1. The permit applicant must circulate to the Tribunal, the responsible authority and to the applicant for review plans showing the levels of the site and the difference in levels between the site and surrounding properties, and the finished floor levels of the proposed buildings.
2. Within seven days of the date upon which the plans where circulated in accordance with direction one above, the responsible authority and the applicant for review may make further written submissions in respect of the amending plans. Copies of any such written submissions must be provided to the Tribunal and the respondent.
3. Within seven days of the receipt of any of the further written submissions referred to in direction two above, the permit applicant may make a written submission in response. Copies of any such response must be provided to the Tribunal, the responsible authority and the applicant for review.

Application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to grant a permit.

Clause 32.01-4; Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

State Planning Policy Framework; Clauses 12, 14.02, 15.12, 16.02

The site is located at the western end of Bilbao Way, which is a short T shaped road providing access to 9 residential lots, including two lots which have a frontage to Hemsley Promenade.

The site has a regular configuration with a frontage of 18 m, a depth of 51 m and an area of 918 m2. The site does have a somewhat unconventional alignment to the street, being effectively the front 14 m of the site's eastern side boundary. A similarly aligned lot is located at the eastern end of Bilbao Way.

The balance of the lots in Bilbao Way have been developed with generously proportioned single and double storey dwellings.

The site is located within a developing residential estate. An activity centre is located about 700 m to the east of the site and is readily accessible to the site by both motor vehicle and pedestrian paths through public open space.

1. Xpress Building Design Group applied to the City of Wyndham for a permit to construct three, single storey dwellings on a lot at 7 Bilbao Way, Point Cook.
2. Notice of the application was required to be given and the application attracted a number of objections, primarily from neighbouring properties in Bilbao Way.
3. The Council has issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit and the objectors have applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Council's decision. The grounds relied upon by the objectors are;

1. The proposal is a poor response to the character of the neighbourhood. 2. The application plans are misleading and inaccurate because they present the site as being flat

1. The floor levels of the proposed dwellings may be grater than 800 mm above natural ground level and may cause overlooking.

1. The proposal will have adverse amenity impacts in the form of excessive vehicle noise. 2. The council's requirements to include a visitor parking space and rubbish bin enclosure will reduce landscaping opportunities and other amenity impacts. 3. The planning scheme policies do not encourage medium density housing outside activity centres.
2. At the conclusion of the hearing I advised the parties that I am satisfied that a permit should issue for this proposal, save for the fact that the application plans do not provide site levels and finished floor levels and I do not therefore have sufficient information available to enable me to form a view about overlooking from ground floor living areas.
3. I gave directions requiring the permit applicant to prepare and circulate plans showing site levels and finished floor levels. I provided the parties with the opportunity to make further written submissions about those plans.
4. The following is a summary of my reasons which were provided orally at the conclusion of the hearing.
5. Based on the information which is available to me, it would appear that the review site does have a gradual fall of about 1.5 m from the rear to the front. However because the application plans do not show either levels across the site or finished floor levels of the proposed dwellings, I am unable to satisfy myself that the proposal does not give rise to unreasonable overlooking of neighbouring properties. Mr Hughes submitted that the primary concern about overlooking relates to the living room window of dwelling 1 and the potential overlooking it may present to the secluded private open space of the neighbouring property to the north. My strong suspicion is that any overlooking is capable of being addressed by any number of the conventional methods applied in these circumstances (including provision of trellis on the boundary fence, screening of the window or relocation of the window). I reiterate however that the information which would allow me to form a view on this matter is not currently available. I think this information should be available to the decision maker prior to a decision on an application being made, and it is not something which should be dealt with by way of permit condition.
6. I will direct that plans incorporating site levels and finished floor levels be circulated and I will provide the parties with the opportunity to make further written submissions about those plans.
7. I will make those Orders because I am otherwise of the view that a permit should issue for this proposal.
8. The site is a suitable site for a medium density housing development. While I agree with Mr Hughes that the character of the neighbourhood reflects a residential hinterland context rather than an activity centre edge context, the site is located close to an activity centre and other associated community facilities. These facilities are easily accessed from the site by either motor vehicle or by foot with pedestrian paths through open space linking to the activity centre. A medium density housing development of the site is consistent with State and Local policy which encourages housing diversity and efficient use of infrastructure.
9. A medium density housing development of the site must also be designed so as to respect the character of the neighbourhood. The design response of this proposal is acceptable in this respect. The dwelling style, form and scale and the use of materials, reflects that of the prevailing built forms in the neighbourhood.
10. Mr Hughes raised concerns about the setback of the front dwelling from Bilbao Way. This issue needs to be considered in the context of the unusual street alignment and the lot configuration. When viewed from the public domain the development will read as a single dwelling in the streetscape located behind a 6m landscape setback. The objective of Clause 55.03-1[1] is met by the proposal.
11. Putting aside the issue of overlooking which I have addressed above and which will be the subject of subsequent findings following the circulation of amended plans, the proposal does not give rise to off site amenity impacts which could be considered to be unacceptable. The proposal is a modest, single storey development and impacts often associated with medium density housing such as visual bulk and overshadowing do not arise in this case. Concern was expressed about the location of the driveway along the side boundary and vehicle noise associated with the use of that driveway. I note that a solid fence separates the driveway and the neighbouring dwelling. The volume of traffic generated by a three dwelling development is not significantly greater than that associated with a single dwelling[2] . I do not think the noise emissions associated with this proposal warrant a refusal of the application or a redesign of the proposal.

[1] To ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred

neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site.

[2] In a suburban location a two bedroom dwelling would be expected to generate about 7 vehicle movements per day. A conventional 3 or 4 bedroom dwelling would typically generate 10 vehicle movements per day.