With respect to planning permit TP04/0129, the decision of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit is varied as outlined below:

1 Condition 1(b) is deleted.

2 Condition 1(c) is deleted and replaced with the following:

Alteration to first floor footprint of Dwelling 4 by increasing the first floor setback in the southern and western elevations of Dwelling 4 by 0.9 metres. Such alteration may be achieved by extending the first floor level over the garage without extending beyond the northern wall of bedroom 1 or the western footprint of the garage.

3 The items contained in condition 1 be renumbered from (a) to (f) accordingly.

The Responsible Authority is ordered that a permit be granted in accordance with this determination pursuant to the provisions contained in section 85 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

1 This is an Application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 brought by Mr S Meddis to review conditions 1(b) and 1(c) of Planning Permit TP04/0129 issued by Maribyrnong City Council ('the Council') on 29 September 2004 for four double storey dwellings at 89 Alma Street, West Footscray.

2 The parties were advised orally of the reasons for this decision during the hearing on 4 February 2005, and they are repeated below.

3 In coming to my decision I have considered the matters raised in the submissions, the relevant matters under the Planning Scheme and legislation together with the details of the proposal for which a permit has been issued.

4 Condition 1(b) of the permit requires the front setback of dwelling 1 to be increased to accord with the relevant standard of clause 55. Having considered the submissions of both Mr Ilsley for the Council and Mr Bardin for the permit applicant, I am of the opinion that the proposed front setback is appropriate. I note that there is a mix of front setbacks in this neighbourhood and the proposed setback is in accordance with this character as well as providing a transition between the front setbacks of the dwellings on each of the adjoining properties. The proposed front setback also provides for an efficient use of the site, including the provision of private open space areas which have been supported by the Council. I am of the opinion that a 500mm increase in setback will not result in a recognisable benefit to the streetscape or neighbourhood character as a whole.

5 Condition 1(c) requires a reduction in the first floor footprints of dwellings 2 and 4 by specifically requiring the changes to the north elevation of dwelling 2 and the east, west and south elevations of dwelling 4.

6 The north elevation of dwelling 2 largely faces the rear of dwelling 1 at the front of the site, and a two storey wall itself will not impact on adjoining properties by way of visual bulk as this wall does not face either of these properties. Architecturally, the frontage of dwelling 2 appears to reflect the style of two storey building forms found in Vine Street and I consider this to be appropriate, particularly as this wall is adjacent to the common driveway of the proposed dwellings. I also note that the first floor of dwelling 2 is setback from the eastern ground floor wall; therefore there is an appropriate level of articulation when viewed from the private open space area of the adjoining property to the east.

7 The Tribunal is often asked to consider two storey dwellings at the rear of sites and the Tribunal has stated in such cases that the 'tests' for siting a two storey building effectively in the back garden, adjacent to the private open space areas of surrounding properties, are tougher 'tests', particularly in regard to potential amenity impacts such as overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk.

8 In regard to this proposal, I am of the opinion that the key amenity impact is visual bulk. I find that the eastern elevation of dwelling 4 is reasonable as architecturally its style and symmetry is in accordance with the style and symmetry of dwelling 3, which I note the council is not requiring to be altered. However, in regard to the southern and western elevations of dwelling 4, I agree with the Council's concern that these elevations present inappropriate visual bulk to the adjoining properties.

9 I advised Mr Ilsley and Mr Bardin that I was not satisfied with the wording of condition 1(c) as it requires a setback from the south and west ground floor walls but is not specific as to what the setback should be. I offered to allow the parties to discuss this and this offer was accepted.

10 Mr Bardin and Mr Ilsley subsequently advised me that the Council and the Permit Applicant were in agreement that the modifications required were reflected in the following suggested condition:

Alteration to first floor footprint of Dwelling 4 by increasing the first floor setback in the southern and western elevations of Dwelling 4 by 0.9 metres. Such alteration may be achieved by extending the first floor level over the garage without extending beyond the northern wall of bedroom 1 or the western footprint of the garage.

11 I agree that this suggested condition appropriately addresses the reduction sought and I advised the parties that I would issue an Order containing the suggested condition.

For the above reasons, the decision of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit is varied. It is ordered that a permit be issued in accordance with this decision.