• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The proposed development comprised a double-storey dwelling at the front and two single-storey dwellings behind it ([8]–[12]). The front unit, Unit 1, was to have a five-metre setback, with its upper level set back between 5.5 and 6 metres. The Tribunal’s concern was not simply the numerical setback: it was the relationship between the upper level and the lower-level façade in the context of the surrounding streetscape ([11], [28]).

The property was in a Residential 1 Zone and within an Airport Environs Overlay ([13], [15]). The scheme required a permit for more than one dwelling on a lot, and the application was to be assessed against the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing ([14]). The Tribunal noted that the site was well located for public transport, services and retail facilities, and that no party disputed its suitability for a medium-density proposal ([7], [17], [19]).

The Tribunal heard the matter on 22 November 2001 and inspected the site and locality, including the courtyard of Unit 1 at 6 Elstone Avenue. On 28 November 2001, Member Margaret Baird allowed the review with variations. The Council’s refusal was set aside and a permit granted, subject to endorsed plans and eleven conditions.

The conditions required amended plans that, among other things, made the Unit 3 entrance clearly identifiable, specified obscured and fixed glazing for a Unit 1 bedroom window, converted Unit 2’s carport to a single-vehicle carport, increased the front setback of Unit 1 and its carport by 1.5 metres, and reduced and repositioned the south wall of the Unit 3 garage. Other conditions dealt with matters such as drainage, parking, landscaping, trees, and the permit’s time limits.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal’s reasons brought together the planning framework, the site’s location and character, the proposal’s design, and its likely effects on neighbours. It identified the main issues as the development’s scale and form in relation to the built-form pattern, and possible off-site amenity impacts ([17]).

On neighbourhood character, the Tribunal considered the street to be of modest scale. Although it anticipated that the area could change, it treated the existing sense of openness as an important feature ([27]). The local policy described the preferred character of the Niddrie precinct as residential development with consistent front setbacks, established front gardens and canopy trees, low fences, and parking or garages behind the building line ([20]). The Tribunal found the architectural presentation acceptable, but had a specific concern with Unit 1’s upper level. As proposed, that upper level would be forward of the upper storey of the adjacent Unit 1 at No. 6. The upper storey was also positioned within 500 mm of the face of the lower level, subject to the forward verandah ([28]).

The Tribunal explored whether changing the car parking arrangement could address the concern. Unit 2 had two bedrooms, and the member considered that it could be served by a single carport, with a possible tandem space. A revised plan showed how that could work, and the Council did not oppose the change ([29]). The Tribunal considered the proposed changes desirable because they would align Unit 1’s upper level with the neighbouring upper level. Together with landscaping opportunities in the front of the site, it considered the revised design an acceptable response to streetscape and character ([30]). The permit condition translated that assessment into a required 1.5-metre increase in the front setback of Unit 1 and its carport, and a single-vehicle carport for Unit 2.

On shadowing, the Tribunal accepted that winter shadows would be longer because the sun would be lower ([33]). But it rejected the proposition that there should be no additional shadow at any time of year. It explained that the relevant question under the Guide was whether any increase was reasonable ([34]). Its assessment was site-specific: Unit 1 would be set back 4 to 4.5 metres from the southern boundary at ground level, with a further 2.4-metre setback at first-floor level. The ground-floor setback was deeper than that of the existing dwelling, and the proposed upper level was further away from the neighbouring courtyard than the existing chimney. On those facts, the Tribunal was satisfied that reasonable sunlight would remain in the courtyard ([34]).

The Tribunal separately considered other courtyards at No. 6. It regarded a demand for no increased shadow there as unreasonable in an area where medium-density housing could be expected, particularly given the site’s proximity to services and retail facilities. It found that the rear units’ single-storey form and their distance from the southern boundary meant that shadowing to Units 2 and 3 at No. 6 would be negligible ([35]). That finding did not mean the Tribunal dismissed all local concerns: it required changes to the Unit 3 garage wall where it adjoined the courtyard of Unit 4 at No. 6. Reducing the wall from 3.15 metres to 2.9 metres and setting it behind the boundary fence would reduce its effect on private open space ([36]).

The Tribunal also considered privacy and visual bulk. It found that potential overlooking had been properly addressed and that the spacing between the buildings, along with the single-storey form of the rear units, minimised visual bulk ([39]). Although residents objected to the position of entries opposite their courtyards, the Tribunal did not find that relationship unacceptable ([38]). On internal amenity, it found that reducing Unit 2’s carport and increasing the front setback would move more of Unit 2’s private open space beside the rear garden at No. 10, rather than beside the neighbouring garage, carport and store. In its view, that would reduce shadowing and enclosure compared with the proposal as originally presented ([42]).

The result was therefore not an approval of the original design without change. The Tribunal found the proposal capable of being made acceptable through revised plans and conditions. Its decision turned on the cumulative, site-specific planning assessment and on whether particular design changes answered the identified concerns.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not describe itself as changing the law, and it does not set out a new general legal test. It applies the planning scheme and guidance identified in the reasons to a particular proposal. Its outcome was that this proposal could receive a permit with variations, not that all comparable three-dwelling proposals must be approved.

The principal legal framework identified in the judgment was section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, under which the applicant sought review of the Council’s refusal ([1]). The Tribunal also referred to the Residential 1 Zone, the Airport Environs Overlay, State and local planning policies, Clause 52.04, Clause 65, and the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing ([13]–[18]). The judgment does not reproduce the full text of those provisions, so it cannot support a broader account of their operation beyond what the reasons expressly state.

The decision records that the subject land was in an Airport Environs Overlay Schedule 2 area. The parties submitted that the proposal complied with a Council policy concerning development in that area, which had been agreed with Melbourne Airport’s owner/operators. The policy had been the subject of a recent planning scheme amendment and independent Panel report and was before the Minister for approval. The Tribunal treated it as a seriously entertained proposal and accepted the parties’ evidence that the proposal met the 40 per cent plot-ratio measure, although it exceeded the stated density measure of one dwelling per 300 square metres ([21]–[22]). This is the Tribunal’s treatment of the policy status and evidence in this case; the judgment does not establish a general rule for the weight of proposed planning amendments.

One useful statement about applying the shadowing guidance is expressly tied to the facts and assessment before the Tribunal: the test was not whether there would be no additional shadow at any time of year, but whether an increase was reasonable ([34]). The judgment provides an example of how the Tribunal approached that question, by considering the site’s suitability for medium-density housing, setbacks, existing structures, the seasonal position of the sun, and the amount of sunlight likely to remain.

The decision also shows the use of permit conditions and amended plans to address design concerns. The Tribunal granted the permit only with the specified revisions and ongoing requirements. The judgment does not state that a condition will always resolve a particular kind of design issue; it records that the conditions were appropriate in this application.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At paragraph 27, the Tribunal wrote: “While this area is one that can be expected to undergo change, the sense of openness is a feature that is important at present.” In plain English, the prospect of future development did not make the area’s existing character irrelevant. The Tribunal treated the present openness of this section of Elstone Avenue as a consideration when assessing the new building’s position and scale.

At paragraph 28, the Tribunal said its concern arose from “the positioning of the upper storey within 500mm of the face of the lower level”. This focuses attention on the shape and placement of the building, rather than treating the front setback as a standalone measurement. The upper level’s relationship to the ground floor and neighbouring upper storey was important to the decision.

At paragraph 34, the Tribunal stated: “The tests of the Guide are not that there be no additional shadowing at any time of the year but whether any increase is reasonable.” In ordinary terms, the Tribunal did not treat any additional shade as automatically unacceptable. It considered the degree and context of the impact, including the existing dwelling, proposed setbacks, and expected sunlight remaining to the courtyard.

At paragraph 39, the Tribunal concluded: “I am satisfied that any potential for overlooking has been properly addressed and that the spacing between units and the single storey form of the rear two units minimises visual bulk.” This summarises two findings: the Tribunal considered privacy impacts adequately dealt with, and considered the separation and lower height of the rear dwellings relevant to their visual effect.

At paragraph 30, the Tribunal explained that the requested changes would align the proposed upper level with the neighbouring one and, with landscaping opportunities, provide an acceptable streetscape response. In practical terms, the Tribunal’s approval depended on a changed layout, not merely on the proposal as initially lodged.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most relevant as an example where a permit application for multiple dwellings raises questions about the relationship between a new development and a modest residential streetscape. Here, the site had a 15.24-metre frontage and was in a section of Elstone Avenue where, apart from No. 6, other dwellings were single-storey ([4]–[7]). The existing double-storey development at No. 6 was treated as atypical rather than as the only benchmark for the street ([27]).

The reasoning may be useful where the main design dispute concerns a two-storey front dwelling whose upper floor is close to the lower façade and forward of a neighbouring upper level. The Tribunal’s response was to focus on the actual built relationship and to consider a practicable design amendment, rather than relying only on a general argument about architectural style or materials ([24]–[30]).

The decision also addresses disputes where an adjoining owner seeks no additional shadowing. Its reasoning is relevant to understanding the distinction the Tribunal drew between eliminating all additional shadow and assessing whether the predicted increase was reasonable in the setting ([32]–[35]). The context here included a site considered suitable for medium-density housing and neighbouring courtyards affected by existing fencing, vegetation and structures.

Other fact patterns addressed include a garage wall beside neighbouring private open space, entries facing adjoining courtyards, and private open space affected by the placement of car parking and storage structures ([36]–[42]). The judgment does not establish that the same conditions or conclusions follow in other cases. Different site dimensions, building heights, orientations, policy provisions, evidence or neighbouring uses could lead to a different assessment.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later decisions, and the supplied material does not include subsequent cases applying, distinguishing, following or criticising it. No conclusion about later judicial or tribunal treatment can therefore be drawn from this source alone.

The decision is a VCAT Planning List determination by a single member, dated 28 November 2001. The reasons resolve the permit review before the Tribunal and explain the planning assessment made on the evidence presented. The judgment does not itself characterise its reasoning as a binding rule for later cases. For research purposes, the decision can be described on the material provided as a fact-specific application of planning policy and design guidance, rather than as a case whose later precedential treatment is established by this text.

Still-open questions

Several matters are not resolved beyond the facts and documents described in the reasons. First, the judgment records the contents and status of the Airport Environs policy as presented to the Tribunal, including that an amendment was before the Minister for approval. It does not address what later happened to that amendment or how the policy should be treated in other applications ([21]–[22]).

Second, the judgment does not provide the full text of the Good Design Guide or the relevant scheme clauses. It identifies the provisions considered and gives the Tribunal’s conclusions on several design matters, but does not comprehensively explain every test or how each test may apply in a different factual context ([14], [16], [18], [23]).

Third, the decision does not specify a general method for quantifying reasonable shadowing. The member applied the Guide to the specific setbacks, orientation and neighbouring courtyard conditions before the Tribunal. The judgment therefore leaves open how a different level of shadowing, a different orientation, or a different existing built form would be assessed.

Finally, the reasons do not set out the detailed content of every plan and item of evidence retained on the Tribunal file. They identify the changes required and the conclusions reached, but a complete reconstruction of the evidentiary basis would require access to the plans, photographs, submissions and other documents referred to in the hearing account.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before you act on this, rely on it, or use any draft, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.