A permit is granted for the development of a two storey dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling at 11 Green Street, Ivanhoe, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development permitted by this permit 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 three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Comdain Homes, Drg No. 0268, Sheets 1 to 10, dated 10.01.08 and substituted at the VCAT hearing on 12 February 2008, but modified to show:
   • (a) Reduction in the depth of eaves of the first floor by 200mm;
   • (b) A privacy screen for the first floor master bedroom (bedroom on the northwest corner of the first floor) similar to the privacy screen proposed for the bedroom at the southwest corner of the floor, to meet the objectives of 55.04-6 (overlooking) or Standard B22;
   • (c) Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;
   • (d) Engineering plans showing a properly prepared design with computations for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed areas and sealed areas.
2. The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory detailed landscaping plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include:
   • (a) Details of planting and extent of paving of the site;
   • (b) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which includes the location and size at 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;
   • (c) Location and details of paving, steps, fence design details and other landscape works including cut and fill.

An endorsed copy of the plan must form part of this permit.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. The walls of the development on the boundary of adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The development permitted by this permit must not be occupied until:
   • (a) The parking area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (b) The garden and landscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been planted to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (c) Drainage works have been undertaken and completed to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (d) The dwellings are numbered in accordance with Council's allocation of street numbers.

1. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.
3. Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service lane must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council's Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will use the crossing(s)/ion, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicles crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb and channel and nature strip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council's Supervision prior to commencement of works.

In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Ac5 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

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

In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to times if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Peter English, Town Planner, Peter English & Associates Pty Ltd.

Mr. Mohhammad Rafiquzzaman, Town Planner, City of Banyule

Ms. Maria Jimenez appeared in person and for Mr. Jose Jimenez and Body Corporate No. 10953.

1. This is an application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against Council's failure to grant a permit to develop a two storey dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling at 11 Green Street, Ivanhoe. Were it in a position to determine the application, it would have refused the proposal.
2. However, with the substituted plans before the Tribunal, Council is now supporting the proposal subject to standard conditions.

1. The Tribunal records leave granted to amend the application by substituting the plans circulated in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Note. These plans are dated 10.01.08. This is the version that Council now supports.
2. The Tribunal also records leave granted to formally join Mr. & Mrs. Jimenez as parties to the proceeding.
3. Mr. English sought clarification whether the issue of the review is restricted to overlooking, since Council is now supportive of the proposal and Ms. Jimenez's statement of grounds relate to overlooking only. The Tribunal declined this way of approaching the review. It will consider the merits of the entire development.
4. Ms. Jimenez indicated that she will be speaking on behalf of the other two objector parties Ms. Fay West and Mr. Forte. The Tribunal and the other parties were concerned that there is no documented authorisation from these other parties for her to speak on their behalf.
5. However, the Tribunal indicated that Ms. West and Mr. Forte's concerns as expressed in their statements of grounds will be considered.

1. The review site is located on the south side of Green Street near Waterdale Road, Ivanhoe. Mr. English's calculation is that the site is within 300 metres of the Ivanhoe Activity Centre in Upper Heidelberg Road.
2. The site is regular in shape, with a frontage of 17.6 metres, a depth of 45.11 metres, and a site area of 794 sq m. It is developed with a single storey weatherboard bungalow house at the front. At the rear of the site is a 4.3 metres wide unmade laneway.
3. Development in the area is a mixture of single and medium density development between single and two storeys in height. The property adjoining the west at No. 13 is a development of three single storey dwellings, all respondent objectors in this review. To the east at No. 9 is a storey house with a two storey extension in an attic style.

1. The proposal, as amended, is to construct a two storey dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling.
2. For the existing dwelling, an open car space is proposed off the common driveway.
3. The proposed two storey dwelling is a three bedroom house with a single garage and a tandem carport built to the eastern boundary.
4. Otherwise, the dwelling is setback 1 metre from the western boundary adjoining Unit 3, 13 Green Street, and 1.85 metres from the rear boundary.
5. The revised design shows the first floor recessed from the north, east and west elevations, but not the southern elevation.
6. The appearance of the dwelling is contemporary but adopting traditional design features such as face brickwork for ground floor walls, horizontal cladding for first floor walls (presumably to emulate weatherboards), 25o hipped roof, and wide eaves.
7. To overcome overlooking into the backyard of No. 9 to the east, a privacy screen is proposed for the first floor bedroom window at the southeast corner.

1. The review site is in the Residential 1 Zone of the Banyule Planning Scheme ("the Scheme") under which a permit is required to develop two or more dwellings on a lot. The provisions of Clause 55 apply.
2. The site is not affected by any overlay.
3. Other relevant provisions and policies of the Scheme are Clauses 11, 12, 14, 16.02, 21.04-1 Element 1: Residential, 21.04-6 Element 6 Built Environment, 22.06 (Local Policy Housing Policy), 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), and 65.

1. At the hearing, parties spoke to written submissions.
2. Decision was reserved. The Tribunal commented that the site offers opportunity for a two storey building mass at the rear. This opportunity is provided by the 4.3 metres wide laneway at the rear acting as a buffer that separates the development from the backyards of houses in Ailsa Grove at the rear, the two storey built form in the house to the east at No. 9, and the unit development at the rear of No. 13.
3. At the hearing, the Tribunal canvassed the possibility of modifications to the design to ensure the proposal's compliance with two of the amenity impact standards of Clause 55.

1. Having reviewed the submissions and the provisions of the Scheme, the Tribunal confirms its comments made at the hearing that it would support Council's decision to grant a permit.
2. The housing policies of the Scheme in the state and local sections encourage increased housing choice and urban consolidation. The location of the site within 300 metres of the Ivanhoe Activity Centre is a locational advantage in that regard.
3. The two issues of the review is the design response of the proposal to the neighbourhood character of the area and the amenity impact it causes to adjoining dwellings.

1. The site is located in the Garden Suburban Precinct GS5 of the Neighbourhood Character Policy in Clause 22.07. The stated desired future character for this precinct is about retention of the Edwardian and Inter war residential character, a gabled portico, designing new buildings in a sympathetic style and materials to the area, maintaining the overall scale of buildings in the area, and observing the setbacks of nearby buildings.
2. With the revised proposal in the amended plans, Council is now satisfied that the development is acceptable in the context of the site and the character of the area. These changes include a smaller first floor footprint, articulated facades, and choice of external materials that reflect those in the area.
3. It, however, suggested that the undercover alfresco area should be reduced so that the secluded private open space for the new dwelling can have a minimum dimension of 5 metres by a permit condition.
4. Ms. West from 3/13 Green Street is concerned about the bulk, height and position of the new dwelling. Her statement of grounds was submitted before the lodgement of amended plans. As she did not withdraw her statement of grounds, the Tribunal takes it that she is still opposed to the revised design.
5. Setting aside the amenity impact of the two storey bulk on adjoining properties, the Tribunal first turns to the design response of the proposal to the neighbourhood character of the area.
6. In terms of streetscape, the retention of the existing Interwar bungalow house retains the existing presentation of the site to the street and achieves the objective of maintaining the Edwardian and Interwar character desired for the area.
7. In terms of the interface between the proposal and adjoining dwellings, the issue is the proposed two storey bulk in the back of the land.
8. In that regard, the proposed first floor is recessed from the ground floor footprint and setback from other boundaries. It is setback 3.3 metres against the unit development at No. 13, recessed 2.9 and 3.9 metres from the ground floor against the open backyard and two storey built form of No. 9 Green Street, and buffered from the backyards of the house in Ailsa Grove by the 4.3 metres wide laneway. To the Tribunal, this is a satisfactory gradation of built form and massing, and an appropriate design response in the context of the site. It agrees with Council's support of the proposed two storey building mass.
9. It is also of the view the adoption of design features commonly found in the area such as hipped roof with eaves; and use of external materials such as face brickwork and cladding looking like weatherboards; are design elements that are sympathetic to the stated desired future neighbourhood character for the precinct stated in Clause 22.07.

1. Overshadowing and overlooking are the main issues.
2. To Ms. Jimenez, the three first floor north facing windows in the new dwelling do not have sill height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level. She was concerned that there will be overlooking from these windows into the secluded private open space and possibly habitable room windows of her unit at 1/13 Green Street. Overlooking is also the primary concern of Mr. Forte as submitted in his statement of grounds.
3. On this, the Tribunal explained to Ms. Jimenez that the test to be applied is Clause 55.04. A proposal can either meet the objectives, which need to be demonstrated, or the standards. The fact that there is overlooking is not a ground of refusal.
4. Gauged from the overlooking diagram before the Tribunal, the proposal meets the Standard for overlooking with regard to Units 1 and 3. For Unit 2 (Mr. Forte's property), it is complied with not by the conventional method of minimum sill heights or privacy screens but a combination of obstruction of view by the roof of the proposed alfresco area in the development and the 9 metre overlooking sphere terminating above head height.
5. Council suggested a permit condition to ensure compliance and Mr. English was willing to accept.
6. The Tribunal would, hence, impose a permit condition requiring the screening of the bedroom window at the northwest corner of the first floor. A suggestion is a similar screen used for the bedroom on the opposite end of the first floor to protect the privacy of the backyard of No. 9 Green Street.
7. Despite Ms. Jimenez's concern, the Tribunal is not prepared to impose any further screening on the other two windows: a bathroom and the bedroom window at the north-east corner of the first floor. These windows meet the test of Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6. There is no justification to impose a permit condition over and above the requirement of the Scheme.
8. The next issue is overshadowing. Overshadowing is the particular concern of Ms. West, who is the resident of 3/13 Green Street. Her secluded private open space is located along her eastern boundary that abuts 11 Green Street.
9. The shadow diagram submitted with the proposal indicates that the proposal can meet Standard B21 except for an area of 1.2 sq m at 10am. Council was satisfied that there has been a significant improvement by the amended plans and concluded that the extent of additional overshadowing as acceptable.
10. Mr. English submitted that the 1.2 sq m is very minor, not noticeable and will not impact on the usage of this area.
11. To the Tribunal, secluded private open space of Unit 3 is typical of unit development. It is by no means generous. If the design can be adjusted without compromising the design of the development or the living space of the new dwelling, the proposal should meet the standard. Alternatively, the permit applicant has to make a submission demonstrating how the objectives for overshadowing are met.
12. Mr. English, with the assistance of the designer present at the hearing, calculated that the 40 sq m free of shadow at 10am can be achieved by reducing the depth of the eaves by 200mm. The depth of the eaves proposed is approximately (by scaling) 700 mm.
13. To the Tribunal, reduction of the proposed deep eaves by 200 mm would not undermine the overall design of the proposal. It is an appropriate response to Standard B21. A permit condition will be imposed accordingly.

1. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development, with the retention of the Interwar bungalow at the front, an appropriate response to the housing and neighbourhood character of the area, existing and desired.
2. It also finds that with minor modifications to the proposed dwelling without compromising the living space and design of the building, the development meets the relevant amenity standards of Clause 55.04.

1. The review is allowed and a permit is to issue subject to the conditions stated in this order.