//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] VCAT 1613
respondent. The Application for Review was not allowed and the Responsible Authority's decision was upheld. A permit was granted for construction of a two-storey dwelling and removal of trees at 28 Della...
Neighbours challenged Banyule Council's decision to approve a two-storey dwelling behind an existing house. The Tribunal considered the development's character, effects on neighbours, tree removal and replacement, landscaping, vehicle access and parking. It found the proposal acceptable overall in the circumstances of this site, so it rejected the review and granted the permit subject to the Council's plans and conditions.
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.
2,237 words · generated 29/09/2026
Pilgrim v Banyule CC [2001] VCAT 1613 concerned a planning permit for a two-storey dwelling in the rear yard of 28 Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe. Glenrod Pty Ltd was identified as the respondent, the City of Banyule as the responsible authority, and Mr and Mrs Pilgrim and others as the applicants for review. The matter was heard by Dr Sylvia Mainwaring, Member, on 22 June 2001. The order and reasons were dated 25 July 2001.
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
The proposed works included a new two-storey dwelling, alterations to the existing dwelling, a new driveway and crossover to Abercorn Avenue, and removal of trees. The new dwelling was to sit beside an existing two-storey studio on the eastern boundary. Its proposed ground-floor setback from the western boundary was 1.8 metres, while the first floor was set further back, with a minimum setback of about 4.5 metres. The site was within the Residential 1 zone and subject to the Vegetation Protection Overlay described in the reasons. [3]-[11]
The neighbours' objections raised several connected concerns. They argued that the plans had been incomplete, the proposal was overdevelopment and inconsistent with the area's character, and the development would affect privacy, sunlight, visual amenity, parking and traffic. They also challenged the proposed street-tree removal and questioned whether enough private open space and planting would remain. [20]-[22]
The Tribunal's order was that the review application was not allowed and the responsible authority's decision was upheld. It granted a permit for the two-storey dwelling and tree removal in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions on the Council's Notice of Decision dated 18 January 2001. The reasons focus on the substantive planning issues and do not separately analyse the objection that the plans were incomplete. [Order], [20]-[23]
The Tribunal's reasoning was an overall planning assessment of this particular design in its particular setting. It identified the main concerns as character, amenity, vehicle entry and parking, loss of established trees, and limited opportunities for landscaping. [22]-[23]
On neighbourhood character, the Tribunal treated the rear position of the new dwelling as significant. The new building had little street frontage and limited visual exposure. It was also located beside an existing two-storey wall, allowing the proposal to concentrate upper-level built form on the eastern side and preserve north-facing open space associated with the existing dwelling. The Tribunal considered those features made the proposal acceptable in character terms, notwithstanding the precinct's generally single-storey built form. [9], [14], [24]-[26]
The assessment did not rest on the building's height in isolation. The Tribunal considered the location and massing together with the site's layout, the existing studio, setbacks and visibility from the street. It also noted that removing part of the high fence along Abercorn Avenue could improve the view from the street, depending on landscaping. [25]-[26]
For adjoining amenity, the Tribunal identified the Pilgrim property to the east as potentially the most affected. It considered the relationship between the neighbours' windows and the proposal's setbacks, height and form. Although the Tribunal accepted there would be a visual effect, it found that effect within acceptable bounds. It relied on the proposal's articulation and first-floor setbacks, its modest height on that elevation, and the fact that the affected property's main and larger open-space area was elsewhere. [27]-[29]
Privacy was assessed by reference to the individual windows. To the north, the Tribunal considered the proposed 1.6-metre sill heights and external screening would address overlooking. To the west, it accepted the Council's condition requiring a 1.6-metre sill for the computer-room window. It found that no screening was needed for the bedroom window, which was about nine metres from the boundary and faced the public space at the front of the adjoining dwelling and the street. The Tribunal also noted that the relevant rooms were bedrooms and a study. [30]
For overshadowing, the Tribunal relied on spring-equinox shadow diagrams. It recorded some impact on the western property at 9 am and a lesser impact on the eastern property at 3 pm. It considered the impact to fall within the Good Design Guide's requirements and to be minimal in light of available open space on the western property. [31]
Tree removal and planting were also considered in context. The objectors regarded the street tree as particularly important because it was within an Environmental Significance Overlay. The Tribunal noted that the Council's Parks Division did not consider it particularly significant and did not object to its removal if a replacement tree was provided. The Tribunal considered replacement reasonable and observed that a street tree would screen part of the site entrance. [32]
The objectors also questioned whether the narrow, partly excavated strip along the western boundary could support planting. The Tribunal accepted that screening was desirable but found some planting possible, even if limited to climbers or medium-sized shrubs. It noted that excavation diminished towards the south, increasing planting opportunities there. [33]
Finally, the Tribunal considered driveway design, reverse egress and parking. It found that the driveway's width and the proposed landscaping and separation treatment would soften the paved area. It also relied on Abercorn Avenue being about 9.5 metres wide and having only three other dwellings in its northern section. In that context, the Tribunal found no safety or logistical problem with vehicles reversing out. It considered the parking available on the site and nearby streets sufficient for the proposal and did not find excessive pressure for street parking. [34]-[35]
The reasons describe the planning controls and policy material that the Tribunal applied, but they do not set out a general statement of legal doctrine before and after the decision. They identify the site as being in the Residential 1 zone, refer to the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing, and describe the Garden Suburban precinct's desired future character. [9]-[14]
The judgment quotes the Municipal Strategic Statement's concern that residential character and amenity should be protected and that new development should complement or improve streetscape and neighbourhood conditions. It also sets out desired-character aims, including retaining tall trees, maintaining the overall scale of dwellings, and positioning new buildings in keeping with nearby setbacks. [13]-[14] The Tribunal's decision applies those considerations to this development; it does not purport to replace, amend or comprehensively restate them.
The reasons also describe the Vegetation Protection Overlay requirement for a permit to remove or otherwise affect trees meeting the stated size thresholds, subject to exemptions. The Tribunal's consideration of the street tree included the Parks Division's view and a replacement-tree proposal. [11], [32] That is an account of the controls and evidence in this matter, not a general ruling on every tree-removal application.
The decision's practical contribution within the judgment is therefore its site-specific application of planning considerations. It illustrates how the Tribunal weighed building location and setbacks, visibility, neighbouring open space, window design, shadow evidence, planting opportunities, street geometry and parking. The reasons do not cite earlier cases, formulate a binding test, or state that any one factor controls the outcome. No broader change in the law can be established from this judgment alone.
At [24], the Tribunal explains that the proposal used the existing two-storey wall on the eastern boundary and concentrated first-floor development beside it. In plain English, the design placed the larger part of the upper-level form where another two-storey structure already stood, rather than distributing it evenly around the site.
At [25], the Tribunal says the proposal could not be considered to have a negative impact on the street or area character. The explanation was not that two-storey development is always acceptable in a largely single-storey area. Rather, the dwelling's rear location, limited street frontage and limited visibility mattered in this site-specific assessment.
At [28], the Tribunal acknowledges that the development would affect an important view line from an adjoining property, but finds the effect acceptable. It points to the adjoining property's larger open-space area elsewhere and to the proposed building's articulation, upper-level setbacks and modest height. In plain English, the Tribunal accepted that there would be a change in outlook but considered the design and surrounding layout kept that change within acceptable bounds.
At [30], the Tribunal evaluates overlooking window by window. The reasons distinguish between the northern windows, which had raised sill heights and screening, the computer-room window to the west, which was subject to a Council condition, and the bedroom window, for which the Tribunal considered screening unnecessary because of its distance and outlook. The passage demonstrates the Tribunal's reliance on the particular position and function of each window.
At [31], the Tribunal refers to shadow diagrams for the spring equinox and finds the demonstrated effects acceptable. In plain English, it considered both when shadows fell and how much usable open space the affected neighbour retained.
At [36], the Tribunal gives its overall conclusion: the development would not affect neighbourhood character or adjoining amenity to an unacceptable extent, and a permit should be granted. This summarises the result of the combined assessment, rather than establishing that each individual concern was irrelevant.
The judgment is most relevant as a factual comparison where a planning proposal involves a second dwelling in a rear yard, a two-storey form in an area described as predominantly single storey, and objections about character, privacy, sunlight, trees, planting, vehicle access or parking. Its reasoning may be useful for identifying the kinds of site and design features this Tribunal considered: limited street exposure, adjoining two-storey built form, stepped upper levels, window placement and treatment, the amount and location of neighbouring open space, and the width and use of the access street. [9], [24]-[35]
The decision is especially fact-sensitive. Its conclusions relied on the particular site's corner location, dimensions, existing buildings and boundary relationships. The Tribunal also considered the actual proposed setbacks and heights, the shadow diagrams, the Council's condition for a window, the Parks Division's evidence about the street tree, and the geometry of Abercorn Avenue. [4]-[8], [27]-[35]
It would be a poor fit to extract a universal rule that rear-yard two-storey development is acceptable, that overlooking is always sufficiently managed by high sills, or that a street tree can be removed if replaced. The judgment does not state those rules. It records a conclusion on this proposal after considering the evidence and planning context before it.
The decision should also be read with care where the planning scheme, policy framework, design controls, site conditions or evidence differ. The judgment describes the policy and controls applicable at the time and location of this dispute. It does not establish how a later scheme or different local character policy would apply.
The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later decisions, and the provided material gives no information about how subsequent courts or tribunals treated Pilgrim v Banyule CC. The precedent-relationship field is therefore empty: the reasons do not identify another judgment as applied, followed, distinguished or otherwise considered.
The decision itself is a VCAT Planning List review under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The reasons record the Tribunal's assessment and order, but do not discuss its status in relation to later proceedings or identify any appellate decision. [1], [Order] Any account of later treatment would require sources beyond the judgment provided here.
The reasons give a clear overall outcome but leave some matters unelaborated. The objectors argued that the plans relied on by Council were incomplete and that the process disadvantaged residents. [20] The Tribunal records that further amended plans dated 20 April were before it, but its reasons do not separately explain whether or how that procedural concern affected its assessment. [21]
The decision also does not provide a detailed account of the applicable Good Design Guide provisions or reproduce the shadow diagrams. It states that the demonstrated overshadowing was within the Guide's requirements, without setting out the measurements or the precise provisions used. [31] Likewise, it records relevant setbacks and heights but does not provide a detailed quantitative comparison with every nearby dwelling.
On landscaping, the Tribunal found potential for some western boundary planting but did not specify a final planting design. It relied on the possibility of a landscape plan being required to the responsible authority's satisfaction. [33] The order refers to the endorsed plans and Council's conditions, but the complete permit conditions and plans are not reproduced in the reasons provided here.
The reasons also do not explain in detail the legal effect of the amendment to the review application for tree removal, beyond recording that it was granted under section 64 of Schedule 1 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. [2] Nor do they discuss a broader test for tree removal within an Environmental Significance Overlay. The decision's account is confined to the applicable controls, the Council Parks Division's view and the replacement-tree proposal in this matter. [11], [32]
These limits matter when using the decision: its reasoning offers a structured example of a planning assessment, but its outcome rests on the facts, policies and evidence described in the judgment. This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
Medium Neutral Citation [2001] VCAT 1613
The Application for Review is not allowed and the Responsible Authority's decision is upheld. A permit is granted for the construction of a two storey dwelling and the removal of trees on land at 28 Della Torre Crescent, lvanhoe in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions on the Responsible Authority's Notice of Decision P616/00 dated the 18th of January 2001.
Ms Gabrielle Sesta, Town Planner, appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority.
Mr Martyn Thompson of Peyton Waite Company Ltd appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr Phillip Barnes of Barnes Planning Company Ltd appeared on behalf of P and C Pilgrim, M and C Gill and B Lusewitz.
1. This is an application under section 82 the Planning and Environment Act 1987 brought by Mr and Mrs Pilgrim and others to review a decision by the City of Banyule to grant a permit in application no. B616100.
2. Since the time of the original application the Responsible Authority has gazetted an amendment to the planning scheme which requires a permit for the removal of trees above a certain size in this part of the municipality. The Applicant requested an amendment to the application to cover tree removal. The amendment was granted under the provisions of section 64, schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.
3. The following summary of the proposed development is adopted from the Responsible Authority's submission as an application:
1. To construct a new two storey dwelling within the existing rear yard. The dwelling would include 3 bedrooms plus a computer area at the upper level, with part of bedroom 1 extending over the lower level garage area. The lower level is comprised of a study and an open plan sitingldining and kitchen area. A double garage is proposed along the south side of the dwelling. The dwelling is proposed to be built along the eastern boundary for a length 8 metres, directly opposite the double storey studio on the site abutting to the east. The dwelling would be set back 4.2 metres from the site's rear (northern) boundary, with a bay window extending outside this. The upper level will be set in slightly further. The proposed setback from the western (side) boundary is 1.8 metres for the lower level, with part of the porch extending outside this, and a minimum of 4.5 metres for the upper level.
2. To retain and improve the existing dwelling with the following
- Remove the external porch outside the rear door.
- Provide infill enclosed access to a rear family room.
- Construct a single car carport along the eastern fence
line, abutting the northern wall of the family room.
- Provide a new driveway and cross over to Abercorn
Avenue, with the associated removal of one street tree.
- Create a courtyard to the rear of the dwelling.
4. The subject site is located on the north east corner of the intersection of Della Torre Crescent and Abercom Avenue. The subject site has an abuttal to Della Torre Crescent and a two thirds abuttal to Abercom Avenue the remaining one third being to No. 26 Abercom Avenue. Abercom Avenue terminates at no.26.
5. The site is rectangular having dimensions 15.24 x 45.72 metres and an overall area of 696.7 square metres. The site is at present occupied by a single storey dwelling which it is intended to retain and a fibro shed/cum garage which is to be demolished. This dwelling is setback some 9 metres from Della Torre Crescent and a minimum of 2.5 metres from Abercorn Avenue. The western boundary of the site is occupied by a high corrugated
fence. There is an existing crossover and gates providing access into the
6. The site is adjoined to the east by a single storey brick residence on a
single allotment. This dwelling has a similar setback to the street to the
dwelling on the subject site and is setback from the common boundary a
distance of 1.5 metres. To the rear of this property is a two storey brick studio located on the common boundary with the subject land.
This building has a wall height of some 4.8 metres and is built along the
7. The property to the west is developed with a new single storey brick dwelling on a long narrow lot which runs down to the river reserve. The
dwelling is located some 4 metres from the subject site at its point of
8. The site is abutted to the rear by no.7 Belmont Court. This property is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling and has a driveway along the common boundary. There are two dwellings located opposite the site in the short section of Abercom Avenue north of the termination of Della Torre Crescent.
9. The site lies within the Garden Suburban 6 Precinct as identified in the Council's Neighbourhood Character Strategy. The key characteristics of the area, relevant to the subject site, are; a predominance of interwar building styles, generous front setbacks with low, permeable front fences and generally single storey built form.
10. The subject site lies within the Residential 1 zone. A permit is required in the zone for the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot. The Responsible Authority is required under the provisions of the zone to assess the proposal against the Good Design Guide for Medium Density
Housing and the State and Local Planning Policy Framework including the
Municipal Strategic Statement and any relevant local planning policies.
11.There are two overlay controls that have relevance to the subject site namely; the Environment Significance 1 Overlay and the Vegetation Protection 3 Overlay. The subject site lies just outside the Environmental Significance Overlay which includes Abercorn Avenue and properties to the west and. south bordering on the Darebin Creek. The Vegetation Protection Overlay includes the subject site and essentially covers land not included in the Environment Significant Overlay. A permit is required under the provisions of the overlay to remove, destroy or lop any tree with exemptions for trees less than 5 metres in height with a trunk circumference of less than half a metre at one metre above ground level. The proposal includes the removal of four such trees. A street tree is also required to be removed, this tree lies within the Environmental Significance Overlay.
12.The State Planning Policy Framework supports the development of well designed medium density housing which; respects the character of the neighbourhood, provides housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.
13.The Local Planning Policy Framework which incorporates the Municipal Strategic Statement states among other things at clause 21.04-1:
"Residential character and amenity are key contributors to the quality of life in Banyule. Some residential areas in the municipality are undergoing change and experiencing new development Threats to residential character and amenity need to be restricted, and any new development should complement - if not improve - existing streetscape and neighbourhood conditions."
14.The statement of desired future character for the garden suburban precinct seeks to retain and enhance the area by:
* "Retaining existing tall trees and encouraging further planting of trees.
* Encourage the retention of Edwardian and interwar dwellings, particularly in streetscapes of dwellings from these eras.
* Designing new dwellings and extensions in a style and in materials sympathetic with existing dwellings in the street.
* Maintaining the overall scale of dwellings in the area.
* Positioning new dwellings and appurtenances in keeping with the setbacks of nearby dwellings.
* Discouraging the construction of high solid front fences."
15.The application was received on the 19th of September 2000. The Responsible Authority requested additional information which was received in October. This additional information included amended plans which addressed a number of concerns that the Responsible Authority had. Advertising was required and a total of three objections were received.
16. The Responsible Authority sought the advice of their engineering department and their parks section with respect to the proposed development. The engineering department had no objection to the proposal subject to the following matters being addressed:
* The power pole - to be relocated at the full expense of the developer to the satisfaction of the relevant authority.
* No physical barrier to be used to divide the driveways.
* The nominated point of discharge and the requirement for outfall drainage.
17. The engineers were also asked to comment on the proposed vehicle access to and from the site and were of the view that there was adequate reversing space for vehicles backing out onto Abercom Avenue due to the wide vehicle crossing. It was their view that vehicles should be able to reverse out into the street in one movement even with the presence of a parked car on the opposite side of Abercom Avenue.
18. The Council's Parks and Garden section view with respect to the street, tree was that it was not of any special significance and that they had no objection to its removal provided the applicant pays all associated costs and can clearly articulate the necessity for its removal. They recommended a replacement tree be required and that final authorisation be granted and works proceed after consultation with local residents.
19. The Responsible Authority held a consultation meeting between the parties at which time a sketch plan addressing some of the issues raised was presented by the Applicant. The Applicant subsequently provided the Responsible Authority with amended plans which were the plans that were the subject of the Responsible Authority's resolution to grant a permit and the subject of this appeal.
20. Barnes Planning, on behalf of the three original objectors, lodged an appeal against the Responsible Authority's decision on the following grounds:
1. The plans upon whic6 Council relied for the consideration of the application and the issue of the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, labelled "A. Amendments Dec. 2000 were sketchy and incomplete at the issue date (1 8th January 2001). Importantly, we understand that the elevation drawings may not yet have been submitted to council. Therefore residents have been disadvantaged and Council has made an improper and uniformed planning decision. Accordingly, we submit that the application was flawed and should be re-advertised and reassessed by council on the basis of the re-advertisement process.
2. The proposal is an over development of the subject site, incompatible with the neighbourhood character and a poor design response for the locality.
3. The proposal does not meet the relevant planning standards and requirements of the Banyule Planning Scheme, the Municipal Strategic Statement, the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing and other planning policies and controls.
4. The proposal is unsatisfactory in terms of street parking, on-site parking and traffic considerations.
5. The proposal undesirably results in the loss of a valued street tree within the area of Environmental Significance Overlay.
6. The proposal will adversely affect the amenity of the subject area, including the amenity enjoyed by the Applicants for review, in terms of visual bulk, a loss of privacy, overshadowing, noise and traffic/car parking considerations.
7. The proposal is unsatisfactory in terms of on-site private open space.
21.The Applicant produced further amended plans dated the 20th of April
which sought to address the requirements of the Responsible Authority's
condition 1 of its Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit. These plans were
22. The Tribunal is of the view after hearing the submissions before it and visiting the appeal site that the issues in this appeal are those outlined in the conclusion to Mr Barnes' submission.
* "Inappropriate building bulk and two storey scale in a predominantly single storey neighbourhood.
* Unacceptable building massing towards the rear (north) of the site creating amenity issues including overlooking, overshadowing and reduction of visual amenity.
* Unsuitable and unattractive vehicle entry and car accommodation.
* Insufficient areas around the proposed dwelling for meaningful landscaping or peripheral planting to screen the building especially to the west and north of the subject site.
* The removal of established trees that contribute to the area including the removal of a street tree located in an Environmental Significance Overlay."
23.In summary the impact of the proposal on the character of the neighbourhood, amenity issues, vehicle entry and car parking arrangements, the loss of established trees and the lack of landscaping opportunities on site.
24.The proposed development takes advantage of an existing two storey wall on the eastern boundary, abutting the proposed development against this wall and concentrating the first floor built form to the east. The location of building in this manner has the advantage of protecting the north facing open space of the existing dwelling and providing setbacks for the first floor built form from the northern and eastern side boundaries.
25. The Tribunal considers that the location of the proposed new dwelling is advantaged in street character terms, by being located in the rear section of the site which has minimal street frontage and limited visual exposure. The Tribunal does not consider that the proposal in the context of the site can be considered to have a negative impact on the character of the street and the area in general.
26. The development also results in the removal of a high fence for part of the Abercom Avenue streetscape and potentially, subject to landscaping, improves the visual outlook from the street.
27.The property potentially most affected by the proposed development is the Pilgrim property to the east. This neighbour has a large modem dwelling with bay windows to main living areas located at distances of the order of 4 and 6 metres from the common boundary. The proposed new dwelling is located a distance of 1.8 metres from this boundary at ground floor level and a minimum distance of some 4.5 metres at first floor level. The 4.5 metre setback extends for 4.5 metres on this aspect with additional setbacks for the remainder of the first floor built form at 7 metres and greater. The dwelling height on this elevation ranges from 5 to 5.2 metres above natural ground level.
28. The Tribunal appreciates that the subject site occupies an important view
line from the adjoining dwelling and any development will have a visual impact. In the Tribunal's view, however, the level of impact is within acceptable bounds. In coming to this conclusion the Tribunal notes that the open space area of the property to the west is not limited to the area adjoining the subject land; the main and much larger area of open space
being to the east of the dwelling. The visual intrusion is also mediated by the articulation, first floor setbacks and the modest height of the built form on this aspect.
29. The Tribunal considers that the visual impact of the proposal to the north will not be excessive particularly given the degree of excavation into the site on this aspect and the separation of the built form from the boundary at both ground and first floor levels.
30. The other amenity issues of concern were overlooking and overshadowing. The potential exist for overlooking from first floor windows to the north and the west. Overlooking is dealt with on the northern orientation by the use of a 1.6 metre sill heights combined with some external screening. The proposed development has two windows facing to the west associated with a computer room and a bedroom. The Responsible Authority's Notice of Decision required the computer room window to have a sill height of 1.6 metres above floor level. The bedroom window is located at a distance of some 9 metres from the common boundary and effectively addresses the public space located to the front of the adjoining dwelling and the street. In the Tribunal's view no screening is required for the bedroom window. The Tribunal finds the sill heights proposed will limit overlooking and notes in this regard that the rooms concerned are bedrooms and a study.
31. The Tribunal was provided with shadow diagrams for the spring equinox. These diagrams showed some overshadowing impact of the adjoining property to the west at 9am with a lesser impact on the property at the east at 3pm. This degree of overshadowing lies well within the requirements of the Good Design Guide and in the context of the available open space on the adjoining property to the west is minimal.
32. It was argued by Mr Barnes that the loss of the street-tree was particularly significant as this tree was located within the Environmental Significance Overlay. The Tribunal notes that the Responsible Authority's Parks Division did not consider that the tree had any particular significance and had no objection to its removal subject to a replacement tree being provided. The Tribunal considers that this is reasonable resolution, in addition the street tree will provide some screening of the entrance of the site from the street.
33. Mr Barnes was particularly critical of the proposal for pencil pines along the western boundary of the site. It was his contention that the excavation along this boundary would leave little opportunity for tree planting to take place. The dwelling is some 0.9 metres below natural ground level at its northerly extent on this aspect and the planting strip proposed is of the order of 0.8 of a metre wide. It was Mr Thompson's contention that the landscaping indicated on the plans was not intended necessarily to be the final design and that any permit would be subject to a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Tribunal was of the view that screening is desirable on the western boundary and finds that the potential exists for some sort of landscaping in this location even if it is limited to climbers or medium sized shrubs. In this regard the Tribunal notes that the degree of excavation along the western boundary reduces from its northern to its southern extent providing an increased opportunity for planting towards the south.
34. It was argued that the extent of paving associated with the entry and car parking was excessive. The driveway entrance with the required splay is parking was excessive. of the order of 6 metres wide. A triangle of landscaping is allowed for on the southern extent of the entrance and a separation treatment which includes feature bricks and low hedge, is proposed to delineate between the driveways to the new unit and the existing dwelling. The Tribunal finds that these features will provide some softening. The impact is further reduced by a portion of the paved area being north of-the termination of the street and by the oblique angle of entry.
35.The Tribunal considers that there should be no difficulty with vehicles exiting in the site in reverse. Abercom Avenue in this locale is some 9.5 metres wide and contains only three other dwellings in its northern section. The Tribunal considers, in these circumstances, there are no safety or logistic problems associated with vehicles exiting the site. With respect to the adequacy of the parking provision, the Tribunal notes that the relocation of the driveway entrance will allow for at least two cars to be parked on the Abercorn Avenue aspect of the proposed development and that there is further provision available for two cars to be parked directly outside the site on the Della Torre Crescent. The Tribunal does not consider that there is excessive pressure for street parking in the general area given the opportunity most properties have to provide parking on their own land.
36. The Tribunal is of the view, overall, that this is a satisfactory development that will not impact on the character of the area or the amenity of adjoining neighbours to an unacceptable extent and that a permit should be granted.
Pilgrim
Banyule CC [2001] VCAT 1613
The Application for Review was not allowed and the Responsible Authority's decision was upheld. A permit was granted for construction of a two-storey dwelling and removal of trees at 28 Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions on the Responsible Authority's Notice of Decision P616/00 dated 18 January 2001.