1. The review site is located within the General Residential Zone ('GRZ') Schedule 2 ('GRZ2'). Schedule 2 relates to Residential Areas, Altona and Williamstown. The review site is also in a Heritage Overlay ('HO') - Schedule 34, Williamstown Beach Precinct ('HO34') and Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 8 ('DDO8'). DDO8 relates to Foreshore Height Limitation.
2. As the review site is over 300 square metres, a planning permit is not required for the proposed extensions under the zone. Given there are no permit triggers, I will not recite the zoning provisions of the Scheme.
3. The permit triggers involve demolition, and construction works in HO and buildings and works in DDO. Therefore, I need to consider whether the proposal is an acceptable outcome in terms of heritage, character and amenity considerations.

1. The review site is in HO34 - Williamstown Beach Heritage Precinct and covers a large heritage precinct. The proposal triggers demolition and for the development of the buildings and works within heritage overlay. There are no specific provisions in HO34 such as tree controls, external paint colours, other than solar energy system controls.
2. The review site including the row of three storey townhouses are not graded buildings under the heritage review.

1. At clause 43.02, decision guidelines include (as relevant to this review):

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The Municipal Planning Strategy ('MPS') and the Planning Policy Framework ('PPF').
• The design objectives of the relevant schedule to this overlay.
• The provisions of any relevant policies and urban design guidelines.
• Whether the bulk, location and appearance of any proposed buildings and works will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
• Whether the design, form, layout, proportion and scale of any proposed buildings and works is compatible with the period, style, form, proportion, and scale of any identified heritage places surrounding the site.

To protect and enhance the environment of the Hobsons Bay foreshore as a environmental, conservation and recreation asset of State, metropolitan and local significance.

To ensure that the height, scale, bulk, setback and appearance of new development is compatible with the prevailing character of the area.

To achieve development that is a high quality architectural and urban design standard.

To preserve solar access to the foreshore, including associated roadways, bicycle and pedestrian paths.

To protect and enhance key views and vistas.

To protect the foreshore reserve and significant public open spaces from inappropriate development.

Whether the development is positioned on the site to characteristics that predominate in the neighbourhood.

How the development replicates or interprets the broad forms (such as span, shape, arrangement of ridges, use of gables or hips, pitch and eaves details of roofs) that predominate in the neighbourhood.

Whether the development integrates into the design treatment of the walls and elevations- particularly the height of the eaves - the typical floor-to-ceiling heights found in the neighbourhood.

Whether the development uses materials that harmonise with materials commonly found in the neighbourhood.

How the development relates the front garden and fence treatments to its surroundings.

Whether the development incorporates building elements and details that contribute to lightness of structure including balconies, verandahs, balustrades and gable ends.

That the height of new development is not to result in amenity impacts upon adjoining residential properties due to overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk.

Whether the proposal is consistent with the principles of the Hobsons Bay Neighbourhood Character Study Build Form Guidelines Supplement Waterfront Residential Areas (February 1999).

1. I find that the proposed development responds to the above policies as outlined in the following sections.

1. Environments and streetscapes are not static. They do not stand still in time, not even in heritage precincts. Whilst the review site forms part of an integrated terrace development, this does not prevent changes to the individual properties.

1. In considering the changes to the front façade, it is relevant to make the observation that the heritage study does not reference the review site. This means that the review site and collection of dwellings are not buildings of individual heritage significance. I acknowledge that the review site and collection of buildings are located with a heritage precinct, but they are not individually significant. I further note that there is no reference to Garden Street being included or nominated as a significant streetscape.
2. As detailed earlier, the applicant submitted that the proposal complied with the provisions of clause 43.01. It focussed rather on the DDO8 provisions which I will address below. With that in mind, for completeness, I also find that the proposed changes to the front façade do not offend the heritage provisions. I agree with the Ms Milner's evidence, and the council that the proposal is compliant with relevant heritage guidelines as they relate to whether the external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
3. DDO8 'Foreshore Height Limitation - Mill Lane and Garden Street; Nelson Place; Ferguson Street between Nelson Place and The Strand, James and Aitken Streets; and Rifle Range Estate' applies to the review site. The applicant submitted that the relevant design guidelines include:

To ensure that the height, scale, bulk, setback and appearance of new development is compatible with the prevailing character of the area.

To achieve development that is a high quality architectural and urban design standard.

1. I was also referred to a number of decision guidelines which include:
   • How the development replicates or interprets the broad forms (such as span, shape, arrangement of ridges, use of gables or hips, pitch and eaves details of roofs) that predominate in the neighbourhood.
   • Whether the development uses materials that harmonise with materials commonly found in the neighbourhood.
   • Whether the development is built in the dominant waterfront style with a contemporary interpretation.
   • Whether the application incorporates existing building forms that contribute to a seaside character.
   • Whether the development incorporates building elements and details that contribute to lightness of structure including balconies, verandahs, balustrades and gable ends.
2. The applicants are concerned that the façade modifications would result in an element that would be incompatible with the remaining seven dwellings along this section of Garden Street. In a sense, they want to retain the consistent façade detailing, and that they all remain the same.
3. There is nothing in the planning scheme from prohibiting changes to the façade treatment. There is no covenant, Section 173 Agreement or other form of control preventing this change. Accepting that as the starting point, I must consider if the proposed changes are acceptable having regard to the DDO8 provisions.
4. The DDO8 design guidelines speak to achieving high quality design, how a development interprets broad form found in the neighbourhood, the materials the development uses and whether the development incorporates building elements and details that contribute to lightness of structure.

1. It was submitted that the eight dwellings are currently cohesive and have a well-integrated presentation. The applicant is concerned that the proposed changes result in a materiality and roof form that would be completely out of context with the architectural form, built form envelope and materials of surrounding development.
2. The review site will look different to the others in the same original development. It is a contemporary design. But having regard to the provisions of DDO8, I make the following findings:-
   • The proposed changes retain the consistent height and overall form of the dwelling.
   • The appearance of the front façade is compatible with the prevailing character of the area. This does not mean to replicate. The proposed front façade retains a gable roof element, large glazing and balcony elements.
   • The proposed development is a high-quality design.
   • No change to the front or side fences.
   • The gable roof form is consistent with the other townhouses that have been modified, and noticeable within this development, being 14, 18, 22 and 28 Garden Street (as shown below). I am satisfied that it does not detract from the neighbourhood character.

Figure 4 - Proposed front elevation including row of townhouses facing Garden St.

• I am not concerned with the projection of the first floor terrace. The proposed terrace extends to the street by a varying setback no greater than two metres. Its tapered form, which extends to a point forward of the façade, presents as a considered architectural response rather than a visually dominating element. I find the design of the balcony and its projection forward of the façade does not disrupt the rhythm or presentation of the existing row of townhouses.
• Further, such projections are not atypical in this surrounding context. I accept the applicant's submission that comparable projecting balcony forms existing within the townhouse development, including at dwellings 16 and 24. On this basis, I find the proposed balcony projection to be an acceptable architectural feature in this context.

1. Furthermore, given the site's location opposite Fearon Reserve and directly opposite the cricket nets and other back of house club rooms, I do not consider the proposal to impose on the foreshore environment and recreation including solar access. The review site and adjoining townhouses given its location are removed from the Esplanade and foreshore.
2. This is further reinforced by the planning evidence from Ms Milner. I agree with her assessment that the proposed changes to the front elevation, including the single gable roof form, projecting balcony and fenestration, is compliant with the design objective of DDO8 and will have:-
   • no impact on the environment of the foreshore.
   • no impact on solar access to the foreshore or associated roadways and pedestrian bicycle spaces.
   • no impact on any key view or vista.
   • no impact on the foreshore reserve or significant public open space area.

1. The proposal extends the dwelling to the rear. At the ground floor the dwelling is extended on the northern boundary to create a study. At the first floor, the dwelling extends the alfresco area again to the north boundary and relocates the external staircase. At the second floor, there is a minimal extension to the west.
2. The proposal also extends the garage by 1.5 metres within the review site. The proposed works to the garage create usable attic space, removing the pull-down ladder and constructing stairs up to the attic space with a bathroom.
3. The applicant submitted that the key concern is visual bulk and the impact on the rear neighbourhood character. The applicant acknowledges that rear additions are visible from a number of properties, but the greatest impact will be to the adjoining dwellings at 18 and 22 Garden Street.
4. I was directed to the relevant design objective:

To ensure that the height, scale, bulk, setback and appearance of new development is compatible with the prevailing character of the area.

1. I was also directed to the decision guideline:
   • That the height of new development is not to result in amenity impacts upon adjoining residential properties due to overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk.
2. Like the collective row of townhouses facing Garden Street, the rear elevation presents as a consistent and cohesive row of contemporary three storey townhouses. The built form is characterised by a uniform height and roof profile, with each dwelling incorporating a pitched roof form containing dormer-style windows at the third level. The roofs are finished in a light reflective material, providing visual continuity across the row of townhouses.
3. In addition to reviewing the photographic material contained in submissions and evidence, I also observed on my site inspection, a number of the townhouses have been modified. Each townhouse includes a first floor balcony and associated deck, accessed via an external stair. The upper level built form is setback approximately 1 metre from one side boundary, with a solid boundary wall along the opposite side. In particular, the one sided boundary walls provide a degree of enclosure to the balcony areas, contributing to a sense of privacy for each townhouse. The panoramic photograph provided by the applicant outlines the built form and varying structures over the balcony spaces, boundary walls and external stairs.

Figure 5 - panoramic view of the review site and townhouse development (from the rear).[3]

1. At 14 and 28 Garden Street, the end townhouses have enclosed balconies. Other townhouses within the row have introduced shade structures, given all the balconies have a west-facing orientation. Further, the garages at 16 and 18 Garden Street, have been modified, and dormer-style/ high level windows constructed to the attic spaces. Taken together, these cumulative alterations demonstrate a clear pattern of built form changes within the townhouses. This pattern has been influential in my determination, and I do not share the same view as the applicant that the proposal will impact the back yard character and cause unreasonable visual bulk. This is further supported by the proposed plans shown below, the hatched green areas show the proposed extensions, respond to the site context and existing built form.[4]

1. As I previously expressed, the review site will look different to the others in the same original development and responds appropriately to the site's context. I agree with Ms Milner that it is an infill opportunity. I am not persuaded by the applicant stating that the proposed changes will impact the backyard neighbourhood character. I make the following findings:-
   • The extensions are contained to the rear of the review site and will therefore not have an impact on the environment or recreation of the foreshore.
   • No impact on any key view or vista.
   • There is no change to the overall three storey building height.
   • The proposal involves a cohesive design outcome that retains the overall building height and form, while revitalising and modernising the existing dwelling and reconfiguring the internal layout to improve the function and form.
   • Improves the internal residential amenity and sustainability of the dwelling given the west-facing rear elevation. The third floor will be reconfigured and the windows replaced with infill steel metal cladding. The middle floor will be enclosed to allow for indoor/outdoor alfresco space, a usable space all year round.
   • Extending the dwelling to the northern boundary aligns with the existing wall on boundary with the adjoining property at 18 Garden Street. The wall height will be extended by 1.91 metres to an overall height of 6.6 metres and further extended by 1.8 metres. This is responsive to the existing built form.
   • No significant built form change to the southern boundary. The dwelling is still set back from the southern boundary with 22 Garden Street. The addition will extend out further from the existing elevation by 1.8 metres, but this is largely to enclose the alfresco area including the external stairs. This provides a clean overall finish to the built form, compacting the extensions and removing any structures as evident throughout the townhouse development. I find this is an improvement in the overall appearance.
   • The materials and finishes are consistent with the existing modern development, providing light-weight and light-colour finishes, found throughout the beach side of Hobsons Bay.
   • Aligns with prevailing roof pitches, eave heights and building proportions to maintain the neighbourhood built form rhythm.
   • Uses recessive upper-level forms and stepped massing to ensure a gentle transition to avoid excessive visual bulk.
   • No change to the external garage facing Port Phillip Cresent, and any view of the public realm.
   • There is no change in the height of the dwelling, therefore there is no result in amenity impacts upon adjoining residential properties due to overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk.
2. I am also satisfied that the additions to the garage have had regard to the site context and sensitivity to the courtyard of the adjoining properties. The first floor attic is set back from both side boundaries including the slight intrusion of a maximum of 1.5 metres into the courtyard area. The design of the garage extensions with its gable roof form and simple architectural expression complements the existing garage. The height of the extensions falls within the overall height and built form of the existing garage.
3. Overall, the proposal presents a contemporary addition of the existing dwelling form through a refined, gable roof profile and a single vertical presentation. The elevations maintain the existing scale while introducing modern cladding materials and a rhythmic window pattern that breaks down mass and adds visual interest.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing. The conditions are generally the same as those outlined in the NOD.
2. I have included a new condition 1 requirement relating to the new boundary walls to match the existing boundary walls. This is not shown on the plans and requested by the council.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Construct a building or construct or carry out works.

1. Before the development 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 and dimensioned. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans identified as A201 - A204 (inclusive), 736-TP-01-A - 736-TP-08-A (inclusive), 736-TP-09-C - 736-TP-10-C, 736-TP-11-B, 736-TP-12-B, 736-TP-13-C, 736-TP-14, A, 736-TP-15-A, 736-TP-16-A, 736-TP-17-B, 736-TP-18-A, 736-TP-19-B, 736-TP-20-A, 736-TP-21-B, 736-TP-22-A, 736-TP-23-B, 736-TP-24-A, 736-TP-25-B, 736-TP-26-A, 736-TP-27-B, 736-TP-28-A, 736-TP-29-B, 736-TP-30-A, 736-TP-23-B, 736-TP-31-A, 736-TP-32-A prepared by M I Projects and amended on 4 July 2025 (VCAT Amended Plans), but modified to show:

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Unless specified in a permit condition, this requirement does not apply if an exemption is available under the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
2. The owner must meet the costs of all alterations to and reinstatement of, the Responsible Authority and other Public Authority Assets deemed necessary and required by such Authorities for the development. The owner must obtain the prior specific written consent of the Council or other relevant Authority to such alterations and reinstatements and must comply with conditions required by the said Authority in relation to the execution of such works.
3. All service pipes, (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
   2. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period in which to start the development if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period in which to complete the development if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within 12 months afterwards and the development was lawfully started before the permit expired.

[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.

[2] Nearmap August 2025, review site highlighted with blue arrow.

[3] Page 6 of applicant's photograph submission.

[4] PNPE9 Plans, Drawing 736-Tp-30-A and 31-A.