1. This is an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a refusal to grant a permit by the City of Moonee Valley to develop two double storey dwellings at 134 Deakin Street, Essendon. The grounds of refusal were:

* "The form, bulk and scale of the proposal fails to meet Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character Objective, as it does not respect the character of the existing neighbourhood,

* The proposal fails to satisfy the Residential Design provisions set out at Clause 22.06 of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme."

2. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Sumner confirmed his client's request to amend the application by substituting the name of the review applicant from "Paul Bernardi & Associates" to "Bruno Martino", and to substitute the plans as circulated to all the parties on 28 August 2003.

3. There was no objection to these amendments to the application. Pursuant to Schedule 1 Clause 64 of the VCAT Act 1998, leave is granted to amend the application accordingly.

4. The review site is located on the east side of Deakin Street halfway between Market Street and Keilor Road. It is regular in shape and has the following dimensions:

5. The site is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling. The built form of immediately adjoining dwellings on the same side of Deakin Street are also single storey. However, there are two storey built form on the opposite side of the street at No. 141,149, 157 as well as at 126 Deakin Street.

6. There are already a number of medium density developments in the street, for example, at 124, 128, 1296, 130, 143 and 155 Deakin Street, with a mixture of single storey and double storey construction.

7. The northern end of Deakin Street finishes at Keilor Road, a major strip shopping centre. A Safeway supermarket is also located at the northern end of Deakin Street. Due to parking pressure of the shopping centre, there is restricted on-street parking in Deakin Street.

8. The proposal is to construct two double storey dwellings, both in `attic' style. Each dwelling provides three-bedroom accommodation, with a single garage and a tandem car space. Vehicular access to the car parking area is by means of separate driveways.

9. The front dwelling is to be setback just over 8 metres from the front which is similar to the setbacks of the two adjoining properties.

10. The dwellings are built to the boundary on the north where the garage of Dwelling 1, and bedroom 1 and kitchen of dwelling 2 are located. The on the boundary wall of dwelling 2 abuts the existing garage of the adjoining dwelling at 132 Deakin Street.

11. The review site is located in the Residential 1 Zone of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme. It is not affected by any overlay.

13. The application was received by Council on 21 August 2001. Council advised the permit applicant on 5 October 2001 that it is satisfied with the submitted site description and design response. On 29 October 2001, Council requested further information. Following further submission of a revised design between March 2002 and June 2002, the application was advertised in July 2002. The statutory declaration that advertising has been completed was received by Council on 15 August 2002.

14. Council considered the application on 25 March 2003 and determined to refuse it on the grounds stated elsewhere in these reasons. I note that officer recommendation at the time was to support the application subject to conditions. The permit applicant lodged an application to review the refusal on 29 May 2003.

15. Perusal of the materials contained in Tribunal's file indicates that the application was lodged in the days of The Good Design Guide. Council officer's report and assessment of the development was also based on The Good Design Guide, and of course relevant planning policy.

16. Over the 21 months of gestation, planning circumstances have changed: notably the replacement of The Good Design Guide with ResCode (clause 55 of the Moonee Valley Planning Scheme). With this change and the simultaneous amendments to the state planning policy framework regarding medium density, housing diversity and urban consolidation objectives are equally important to neighbourhood character, and that neighbourhood character is more than streetscape.

17. At the hearing, both Council's and review applicant's representatives relied on written and oral submissions. Respondent objectors made oral submissions. Both council and review applicant tabled photographs of the review site and surrounding areas. They are kept on file.

18. In reserving my decision, I indicated that I would inspect the site. This I did by inspecting the review site and the surrounding area. I took particular care in reviewing the scale and style of buildings in Deakin Street.

19. Having considered the submissions and inspected the site, I conclude that whilst a two dwelling development is within the policy guidelines as far as urban consolidation and increase of housing stock objectives are concerned, I agree with Council's view that the design of the development is not responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area. On this basis, the development is not supported.

20. Neihgbourhood character is a key consideration for this development. It is called up in the Planning Scheme in both the state and local planning policy frameworks, as well as in the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone and Clause 55.02-1, and the theme of `The Place to Be' in Melbourne 2030.

21. Ms. Stupak, on behalf of Council, submitted that the two-storey scale of the development does not respect the neighbourhood character in terms of visual bulk, form and scale. She argued that the street is a mix of Post WW2, urban flats and multi-units. The proposed double storey scale introduces a level of bulk, when presented to the adjacent property to the south which is a foreign element in the current street setting. Despite its attempt to reduce the bulk of the dwellings by using the `attic' style, the double storey `attic' style for Unit 2 (rear unit) is a foreign building mass along the open space corridors of backyards typical of the area. She further noted that the unit development at No. 140 and 130 Deakin Street are all single storey units. She further submitted that roof of Post WW2 dwellings are generally hipped with an approximately 25 to 30o roof pitch. The proposed 35o roof pitch required to house the two storey component would introduce a roof form that is not evident in the rear yards of abutting properties. Despite the attic style approach, the height of the buildings to the apex of the roof is still 6.190 metres. It is the intrusion of a two storey built form into this backyard open space corridor that renders the development out of character with the area.

22. Another issue with this particular attic style approach is that the amount of roof massing presents as a wall of roof sheeting particularly for Unit 1 on the north elevation. There are little breaks introduced into the roof form with only one dormer and one hip form over the garage. The south elevation of Unit 1 is also a stark roof massing form and presents as a wall of roof on one plane with only a dormer to break up the 11 metre length. She tabled photographs of `attic' style two storey unit development in the area to demonstrate the excessive roof to wall ratio of such a development, that such a design cannot achieve a single storey appearance.

23. On the other hand, Mr. Sumner, on behalf of the review/permit applicant reasoned that the existing neighbourhood character is one of an eclectic mix, including 1940's to 1990's single and double storey dwellings and unit development. The development is for two storey structures, but an attic style approach would reduce the visual dominance of the buildings. In his view, it is a positive design outcome for the area and Council. He noted that Council officer has supported the proposal because "...Deakin Street has already been affected by unit development and given the low density of the proposal and the recessive roof design submitted, the development is considered unlikely to affect the existing mixed character of the streetscape and neighbourhood in general." (Page 12 of Mr. Sumner's submission). In fact, Council officer further commented that: "...the proposal does not conflict with the existing mixed character of the area as infill development and later modern contemporary style dwellings have seriously eroded the original streetscape value of Deakin Street. The proposal is therefore consistent with the state and local planning policy framework..." (also Page 12). He considers the built form of Deakin Street still evolving and the proposed development is part of this process.

24. My inspection of the site and the immediate area confirms the eclectic nature of built form and design of buildings. However, as indicated by other unit development in the street, the rear units are almost all exclusively single storey, which I find as being respectful of the open space corridor of backyards of dwellings in the area. The rear unit should therefore be single storey.

25. The question is whether the proposed `attic' style conveys a single storey appearance. I do not find the design of the proposal to be the case. An `attic' style means rooms accommodated within the roof space. The roof angle is usually steeper than the typical pitch of 25-30o of the Victorian, Interwar or Post WW2 houses. Exceptions to this roof angle are Edwardian/Federation/Queen Anne style buildings from the beginning of the 20th Century. Another feature of an `attic' style house is a dormer window which indicates that there is another level in the roof. The proportion of space in the roof is comparative small.

26. In this case, the `attic' style is complex with two pitches: one east-west and the other north-south to provide for the internal space for the rooms on the first floor. The end result is a disproportionately expansive area of roof massing. Together with a 35o pitch, the buildings are clearly two storey buildings and have the massing and bulkiness of a two storey building.

27. As indicated at the hearing, I have no issue with a two storey building scale for the front dwelling. Given the two storey appearance of the proposed `attic' style, there is no reason why the front dwelling should not have a two storey presentation to Deakin Street. Given its eclectic architecture, it would have been a better response to the street with a two storey building rather than an `attic' roof with a pitch of 35o. I note that there is another roof of a similar pitch at 149 Deakin Street. However, the roof of the two storey section of that house is well setback. It is not in the open space corridor of backyards of houses.

28. I am sympathetic to the review applicant's plight that this application has had a long gestation period, and he has received different advice over time. However, I cannot support a two storey scale and massing of development for the rear unit. Unfortunately, the current design of the building is not one that I can massage or `fix up' with conditions of permit. It is not an easy exercise to provide for the same level of accommodation as proposed and yet reducing the `attic' to a simpler roof with a maximum of 30o pitch.

29. Mr. Sumner cited a decision by another division of the Tribunal Forum Developments Pty Ltd v Banuyle CC & Ors (2003) VCAT 914 (25 July 2003) that purports to give an impression that the Tribunal should support an `attic' style design. My reading of that decision is that Senior Member Marsden ruled that the rear unit must be single storey, and the two middle units be compressed to form one dwelling, and that there is "no reasons why an attic style unit could not be sited in that location". (Page 8). It appears that Senior Member Marsden is referring to a gradual change of scale of development from a two storey structure at the front to a single storey structure at the rear. Further, as far as the current proposal is concerned, the proposed `attic' style gives no impression of a single storey building, but a vast criss-cross roof massing with a form and pitch higher than those in the area.

30. Mr. Harris was concerned with the potential increase in traffic and parking pressure in Deakin Street, which is impacted by the strip shopping centre in Keilor Road. He was also concerned with the possible drain on infrastructure, such as electricity. He finds that the area is hardly coping with the demand on electricity on warm days with the use of air conditioning units.

31. Mr. Hamilton, apart from the traffic and parking problems of the street because of the Keilor Road shops, particularly the Safeway supermarket at the northern end of Deakin Street, he was also concerned with the single storey character of the area which would be eroded by the proposed development, and that the area is no longer low density. He expressed his neighbour's fear of overlooking and possible inability of council to ensure construction to accord with endorsed plans.

32. As I have no indication from either the Planning Scheme or Council that there is inadequacy in the provision of infrastructure, I would not find this issue a reason to refuse the application. As to the matter of overlooking, a condition an be imposed to minimise it to the extent of the standard of Clause 55. However, a permit is not to be issued in this case.

33. I am sympathetic to the review/permit applicant's attempt to develop the land with regard to the length of time this application has taken. I acknowledge that there has been negotiations between the parties that have prolonged the process. Further, he has had the support of council planning officers.

34. However, there has been a change in planning circumstances and the assessment of medium density development, especially in the replacement of The Good Design Guide by ResCode.

35. I agree with Council that the proposal is not responsive to the neighbourhood character, particularly the unsuccessful use of an `attic' style. The roof massing and pitch are not sympathetic to the area, and not acceptable for the rear dwelling.

36. If a redesign is carried out, I can see no reason why the front dwelling has to be an attic style. The rear dwelling, however, should be single storey in order to be sympathetic to the open space corridor of backyards of the area, and similar to other unit development to be respectful of the low profile of buildings at the rear of land in the area.

37. Accordingly, I will order that the decision of the Responsible Authority be upheld and that no permit be issued.

______________________________