The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. In permit application 247-2008 no permit is granted.

Ms S Fanning, solicitor and town planner of Great Ocean Road Coastal Planning

Application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to grant a permit.

Clause 32.01-4 Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Clause 3.0 of Schedule 7 of the Significant Landscape Overlay. A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works where the height of any part of the building, excluding any television antenna, chimney or flue, exceeds 7.5 metres above natural ground level.

Clauses 21.05, 21.08, 21.13, 21.17, 21.18, 21.30, 21.32.

Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings.

Amendment C129 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme**.** Adopted by the Council but not approved.

The site is located on the northern side of the street and has a frontage of 16.5 m, a depth of 47.76 m and an area 788 m2. A single storey dwelling currently occupies the site. The site slopes approximately 2.7 m from the rear to the front. The front setback of the existing dwelling is devoid of significant vegetation but four canopy trees along the rear boundary of the site are proposed to be retained. A tree on the western boundary is proposed to be removed.

The site is located within a residential area. The Avenue in this location comprises a gravel road. Abutting the review site to the west is a substantial double storey dwelling. Abutting to the east is a pair of single and double storey dwellings which have garages presenting to the street. To the rear of the site are dwellings which have a frontage to Powell Street. The south side of the street continues the slope of the land with the rear of dwellings presenting to the street and sited to take advantages of views to the south.

The site is located approximately 500 m to the west of the Ocean Plaza Grove Shopping Centre.

1. Michael Higgins Building Design applied to the Council for a permit to construct two double storey dwellings on land at 37 The Avenue, Ocean Grove.
2. The Council gave notice of the application and received a number of objections. The Council decided to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit. Objectors to the application have applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Council's decision. The grounds of the application for review are:
   1. The proposal is not consistent with the existing neighbourhood character nor the preferred neighbourhood character within the vicinity.
   2. The proposal is not consistent with State and Local Polices.
   3. The proposal is not consistent with the Significant Landscape Overlay.
   4. The proposed dwellings are visually bulky, intrusive and are an overdevelopment of the site.
3. The key issues in this matter are whether the proposal reflects the character of the neighbourhood, whether the proposal achieves the landscape character objective of the SLO7, and whether the proposal imposes unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.
4. Having considered the submissions presented to me and having inspected the site and the surrounding area, I have concluded that a permit should not issue for this proposal. The character of this part of the Avenue is distinguishable from the balance of the street. While the character of the area does not preclude a medium density housing development from this part of the street, a proposal must respond to the existing character and to the objectives of the SLO7. I am not satisfied that the proposal achieves an acceptable outcome when assessed against these provisions of the planning scheme.
5. My reasons are set out below.

1. In relation to the current proposal the state and local planning policy framework seeks to:
   • Encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas;
   • Encourage development that improves housing choice and accommodates future housing needs;
   • Ensure that development achieves a reasonable standard of amenity for existing and new residents;
   • Encourage the design of energy efficient buildings;
   • Ensure that development respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character;
   • Achieve high quality urban design and architecture;
2. In broad terms the policy framework of the planning scheme lends support to the provision of some form of medium density housing in this locality. A strong theme of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) is to contain residential development in towns such as Ocean Grove within defined urban boundaries. The LPPF recognises the need to provide a diversity of residential opportunities across the municipality to cater for the range of housing needs of the community[1]. Preferred areas for growth are identified[2]. Within established residential areas new development or redevelopment is encouraged to be respectful of the character of the neighbourhood and the coastal environment.
3. I will address issues associated with the proposal's response to the character of the area subsequently. I am satisfied however that the construction of two dwellings on this site is supported by the policy framework of the planning scheme.

Does the proposal reflect the character of the neighbourhood?

1. It was Ms Fannning's submission that the review site is located in a distinctive pocket of Ocean Grove, the character of which is defined partly by the dirt road which traverses the area and contributes to the low speed, "cottage lane feel", and the vegetated street frontages. It was submitted that prominent dwellings are not typical of the character of the area. Ms Fanning further submitted that the design of this proposal does not respond well to the character of the area because of its height, bulk and lack of articulation.
2. I generally agree with Ms Fanning that the alignment and construction of the road does contribute to a character which is quite different from the balance of the Avenue. The character is also influenced by the existence of vegetation and the siting of dwellings to take advantage of available views. The dwellings on the south side or lower side of the street have largely turned their backs on the street and oriented their living areas to the south. On the north side of street, dwellings are more prominent in the streetscape and more recent developments are quite large and prominent. Notable amongst these is the dwelling abutting the review site to the west and the dual occupancy abutting to the east which presents double garages close to the street frontage. A feature of many dwellings in the street is the location of garages and car port structures at or near the street frontage. Notwithstanding this, the visual profile of dwellings is reduced in most (but not all) cases by landscaping in front setbacks.
3. In summary, I consider that the character of this part of the Avenue does have distinct qualities, to which an application for a medium density housing development is required to be respectful[3].
4. The SLO7 which applies to this locality specifies the following landscape character objective:

To preserve the balance between roof tops and vegetation in long distance views of the town.

To encourage the development of buildings that fit within the landscape and do not dominate the streetscape and long distance views.

To minimise the impact of buildings project above the vegetation canopy.

To provide space around buildings for the retention and planting of vegetation, particularly high canopied coastal vegetation and other native coastal species common to the area.

To maximise opportunities for view sharing, particularly where views are available to the ocean and river from private dwellings.

To protect vistas of the ocean and river available from public viewing points in the town

1. This proposal requires a permit under the SLO7 because the building exceeds a height of 7.5 m. The building has a maximum height of 8.85m. I must therefore be satisfied that the objectives of the SLO7 are achieved by this proposal, not just in terms of the height above 7.5 m but in terms of the total composition of the building which contributes to its height.
2. In my view the combination of the provisions of the SLO7 and the objectives of Clause 55 of the planning scheme, combined with the policy framework of the planning scheme, provides a clear direction with respect to the assessment of applications for medium density housing developments in this location.
3. I have not been persuaded that this proposal responds appropriately to the provisions of the planning scheme and I am not satisfied that the proposal is respectful of the distinctive character of this neighbourhood.
4. As a consequence of the height, bulk and scale of the proposal, these dwellings will assume a high degree of visual prominence in the street. I have acknowledged above that there are other quite large dwellings in the street but in most cases the existence of vegetation primarily in the front setback but also throughout the sites, play an important role in limiting the visual prominence of these dwellings when viewed from the street. This proposal provides very limited opportunities for effective landscaping in the front setback. Landscaping is limited to the side setbacks and a central strip. Driveways and garages will otherwise dominate the front setback and the height and massing of the side by side dwellings will assume a degree of prominence which the proposed landscaping is unlikely to successfully filter.
5. I acknowledge that the review site is located between a large dwelling to the west and a dual occupancy to the east. The dual occupancy presents prominent double garages to the street. The review site's immediate context therefore provides some support for the applicant's submission that the proposal does respond to its site features and that it is respectful of an emerging character in this part of the Avenue. On balance however, I think the proposed development will assume a degree of visual prominence in the streetscape which will exceed those of its immediate neighbours. This is not an outcome which I consider to be supported by the provisions of the planning scheme.
6. During the course of the hearing reference was made to a tree on the western boundary which is proposed to be removed. The Council and the applicant were of the view that a permit was not required for the removal of the tree because it is less than 4 m in height. Based on my inspection I think it is more likely that a permit would be required for its removal. This would need to be the subject of further investigation in the event that a subsequent application was made.

Does the proposal impose unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring properties?

1. Because I have found that the proposal does not achieve an acceptable outcome having regard to the neighbourhood character tests of the planning scheme, and the objectives of the SLO7, it is not necessary for me to provide detailed findings with respect to the various submissions made concerning the amenity impacts of the proposal.
2. It is appropriate however that I record my findings that I would not have refused the application on amenity grounds.
3. I do not think that the loss of views from properties to the rear is so great as to warrant a refusal of the application. Similarly the proposal does not contribute to unacceptable overlooking or overshadowing.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and no permit be granted.

[3] The objective of Clause 55.02-1 of the planning scheme is: To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

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