The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit must be issued.

Mr. Trevor Ludeman, Planning Consultant, Project Planning & Development.

Ms. Natalie Walker, Town Planner, Borough of Queenscliffe.

Chris Johnson appeared on behalf of the Queenscliff Community Association.

1 This is an application against Council's failure to grant a permit to develop two double storey detached dwellings at 54 King Street, Queenscliff. Were it in a position to determine the application, Council would have issued a notice of refusal to grant a permit on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is contrary to the heritage policies contained within Clauses 22.03 of the Queenscliffe Planning Scheme.

2. The proposal fails to comply with the frontage setback requirements of the Queenscliffe Planning Scheme.

3. The proposal is contrary to the urban character policies contained within Clause 22.04.

4. The proposal does not meet the objectives of the Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay (Queenscliff) which seeks to ensure new development maintains, protects and enhances the distinguishing elements of the urban character of the Queenscliff.

5. The proposal does not satisfy the Building Siting and Design Guidelines contained in the Queenscliffe Urban Character Study.

2 At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Ludeman confirmed his client's request to amend the application by substituting the plans circulated on 24 April 2006 in accordance with VCAT Practice Note, referred to as Revision A. No objection was received from the parties and leave was granted to amend the application as requested.

3 The Tribunal received statement of grounds from Judy and Ben Wadham out of prescribed time. However, they did not attend the hearing to request to be joined as party, and were not joined as party to the proceeding.

4 The review site is located on the north side of King Street where Bellarine Highway makes a right hand turn in an approach to the Queenscliff town centre. It is regular in shape, with a frontage of 19.78 metres, a depth of 40.46 metres, and a site area of 802 sq m. It has a substantial fall of about 3 metres from back to front. It is developed with a single storey brick veneer dwelling set approximately 7.5 metres from the street frontage.

5 Adjoining the site are also single dwellings and mainly single storey in height. These dwellings have deeper setbacks than the one on the review site. The Dwelling at No. 50 King Street, however, is a Victorian house that has undergone an extension, with a three storey 'tower' component.

6 Opposite the site on the south side of King Street is a group of shops single storey height.

7 The proposal is to redevelop the site and construct two double storey detached houses, both facing the street. Each dwelling provides three bedrooms and a single garage. The depth of the garages is 8 metres. A separate driveway is provided for each garage. A tandem car space between the garages and the street is possible as the second car space for each dwelling.

8 The buildings are set 7.65 metres from the street frontage. This part of the buildings is the garage of the dwellings. The buildings are then staggered to a setback of 9 metres. The buildings are setback 1 metre from side boundaries, and separated from each other by 3.6 metres.

9 The first floor components of the dwellings are located towards the front of the buildings, and recessed approximately 5.2 metres from the ground floor front façade.

10 Secluded private open spaces are provided around the sides and rear of the dwellings.

11 The design of the buildings adopts the traditional hipped roof form commonly found in the area, weatherboard and a fibre-board rendered finish for walls, and vertically portioned windows.

12 The proposal is also to subdivide the site into two lots.

13 The review site is in the Residential 1 Zone of the Queenscliffe Planning Scheme ("the Scheme"), where a permit is required for the development of more than one dwelling. The provisions of Clause 55 apply.

14 The site is affected by the Design and Development Overlay (DDO1 Queenscliff). A permit is required for buildings and works in this schedule unless they are works associated with routine or preventive maintenance of an existing structure.

15 At the hearing, parties relied on written and/or oral submissions.

16 Council also undertook to seek VicRoads' comment on the proposed new cross over onto King Street pursuant to Clause 52.29, as King Street is in the Road Zone Category 1. This referral has been completed and VicRoads by letter dated 26 May 2006 offered no objection to the issue of a permit subject to two conditions: the design of the access to be in accordance with submitted plans, and in accordance with a typical Urban Driveway as shown in VicRoads' specified design.

17 Decision was reserved.

18 At arriving at my decision to support Council's refusal, I have considered the submissions, inspected the site and reviewed the Scheme. I agree with Council that the design of the development does not accord with the specific design requirements of the Design and Development Overlay that affects the site and the neighbourhood character policy of the Scheme. The Schedule of this overlay and the neighbourhood character policy set out clear objectives for development in the township of Queenscliff, including design guidelines.

19 The main issue of this review is the proposed front setback and the visual dominance of the proposed garages for a site that is prominent in the approach into the township of Queenscliff.

20 Mr. Sheean of 52 King Street was also concerned with amenity impact on his dwelling, in particular overshadowing, overlooking and dominance of the development over his house. I note that the proposal meets the tests of amenity impact of Clause 55.04. As such, I accept that such impact is reasonable. As for his concern that privacy screens erected to protect his privacy may in the future be removed or not replaced, he has recourse to enforcement action.

21 The site is affected by the Design and Development Overlay (DDO 1 Queenscliff). The schedule to this overlay requires the consideration of the urban character policies in the MSS and the Building Siting and Design Guidelines contained in the Borough of Queenscliffe Urban Character Study.

22 A permit is required for buildings and works unless they are for routine or preventive maintenance of buildings. This overlay imposes a height limit of two storeys and 8.5 metres above natural ground level. Despite this maximum height limit, this overlay contemplates a lesser building height in order to:

• Reflect a "bottom up" rather than 'top down" approach to building design;

• Satisfy the objectives contained in Clause 21.05;

• Satisfy the Building Siting and Design Guidelines contained in the Queenscliffe Urban Character Study;

• Reflect the prevailing building height in the immediate area, especially in streets that are predominantly single storey I character; and

• Take into consideration the reasonable sharing of views.

23 The schedule to this overlay also contained design guidelines that can be described as 'tougher' than those in Clause 55. For example, new buildings are recommended to be setback from the street frontage to either match adjacent buildings, or the average of the two adjacent buildings, or equal to the average of the average front setback of buildings in the street, whichever is the greater. Further, buildings are required to be setback from the side and rear boundaries a minimum of 1 metre for a single storey building, and a minimum of 1.92 metres for a two storey building, or are to equal the side and rear setbacks of buildings on adjoining land. Site coverage is recommended to be a maximum of 40%.

24 The schedule of this overlay also requires the responsible authority to consider the urban character policies of clause 22.04, the Building Siting and Design Guidelines in the Borough of Queenscliffe Urban Character Study, and the impact of a proposed subdivision or development on the prevailing heritage character of adjoining and nearby buildings and of the Queenscliff Township.

25 That takes me to the policy of Clause 22.04 Urban Character Policy. This policy designates Queenscliff into Queenscliff Heritage Core area and Queenscliff Contributory Area. The site is in the Contributory area. Despite the distinction of these two categories, this policy is to be applied equally to both in the same manner and with the same weight.

26 The main problems with the proposal are the lack of front setback and the dominance of the proposed garages.

27 In terms of front setback, Council's contention is that DDO1 would require a front setback much higher than the proposed 7.5 metres, as the abutting properties are setback 10 metres (No. 52) and 9 metres (56 King Street). In fact, even under Standard B6 of Clause, the required setback is 9 metres, and not the proposed 7.5 metres.

28 As for the siting of the proposed garages, Council submitted that the proposed garages sit forward of the rest of the buildings. Combined with the lack of front setback, the visual appearance of the garages is detrimental to the streetscape of the area.

29 On the other hand, Mr. Ludeman submitted that the proposal is respectful of the character of the area. He took into account the character of nearby streets such as Bethune Street where allotments are smaller and where front setbacks are less than 9 metres. The proposed front setback of the development reflects that of the existing building. The remaining part of the development at ground level is 9 metres and similar to adjoining properties. In his view, it is entirely appropriate to adopt the setback of the existing building for the proposal. Despite the reduced setback, the proposed setback still allows for ample opportunity for a front garden for the dwellings. As for Council's concern about dominance of garages, he argued that such dominance is normally caused by double garages but not single garages. The proposal is for two single width garages. He does not agree that these single garages would dominate the buildings.

30 Further, he maintained that Clause 55 allows for variations to front setbacks. The proposed reduced front setback is not readily apparent from the street and is for the garages only. The balance of the buildings maintains the 9 metre setback recommended by Standard B6. The proposed setback is not out of context with other King Street properties and nearby streets.

31 He noted that the review site is in the Queenscliff Contributory Area and not the Historic Core area. The contributory area exhibits a more mixed character. There should be a difference and flexibility in applying decision guidelines in the DDO and character policy for a contributory area.

32 My inspection of the site and the township of Queenscliff confirmed the visual importance of the entry into the Queenscliff Township from King Street. King Street is in fact part of Bellarine Highway, the main approach to Queenscliff. This part of King Street makes a right hand turn in a northerly direction, with the review site as the terminating focal point of this turn.

33 Given the particular design guidelines of the DDO Schedule 1, Clause 22.04, and the prominent location of the site, I am not persuaded by Mr. Ludeman's submission that the front setback for the proposal should be drawn from other properties in King Street or nearby streets rather than adjoining properties. The zero setback of buildings on the opposite side of King Street (which are shop buildings in a different zone) or other nearby streets do not form the immediate context of the site and are of secondary importance in the 'make-up' of the visual prominence of the site. They should not determine the front setback for the proposal.

34 As for his submission that the proposed front setback is a mere reflection of the existing setback of the existing dwelling, there may be some validity to that approach if the existing building is retained. It is not the case here.

35 Another problem I have is the siting of the garages forward of the balance of the buildings. They dominate the front facades of the buildings. The view of the development from King Street approaching the Queenscliff Township is dominated by these protruding garages. This is not consistent with the design approaches recommend in the Queenscliff Design Guidelines.

36 As to whether the site's location in the 'Contributory' rather than 'Historic Core' of Queenscliff warranting a more flexible or relaxed approach to design, the Scheme is clear that there is to be no distinction. The guidelines are to be applied equally and with the same weight.

37 To summarise my findings on the design of the proposal, I agree with Council that the proposal failed to achieve the design outcomes contemplated in the DDO1 and Council's Urban Character Policy.

38 The proposal is also to subdivide the site into two lots, almost splitting the land in the middle generally in line with the development. As I do not support the development, it follows that I do not support the subdivision.

39 This is a proposal to develop two dwellings and subdivide land into two lots. Having regard to the particular provisions of the DDO1 and the relevant character policy, I find the design of the development not consistent with the objectives of that overlay and policy.

40 A permit is refused.