DOES THE PROPOSAL RESPOND ACCEPTABLY TO ITS STRATEGIC CONTEXT?

1. Strategic directions in the Municipal Planning Strategy at clause 02.03 for settlement planning in Baw Baw identify Drouin as a main town for 'sustainable high-growth settlement', second only to Warragul.
2. The review site is located within the township boundary of Drouin at its eastern edge as indicated on the Drouin Framework Plan extracted below from clause 11.01-1L-02.

1. Strategies for Drouin[2] relevantly include to 'Prioritise higher population and growth within the defined township boundary...'; to 'Promote the role of Drouin as the second largest town centre of the Shire'; and 'Consolidate where appropriate retail, entertainment, community, mixed use and medium density residential uses within the Commercial 1 Zone and the General Residential Zone in Drouin'.
2. Other relevant strategic directions that underpin this encouragement for growth in existing township boundaries recognise the servicing and environmental constraints of other locations and desirability of protecting agricultural land for that purpose in the context of projected population growth and need for greater housing diversity. This also reflects the Baw Baw Shire's location within a peri-urban area.[3]
3. The General Residential Zone ('GRZ') itself includes a zone purpose 'To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport'. Another of the GRZ purposes is 'To encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area'.
4. Thus, other key elements of the strategic context as set out in the municipal planning strategy and planning policy framework provide the following guidance in the exercise of discretion:
   • As a peri-urban municipality, Baw Baw Shire is said to offer 'attractive lifestyle choices in urban and rural settings';[4]
   • Strategic directions for 'Built form and heritage' explain that for Drouin:[5]

Its urban character can be attributed to views to surrounding farmland and mountain ranges, garden suburb development in the older parts of the town, a collection of buildings, trees and structures of heritage significance and flowering gum lined boulevards.

• Strategic directions for 'Built form and heritage' planning in Baw Baw also include:[6]

Protect and enhance the individual character of each township.

• Statewide policy at clause 11.03-3S for Peri-urban areas has the singular objective 'To manage growth in peri-urban areas to protect and enhance their identified valued attributes' with a relevant strategy also being to:

Enhance the character, identity, attractiveness and amenity of peri-urban towns.

• Urban design policy at clause 15.01-1S has the objective 'To create urban environments that are safe, healthy, functional and enjoyable and that contribute to a sense of place and cultural identity'. Relevant strategies call for development that responds to its context in terms of character, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate and which improves 'the quality of living and working environments'. Other strategies seek to:

Ensure that the design and location of publicly accessible private spaces, including car parking areas, forecourts and walkways, is of a high standard, creates a safe environment for users and enables easy and efficient use.

• Neighbourhood character policy at clause 15.01-5S has an objective 'To recognise, support and protect neighbourhood character and sense of place' with strategies that ask for development that 'respects the existing neighbourhood character' and which:

... responds to its context and reinforces a sense of place and the valued features and characteristics of the local environment and place by respecting the:

• Pattern of local urban structure and subdivision.
• Underlying natural landscape character and significant vegetation.
• Neighbourhood character values and built form that reflect community identity.
• Building design objectives at clause 15.01-2S similarly seek 'building design and siting outcomes that contribute positively to the local context, enhance the public realm and support environmentally sustainable development'. Strategies, amongst others, 'Encourage development to retain existing vegetation', and seek to 'Ensure development provides landscaping that responds to its site context, enhances the built form, creates safe and attractive spaces and supports cooling and greening of urban areas'.

1. I conclude that in principle, the location for additional housing within this part of Drouin is sound. As highlighted by the applicant, this is an established, well serviced location some 1.5km from commercial activity in the Drouin township. The development, which will offer two new modest two bedroom dwellings, while retaining the existing dwelling with three bedrooms will also contribute to housing supply and diversity objectives. All of these factors align with key planning scheme policy directions and are favourable to the grant of a permit.
2. However, the weight of these consideration needs to be balanced against others. This includes built form, amenity, character and responsiveness to features of the site and surrounding context when deciding whether an acceptable planning outcome will be achieved. That much is clear from the above extracts from the various planning scheme policies and municipal planning strategy.
3. The provisions of clause 55 of the planning scheme also require consideration, whose objectives must be met and standards should be met. In this case, clause 55 in its form before the gazettal of amendment VC267 continues to apply to applications for two or more dwellings on a lot.
4. On balance, when all of these other factors are considered, I have found that the proposal has various design and siting shortcomings that outweigh its positive features.
5. I now turn to these considerations.

IS THE PROPOSAL RESPONSIVE TO THE SITE'S PHYSICAL FEATURES, SURROUNDING CONTEXT AND OFFERS ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF ON-SITE AMENITY AND LANDSCAPING?

1. The council has concerns with the:
   • Siting and juxtaposition of the two proposed dwellings relative to the existing dwelling which is to be retained in a modified form;
   • siting of two cross-overs for the two new dwellings close to each other;
   • extent of vegetation removal and appearance of the new access shaft for Unit 2.
2. It submits that the response does not achieve an acceptable neighbourhood character response and would not meet a number of clause 55 objectives including the neighbourhood character objective, integration with the street, safety, landscaping and dwelling entry.
3. While accepting that the numeric requirements of standard B28 for private open space are met, the council also submits that the design does not offer convenient access from a living room for Unit 2.
4. The applicant asserts that the single storey form and siting of the two new dwellings responds appropriately to the existing character and varied pattern of surrounding development. Retention of the existing dwelling in a modified form is also said to be a positive feature of the response.
5. The absence of any vegetation related controls and varied landscape character of this location and are said to support the landscaping response.
6. The applicant submits that the deemed to comply standards of clause 55 many of which bear upon off-site amenity, character and landscaping related considerations are all met. These include standards for overlooking, overshadowing, building height, side and rear setbacks, site coverage, permeability and access and in turn their corresponding objectives are all met.[7]

1. It is true that that the proposal complies with the numeric standards and deemed to comply objectives of clause 55 as summarised above in submissions for the applicant.
2. The key issues in dispute relate to a number of non-codified standards and objectives. This includes the neighbourhood character objective at clause 55.02-1 which has two limbs. These are:

Neighbourhood character objectives

To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

To ensure that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.

1. A neighbourhood character objective is not expressly specified in Schedule 1 to the GRZ, thus, it is the existing neighbourhood character that requires consideration. Standard B1 states that:

The design response must be appropriate to the neighbourhood and the site.

The proposed design must respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

1. Decision guidelines identify that before deciding on an application, the responsible authority, and Tribunal on review, must consider:
   • Any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in this scheme.
   • The neighbourhood and site description.
   • The design response.
2. I agree with the applicant that in the more immediate context, the existing character has some variability given the perpendicular juxtaposition of lots opposite and adjoining to the south which have a frontage to Princes Way and which include outbuildings. The large parcel opposite includes a community centre and at-grade carpark. That said, the overriding character features of this location are of an open and spacious residential garden suburb type setting, frequently containing mature exotic and native vegetation in foreground and background views. The predominant scale of one and two storey dwellings set within an attractive curvilinear subdivision layout with wide treed nature strips and undulating topography are other key features.
3. I find that in-principle, the single storey, but elevated built form scale of the two dwellings is responsive to this character context.
4. I also accept that although the proposed street setback of Unit 1, is in part 4.7m and this does not meet the numeric requirements of 9m under standard B6, the objective is met. Like the council, I agree that for this unusually configured lot, a lesser building setback in the nature of that proposed for a single storey building achieves an acceptable built form character response.
5. However, there are a number of aspects of this proposal which do not respond in an acceptable way to the features of the site and surrounding area. Nor would the objective for landscaping at clause 55.03-8 be met.
6. I agree with the council that removal of all vegetation (approximately 25 trees) on the south side of the existing dwelling is unfortunate. This vegetation makes a positive character and landscape contribution. Vegetation for removal includes a dense hedge of pittosporums along the entirety of the site's south boundary and part of the west boundary. Of these hedge trees, 16 have a useful life expectancy of 20 to 30 years and range in height from 6m to 10m. The removal of all this vegetation is particularly unfortunate given the prevailing landscape character features of this location and the policy guidance for peri-urban areas and building design that I have previously outlined. These variously encourage the retention of existing vegetation and development that is contextually responsive to its setting. The landscaping objective at clause 55.03-8 similarly encourages the retention of mature vegetation on the site.
7. The removal of this vegetation will bring about a considerable degree of change to the local character. I would not however refuse a permit on this basis alone if I were satisfied that other aspects of the design response were acceptable. I also acknowledge that space remains available for vegetation around the existing dwelling, but this circumstance does not change my substantive findings that lead me to conclude that, on balance, an acceptable planning outcome will not be achieved.
8. Relevantly, I find that the siting of the dwellings and design of the driveway area for Unit 2 is not an acceptable response and would not meet measures described in Standard B13 which seek to protect predominant landscape features of the neighbourhood and to 'Provide a safe, attractive and functional environment for residents'.
9. Insufficient space is provided for new landscaping including space for canopy trees to soften the internal streetscape and the internal amenity it will offer residents and visitors to Unit 2 is poor. Landscaping objectives at clause 55.03-8 which encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood and which provides appropriate landscaping would not be met. The following factors combined lead me to this conclusion:
   • Driveway length and 'gun-barrel' design, spanning a distance of some 35m, necessitating substantial amounts of hard paving including a turning apron for Unit 2's garage;
   • Extent of vehicle and pedestrian related paving in the front setback of Unit 1 in parallel with Unit 2's driveway;
   • The need for retaining walls along at least the southern and western edge of Unit 2's driveway; and
   • The proposed high fence for privacy to Unit 1's bedroom 2 close to the north edge of the driveway for Unit 2 coupled with the blank brick wall on the south side of Unit 1's garage, spanning a combined distance of around 14m.
10. The resultant appearance of the accessway is one that will be dominated by hard surfaces.
11. Plan extracts of the proposal are shown below.

1. Related to the design and siting of Unit 2 and its relationship with the accessway are objectives for 'Integration with the street' at clause 55.02-5, 'Safety' at clause 55.03-7 and 'Dwelling entry' at clause 55.05-2.
2. Unit 2's entry is sited behind the alignment of the fence for Unit 1 in the driveway and offers poor levels of address. Having considered this design response, I find that the location and design of this front entry is poor and would not meet these clause 55 objectives.
3. I also find that the design and location of private open space for Unit 1 would not offer acceptable levels of amenity.
4. While the numeric requirements of Standard B28 are met for both units, in the case of Unit 1, its amenity is poor. Solar access to this space will be unreasonably limited throughout the day and Standard B29 is not met. This is due to the siting of Unit 1's secluded private open space (SPOS) on the south side of the existing dwelling. At this interface, the SPOS will adjoin a gable end wall of the existing dwelling whose height at its apex rises to 4.7m on the boundary together with a boundary fence.
5. The plan extracts below show the proposal at this interface.

Left: Existing dwelling - proposed south-east elevation

Below: North elevation Unit 1 with blue dashed outline of proposed 2.7m high fence and screen

1. I also find that the outlook from Unit 1's main area of SPOS, deck and dining room window would also be dominated by the existing dwelling's gable-end wall. Further, the living room window has a single orientation and while north facing, has an outlook to a fence and screen with a combined height of 2.7m at a setback 1.78m from this barrier. These windows provide the primary outlook for this proposed dwelling's main living areas.
2. In relation to Unit 2, I agree with the council's submissions that the proposed design and proportions of the landing/deck fragments this dwelling's SPOS. While this does compromise convenient access from the living area but I find this response is still within the realm of an acceptable outcome.
3. Overall, the siting of Unit 1 would not respond in an acceptable way to the constraints posed by retention of the existing dwelling, resulting in poor levels of amenity for future residents of this dwelling.

1. The proposal meets many of the numeric requirements of clause 55 standards. It is not however designed in a way that is responsive to the existing character and features of the site and surrounds. This response also comes at the expense of acceptable levels of on-site amenity for future residents and various clause 55 objectives as described above would not be met.
2. The design response also runs counter to planning scheme policies for urban design at clause 15.01-1S, neighbourhood character at clause 15.01-5S and building design at clause 15.01-2S.

1. As identified above, in addition to paving, the proposed accessway for Unit 2 will necessitate excavation and retaining walls. These features and portions of fencing for Unit 1 are to be located over a 4.01m wide easement for the 'Drouin Waterworks Trust'. No common property is proposed in the development. Based on the applicant's oral submissions, I understand that existing piped infrastructure in this easement will require replacement and reinstatement within the easement. It is unclear what, if any implications this easement and its related infrastructure may present for the proposal's development features and the provision of necessary services for each dwelling, such as the location of an on-site storm water detention system and any underground electricity for Unit 2. I make no conclusive findings as to whether the site services objective at clause 55.06-4 can be met. I simply observe that these matters will require careful resolution and integration into any revised proposal.

1. The proposal will offer additional housing within the existing township boundaries of Drouin, contributing positively to housing related policies. Many numeric requirements of clause 55 standards and their corresponding objectives are also met. These are positive aspects of this proposal.
2. The site is however subject to a number of challenging constraints to which the proposed design has not responded in an acceptable way. These include existing vegetation, a 4.0m wide easement, lot orientation, the retained dwelling and topography. The proposal would not achieve acceptable levels of on-site amenity, landscaping and integration with the street and would not respond appropriately to the existing character features of this peri-urban context. On balance, these features of the proposal outweigh its positive elements.
3. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
4. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[7] No front fences or walls on boundaries are proposed.