1. Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans, drawn to scale and dimensioned, 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 generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a) the location and design of any proposed electricity supply meter boxes. The electricity supply meter boxes must be located at a distance from the street which is at or behind the setback alignment of buildings on the site or in compliance with Council's "Guide to Electricity Supply Meter Boxes in Monash";

(c) the upper floor bathroom windows of Units 2 and 3 fitted with obscure glazing;

(d) all upper floor windows which face west with a minimum sill height of 1.6m above finished floor level;

(e) the deletion of the west facing window in the study of Unit 2 and the provision of a south facing window;

(f) the east facing windows on the upper floor of Unit 2 with a minimum sill height of 1.6m above finished floor level;

(g) the front setback of Unit 1 increased to a minimum of 8.7m and consequential reduction in the floor area and internal layout of Unit 1;

(h) the designation of an externally accessible, secure storage space (of at least 6 cubic metres) for each dwelling;

(i) Units 2 and 3 shifted one metre to the east and the following consequential changes:

* reduction of the open space areas on the eastern side of the units.

* the driveway adjacent to Units 2 and 3 with a width of 3m.

* additional landscaping area within the western boundary.

* Condition 7 shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

7. Before the commencement of buildings or works (including demolition) a landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan shall become an endorsed plan under this permit. Such plan shall be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by "Garden Animation" dated 7 August 2001, tabled at the hearing of Application for Review P500034/2001 but modified to show:

(a) The planting of appropriate trees (semi-mature at time of planting) in the extended landscape strip within the western boundary opposite Units 2 and 3 to reduce the visual impact of those dwellings.

(c) Details of all proposed hard surface materials.

* The following additional condition shall be included:

New side and rear boundary fences shall be erected to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The details of the fencing, including their height and possible trellises, shall be determined in consultation with the owners of abutting properties. The construction of the fences shall be at the expense of the developer under this permit.

Ms Sally Moser, planning consultant, represented the Responsible Authority.

Mr Colin Bowden, planning consultant, appeared for the Applicant for Permit.

The written submissions of the parties, together with numerous photographs, policy documents and other material tendered at the hearing, have been retained on the Tribunal's file.

1. This is an application by an Objector under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a decision by the City of Monash to grant a permit (in Application No 27706) for the land at 6 Kelly Street, Chadstone to be developed with four dwellings.

2. The subject site is located on the southern side of Kelly Street. On the northern side of the road there is a reserve (accommodating electricity pylons) which abuts the Monash Freeway. There is a wide nature strip on the southern side of the road.

3. The site has a frontage of 18.29m and a depth of 75.62 m, yielding a site area of 1383m2. It has only a minor slope and has no significant vegetation. It is currently developed with a brick dwelling and garage. It has an unmade driveway within the western boundary.

4. The site is within an established residential area. The building form is principally single storey. A number of sites, including the two properties to the west, have single storey units. There are units (principally single storey) on the property abutting to the south. Garden character is mixed.

5. It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings and construct four dwellings down the site, attached by single garages.

6. Unit 1 would be set back a minimum of 8m from the frontage. It would be single storey and have a total floor area of 148.5m2. Accommodation would comprise three bedrooms (one with en-suite), a study, living/family room, bathroom and laundry.

7. Units 2 and 3 would be double storey and have total floor areas of 140.28m2 and 137.78m2 respectively. They would offer similar accommodation to Unit 1 but have two of the bedrooms, a study and bathroom on the upper level.

8. Unit 4, at the rear of the site, would be single storey and have a floor area of 119.5m2. It would accommodate three bedrooms, a small computer room, living/family room, bathroom and laundry. Its garage would be located in the south west corner of the site.

9. The existing crossover would be maintained. A driveway would extend the length of the site within the western boundary. There would be a tandem car space in front of each garage.

10. Units 1, 2 and 3 would have areas of private open space along the eastern side of the site. Open space for Unit 4 would be provided in the south east corner.

11. The proposal represents a site density of one unit per 345.75m2 of site area and a site coverage of 40.43%.

12. Under the Monash Planning Scheme the subject site is zoned Residential 1 and not affected by any overlay controls. Within this zone no permit is required to use the land for the purpose of a dwelling. However, pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

13. Clause 65.01 of the Planning Scheme directs the Responsible Authority, and this Tribunal, to consider certain matters, including the matters set out at Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, the purpose of the zone, the orderly planning of the area and the effect on the amenity of the area.

14. Clause 14.02 contains the State Policy on Settlement within the metropolitan area. It seeks to encourage the consolidation of residential activities. It also states that "development in existing residential areas should be respectful of neighbourhood character."

15. Clause 16.02 contains the State Policy on Medium Density Housing. The objective is the encouragement of well-designed housing which respects the character of the neighbourhood, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.

16. Clause 16.02-2 requires an application for medium density housing to be assessed in terms of the latest version of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing ("the Good Design Guide").

17. Clause 19 contains the State Policy on Design and Built Form. Clause 19.03-2 states:

Development should achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

18. The purpose of the Residential 1 zone, stated at Clause 32.01, includes:

* To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

* To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

19. Council's Municipal Strategic Statement ("MSS") is at Clause 21. Ms Moser highlighted the Residential Strategic Objectives. At Clause 22.01 there is a local policy : Residential Development and Character Policy. Specific policies cover such matters as building setbacks, built form and development, private open spaces, fences, walls adjacent to boundaries and car parking. The policy contains local variations to the neighbourhood character, building envelope, infrastructure and private and communal open space provisions of the Good Design Guide.

20. The Monash Urban Character Study, adopted by Council in 1997, is a reference document under Clause 22.01. The subject site is located within "C2a Character Area" identified in that Study.

21. The Application for Permit was lodged on 18 December 2000. Following the giving of notice of the application two objections were received - from the owners of two of the units on land abutting to the west. Ms Moser summarised the grounds of objection as follows:

* Loss of privacy and freedom as a result of overlooking from the double storey dwelling windows.

* Overshadowing as a result of the positioning of the double storey dwellings.

* Increased noise and air pollution due to the car parking arrangements.

* Out of keeping with the character of the area.

22. The application was referred to Council's Development Engineer for comments in relation to stormwater and drainage. No objection was offered subject to standard conditions and notes being included on any permit.

23. The planning officer's recommendation that the application be allowed was adopted by the Council's delegate. A Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, subject to nine conditions, was issued on 17 April 2001. The conditions included a requirement for amended plans showing, inter alia, obscure glass in upper floor bathroom windows, high sills for all other upper floor west facing windows and the front setback increased to a minimum of 8.7m.

24. The application for review by one of the Objectors, lodged on 7 May 2001, included a two page letter stating grounds which can be summarised as:

* The bulkiness of the two double storey buildings.

25. The Applicant for Permit's Statement of Grounds, dated 1 June 2001, stated the following:

1. The proposal is appropriate having regard to the character of the area.

2. The proposal has been designed in accordance with the Monash Planning Scheme, the Good Design Guide and Council's local policies.

3. The proposal provides adequate facilities for future residents.

4. The proposal will not unreasonably affect the amenity of neighbouring properties or the area.

26. After considering the matters set out in the submissions presented by the parties, the provisions of the Planning Scheme and the details of the proposal I consider that there are two key issues which require my consideration:

* Whether the proposed development, particularly its two storey component, has been designed to be sufficiently respectful of neighbourhood character.

* Whether the proposed development will result in unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding properties.

27. My understanding of these issues was assisted by an unaccompanied inspection of the subject site, the Objector's property and the general area on 21 August 2001.

28. State and local policies and the objectives of Element 3 of the Good Design Guide all reinforce the need for new multi unit development to be respectful of its neighbourhood and make a positive contribution to the character of the neighbourhood.

29. In the light of my site inspection I accept Ms Moser's submission that there are elements of the neighbourhood of the subject site that do not comply with the desired character for Area C2 identified in Council's Urban Character Study. That calls for architecture to be "secondary in visual significance to the landscape...from the street" and suggests that "neighbourhood character ...should develop within a pleasant leafy framework of well planted gardens and large canopy trees".

30. Particularly along Kelly Street there are clear views from the street to the dwellings. While I understand that until last year there was a very large eucalypt in the central part of the subject site canopy trees are not a general characteristic of the area, certainly not to the extent of most areas in Type C2.

31. I consider that the proposed development would sit comfortably in the streetscape. Only one crossover is proposed and a single storey dwelling would face the street. The Notice of Decision requires a marginally greater setback (increased to 8.7m). This has been determined in accordance with Council's variation of E6.T1 of the Good Design Guide which requires a setback to take account of the "prevailing" setback (by reference to 5 properties on either side).

32. Mr Bowden suggested that the increased setback could be achieved by shifting back Unit 1 and reducing "oversized" garages. I consider, however, that it would be more appropriate that the size of garages and the juxtaposition of buildings to the rear be maintained and that the increased setback be achieved by reducing the floor area of Unit 1.

33. The proposal also provides an opportunity for planting in the front garden area which is now barren. I accept Mr Bowden's submission that planting could make a strong contribution to the streetscape.

34. Ms Kalamaras-Lebessis' fundamental objection to the proposal relates to the double storey component. She described it as an "eyesore" and suggested that Units 2 and 3, with an average height of 6.7m, would be more bulky than the attic style building within the unit development to the rear (5 Rae Street) on a wider block. Ms Kalamaras-Lebessis was strongly of the view that if there is to be double storey development it should only be at the front of the site, or of an attic style under one roof. Furthermore, Ms Kalamaras-Lebessis had thoroughly itemised development in the broader area and concluded that all other dwellings around, including units, are single storey. Accordingly, she saw two storey development as out of character.

35. Ms Moser and Mr Bowden pointed to a few double storey developments in the area. In particular they highlighted that one of the units to the rear (5 Rae Street) has an upper storey (albeit an attic style). They also noted that there are numerous split level homes with comparable overall height.

36. The parties' dispute about the existence or not of two storey development in the neighbourhood is not really the point. I accept that most housing in the area is single storey. However, that does not mean that the inclusion of a new second storey development is out of character. Two storey dwellings are part and parcel of most suburban areas. I agree with the comments of the Tribunal in Baillie v Moreland City Council and Others (Application for Review No 2000/14971, unreported) that double storey dwellings "are not two headed monsters" but rather that "they are a normal housing type throughout the metropolitan area". Furthermore, I note the comments of the Tribunal in Rendevski v City of Greater Geelong and Hackel and Others (Application for Review No 1999/28245, 3 VPR 9):

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 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.

37. In this case I do not consider that the neighbourhood characteristics are "so pristine" that two storey development is unacceptable. There are two storey dwellings in the area, the Planning Scheme policies do not discourage the development of such dwellings and two storey single dwellings may be developed on an as-of-right basis.

38. My determination cannot be based on Ms Kalamaras-Lebessis' personal preferences or prejudices. There needs to be an objective assessment of what constitutes reasonable development on this site. That is, the impact of the actual mass, bulk and location of the development needs to be considered.

39. On those matters I accept the submissions of Ms Moser and Mr Bowden that the upper floor areas are well set back and well articulated. Mr Bowden also noted that there would be separation in the order of 9m from the Objector's dwelling and the bulk of the upper floor of Unit 2. A small section of the bedroom would extend to within 7.5m. There would also be limited width of upper floor (8.5m) presented to the west. As calculated by Mr Bowden there would be a separation of around 15m from Unit 3 to the centre of the Objector's back yard. There would also be a "gap" of around 7m between the upper floors of Units 2 and 3. Ms Kalamares-Lebessis would not be faced with a continuous outlook of double storey form.

40. The upper floor articulation is a factor of the overall amount of upper floor area relative to the ground level. By my calculations the upper floor of Unit 2 would be only 50.19% of the ground floor level (not including the garage). For Unit 3 this figure would be 47.64%. Furthermore, the total upper floor area (91.34m2) would be only 16.33% of the total site coverage (including garages and porches).

41. My only reservation about the proposed double storey form relates to the specific siting. The upper floors are well setback from the eastern boundary but I consider that their placement with respect to the west is more critical. I understand that the general siting has been determined to achieve the large open spaces on the eastern side. These spaces almost comply with Council's Local Variation requiring 75m2 per unit. While such large spaces are a positive aspect of the proposal I consider that they have been achieved at the expense of the western side which is a more critical interface.

42. The siting also means that there is limited space on the eastern side for a driveway and landscaping. I consider that the design would be improved if Units 2 and 3 were shifted one metre to the west, away from the unit development to the west. This would allow space for a 3m wide driveway and additional landscaping. The bulk of the upper floors would also be further removed from the Objector's property.

43. There is no doubt that the proposed development would change the outlook from the Objector's property. There would be a change with any development to rear of subject site, especially given the low fence and lack of vegetation. The view from within the Objector's dwelling would be limited due to the window coverings which already restrict views. The view from the yard would be unrestricted but I do not consider that it would be unreasonable. I also noted Mr Bowden's suggestion that there could be additional planting (say, Silver Birches) in the landscaping strip adjacent to Unit 2 and 3. While this would not fully screen the Objector's view it would reduce the visual impact of the new development.

44. Although there would be no impact on the daylight received at Ms Kalamares-Lebessis' property the proposed double storey form would affect the receipt of sunlight.

45. On this matter Ms Kalamares-Lebessis submitted that the development would cause shade over half of her backyard and her child's bedroom at the rear of her dwelling. Ms Moser conceded that at the Equinox (the relevant time for assessment) at 9.00am there would be some shadow cast by the development over Units 2, 3 and 4. However, she estimated that after around an hour this would recede off the neighbouring properties.

46. I acknowledge that the development would cause morning shadows. The receipt of sunlight is obviously an important aspect of the amenity of Ms Kalamaras-Lebessis' yard which is only 15.5m by 3.1m, has limited vegetation and subject to freeway noise. However, I do not consider that the increase in shading is unreasonable. It complies with the relevant technique of the Good Design Guide. As indicated on Mr Bowden's copy of the Applicant's shadow diagram the development would only marginally increase the shadows already cast by the boundary fence. As acknowledged by Ms Kalamares-Lebessis the existing house casts shadows over her yard in the morning. The diagrams reveal that the area outside the back door would be unaffected. While there would be loss of sunlight to the bedroom I accept Mr Bowden's submission that this does not warrant refusal of the proposal. On that matter Mr Bowden estimated that shadows would move off the rear bedroom window by 9.30am-10.00am.

47. Ms Kalamares-Lebessis also submitted that two storey development would result in "gross invasion" of her privacy in that it would allow views to her kitchen, yard and child's bedroom. However, during the hearing she acknowledged that if the changes required by the Council's Notice of Decision were made there would be no prospect of overlooking.

48. Mr Bowden highlighted the opportunity to relocate the west facing window of the study of Unit 2 to the south. I consider such an amendment to be appropriate in that it would be a further safeguard against overlooking.

49. Although the neighbours to the south and east were not objectors or represented at the hearing the potential amenity impacts on those properties need to be considered.

50. There is a large brick building abutting the western boundary of the property to the east. I accept Ms Moser's submission that this is a major element "separating" the neighbouring dwelling. Even with the diminished eastern side setback I propose I consider that any visual impact of the proposed two storey dwellings would be insignificant.

51. East facing upper floor windows are proposed. They are narrow secondary windows in two of bedrooms of Unit 2 and the window in the "study" (really just an extension of the landing at the top of the stairs) of Unit 3. I do not consider that the latter gives any cause for concern given its location, the intervening outbuildings and the large setback from the principal private open space of the neighbour. However, the windows of Unit 2 warrant treatment to prevent overlooking, especially if the development is shifted closer to the common boundary.

52. The wall of one room of Unit 4 and the garage of Unit 3 are proposed to abut the eastern boundary. The wall would have a combined length of about 8m. I do not consider that this feature is unacceptable. It is to the rear of the site, behind the neighbour's shed and removed from the neighbour's principal private open space.

53. Unit 4 is proposed to be single storey and there would be a minimum setback of 3m setback from the rear boundary. I do not agree with Mr Bowden that the placement of a single storey dwelling at the rear "will maintain the open backyard feel of the neighbourhood". Nevertheless, I consider that the rear unit would have an adequate separation from the rear unit at 5 Rae Street. Only a small amount of shadow would reach the neighbouring property.

54. Ms Kalamaras-Lebessis submitted that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable level of noise due to cars using the driveway on the west side of the property. The noise and fumes of cars starting was also mentioned. While the proposal would result in additional vehicles I do not consider that the Objector's fears would be realised. It is proposed to pave the driveway. The erection of a new fence and establishment of planting along the boundary would minimise off-site impacts.

55. Ms Kalamaras-Lebessis also submitted that given the size of the units they should have double garages. I do not accept that argument. Each dwelling would have two car spaces (albeit one in tandem to the garage). This level of accommodation complies with the Good Design Guide requirement. There are no designated visitor car spaces. The Good Design Guide does not require such spaces for a four unit development. In any event I accept Mr Bowden's submission that there would on-road space, adjacent to the property, available for this purpose. Apart from the crossover there would be 15m of frontage available. As noted by Mr Bowden this represents 2, possibly 3, spaces for visitors. There would be no need for motorists (residents or visitors) to resort to use of the wide nature strip - a practice apparently adopted by some neighbours.

56. The proposal does not include any external storage areas. Such spaces would be desirable so that residents do not rely on garages for storage.

57. Ms Kalamares-Lebessis submitted that the proposal would result in a devaluation of her property. It has long been held by the Tribunal, and its predecessors, that a general claim concerning devaluation is not a relevant planning considerations.

58. In summary I have found that the proposed development is respectful of the streetscape. Although two storey development is not common in the neighbourhood the form in which it is proposed would not have any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties.

59. Accordingly I will disallow the Application for Review and make the appropriate order.

60. A permit should issue subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Decision to Issue a Permit modified to reflect my findings.