1. Before the use and development commences, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The amended plans must be generally in accordance with the plans marked "Project No. 98466 - Wild Design Architectural Office - Revision A - 29/4/99" and are to include:

(iii) Landscape feature in driveway opposite proposed garages.

2. Before the occupancy of the dwellings hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3. Before the use and development starts areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

(c) Surfaced with an all-weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. All storm water run-off shall be collected on site and discharged to the kerb and channel in Griffen Street to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no storm water, sullage, sewerage or polluted drainage shall drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties.

5. The site including all buildings, works and landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, tidy and safe condition in accordance with the endorsed plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land or road reserve.

7. The development as shown on the endorsed plan must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

8. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Ms Alison McFarlane, Town Planner, represented the Responsible Authority.

Mr Phyl Wild, represented the Applicant for review.

There were no appearances on behalf of the Respondents.

1. The proposal is in conflict with a number of the objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing July 1995.

2. The proposal is inappropriate to the existing area the use and development is incompatible with the area's character.

3. The proposal will adversely effect the amenity of the area.

4. The proposal is in conflict with sound town planning principles.

1. That good design is achieved, within the guidelines of the "Victorian Code for Residential Development (April 1992)" and "The Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing".

2. That the main criteria for refusal, voiced at the Council, Directions Hearing Meeting:

"that a two storey development is inappropriate for this site"

is flawed, as established under previous Tribunal determinations and supported by the Council's Planning Officers, Directions Hearing's Report.

3. That there is no detrimental impact upon the amenity of the surrounding houses and area.

4. That the proposal is respectful of the neighbourhood and contributes to the character of the streetscape and area.

1. Application No. 1312/98 was lodged with the City of Greater Geelong on 9th December 1998 proposing to develop No. 13 Griffen Street, Hamlyn Heights for three double storey attached dwellings.

2. The proposed development was described to the Tribunal by Council in the following terms:

"Proposed dwellings are to be orientated along the east-west axis of the allotment. The ground floor of proposed buildings is to be setback 4.5 metres from Griffen Street whilst the east elevation is to be setback 2.0 metres from the rear boundary of the property. Side walls are to be setback 4.5 metres from the northern boundary and 5.0 metres from the southern boundary of the site. The design of the proposed buildings is relatively contemporary. The west elevation of Unit 1, with frontage to Griffen Street, comprises a series of gables over the ground floor and the recessed first floor of the building. The rear, east elevation of the building is a sheer two storey wall with gabled roofline. The entrance to each dwelling is to be located on the southern side of the building, and is defined with a gabled portico. The southern elevation of the dwellings also includes a rounded feature staircase which projects approximately 2.0 metres beyond the main building line of this elevation. The private open space area of each dwelling is to be developed on the northern side of the site. Each dwelling has a courtyard area connecting with internal living areas via sliding glass doors. Courtyard areas are to be paved and partially landscaped. Dwellings are to be accessed via a common driveway to be developed along the southern boundary of the property. Each dwelling is to be provided with a two car garage. A 1.5 metre timber picket fence is to be developed along the property frontage. Sufficient area has been allocated for substantial tree planting along all boundaries of the property".

3. The application was advertised by sign on site and by notice to surrounding owners and occupiers. As a result of this advertising eleven objections were received which were summarised by Council as:

* The proposal is not in keeping with the character of this established residential area, particularly in terms of height and visual bulk.

* The proposal will result in overlooking of adjoining properties.

* The proposal will interrupt views currently obtained from 3/50 Vines Road.

* Additional vehicular traffic in Griffen Street will compromise the safety of the existing residents.

* The proposal will overshadow neighbouring properties.

4. Council initiated a mediation process to address the dispute and two objections were formally withdrawn. Council's Development Hearings Panel Meeting considered the proposal on 18th February 1999 and resolved to refuse the application on the grounds cited above. An application for review was lodged on 15th April 1999 citing the reasons listed above.

5. The Tribunal has conducted an inspection of the subject site and the surrounding area. The inspection confirmed the submission put to the Tribunal by Council which noted that:

"The subject site is located on the east side of Griffen Street, approximately 60 metres south of Drysdale Avenue, Hamlyn Heights. The site has a frontage of 29.12 metres to Griffen Street and a depth of 50.14 metres, giving an overall site area of 1008.9m². The site is currently developed with a single storey detached dwelling of weatherboard construction. A number of dilapidated timber outbuildings are also located along the southern boundary of the site. No significant vegetation is evident on the subject property. Griffen Street is a residential street containing modest single storey buildings of varied architectural styles. The property abutting the subject site to the north is developed with three single storey attached residential units of brick construction. A common vehicle accessway servicing all three dwellings is located on the southern boundary of this allotment, and directly abuts the north boundary of the subject property. The property abutting the subject site to the south, is developed with three single storey dwellings of brick construction. These dwellings all have courtyard areas abutting the southern boundary of the subject site. Land to the east of the subject site is also developed with three single storey residential dwellings. The rear courtyard of Unit 3 of this development directly adjoins the east boundary of the subject site. Residential allotments in the wider area surrounding the subject site are most commonly developed with single detached dwellings. The Vines Road Community Centre is located east of the site in Vines Road, which runs parallel with Griffen Street, whilst a small local business area is located in Fairlie Street to the south of the subject site. Dwellings within Griffen Street are consistently setback at 4.0 metres or greater from their front property boundary. Frontage setback areas are developed with low scale landscaping. A number of substantial trees are evident within the nature strip area of the Griffen Street road reserve, and contribute positively to the landscape qualities of this area".

6. The Tribunal adds that it seems as if this area of Geelong is undergoing gradual change as the older building stock reaches the end of its economic life and is being replaced with more modern homes at a variety of densities. Multi units are evident (including on all sides of the subject site), and some two storey detached homes are also evident. It must be said though that there is little evidence so far of multi unit development of two storeys. On the Tribunal's inspection, these were the exceptions.

7. The subject site and all surrounding land is within a Residential A zone under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. A planning permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot pursuant to Clause 50-3.2 of the Scheme.

* To provide the opportunity for a variety of residential densities and dwelling types.

* To ensure that residential development is of good quality cost-effective design that is responsive to the residential character and amenity of the area and housing needs of the population.

* To ensure establishment of educational, recreational, religious and community facilities is compatible with the character of the area and responsive to community needs.

9. Clause 50-3.2 activates the Good Design Guide as the appropriate reference point for assessment. Whilst the overall purpose of the Guide is well known, it is worth repeating here as it has assisted the Tribunal in assessing the application:

* A variety of dwelling types to suit the diversity of people's needs.

* 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

10. Like all other municipalities in the State, Council is in the process of finalising a new format planning scheme. According to Council, the new scheme is still many months away from approval although it is proposed that the site be placed in a Residential 1 zone with no overlay control. The Good Design Guide remains the primary assessment document. Evidently Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) does not assist in informing the appropriateness or otherwise of the proposal. In addition, Council advised that there are no local policies proposed which would impact on the application.

11. Whilst the Council refusal cited four grounds for rejecting the application for permit, the Tribunal believes that there are really three issues for assessment. These are:

12. According to Council, the proposal satisfies many of the specific design techniques and objectives of most elements of the Guide. The principal exception is Element 3 (Neighbourhood Character), which is discussed in detail below.

13. On analysis, the Tribunal believes that it can be easily demonstrated that the proposal satisfies all of the techniques of the Guide. Issues of density, car parking, open space, site coverage and setbacks all comply and in some instances, easily comply. The proposal has a density of one dwelling per 336m²; it provides two enclosed car spaces per unit; it has north facing private open spaces; these open spaces vary between 83m² and 114m²; it has a site coverage of 35%; and it has front, side and rear setbacks varying between 4.5m and 2 metres. On any view, this is a modest development proposal in the context of the techniques of the Good Design Guide.

14. Council rightfully referred not just to the techniques but to the overall purpose of the Guide as well. Once again, the Tribunal believes that this works in support of the application. Specifically the proposal:

* Provides some variety in dwelling type with, effectively, large dwellings in a medium density context.

* A site responsive design which makes the most of the northern aspect meaning the dwellings would be pleasant to live in.

* An innovative contemporary design which combines brick and timber, and articulates the front and side elevations with architectural and structural elements which provide interest and which "break up" the bulk of the structure.

15. The Tribunal notes that the officer report on the Application assessed the Good Design Guide in its totality and concluded that:

"The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and criteria of the Good Design Guide and meets the techniques".

The Tribunal agrees with this summary and is satisfied that, (other than the issue of neighbourhood character which is discussed below), the proposal is in compliance with the Good Design Guide.

16. The real basis of the Council rejection of the application lies in their belief that the proposal is "out of character" with the area. Council said that the bulk and expanse of the building is out of keeping with the area; and that a two storey development is inappropriate because it is located within an area dominated by single storey buildings.

17. Council did not, however, establish what the "character" of the area really is; why it is important; and how this proposal offends it. There is no character study relevant to the area.

18. On inspection the Tribunal found itself to be within an area where it was hard to pinpoint any dominant characteristics. The area appears to have been subdivided post-war and it exhibits houses ranging from the original settlement period to modern replacements. The streets are relatively wide, they are quiet, there are nature strips, street trees and well maintained homes. It is a very conventional residential estate set on a grid design with a range of commercial and community amenities within easy access.

19. Whilst single storey detached houses have, and continue to dominate, incremental changes are underway and multi-unit development is taking place. This is not surprising given the location of Hamlyn Heights and its range of services and facilities. A multi-unit development on the subject site would continue that incremental change and so in that sense the use of this site for three dwellings is not alien to the prevailing character. Indeed, the use of all abutting sites is exactly the same.

20. What is alien, however, according to Council and the neighbours, is that this will be the first incidence of multi-unit dwellings at two storeys. Whilst there is some truth in this argument it is tantamount to prohibiting any two storey proposal because it represents the "first intrusion". Leaving aside the fact that this would not be the first two storey "intrusion" (either for a single home or multi unit), the Tribunal would be reluctant to reject what is a perfectly normal and acceptable form and height of development right throughout our urban areas, except if the neighbourhood characteristics were so pristine and important so as to make a two storey proposal unacceptable. In the Tribunal's opinion those circumstances are not evident within the neighbourhood around the subject site.

21. Two storeys are unusual in the area, but they are not rare. In any event a two storey detached house could be erected on this and other sites without a planning permit. There is a reasonable expectation that such activity will occur in this area over time as older buildings give way to new development. The fact therefore that this proposal involves a second level of development unlike its neighbours on three sides is not fatal. The characteristics of this area include single and double storey buildings; at single and multi-dwelling occupancies, all at a time of incremental change. This suggests to the Tribunal that the proposal is not out of character with the area.

22. Concern was expressed by Council with respect to on-site and off-site amenity impacts. Specifically, there is concern with bulk, a bland elongated appearance, privacy, height and a lack of a sufficient rear setback.

23. The Tribunal believes that the option of a second level, on the one hand introduces some potential amenity concerns, but on the other hand it "frees up" much more of the site than would otherwise be the case. The adjoining properties are in stark contrast to the proposal. Instead of a development which consumes much of the site with either building or accessways, the subject site has only one driveway; it has side setbacks of at least 6 metres on the north and south sides; and a front landscaped setback of 4.5 metres. The proposed building is located central to the site giving these generous offsets to the north and south which minimise overshadowing and overlooking concerns. None of this could have been achieved with a single storey footprint.

24. In terms of privacy, overlooking to the north at No. 15 Griffen Street is offset at least six metres from the boundary and then there is a (nearly) 4 metre driveway on the adjoining property. The south facing upper level windows are offset 6.5 metres from the boundary and the view to the Units at No. 11 Griffen Street is an oblique one. In any event, the upper level rooms are all bedrooms which have a more limited amount of daytime use than would a living room, kitchen or family room. There is no overlooking to the east.

25. In terms of building bulk, the Tribunal disagrees with Council's concern about the extensive mass of the units. The Tribunal is impressed by the manner in which the designer has "broken up" the bulk and mass of the building by use of alternate materials, portico entrances, curved "external" stairwells and protruding lower level meals areas. The design is anything but a box. One area of potential concern is the high gable wall facing Unit 3 at No. 50 Vines Road, however, with the use of a hip in-lieu of the gable, plus a "flatter" roof , this concern can be addressed.

26. The streetscape amenity is also well protected by the design. No car parking is visible from the street and that is unusual is most modern medium density developments. Garages often dominate. The side driveway is wide and will allow buffer landscaping. The Tribunal believes a "kink" in the drive opposite the central garages will help avoid a "gunbarrel" appearance. There is plenty of space for this feature.

27. The Tribunal concludes that this application fully meets the objectives, criteria and techniques of the Good Design Guide. They will be units which will be pleasant to live in but will not impose an amenity constraint on existing residents. Whilst the dwellings are two storeys in height this is neither alien in the neighbourhood nor alien in established urban areas such as this.

28. The Tribunal finds itself in agreement with the concluding comment of the Council Officer report which noted:

"The proposal is consistent with the State Government and Council's policies relating to urban consolidation and is an attempt to promote innovative and contemporary housing types in the area. The proposal will be respectful of the existing area and can be accommodated by the existing street layout. In view of the above comments the development is considered to be of high quality and should be supported".