughfare which contributes to the streets Garden suburb character.

The precinct has a high degree of integrity. Most contributory houses are intact.

1. The responsible authority acknowledges that the Statement of Significance is not referenced in the scheme due to an anomaly in Amendment C138. This amendment inadvertently referred to an earlier 2008 version of the City of Darebin Heritage Study rather than the more recent 2011 version that contains the statement.
2. I am satisfied that this anomaly does not prevent me giving weight to the 2011 Heritage Study. It has been adopted by the Council and it has been considered by the Minister for Planning as part of Amendment C108. It has informed the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay and it is registered with the Victoria Heritage Database. I am satisfied that it provides information that has been tested and reviewed as to the significance of the precinct. I note that Mr Jackel did not contest the relevance of the Statement of Significance.
3. Clause 93.07 guides the assessment of VicSmart applications within a Heritage Overlay. The decision guidelines at clause 93.07-2 require the responsible authority and the Tribunal on review to consider as appropriate:

The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect that significance.

Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.

Whether the proposal will adversely affect the character or appearance of the building or heritage place.

Whether the proposal meets any relevant local heritage policy set out in the scheme.

Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building or works will adversely affect the significance of the building or heritage place.

Whether the proposed building or works will affect the health or appearance of a tree which is the subject of a Heritage Overlay.

1. The dwelling on the review site is very consistent with the description of the double fronted dwellings in the Statement of Significance. The dwelling extends close to each side boundary. There is no front fence and limited vegetation, enabling unobstructed views of the front of the dwelling from the public realm.
2. The adjacent property at No.18 Broomfield Avenue to the south has a low front fence and some vegetation along shared side boundary. It is also a contributory building with a double fronted façade, porch, hipped roof and a gable that is consistent with the description of dwellings in the statement of significance.
3. Both dwellings can be viewed together from the street. I think that they form an integrated visual unit that contributes to the largely intact heritage streetscape.
4. There is a highly consistent rhythm in the street in terms of the dwelling setbacks to the street, open front setback areas, low fencing and moderate landscaping. These factors contribute to the heritage dwellings being very visible and their features being pre-eminent in the streetscape.
5. The bluestone kerb and channel is also intact in this part of the street extending unbroken for approximately 50 metres from the southern boundary of No.16 Broomfield Avenue to the northern boundary of No.22 Broomfield Avenue.
6. I agree with Mr Jackel that approximately half the properties in the street have a vehicle crossover to a driveway or car parking space. However, I am not persuaded that this fact supports his proposal.
7. The car parking areas of most of the properties with off-street car parking are located to the rear of their dwellings. Most of the driveways to the garages at the rear of the dwellings are narrow and serve both the abutting properties. A single, narrow driveway provides access to two garages, one on each property.
8. Only three properties in the street have a crossover and a car parking area located in the front setback, between the front boundary and the front façade of the dwelling. These properties are Nos.10, 16 and 46 Broomfield Avenue.
9. Several other properties have informal car parking spaces in their front setbacks. These adjoin a long driveway that also provides access to the rear of the properties. I am satisfied that a dedicated, constructed car parking space located in the front setback is unusual in this streetscape.
10. That such spaces are rare does not make them unacceptable. The determinative matter is whether the proposed crossover and car parking space in the front setback would detract from the heritage place generally, and from the contribution the particular property makes to the heritage place.
11. I am satisfied that both the crossover and the parking space would detract from the heritage place.
12. A car parked within the front setback would interrupt the presently unobstructed views from the street of Nos.18 and 20 Broomfield Avenue. Presently they comprise an intact and integrated unity due to their consistent form, setback, modest landscaping and setbacks to the side boundaries. The dwellings are observed together.
13. A vehicle placed in the front setback, close to the front wall of No.20 Broomfield Avenue and along the side boundary fence, would significantly intrude into the unity of the streetscape that is an important feature of the precinct.
14. A vehicle parked in within the front setback area would attract the viewer's attention because it is in the foreground of the viewing area. The dwelling(s) that were in the foreground, and were the primary subject to the viewer would be relegated to the background. The heritage dwellings would the backdrop and the secondary element to the vehicle. This would be contrary to the development principles in heritage places whereby new infills are to be compatible with and not compete with the heritage fabric.
15. Even when a vehicle is not parked in the space, the paved area and crossover would interrupt the rhythm of streetscape of modest landscaping in the front setback.
16. I accept that many properties have crossovers and driveways. These are located on properties with wider frontages than the review site, and the driveways extend to the rear of the properties. A crossover and parking space in the front setback would be inconsistent with the pattern of development where driveways were provided predominantly to properties that have wider frontages and were developed in the Inter-war period rather than the Edwardian period dwellings such as the review site.
17. While approximately half the properties have crossovers, the review site is part of a relatively long unbroken length of bluestone kerb and channel. This is a feature of the heritage precinct that is specifically noted in the statement of significance. I am satisfied that retaining the kerb and channel contributes to the intactness of the heritage place. Allowing further crossovers will incrementally diminish the intactness of the precinct.

Would the proposal adversely affect the health or appearance of the street tree?

1. I am also required to consider whether the proposed crossover would adversely affect the health or appearance of the street tree that is outside the review site. The trees are identified in the statement of significance as making a notable contribution to the heritage place.
2. The northern edge of the crossover would be located approximately 2.5 metres from the tree trunk. The Council's arborist advised that the tree has a tree protection zone of 7.2 metres and the crossover would comprise an encroachment of 28 percent. This is in excess of the encroachment deemed to be acceptable under Australian Standard AS4970-2009.
3. The arborist has advised that a crossover should be offset three metres from the tree.
4. The Council's traffic officers have advised that they would require ingress/egress splays of 750mm for functional turns to and from the site. The minimum separation and the splays cannot be located within the frontage to the review site, and the crossover would extend in front of No.18 Broomfield Avenue to the south.
5. The responsible authority accepts that many of the crossovers in the street are located very close to street trees. It has further considered the advice of its technical officers. It says a three metre wide crossover, with 500mm splays could be constructed in front of the review site. It would be functional from a traffic viewpoint, and not threaten the health of the nearest street tree.
6. I accept the further advice from the responsible authority. I observed there are multiple crossovers in the street that are very close to the street trees, without apparently threatening their health or appearance. I feel confident that if the trees are under stress or threat from excessive hard paving, the responsible authority would have so advised and supported its preliminary advice from its technical officers.
7. I am persuaded that the proposed crossover could be constructed without causing harm to the street tree, provided the works were completed under the supervision of an arborist. The health and appearance of the trees has not been determinative in my decision.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, 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.