1. Before the use and 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 with dimensions and four copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a) A landscaping plan drawn by a qualified Landscape Architect. The plan must show the following:

* a survey of all existing vegetation and natural features;

* a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the location and size of maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified;

* Paving details and finishes to driveways, internal pedestrian pathways and courtyard areas must be specified on the plan.

* Retaining walls, fence design details including heights and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill.

* The landscape plan should clearly delineate between those areas used for outdoor recreation activities and those areas used to accommodate site and service facilities including clotheslines, storage facilities, garbage and recycling facilities, location of hoses and taps.

* Landscaping in accordance with such approved plan and schedule shall be completed before the commencement of occupation of the building hereby permitted.

An endorsed copy of the landscape plan will form part of the permit.

(b) A schedule of all external materials and finishes shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any buildings and works on the land. The schedule shall show the materials, colour and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames, glazing types, doors, fencing and paving (including car-park surfacing),outbuildings and structures.

(c) Where not shown on the submitted plans site facilities including the following are required to be detailed on the plan.

* garbage and recycling bin enclosures (style and external finishes proposed);

* letter boxes (style, external finishes and location);

* fencing (height, style, materials, colour and location).

(d) The plans must be notated to indicate that habitable rooms adjacent to high levels of external noise are designed to limit internal noise levels to a maximum of 45d13(a) in accordance with relevant Australian Standards for acoustic control (including AS3671 -Road Traffic and AS2021 -Aircraft Noise).

(e) Obscure glazing shall not be provided to first floor bedrooms.

The use and development, as shown on the endorsed plan, must not be altered without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

2. Prior to the issue of the Building Permit, the owner of the property must pay the following Development Contributions to the Maribyrnong City Council:

Plan 2 Community Infrastructure Contribution Maribyrnong, North Maidstone & Nth Footscray Areas

Total contributions payable to Maribyrnong City Council based on 2 net new dwellings is ($900)

3. Prior to the issue of the Occupancy Permit under Part 9 of the Building Regulations 1994 the applicant must contact an officer from Council's Planning Services Section to arrange an inspection to confirm that all works have been undertaken in accordance with the planning permit.

4. The owner must construct a temporary boundary screen of sufficient height to prevent overlooking and restrict access to the adjoining properties, during the period between removal of the property boundary fence and the construction of the proposed wall on the boundary. The screen must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. All exposed brickwork shall be cleaned, struck and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing the building or buildings on the site shall be concealed in service ducts.

7. The car parking and related access lanes which are shown on the endorsed plan, must be formed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The parking area and access lanes must be properly drained as an integral part of the site drainage system and surfaced with an all-weather surface.

8. Any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted shall be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel to the approval and to the satisfaction of the Council's Asset and Open Space Branch and at the permit holders cost.

9. Vehicular crossovers must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The building shall be provided with suitable drains of an impervious type which shall be laid to a self-cleansing gradient with suitable provision for silt traps where necessary, and all drains shall be maintained in good order and condition and shall discharge to an approved outlet.

11. The owner shall be responsible for the loss of value of or damage to Council's assets as a result on the development. Reinstatement or modification of the asset to Council's satisfaction will be required or compensation to the value of Council's loss paid.

12. The discharge of water from the property shall be controlled around its limits to prevent any discharge onto any adjacent property or street other than by means of an underground pipe discharged to an approved outlet in a street or to an underground pipe drain.

13. Stormwater run~off from the site must not cause any adverse impact to the public, any adjoining site or Council asset. Prior to development of the site a stormwater discharge permit is required from the Manager of Assets and Open Space or his representative. A fee is payable upon application for this permit:-

14. Any work within the road reservation must be carried out to standards set by Council's Assets and Open Space Branch or any other standard agreed by them.

15. Costs incurred by Council in approving and supervising works in public areas as a result of this development may be recovered by Council.

16. The Applicant is required to meet the full cost of any drainage works necessary to provide an adequate lawful point(s) of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. At the discretion of the Responsible Authority these works may include the extension, enlargement, alteration of undergrounding of drains to the site and the removal of existing outlets.

17. The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible to meet the costs of all alterations to and reinstatement of, the Council's and any other Public Authority assets deemed necessary and required by such Authorities for the development. The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible to obtain the prior specific written approval of the Responsible Authority or other relevant Authority for such alterations and reinstatement's and shall comply with conditions required by the said Authority in relation to the execution of such works.

18. The Owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with Melbourne Water for the acceptance of surface and stormwater runoff directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drainage system in accordance with Section 269A of the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works Act 1958.

19. Prior to occupancy the landscaping as indicated on the endorsed plan forming part of the permit must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Areas dedicated for landscaping must not be used for any other purpose.

20. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit;

The development is not completed within two years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

The building shall not be occupied until a Occupancy Permit under Part 9 of the Building Regulations 1994 has been issued for the class of occupancy permitted.

An Occupancy Permit under Part 9 of the Building Regulations 1994 shall not be issued prior to a final inspection of the development has been undertaken by an officer of the Planning Services Section. The owner of the development should contact Council's Planning Services section to arrange an inspection of the site.

This permit is issued pursuant to the provisions of the relevant Planning Scheme and does not relieve the permit holder of the necessity to obtain a building permit pursuant to the Building Act 1993 prior to the commencement of any construction or works on any part of the site.

This permit does not discharge an occupier from any liability relating to the construction, maintenance or the repair of a dividing fence, pursuant to the provisions of the Fences Act 1968 (as amended).

The design of every stormwater drainage system to the point of discharge on an allotment must be approved by the relevant building surveyor.

The permit holder must contact Council's Revenue & Valuations Section for allocation of street numbers.

Ms F Beard, Senior Planning Officer, represented the Responsible Authority.

Mr J Logan, Solicitor, appeared for the Applicant for Review.

The following Respondent/Objectors appeared in person:-

Mr A. Ross representing the Maribyrnong Residents' Association Inc.

Application under S.77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for review of a decision to refuse to grant a permit.

1. By application dated 1 February 2001, Mr Leonardi sought permission to erect three town houses on the subject land.

2. Bloomfield Avenue is a neat well maintained street reflecting the quality of single and two storey detached houses, flat and medium density dwellings which exist within the street.

3. Dwelling 1 fronts Bloomfield Avenue with access via new crossing. The two rear units will be served by the existing crossing to the site.

4. The site has a fall of about 4.5m from the rear to the front (north). The site will be excavated so that parts of the new floor level will be below natural ground level.

5. The front dwelling is set back 7.5m from the street with the garage set back 9m. The first floor is set back 8.3m. A 1m high timber picket fence is proposed along the street frontage.

6. The proposal was advertised by direction of the Responsible Authority and 16 objections received. Although recommended for approval by the staff, the Responsible Authority resolved to refuse the application on 13 June 2001.

7. The Planning Scheme encourages well designed medium density housing so that improved housing choice and so on is offered in the locality. The Municipal Strategic Statement nominates the site as being in a residential development area which provides:-

"Enhance low to low/medium density housing character."

8. This follows the objective to increase population, consolidate neighbourhoods and so on.

... the proposal is located in close proximity to Highpoint Shopping Centre. Despite this, Bloomfield Avenue currently enjoys high standards of amenity given the large size of allotments, the generous setbacks of dwellings and well maintained housing stock. The ... strategies indicate clearly that Council supports the increase in density in locations such as Bloomfield Avenue, however Council is adamant that this should not be at the expense of the amenity of adjoining properties and the existing neighbourhood character.

Council's Housing Strategy states that medium density housing will be encouraged, provided it meets policy objectives for diversity of housing and design standards, fits in well with neighbouring buildings and has minimum adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining residents. While it is considered that some of the amenity impacts are minimal, the proposal is clearly out of character with existing development in the area and therefore conflicts with these requirements.

Council recognises that the appeal site is highly suited to the re-development. However, it is submitted that, although the proposal is consistent with State and Local policy concerning urban consolidation, it fails to adequately satisfy the objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

It is stated in the Good Design Guide that "a Responsible Authority must exercise its judgment as to whether a development proposal satisfies both the spirit and intent of the Guide and enough of the design element objectives and criteria to be acceptable." It is argued that this development does not satisfactorily address the design element objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide, especially in relation to the character of the area, the visual impact of the proposed development and the amenity impacts. In particular, the proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. This has an adverse impact on the character of the area and the amenity of adjoining properties.

10. Ms Beard considered that features of the proposal "are in sharp contrast to the character of the neighbourhood, for example:-

* The height, bulk and scale of the proposed dwellings, with a minimal façade articulation.

* Two vehicle access points taking up 40% of the site's frontage.

* Lack of any significant vegetation on the allotment.

* The multi-storey component of the development is not located towards the street.

* The two vehicle crossings proposed take up 40% of the street frontage.

* Limited opportunities exist for landscaping in the front setback.

* The proposed 7.5m setback is inconsistent with the front setbacks of dwellings in the area.

* Only Units 2 and 3 have north facing private open space.

12. Mr Ross agreed with the submission by the Responsible Authority as summarised above and added the following comments:-

Many Maribyrnong residents, particularly those in Bloomfield Avenue, fear that replacement of single dwellings by multiple two storey units will destroy the family orientation of the neighbourhood.

This ambience is under serious threat by developers who see an advantage in moving in on allotments between family dwellings and over developing them, apparently hopeful that a "first in gains the most advantage" basis.

If this application is successful it will be to the detriment of the neighbourhood character, the streetscape, and also the backyard scape. That is the change to the views obtained from the backyards of existing dwellings. We contend that it is most unreasonable for the people who have made their family homes in the area to have to look up to large masses of bricks, mortar and roofs, with no relief from trees with spreading crowns, or the ability to see any distance as is the current situation.

13. In response, Mr Logan said that the proposal bettered the standard of the Good Design Guide (GDG) in many instances and gave the example of density. One unit 310m2 is proposed whereas the GDG permits 1:250m2.

14. He said the subject site is well located with regard to public transport and all community facilities. Mr Logan gave instances of the number of residences in Bloomfield Avenue that are double storey or even in one instance, triple storey.

15. Mr Logan conceded that the site has a poor northerly aspect but pointed out that the three townhouses "have been positioned in a manner to receive excellent northerly light to living areas". With regard to overlooking he said that where such overlooking is possible it is proposed to use translucent glass to resolve the problem.

16. Considering the various submissions presented in this review I believe the permit should issue. While Ms Beard argued forcefully against the staff recommendation to approve the proposal, the following facts remain:-

* The proposal was located in an area in which it is considered that medium density housing should be encouraged. The proposal is well located for transport and community facilities.

* The proposal equals or betters the various standards of the GDG.

* There are very few opportunities for direct overlooking at neighbours. Indeed such overlooking is only available from minor bedrooms. I do not believe therefore that it is necessary to provide obscure glazing to these windows particularly because of the distinct lack of amenity that would be suffered by future inhabitants of these bedrooms.

* Car parking and landscaping opportunities are more than adequate.