... More dwellings of two bedrooms or fewer are required to balance the oversupply of three or more bedroom dwellings with current and developing household structure in the City. ...[14]

1. The applicant amended the design to convert the rear dwelling in the northern corner into two two-bedroom dwellings (refer to the extracts below and on the following page).

Extract of ground floor two-bedroom dwelling and communal areas

1. The design contains one dwelling at ground level and the other at first level with a balcony. The communal areas are not all clearly delineated on the plans. The applicant advises the dwellings need to share the front entry, the double garage with one car space each, and the area at the rear of the garage that contains the outdoor storage.
2. On the basis of this amendment, the council officer report states the proposal now provides 20.5% two-bedroom dwellings in response to the policy direction set out in the Greater Bendigo Housing Strategy January 2018.[15]
3. This is a poor design response. I am advised that the stair access to the first floor dwelling will be one metre wide. This has two doors at the bottom of it, which appears difficult to navigate with multiple door openings between the shared entry and the garage, including the garage door itself. There is another garage entry door to the ground floor dwelling at the rear of the car space closest to the dwellings. It may be difficult to navigate if the car space is occupied. It may be difficult for each occupant to access and move things from the external storage area through the garage if the garage is occupied, particularly the car space closest to the dwellings. Also, the internal amenity of the first floor dwelling is impacted by the extent of screening required on almost all of the windows to limit overlooking to the ground floor dwelling and the adjoining properties.
4. This design cannot be easily changed by permit condition(s). The implications for the design of these dwellings and how they interact with the surrounding proposed dwellings and the adjoining properties needs to be considered afresh.
5. I make the observation that, considering all of my concerns, the development of this site may benefit from a greater proportion of smaller sized dwellings.

1. The reasons above are the key reasons why I have decided a permit must not issue. Other issues were raised by the parties. The fact that this decision does not make findings about all of these should not be taken to mean that they are not relevant issues or not matters that I was concerned about. I have simply decided to explain the key reasons for my decision. As these key reasons may have consequential impacts on the design of a multi-dwelling development on this site, I have decided it is unnecessary to deal with the other issues raised in a fulsome manner.
2. I do wish to make a few other brief comments in an effort to assist the parties if a new planning application is made.
3. Ms Costello and Ms Wood are concerned about 18 bins along the naturestrip. I adopt the findings of the Tribunal in Common Heath Projects Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC[16] quoted below:
   1. With respect to there being inadequate site frontage to accommodate all of the different types of bins provided to residents, this may well be the case. However, with the advent of the changes in waste collection being introduced by councils, perhaps greater accompanying innovation is also required to address such concerns. This is something that I find should not be an impediment to development, where the planning scheme and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) actively seek to facilitate development.
4. Ms Wood spoke of her personal experiences of overland flow into her property. That is an existing situation and I understand this possibility and her concern given she is located on the lower side of the street. Any development would need to address the drainage of the roofed and sealed areas on the site to council's satisfaction.
5. Ms Wood expressed concern about the STORM assessment undertaken as it contains errors, including not matching the proposal, and does not pass 100%. If there is a new design, this can be updated and considered afresh.
6. Ms Wood is concerned that the roof of each dwelling cannot drain directly into the rainwater tank as not all of the layout enables a gravity feed to the respective tank. This is a matter both the applicant and council should consider if a new permit application is made.
7. Council and the applicant had differing analysis of whether standard B29 was met. This is in part impacted by the slope of the land and the general configuration of the dwellings. This is matter that will need to be considered afresh as part of any new permit application.

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

[1] The submissions of the parties, the supporting material given at the hearing as well as the material on the Tribunal's electronic file and the statement 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] Macquarie Dictionary online as at 13 October 2025. I looked at this definition during the hearing on 28 April 2025 and I note it has not changed since.

[3] Macquarie Dictionary online as at 13 October 2025.

[4] Aniag v Greater Geelong CC [2025] VCAT 301.

[6] Heath v Wangaratta RCC [2025] VCAT 754.

[10] Council's folder of documents, page 248.

[11] Page 222 of the Council Meeting Agenda dated 27 May 2024.

[12] Page 197 of the Council Meeting Agenda dated 27 May 2024.

[13] Extract from page 203 of the Council Meeting Agenda dated 27 May 2024.

[14] Extract from page 200 of the Council Meeting Agenda dated 27 May 2024.

[16] [2025] VCAT 302.