• 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 proposal was for a one-bedroom dwelling with a den and built-in robes. A garage was proposed at the rear of the new dwelling, accessed using the existing driveway along the western boundary. About 56 square metres of private open space was proposed in the front setback, reached from the living and dining room ([14]–[16]).

The Council had refused the application on grounds including planning process, neighbourhood character, visual bulk, overlooking, internal amenity, the Good Design Guide, overdevelopment and proposed future local policy ([1]). The objectors, who lived at No. 9 next door, also raised concerns about the existing rear dwelling, driveway noise, pool noise, privacy and the proposed front fence.

A threshold point was the scope of the review. The Tribunal acknowledged that the existing rear dwelling had significant amenity effects on the neighbours, but it was lawfully established and its design was not before the Tribunal ([24]–[25]). The Tribunal therefore assessed the new dwelling and the extent to which adding it would alter the existing and neighbouring amenity.

The permit was granted in accordance with plans dated 10 May 2001 and subject to conditions. These included compliance with endorsed plans, approval of colours and materials, an amended landscape plan, protection of nearby trees, completion and maintenance of landscaping, payment of a drainage contribution, construction and maintenance of parking areas, treatment of boundary walls, control of lighting and screening of plant, and time limits for commencement and completion.

One specific landscape change was required: the Italian cypress proposed along the western boundary was to be replaced with “Leighton’s Green” at a planting height of 3.5 to 4 metres, with an additional cypress tree in the row ([39]; condition 3). The order also limited the front fence to a maximum height of 1.6 metres (condition 3(c)).

Why the court decided this way

The reasons were given by Margaret Baird, Member of the VCAT Planning List. The Tribunal identified three principal planning issues: the proposed dwelling’s scale and form in the local development pattern, possible off-site amenity effects, and car parking ([20]).

On process, the Tribunal accepted that the application for a second dwelling was not unlawful. It nevertheless observed that this approach meant off-site considerations had not been assessed in the same way as they would have been for an application for a two-unit development. The Tribunal said it did not condone that approach ([24]). The distinction mattered to the assessment: the existing rear dwelling could not be treated as though its planning merits were under review. Instead, the Tribunal considered the effects of the new dwelling, how it might affect the existing dwelling, and whether the resulting changes in amenity were acceptable ([25]).

For neighbourhood character, the Tribunal saw a mixed streetscape. It included single- and two-storey dwellings, older 1920s buildings, multi-unit developments and large detached houses ([12], [30]). It accepted both parties’ descriptions of that mix. The new dwelling would sit forward of its immediate neighbours, but the Tribunal considered its single-storey form and position on the “low” side of the street reduced the risk of it being unreasonably intrusive or dominant ([31]). It also considered that fencing and planting would screen or soften views to a side wall, and that sharing the existing driveway avoided adding another crossover and paved area.

The front private open space was the Tribunal’s main concern on streetscape design. The Good Design Guide discouraged using the front setback for private open space and sought to avoid high front fences ([32]–[33]). The Tribunal explained that it was generally not in favour of this arrangement and that, in some cases, the lack of a viable alternative could provide a sound reason to reject a proposal ([34]). Here, however, the side service area was only 1.63 metres wide and was not a practical recreational area. The Tribunal weighed that against the north-facing orientation of the front space, nearby high fences, the local pattern of front fences, and the proposed fence’s permeability and landscaping ([34]–[35]). It found those circumstances sufficient to accept the arrangement in this proposal.

The Tribunal considered several amenity issues. It did not regard the likely noise from one additional garage using the driveway as a basis to refuse the proposal, despite the neighbours’ concerns about driveway and pool noise ([36]–[37]). New planting near the pool was expected to assist with visual screening ([38]). A verandah or landing on the eastern side could have some oblique views, but faced a blank wall at the neighbouring property; the Tribunal had no difficulty with it in amenity terms ([40]–[41]). It also found no unreasonable bulk or overlooking to the objectors’ front garden and considered shadowing acceptable ([42]–[43]).

On parking, the Council’s representative argued that the proposal should provide more spaces, noting that the den could be used as a bedroom ([44]–[45]). The Tribunal considered the on-site spaces and the ample unrestricted on-street parking in Ludbrook Avenue. In that context, it found the provision acceptable ([46]). It then concluded that the dwelling was acceptable in neighbourhood character terms and would not result in unreasonable off-site amenity effects ([48]).

Before and after state of the law

This decision is an individual VCAT planning review, not a general legislative amendment or a judgment of an appellate court. It records how the Tribunal applied the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing to the facts before it in 2001.

Before deciding the planning merits, the Tribunal addressed an existing dwelling that had been built at the rear of the site. The Council and objectors argued that constructing the rear dwelling first and applying later for a second dwelling avoided the usual assessment of a two-unit development. The Tribunal said the process was “not unlawful”, while also noting that off-site considerations had not been addressed in the same manner and that the Tribunal did not condone the approach ([21]–[24]). It did not, however, convert that concern into a basis to assess the existing dwelling’s merits in this review.

The Tribunal adopted the approach in Stucley v Bayside City Council, Application for Review 2000/001710, as to the scope of its discretion ([23], [25]). In practical terms, its assessment could consider effects attributable to the proposed new dwelling and the change in amenity caused by adding it, but not improvements to the already established rear dwelling. The reasons also refer to A Tee and T Adis v Boroondara City Council and Charnley Glen Pty Ltd in discussing the process issue ([22]). The decision does not set out the full reasoning or orders in that matter, so no broader proposition from it can safely be drawn from this text.

The decision discusses Amendment C15 to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. The Council’s representative did not seek to rely on it, noting that it had been exhibited and considered by an independent panel but was not being pursued by the Council ([22]). The Tribunal consequently did not decide the application by reference to Amendment C15. The decision does not establish the amendment’s later status or effect, and it should not be treated as describing current planning controls.

For design assessment, the Tribunal did not treat the Good Design Guide’s discouragement of front-setback private open space as an absolute prohibition. It identified the concern and then assessed the site-specific circumstances, including orientation, the availability of a usable alternative, fences and landscaping ([32]–[35]). The result illustrates the Tribunal’s fact-specific application of the Guide, rather than a rule that front setback open space is generally acceptable.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [24], the Tribunal said: “This is not unlawful, but it has meant that off-site considerations have not been addressed in the same manner as a proposal for a two unit development.” In plain English, the Tribunal did not treat the staged application as illegal, but it recognised that neighbours’ effects might not have been examined together with the first dwelling’s design.

At [25], the Tribunal explained that its discretion was “limited to impacts of the new unit” and the way the new unit might change amenity. In plain English, the review concerned the extra dwelling and its additional effects, not a fresh planning assessment of the existing rear building.

At [34], the Tribunal said it was “generally not in favour” of private open space in a front setback. This was a general concern, not the final answer in this case. The Tribunal then considered whether the site’s circumstances made the arrangement acceptable, including the limited side space and the north-facing orientation ([34]–[35]).

At [47], the Tribunal said it was “prevented in law from considering the planning merits of the existing building.” This explains why the significant effects attributed to the rear dwelling did not permit the Tribunal to order changes to that dwelling in this proceeding.

Finally, at [48]–[49], the Tribunal concluded that the proposed dwelling was acceptable in neighbourhood character terms and would not result in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts, and therefore set aside the refusal. The permit was not unconditional: its requirements included landscaping, tree protection, parking-area construction, lighting and equipment screening, and time limits.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most relevant as an example where a planning review concerns a proposed additional dwelling on a site that already contains a lawfully established dwelling. It may help identify the importance of distinguishing between effects of the existing development and effects attributable to the new proposal. The Tribunal considered the consequences of adding the front dwelling, but did not reopen the planning merits of the rear dwelling ([25], [47]).

It is also relevant to proposals where a design departs from a design guide’s stated preference, but the decision-maker must assess the proposal in its particular setting. Here, the front setback was used for private open space despite the Guide’s discouragement. The Tribunal considered the space’s orientation, the lack of a practical side alternative, surrounding fences and proposed planting ([32]–[35]). That reasoning is tied closely to those facts and does not establish that the same design choice would be acceptable elsewhere.

The streetscape analysis may be relevant where a proposed dwelling is forward of neighbouring buildings but differs in height, scale or form from them. The Tribunal considered the diversity of buildings in Ludbrook Avenue, the new dwelling’s single-storey form and the low side of the street, along with screening and landscaping ([30]–[31]).

The amenity analysis may also be relevant where objections concern noise from a shared driveway, overlooking, bulk or shadow. The Tribunal considered the nature of the use and the physical relationship between the proposal and neighbouring buildings, rather than treating the objections as determinative ([36]–[43]). It also considered on-street parking conditions when assessing the parking provision ([44]–[46]).

These are examples of the factual questions considered in this particular decision, not a checklist that guarantees the same result in another application.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no information about later judicial or tribunal treatment of Obax Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC and Ors. It does not cite any later decisions, and it cannot establish whether later courts or tribunals have followed, distinguished, limited or questioned its reasoning.

The judgment itself refers to two earlier matters. It records that counsel referred to A Tee and T Adis v Boroondara City Council and Charnley Glen Pty Ltd when discussing whether the application process was unlawful ([22]). It also adopts the approach of Member Monk in Stucley v Bayside City Council on the scope of the Tribunal’s discretion where an existing dwelling was already under construction ([23]–[25]). Those references explain the reasoning in this decision, but the supplied text does not provide a later-treatment history.

Accordingly, the decision’s statements should be read in context: they concern the review before Member Baird, the planning scheme provisions described in the reasons, and the particular site and proposal.

Still-open questions

The judgment does not address how the scope-of-review reasoning would apply if the existing dwelling’s lawful status were challenged, or if the existing building itself were included in the permit application. It says that no party challenged the lawful establishment of the rear dwelling and that its design was not before the Tribunal ([25]). The decision therefore does not resolve those different situations.

It also does not explain the detailed legal basis for the limit on the Tribunal’s discretion beyond adopting the approach in Stucley and referring to the existing dwelling as lawfully established. Nor does it set out the full reasoning of that earlier matter. A lawyer assessing a later dispute would need to examine the relevant legislation, planning scheme and authorities applicable to that dispute, rather than relying on this decision alone.

The Tribunal’s acceptance of front private open space depends on the specific factors it identified. The judgment does not define a general threshold for when orientation, neighbouring fences or lack of an alternative space will outweigh the Guide’s discouragement of that arrangement ([32]–[35]).

Similarly, the decision does not quantify acceptable driveway noise, overlooking or shadowing. It records findings on the evidence and site inspection in this case ([36]–[43]), but provides no general measurement or test that can be applied without considering the relevant scheme, evidence and site conditions.

Finally, the reasons mention Amendment C15 but do not rely on it or determine its later status ([22]). The judgment cannot answer what planning controls applied after the decision or what later amendments changed. That requires reference to the applicable planning scheme and authoritative sources for the relevant date.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.