//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] VCAT 1371
appellant. The Application for Review was allowed and the responsible authority's refusal decision was set aside. A permit was granted for the proposed eight double-storey dwellings, subject to conditions....
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The Tribunal overturned the council's refusal of a permit for eight two-storey homes. It treated the Residential 2 zoning and relevant policies as supporting medium-density development and accepted that the area's character could change. It considered the proposal's density and design suitable and did not find that it would cause unreasonable overlooking. The permit was granted with conditions addressing privacy, landscaping, levels, vegetation and other implementation details.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,027 words · generated 30/09/2026
Orient Trading Pty Ltd applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of the City of Greater Dandenong's refusal to grant a planning permit. The application was made under s 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ([1]). The site comprised two allotments at 17–19 Edith Street, Dandenong, in the Residential 2 Zone. Existing single-storey dwellings stood on the allotments ([4]–[7]).
The proposal was for eight double-storey dwellings arranged in four pairs. Each would have three bedrooms, a single garage and a tandem car space. The plans included three crossovers to Edith Street, replacing two existing crossovers, and front setbacks of 5 or 5.5 metres ([3]). The Tribunal amended the permit application so that Orient Trading Pty Ltd, rather than Danes Design Studio, was named as permit applicant. There was no objection to that amendment ([2]).
The council refused the permit after public consultation and consideration of revised plans. The stated grounds focused on whether the proposal sufficiently met the Good Design Guide, particularly its elements addressing neighbourhood character, site layout and landscaping, building envelope, and visual and acoustic privacy. The council also said the proposal would be contrary to orderly planning and set an undesirable precedent ([16]). Objectors raised concerns including the double-storey form, overlooking, bulk and loss of privacy ([19]).
At the hearing, the council did not oppose medium-density housing in principle. Its position, as recorded by the Tribunal, was that the particular proposal did not respond adequately to local character and design considerations ([23]–[25]). The objector who made an oral submission described the bulk as intimidating and considered single-storey development satisfactory ([27]). Orient Trading's consultant argued that the zoning and nearby housing supported the proposal, and that setbacks and window placement addressed amenity concerns ([28]–[31]).
Member G.J. Sharkey allowed the review, set aside the refusal and granted a permit subject to conditions ([35]; Order). The order requires amended plans with specified privacy and ground-level measures, a landscape plan including screening, protection of vegetation marked for retention, completion of parking and access works, and other implementation and expiry requirements (Order, conditions 1–9).
The Tribunal's central reasoning was that the site's Residential 2 zoning and applicable policy supported a development response different from the existing single-storey pattern. The Residential 2 Zone purpose included encouraging medium or higher residential densities to make optimum use of available facilities and services ([8]). The Municipal Strategic Statement encouraged medium-density housing, including in locations with access to services and facilities, while also requiring developments to respond to site and locality and respect neighbourhood character ([11]–[12]).
The Tribunal expressly contrasted the Residential 2 framework with the Residential 1 Zone and stated that the local policy supported different development from that envisaged in the Residential 1 Zone (34). It also observed that the Residential 2 policy recognised that neighbourhood character would change (34). Those propositions did not mean that every higher-density proposal was acceptable. The Tribunal assessed this proposal against the scheme's policies and the Good Design Guide, and reached a site-specific view that the proposal would make a positive contribution rather than disrespect the neighbourhood (34–(e)).
Density was another decisive point. The Tribunal found that the proposal satisfied the benchmark density and relevant objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide, and that the benchmark density was appropriate (34). The reasons do not set out the numerical benchmark or reproduce the relevant guide criteria. They record that the applicant's planner considered the site coverage to be 45 per cent, compared with a 60 per cent figure in Technique 6 of Element 6, and that the council accepted the proposal satisfied the techniques for building envelope setbacks ([24], [29]). The Tribunal's ultimate assessment was that, having regard to the zone provisions and policy, the proposal was appropriate at this location (34).
On amenity, the Tribunal found opportunities for appropriate landscaping (34) and did not consider that the proposal would result in unreasonable overlooking (34). The order nevertheless required detailed measures. North-facing first-floor windows had to have obscure glass to 1.6 metres above floor level, or sill heights of 1.6 metres, with limits on opening depending on window type. Ground-floor levels had to be shown and could not exceed 300 millimetres above the existing natural surface at each dwelling's centre (Order, condition 1). The landscape plan had to provide an effective screen of mature trees and shrubs to adjoining private open space (Order, condition 2). These requirements show how the permit translated the Tribunal's approval into specific design controls.
This decision is a single VCAT Planning List decision. Its reasons apply the planning scheme provisions identified in the case to a particular site and proposal; they do not announce a general rule that all development in a Residential 2 Zone should be approved. The Tribunal's stated reasoning is that this proposal was consistent with the relevant zone and policy and satisfied the relevant design objectives and criteria in its assessment ([34]).
The judgment identifies the framework it applied: the Residential 2 Zone under Clause 32.01, the relevant Municipal Strategic Statement and local urban design policy, the Good Design Guide, and decision guidelines in Clause 65 ([7], [10]–[15]). It does not reproduce the full text of those provisions, nor does it state that it changed or displaced them. The outcome was instead an application of that framework to the site's zoning, the proposal's density and design, the surrounding development and the anticipated character change.
The Tribunal referred to Anthony Stokes and Associates v Greater Dandenong City Council, an earlier VCAT review decision. It quoted that decision's discussion of the expectations created by a Residential 2 rezoning and the possibility that development could differ from existing forms ([32]–[33]). Member Sharkey said the point was alluded to by Mr O'Leary in that earlier matter (34). The present judgment does not say that it adopted a binding legal test from Stokes; it uses the earlier decision as support for understanding the policy context.
The text supplied contains no later judgments or subsequent legislative history. It therefore cannot establish how the law changed after this decision or how later courts treated it. The sound source-based account is limited to the planning provisions and reasoning recorded in this judgment.
At 34, the Tribunal said the local policy “clearly supports different development to that envisaged in the Residential 1 Zone.” In plain English, it treated the Residential 2 designation as carrying a distinct planning expectation. Existing single-storey housing was relevant to character assessment, but the applicable zone and policy contemplated a different development response.
At 34, the Tribunal accepted that the proposal “would represent some change in the character of the neighbourhood,” but said it would make a positive contribution and would not disrespect that character. This is the decision's clearest explanation of how it reconciled the existing built form with the prospect of medium-density redevelopment. It did not treat neighbourhood character as fixed; it assessed whether the proposed change was acceptable under the policy.
At 34, the Tribunal disagreed with the council's view that the proposal's bulk and scale harmed the neighbourhood. The council had accepted that the proposal met building-envelope techniques for setbacks, but considered the built form inconsistent with the area's character ([24]). The Tribunal's contrary conclusion drew on the zone provisions and policy, rather than setting out a separate technical finding about every aspect of bulk.
At 34, the Tribunal said it did not consider the proposal would result in “any unreasonable overlooking.” This is a finding on the proposal before it, not a general conclusion that overlooking concerns are immaterial in medium-density applications. The permit's window conditions are important context: the approval still required privacy measures for the relevant first-floor windows (Order, condition 1).
Finally, [35] says the application was allowed subject to conditions. The order demonstrates that permission was not unconditional. It required plans and works to be approved or completed to the responsible authority's satisfaction, and set time limits for starting and completing development (Order, conditions 1–9).
The reasoning is most relevant, as an example of VCAT's approach in this judgment, where a permit application concerns medium-density residential development in a Residential 2 Zone and the dispute centres on the tension between planned density and the existing neighbourhood character. The specific case involved eight double-storey dwellings on a site near services and facilities, within an area that included a mixture of detached housing, medium-density housing and nearby double-storey development ([3], [6], [28], [31]).
It may also be relevant where a responsible authority accepts medium-density housing in principle but contests whether a particular proposal sufficiently responds to design policy, built form, landscaping or privacy ([23]–[25]). In this case, the Tribunal did not resolve that tension by relying on zoning alone. It also addressed density, the Good Design Guide, landscaping and overlooking ([34]).
The decision is not a factual match for every multi-dwelling proposal. The reasons do not establish that a Residential 2 Zone removes the need to assess design and amenity, or that a proposal meeting a density benchmark necessarily merits a permit. Rather, the Tribunal's outcome rested on its combined findings about this site's zoning, policy, design and impacts. The order's particular conditions also arose from this proposal's plans and issues, and should not be treated as a general checklist applicable to all sites.
The supplied judgment contains no later judicial or tribunal decisions discussing Orient Trading. There is therefore no source basis here to describe later treatment, such as whether the decision was followed, distinguished or questioned. A responsible research account should not infer such treatment from the decision's outcome or from the fact that it cited an earlier VCAT case.
The only precedent relationship disclosed by the reasons is the reference to Anthony Stokes and Associates v Greater Dandenong City Council, Application for Review No. 2000/027043 ([32]–[34]). That decision was cited through a passage about Residential 2 zoning, redevelopment expectations and the possibility of change in built form. Member Sharkey said that point was alluded to in Stokes; the judgment does not reproduce a broader analysis of how Stokes was decided beyond the quoted passages.
Accordingly, any account of Orient Trading's later influence would require later source materials not included with this judgment. The judgment itself supports no claim about its citation frequency, continuing authority or subsequent judicial approval.
The reasons are concise and leave several matters unexplained. First, they do not give a detailed comparison between each dwelling's dimensions and every relevant Good Design Guide objective, criterion or technique. The Tribunal records the conclusion that the proposal satisfied relevant objectives and criteria, but not a full element-by-element evaluation (34).
Second, the reasons do not detail the physical screening conditions at the neighbouring properties or explain how the Tribunal evaluated each potential overlooking line. The order specifies controls for north-facing first-floor windows and a landscape screen, but the reasons do not explain the relationship between each control and particular adjoining spaces (Order, conditions 1–2).
Third, the judgment does not elaborate on the assessment of the “undesirable precedent” ground of refusal. It records the refusal ground and the applicant's contrary ground, then concludes that the proposal was appropriate in this location ([16]–[17], [34]). It does not articulate a separate test for precedent or explain why this approval would or would not affect future proposals.
Fourth, the order's phrase “a permit is granted for four eight double storey dwellings” is unclear when read alone. The reasons describe eight dwellings in four pairs ([3]). This account records the inconsistency without purporting to correct the formal order.
Finally, because the supplied material provides no subsequent decisions or legislative amendments, it leaves open whether later authorities adopted, limited or distinguished this reasoning. The decision should therefore be read for its own stated assessment and not as proof of a later settled rule.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.
Planning, Medium density housing, Eight double storey dwellings, Refusal Application for Review, Allowed, Permit
RESPONDENTS (Objectors): T. Lamanna and T. Mercuri
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY: City of Greater Dandenong
It is ordered that the Application for Review is allowed and the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is granted for four eight double storey dwellings at 17 - 19 Edith Street Dandenong, subject to the following conditions:
1. Before the development 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 that were the subject of the Refusal, but modified to show:
a) All first floor north facing windows provided with obscure glass to a height of 1.6 metres above floor level, or with sill heights of 1.6 metres, and such windows may be openable to 300mm horizontally if awning windows or otherwise must be fixed.
b) Existing natural surface and ground floor levels at the centre of each dwelling, and such ground floor levels not exceeding 300mm above the existing natural surface at that point.
2. Before the development starts a landscape plan, prepared by a qualified or suitably experienced landscape designer, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
b) A permanent screen of mature trees and shrubs providing an effective visual screen to the private open space areas on adjoining land.
3. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The dwellings must not be occupied until all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit have been complied with, unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6. Before the dwellings are occupied, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, be:
b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans as to be retained must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, be:
a) Suitably marked before any development starts on the site, and adequately protected from damage during the construction process.
b) Retained unless the location or condition is likely to cause damage.
8. Before the dwellings are occupied, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit, or
b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit, or
Before the permit expires or within three months afterwards the owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.
1. Building approval must be obtained prior to the commencement of the above approved works.
2. Prior to final design being completed the applicant should consult with Council's Infrastructure Planning Department in regard to design parameters for the legal point of discharge for the site.
3. A permit must be obtained from Council for all vehicular crossings.
The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this Order, pursuant to Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
For the Responsible Authority: Mr. R. Kean, Town Planner
Permit Applicant: Mr. T. Radisich, Consultant Planner
1. 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 of the City of Greater Dandenong ("the Responsible Authority") to refuse to grant a permit.
2. The Permit Applicant was Danes Design Studio, and the Applicant for Review was Orient Trading Pty Ltd. There being no objection I amended the Permit Application, pursuant to Clause 64(2) of Schedule 1 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to substitute the name "Orient Trading Pty Ltd" as the Permit Applicant.
3. The proposal is for eight double storey dwellings. Each dwelling would have a living room, kitchen, bathroom and laundry at ground floor level. The dwellings are in four pairs, and one of each pair will also have a meals/family room at ground floor level, and the other one of the pair would have a meals area at ground floor level. Each dwelling would have three bedrooms and a bathroom at the upper level, whilst one dwelling in each pair would also have an ensuite, bathroom to bedroom 1 at the upper level. Each dwelling would also have a single garage and a tandem car space. Three crossovers to Edith Street would replace the existing two crossovers. Two of the front dwellings are set back 5 metres from Edith Street, and the other two are set back 5.5 metres.
4. The subject land is on the north side of Edith Street approximately 139 metres east of Market Street. The subject land consists of two allotments, and there are single storey dwellings on each allotment.
6. The subject land is surrounded by single storey dwellings including some medium density housing in the vicinity. There are double storey blocks of flats on the opposite or south side of Edith Street just west of the subject land.
7. The subject land is covered by the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme and is in a Residential 2 Zone which is the subject of Clause 32.01. Clause 32.01-4 provides that a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. That Clause also sets out Decision Guidelines which are the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies, and the Good Design Guide. Decision guidelines are also set out at Clause 65.
8. The purpose of the Residential 2 Zone includes:
"To encourage residential development at medium or higher densities to make optimum use of facilities and services available."
9. The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone, which is set out at Clause 32.01, includes:
"To provide for residential development in a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households."
10. Clause 21.04-1, Residential, of the Municipal Strategic Statement, and Clause 22.05, Local Policy for Urban Design in the Residential 2 Zone, are relevant policies.
* To provide access to a range and quality of housing opportunities which meet the needs of the population.
* To provide residential environments with a neighbourhood focus that enhance residential amenity, accessibility, safety, enjoyment and quality of life of the community.
* To encourage a diversity of housing stock which reinforces and enhances suburbs with distinctive characteristics which reflect and contribute to community identity.
12. Strategies to achieve these objectives include:
* Actively encouraging medium-density housing generally, and more particularly in proximity to shops, public transport, community and cultural services, commercial centres and open space networks.
* Requiring medium-density developments to be site and locality responsive and to respect neighbourhood character.
* Encouraging integrated development proposals addressing both the design of development and future subdivision.
* Providing appropriate controls for areas on the periphery of the Dandenong CAD, Springvale Shopping Centre and Noble Park Shopping Centre which are suitable for higher-density housing, making optimum use of facilities and services available. These areas should be defined by recognised physical boundaries, have good access to facilities and not threaten existing urban character. High density housing is most appropriate in areas adjacent to the Dandenong CAD, while other areas further away from the Dandenong CAD and around other major retail centres are appropriate for medium-density housing.
13. Clause 22.05, Local Policy for Urban Designer in the Residential 2 Zone, applies to land in a Residential 2 Zone, and to all residential and non-residential development, including alterations and extensions requiring planning approval.
14. The objectives of the policy are set out at Clause 22.05-2, and are:
* To reflect the distinctive qualities of Greater Dandenong.
* To reinforce the distinctive qualities and local identity of each of the areas.
* To look for opportunities to develop a new neighbourhood character in areas with lower urban amenity.
* To respect any strongly established neighbourhood character.
* To use materials and colours commonly used in the neighbourhood.
* To ensure that the design contributes to a safer environment.
* To use innovative designs that make a positive contribution to the streetscape.
15. Clause 22.05-3, Policy, sets out a number of matters that must be taken into account, including the context and setting, the position on the site, facade patterns and articulation, colours and materials, trees and landscaping, front boundary treatment, community safety, heritage and special character areas, and areas for development or with significant multi unit development.
1. The proposed development does not sufficiently meet the overall objectives of the Good Design Guide, particularly in relation to:-
2. The proposal would be contrary to the orderly planning in the locality and, if permitted would set an undesirable precedent for future development.
1. The proposal is an appropriate development for the site.
2. The proposal satisfies the objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.
3. The proposal will not be contrary to the orderly planning of the locality and will not set an undesirable precedent.
18. Mr. Kean said that the Permit Application was received on 27 November 1999, and following a request for further information and a response to that request, the permit application was advertised by display of a notice on the subject land for 14 days, and notices to owners and occupiers of adjoining properties. Mr. Kean noted that Clause 32.02-4 provides an exemption from notice, but he said that the Responsible Authority has a policy that this type of application must be advertised in accordance with its public consultation procedures.
19. Seven objections were received and a consultative meeting was held on 28 March 2000. Three submitters attended, but the Permit Applicant did not attend. The main issues related to double storey development, overlooking, bulk and loss of privacy.
20. The matter was to be considered at the Council meeting on 26 May 2000, but the Permit Applicant requested that the matter be deferred to allow the discussions to be carried out with Council Officers. Revised plans were submitted on 5 September 2000 and the Permit Application was readvertised. Those revised plans are the subject of this Application for Review. Two further submissions were received following the readvertising. A consultative meeting was held on 5 December 2000, and was attended by Council Officers, the Permit Applicant/Designer, the property owner, a Planning Consultant for the Applicant, and one Objector. There was no resolution of matters raised and the Permit Application was considered by the Responsible Authority on 29 January 2001, when it was resolved to refuse to grant a permit.
21. Mr. Kean responded to the Grounds of Objection to the initial proposal and the revised proposal. Clause 16.02, State Planning Policy for Medium Density Housing, is also relevant.
"As above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Greater Dandenong's Municipal Strategic Statement which encourages the location of medium density housing in areas where there is "good access to public transport, community services, and retail and commercial areas", in addition to State Planning Policy."
23. He went on to submit that the proposal did not address a number of matters in Clause 22.05, Urban Design in the Residential 2 Zone, in that it did not reflect the neighbourhood character of predominantly single storey development and redevelopment, it did not match the predominant frontage setback on this side of the street, it did not retain existing mature trees and incorporate them into the design, and it was not considered to be in an area where redevelopment should change existing and developing character.
24. Mr. Kean assessed the proposal before the Tribunal and said;
* The density does not respect the neighbourhood,
* The proposed built form was inconsistent with the neighbourhood character, particularly the single storey dwellings within the immediate vicinity,
* The proposal was an overdevelopment of the site as it did not respect setbacks of adjoining properties and there was limited opportunity for canopy trees without adversely affecting the proposed private open space,
* The proposal satisfies the techniques of Element 6, Building Envelope, with respect to setbacks, but the proposal would introduce buildings not consistent with the existing character of the area,
* There are a number of windows which may allow overlooking to adjoining properties and proposed private open space.
25. Mr. Kean submitted that the Responsible Authority does not oppose the development of the subject land for medium density housing, and the Responsible Authority has encouraged the development of medium density housing in this location by introduction of the Residential 2 Zone. He went on to submit:
"However, the developments are still required to address the objectives of the Good Design Guide, which purpose includes the encouragement of "Site responsive designs for dwellings which are pleasant to live in and do not impact adversely or unreasonably on neighbours or the surrounding environment; and, innovative contemporary design."
26. Mr. Kean also responded to the Grounds of Application for Review.
27. Mr. Lamanna, a Respondent/Objector of 68 Herbert Street, made an oral submission. He said that the bulk would be intimidating, and he considered that single storey development would be satisfactory.
28. Mr. Radisich, for Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, spoke to a written submission. Mr. Radisich addressed Clause 21.04-1 of the Municipal Strategic Statement, Residential, and Clause 22.05, Local Policy for Urban Design in the Residential Zone. Mr. Radisich also assessed the proposal against the Good Design Guide. He submitted that the proposed density is consistent with the benchmark density and is appropriate having regard to the purpose of the Residential 2 Zone. He submitted that the neighbourhood contains a mix of detached housing in medium density housing, and there were a number of two storey developments in the street and the wider locality. Mr. Radisich submitted that the proposal would have an impact on the neighbourhood with the street and boundary setbacks would ensure minimum loss of amenity to adjoining properties. He said that the proposal would reinforce the establishing character of the locality as a medium density housing area.
29. With respect to building envelope Mr. Radisich said, as did Mr. Kean, that the proposal satisfies the relevant techniques. He also submitted that it satisfies the relevant criteria. Mr. Radisich further submitted that the design would ensure that sunlight was available to private open space for an extensive period of the day, and the private open space of Dwellings 1 and 8 would satisfy Technique 9 of Element 6 with respect to sunlight access. He submitted that the site coverage of 45% compares to the site coverage suggested in Technique 6 of Element 6, which is 60%.
30. Mr. Radisich submitted that overlooking and privacy issues have been addressed by setbacks and careful location and screening of windows.
"Edith Street is a few hundred metres form the Dandenong Market, the Memorial Gardens, and the District Centre. At the eastern end of the street are bowling greens and the Dandenong Tennis Club. Some 600 metres to the north is the Dandenong and District Hospital and the Casey Institute of TAFE. Because of this proximity to services and facilities the area has been recognised as suitable for higher density development and has been zoned Residential 2 Zone pursuant to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.
The area proximate to the district centre contains a variety of housing including two-storey flats and dwellings, single-storey medium density housing and single-storey detached housing. Edith Street in particular contains examples of this range of housing, including four two-storey developments on the southern side of the street. These particular developments contribute strongly to the character of the street.
Given the nature of the housing in the street, the proximity to Dandenong, and the Residential 2 zoning of the land it is anticipated that further redevelopment of the street will occur - indeed it is a policy of the planning scheme that higher density housing be provided in this particular location. The condition of the dwelling at No. 15 Edith Street can only be described as average, and similar could be said of much of the detached housing stock in the street. Consequently it is reasonable to surmise that given time the properties adjoining the review site will also be redeveloped."
32. Mr. Radisich cited Application for Review No. 2000/027043 Anthony Stokes and Associates v Greater Dandenong City Council, which was an Application for Review of a decision of the Responsible Authority to refuse to grant a permit for four double storey dwellings at 10 David Street Dandenong at the corner of Osborne Street. Mr. O'Leary said in his Reasons:
"The responsible authority has raised expectations by introducing a Residential 2 zone and various policy measures which encourage higher than usual residential densities. The Tribunal acknowledges that the density is higher than conventional medium density housing found in the neighbourhood but that does not necessarily mean that existing forms should be repeated. The land has been earmarked for redevelopment for higher density residential. Whilst there is a need to ensure the amenity and character of Osborne Street is not irreparably damaged, the Tribunal is satisfied that conditions can be imposed on a permit to improve landscaping and retain those elements which are an attractive feature in the neighbourhood."
33. Mr. O'Leary made reference to the submission for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, in the matter before him, as follows:
"Mr Umbers provided a detailed submission and response to the criticisms of the development. He stated that the land had been rezoned to Residential 2 in the new VPP based Dandenong Planning Scheme to allow for higher density residential development in close proximity to the Dandenong District Centre. He referred to development of the large 'gateway' project opposite the subject site and the likely redevelopment for modem commercial purposes.
Mr Umbers conceded that the development was different in built form to existing residential development but claimed that with the rezoning to Residential 2 there was an expectation of change to character of this area. He claimed his client had approached this development site with an optimistic view and believed this represented future development trends for the area."
34. I consider that a permit subject to conditions should be granted for the following reasons:
a) The subject land is in a Residential 2 Zone and the purpose includes to encourage medium or higher densities, whilst the purpose of the Residential Zone is to provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings. Local Policies set out at Clause 22.05, Urban Design in the Residential 2 Zone, clearly supports different development to that envisaged in the Residential 1 Zone. This point was alluded to by Mr. O'Leary in Anthony Stokes and Associates v Greater Dandenong City Council, as quoted above.
b) The submission for the Responsible Authority, as quoted above was that the proposal was consistent with the Municipal Strategic Statement.
c) The proposal is clearly consistent with the zone provisions and policy.
d) The proposal satisfies the benchmark density, and it satisfies the relevant objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide such that the benchmark density is appropriate.
e) The policy for Urban Design in the Residential 2 Zone recognises in its objectives that neighbourhood character will change. This proposal would represent some change in the character of the neighbourhood, but it would make a positive contribution to the character and not be disrespectful of that character.
f) There are opportunities for appropriate landscaping.
g) Mr. Kean submitted that the proposal satisfied the techniques of Element 6, Building Envelope, but submitted that the proposal introduced a large bulk and scale into the neighbourhood setting to its detriment. On the contrary I consider, having regard to the zone provisions and policy, that the proposal is appropriate in this location.
h) I do not consider that the proposal would result in any unreasonable overlooking.
35. For the above reasons this Application is allowed subject to conditions. It is appropriate for a permit to be granted, and I will so order.
Orient Trading PL
City Greater Dandenong [2001] VCAT 1371
The Application for Review was allowed and the responsible authority's refusal decision was set aside. A permit was granted for the proposed eight double-storey dwellings, subject to conditions. The order's wording, “four eight double storey dwellings”, is ambiguous, while the reasons describe the proposal as eight dwellings in four pairs ([3]; Order).