1. The site is located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone- Schedule 1 ('NRZ1'). The Development Contributions Plans Overlay- Schedule 1 does not apply to the proposal.
2. The objective of clause 15.01-2S (building design) is:

To achieve building design and siting outcomes that contribute positively to the local context, enhance the public realm and support environmentally sustainable development.

1. Clause 15.01-2L (Building design in Merri-bek) includes the following local strategies:

Encourage good-quality contemporary architecture.

Ensure service infrastructure and waste storage facilities:

• Are well concealed and/or screened from the street or; integrated into building design.
• Enable the provision of green infrastructure.

Design car parking facilities (crossovers, access ways, garages and carports) so to not dominate the streetscape.

Design car stackers to suitably buffer adjoining dwellings from all impacts.

Ensure development maximises the retention of existing vegetation and large trees and provides sufficient space and conditions for planting of new canopy and screening trees.

Ensure development provides adequate on-site loading areas and waste collection vehicles where appropriate.

1. Emphasis have been added to the local strategy most relevant to the application.
2. Clause 32.09-5 requires the application to be assessed against clause 54 and the standards to the application are Standard A1 (Neighbourhood character), Standard A3 (Street setback) and Standard A19 (Design detail).
3. Standard A3 is not met and therefore it is not deemed to comply under the requirements of clause 54.
4. Relevant objectives under clause 54.02-1 (Neighbourhood character objective) are:

To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

To ensure that the design responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.

1. The street setback objective under clause 54.03-1 is:

To ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site.

1. The design detail objective under clause 54.06-1 is:

To encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

1. As a starting position, I agree with the applicant's statements:
   • The neighbourhood character policy acknowledges that there are car parking facilities visible within the streetscape and the question before me is whether the carport structure dominates the streetscape; and
   • It is relevant to consider the existing features of the streetscape to determine what might constitute a car parking facility that 'dominates' the streetscape in the context of this site.
2. As stated above, council raises no issue with the design of the carport, other than it's siting.
3. I find that notwithstanding the presentation of the carport references the host dwelling, in addition to being respectful to other traditional built form within the streetscape, I cannot support the structure so close to the street that encroaches into the front garden setting.
4. I accept that the carport will be located over an existing car parking space and therefore will have minimal impact upon landscaping opportunities.[3] This is not a matter raised by council.
5. I also accept the proposition that the carport design is generally open sided[4] and lightweight in appearance.
6. However, the location of the structure with a minimum setback of 2.0 metres will insert built form into a space that is typically set aside for front setbacks and associated front gardens. Even with the gable end with an increased setback at 2.35 metres from the front title boundary will not be sufficient to mitigate the visual impact that the carport will have in its proposed location.
7. Similarly, I am not persuaded by the submission by the applicant that as the carport will be open and permeable and partially concealed by the front fence that there will be very little perceived visual impact of the built form from the streetscape. The street is wide and open, and the carport will be visible from various locations within the streetscape.
8. Whilst there is a high front fence of 2.0 metres, it is an open fence and the carport will be visible above the fence, whilst having a minimal front setback forward of the predominant building alignment.
9. I find the modest front gardens as being a notable feature of the street although I accept that corner allotments often provide lesser setbacks. But the proposal is located on a mid-block site.
10. The photo of the recent development at 94-102 Rennie Street, Coburg that was included in the applicant's submission[5] was of particular interest to me. The photo shows a lack of car parking facilities visible to the streetscape and the benefit to the streetscape achieved when front setbacks are available for gardens. While the building itself provides a long row of attached dwellings which was described by the applicant in the hearing as being robust, the setback of the buildings when combined with the garden setting mitigates the impact that the building may have on the streetscape.
11. Opposite the site is 106 Rennie Street that has eight spaces within the front setback. This is acknowledged, however the car spaces are setback from the front title boundary to allow a landscaping strip in front of them that emulates the front gardens found elsewhere in the streetscape.
12. I was taken to a previous Tribunal decision by council, Zelios v Moreland CC[6] ('Zelios'), where the Tribunal did not allow a new carport on another site. Whilst it is true that the proposed carport on the Zelios site would have no setback to the street and the property width appears to be narrower, based on the streetview presented to me I find that the front garden element is not as prominent element in the Zelios streetscape, when compared to the streetscape before me.

WHAT INFLUENCE DOES OTHER CARPORTS WITHIN FRONT SETBACKS HAVE UPON THE PROPOSAL?

1. The applicant provides photographic analysis of 31 examples of carports within front setbacks in an area generally within 600 metres of the site. The applicant suggested the photo analysis used examples that were generally 200 - 250 metres from the site, however the Tribunal measured the distances to some of the properties to be located around 600 metres from the site. Putting aside the actual measurement, the neighbourhood that the applicant was referring to was that of the residential hinterland to the east of Sydney Road and south of Bell Street.
2. I have no data about how many dwellings are located within this area but it can be described as an inner-suburban area with many of the lots between 400 and 500 square metres. The age of the carport structures appearing within the streetscape is mixed from late modern to contemporary architecture eras.
3. Very few examples appear to have a comparable lot frontage as the site and no planning permits were produced for any of the examples.
4. Perhaps it is the examples already in the streetscapes that has prompted council to include a strategy to encourage design that does not have car parking facilities dominating the streetscape?
5. I am not persuaded that these relatively few examples persuade me to approve a carport within the front setbacks. I agree with the submission put to me by council that:

These examples do not represent the preferred or prevailing neighbourhood character, rather they are anomalies within the streetscape, and cannot reasonably be relied upon to justify an inappropriate departure from current built form expectations and the established character in the surrounding streetscape.

1. Even if the carports are not anomalies, policy is seeking something different.

1. The applicant emphasis in their submission that there are the six (6) signed letters from adjoining property owners and occupiers in support of the planning permit application. However, there is no statutory requirement for me to consider submissions in support of the planning permit application.
2. There were no submissions made by council, or any other person, that the carport will result in an amenity impact other than appearance within the streetscape.
3. I also find that the personal circumstances that led to the need for the carport do not outweigh the shortcomings of the proposal itself.

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

[1] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.

[2] 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.

[3] The existing garden bed adjacent to the eastern title boundary is proposed to be retained however it will sit beneath the eave of the carport.

[4] The eaves of the carport abuts the southern side of the garage and adjoins the eastern boundary fence.

[5] Page 13 of applicant's written submission.