1. The Application for Review is disallowed, and it is directed pursuant to Section 85(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that a permit must not be granted.

2. The Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant is to pay to the Responsible Authority, within 30 days of this Order, an amount of $250.00 for costs thrown away resulting from the hearing on 4 June 1999 not proceeding, pursuant to Section 109(2) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

For the Responsible Authority: Mr. D. Brien, Consultant Planner of

Permit Applicant: Mr. O. Chacon, Building Designer for

This is an Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by the Permit Applicant for review of a decision by the City of Glen Eira ("the Responsible Authority") to refuse to grant a permit.

The proposal is for two double storey dwellings (dual occupancy), and each dwelling would comprise four bedrooms on the upper floor with living areas, dining and kitchen located on the ground floor. It is proposed that the dwellings be finished with "Coffee Cream" coloured cement render and the roof be slate coloured cement tiles.

The subject land is on the north side of Beresford Street approximately 35 metres from the intersection with Orrong Crescent to the west and 120 metres from the intersection with Kooyong Road to the east. There is a single storey detached dwelling on the subject land, and it is proposed that this be removed together with all vegetation.

The subject land is within an established residential neighbourhood, and development in Beresford Street is made up of a mix of dwelling types from different periods and demonstrating a variety of architectural styles. The dwelling to the north is a single storey detached dwelling fronting Carinya Crescent, whilst the three properties to the west have frontages to Orrong Crescent. Two are single storey detached dwellings and one is a double storey dual occupancy development. The property to the east is a relatively modern single storey detached dwelling. The subject land abuts five separate areas of open space. Opposite the subject site on Beresford Street are two relatively modern town houses.

At the time of the hearing the subject land was in a Residential C Zone in the then Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Mr. Brien, for the Responsible Authority, noted that the subject land will be in a Residential 1 Zone with no overlays in the new format Planning Scheme which was about to be gazetted. Mr. Brien said that the new zoning would be consistent with the then zoning. At the conclusion of the hearing both Mr. Brien and Mr. Chacon said that they would have no difficulty with the Tribunal deciding this matter under the provisions of the new format Planning Scheme, if approval of the new format Planning Scheme was gazetted prior to the date of the Order in this matter. Gazettal was in fact on 5 August 1999.

1. This is a difficult site. Whilst the area is fairly generous for a dual occupancy, being 706 square metres, the frontage is only 8.9 metres wide and this opens out to a rear boundary which is 21.6 metres wide.

2. Two relatively large two storey dwellings are proposed, having floor areas of 314.9 square metres and 338.5 square metres, each with double garages. Mr. Brien said that the building site coverage is 50.4%, which compares to the 60% suggested in Technique 6 of Element 6, Building Envelope, of the Good Design Guide. Mr. Brien said however that the hard surfacing area covers 74.7% of the subject land and this is not surprising given the areas of driveway required.

3. Almost the entire frontage is taken up for vehicle entry, the entry for vehicles to the double garage of Dwelling 1, and the entry to the driveway which serves Dwelling 2. Technique 12 of Element 8, Car parking and Vehicle Access, suggests that the amount of street frontage taken up by access ways be limited to 40% where the total frontage is 20 metres or less. It might be difficult to achieve the 40%, however I consider it would be preferable to have only one entry with possibly the car spaces for Dwelling 1 being at the rear. This would allow a significant area in the front setback to be landscaped.

4. I agree with the submission of Mr. Brien that the visual bulk of the proposal, the lack of articulation, and the impact to the access ways, crossover and garage to Dwelling 1 will be at odds with the existing streetscape. Mr. Chacon and Mr. Adelman sought to use as a reference for neighbourhood character units on the other side of Beresford Street. There may well be similarities, but provision for vehicle access off the street does not dominate the frontage to the extent that vehicle access dominates the frontage of this proposal.

5. The area of open space to be provided satisfies Technique 1 of Element 1, Private and Communal Open Space, but I do not consider that it provides adequate opportunity for landscaping, and I have particular concern about the extent of overhanging of the upper level of Dwelling 2 over the open space for that dwelling.

6. Mr. Brien expressed concern about overlooking from the upper levels of both dwellings. I share those concerns. The design should take into account visual privacy, and not simply rely on screens to prevent overlooking, as those screens can adversely affect the amenity of people using rooms having such screened windows.

7. This proposal highlights some of the difficulties that might arise when techniques appeared to be satisfied, but objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide are not satisfied. The proposed density of one dwelling to 354 square metres of site area certainly satisfies the benchmark density of one dwelling to 300 metres of site area which is suggested in Technique 1 of Element 1, Density, of the Good Design Guide. A note to Technique 1 however provides that densities may be reduced where it can be demonstrated that the objectives and criteria of the Guide as a whole will not be met or there will be unreasonable off-site impacts. I consider that the objectives and criteria of the Guide are not met to the extent that a permit for this proposal should be granted. I consider that a proposal for a dual occupancy which takes account of the comments above, and has regard to the objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide in addition to the techniques could be satisfactory.

"However, it is noted that development of the subject site is limited by reason of the site constraints, namely the bottle neck shape of the frontage and the fact that it abuts five separate areas of private open space. It is submitted that that the current proposal does not provide appropriate design solutions to overcome these site constraints or to integrate the development within the existing streetscape."

9. This matter was listed for hearing on Friday 4 June 1999, but neither Mr. Chacon, the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant nor Mr. Adelman, the Owner, appeared or were represented. They had not been made aware of the hearing because of an apparent breakdown in communications with the Consultant who had been acting in the matter. I made Orders, dated 8 June 1999, providing that the Application for Review be struck out for lack of prosecution, granting leave for an application for reinstatement within 14 days and reserving costs. This Order was accompanied by Reasons.

10. Mr. Adelman subsequently made application, dated 15 June 1999, for the Application for Review to be reinstated. I so ordered on 1 July 1999, again reserving costs.

11. At the hearing on 5 August 1999 Mr. Brien , for the Responsible Authority, made an application for costs as follows:

Preparation and appearance at VCAT on 4th June 1999 2 Hours

Additional time in preparing for re-scheduled hearing: 3 Hours

12. I gave leave for Mr. Chacon to provide a written response to this application for costs. Mr. Chacon indicated that he was prepared to pay for 2 hours amounting to $100.00 for appearance at the rescheduled hearing on 4 June 1999, but he took issue with the 3 hours claimed for additional time in preparing for the rescheduled hearing.

13. I consider that there would been time required for Mr. Brien, as the representative of the Responsible Authority, to re-read the material and consult with Officers of the Responsible Authority, and there would also be travelling time in attending the hearing on 5 August 1999. I do not consider that the amount of $250.00 is excessive in the circumstances. I do however appreciate the concern of Mr. Chacon and M. Adelman, particularly as they consider that they were not responsible for the hearing scheduled for 4 June 1999 being aborted. The Responsible Authority also is not responsible with that hearing being aborted, and it is entitled to recover its costs. The fact that Mr. Chacon was not present may not have been his fault personally, but nevertheless, as the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, it was his obligation to attend or be represented.

14. Section 109(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provides that, subject to what follows, each party is to bear its own costs. Section 109(2) provides that the Tribunal may order that a party pay all or part of the costs of another party, and Section 109(3) provides that the Tribunal may make an Order under Sub-section (2) only if it is satisfied that it is fair to do so, having regard to factors that are set out. I consider that in these circumstances it is fair to allow the Responsible Authority to recover its costs from the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant. I will therefore make an appropriate Order.

For the above reasons, this Application is allowed. It is appropriate that a permit not be granted, and I will so order. An Order with respect to costs will also be made, as discussed above.