In permit application no. 02/0079, a permit is granted is directed to be issued. The permit relates to the land at No. 43 Winona Road, Mt Eliza. The permit will allow the subdivision of the land into two lots and the construction of a dwelling and associated swimming pool on Lot 2, including vegetation removal pursuant to the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) and Clause 52.17 and buildings and works pursuant to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO4), in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1 BEFORE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBDIVISION AN AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. THE AMENDED PLAN MUST SHOW THE CORRECT DIMENSIONS OF THE LAND.

2 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DWELLING STARTS, AMENDED PLANS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. WHEN APPROVED, THE PLANS WILL BE ENDORSED AND WILL THEN FORM PART OF THE PERMIT. (THE PLANS MUST BE DRAWN TO SCALE WITH DIMENSIONS AND 3 COPIES MUST BE PROVIDED). THE PLANS MUST BE GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION (AS REVISED 28.11.02) EXCEPT THAT:

(a) THE DRIVEWAY AND DWELLING ON LOT 2 MUST BE MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MR N ARCHER, DATED 2 AUGUST 2004 SUBMITTED TO THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. P1280/2004 INCLUDING PROVIDING FOR THE RETENTION OF TREE NO. 29 REFERRED TO IN THAT STATEMENT.

(b) A SCHEDULE OF ALL EXTERNAL BUILDING MATERIALS AND COLOURS INCLUDING COLOUR SWATCHES, SAMPLES OR COLOUR CODES BE SUBMITTED. THE COLOURS MUST BE OF NON-REFLECTIVE TONES.

(c) ALL STORM WATER DRAINAGE FOR THE LAND BE DETAILED.

(d) A SECTION DIAGRAM FROM THROUGH THE HIGHEST PORTION OF THE NEW DWELLING DETAILING RELATIVE LEVELS TAKEN FROM THE AUSTRALIAN HEIGHT DATUM OR A FIXED, PERMANENT DATUM MEASURABLE AFTER CONSTRUCTION FOR THE NATURAL GROUND LEVEL, FINISHED FLOOR LEVELS, AND HIGHEST PORTION OF THE BUILDING.

(e) NOTATION OF ALL UTILITY SERVICES SUCH AS ELECTRICITY AND OTHER CABLING TO BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND AND SITED ALONG THE DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT.

(f) A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE WHOLE SITE PREPARED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY. IT MUST SHOW THE RETENTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND THE REPLANTING OF INDIGENOUS VEGETATION. THIS INCLUDES THE PLANNED PRESERVATION OR REGENERATION OF PLANTS ON THOSE PARTS OF THE SITE WHERE VEGETATION IS TO REMAIN AND OTHER AREAS WHERE COMPENSATORY PLANTING CAN OCCUR. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD INCORPORATE:

(i) A SURVEY OF ALL EXISTING VEGETATION AND NATURAL FEATURES.

(iii) A SCHEDULE OF ALL PROPOSED TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE LOCATION AND NUMBER OR DENSITY OF PLANTING OF ALL PLANTS.

(v) DETAILS OF PAVING, DRIVEWAY SURFACE, RETAINING WALLS, FENCE DESIGN DETAILS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE WORKS INCLUDING AREAS OF CUT AND FILL.

(vi) DETAILS OF MEASURES TO PROTECT TREES TO BE RETAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MR N ARCHER, DATED 2 AUGUST 2004 SUBMITTED TO THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. P1280/2004.

(vii) USE OF PREDOMINANTLY NATIVE INDIGENOUS PLANTS WITH THE AIM TO VISUALLY INTEGRATE THE DEVELOPMENT WITH ITS SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT AND PROVIDE FOR MEANINGFUL HABITAT VALUE. THE PLANTINGS MUST INCLUDE GROUND COVER, UNDERSTOREY AND CANOPY VEGETATION.

(g) A SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY DETAILING HOW THE SITE WILL BE MANAGED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS MAINTENANCE THEREAFTER. THE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN MUST IDENTIFY:

(i) MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED THAT WILL PROTECT VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED ON THE ROAD RESERVE AND ON THE LAND BEFORE AND DURING ANY VEGETATION REMOVAL OR EARTHWORKS BEING COMMENCED.

(ii) SUPERVISION OF ALL WORKS ON SITE AND INSTRUCTION OF CONTRACTORS AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT AND THE PLANNING SCHEME.

(iii) DISPOSAL OF ANY OVERBURDEN RESULTING FROM EARTHWORKS.

(iv) WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL DURING CONSTRUCTION.

(v) LOCATION OF BUILDING STORAGE MATERIAL AND WASTE MATERIAL DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE STORAGE OF SUCH MATERIALS MUST NOT BE SITED UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED.

3 THE LAYOUT OF THE LAND, THE SIZE AND TYPE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND WORKS, INCLUDING THE MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION, ON THE ENDORSED PLAN MUST NOT BE ALTERED OR MODIFIED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.

4 THE MATERIALS AND COLOUR OF THE EXTERIOR FINISH OF THE BUILDING MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENDORSED PLANS UNLESS WITH THE FURTHER PERMISSION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.

5 VEGETATION OTHER THAN ON THE LAND SHOWN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS SHOWN ON THE ENDORSED PLANS MUST NOT BE FELLED, LOPPED, TOPPED, RINGBARKED OR OTHERWISE DESTROYED OR REMOVED EXCEPT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.

6 WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE INITIAL OCCUPATION OF THE NEW DWELLING THE LANDSCAPING MUST BE COMPLETED AND THEN MAINTAINED, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.

7 UNLESS WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY OR AS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS ENDORSED UNDER CONDITION 1, THE SUBDIVIDER MUST PROVIDE A REINFORCED CONCRETE OR SEGMENTAL PAVING VEHICLE CROSSING TO EACH LOT. A VEHICLE CROSSING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF' THE WORKS. THE CROSSINGS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE INITIAL OCCUPATION OF THE DWELLING ON LOT 2.

8 ALL DISTURBED SURFACES ON THE LAND RESULTING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVEGETATED AND STABILISED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.

9 THE SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE ENDORSED PLAN MUST NOT BE ALTERED OR MODIFIED WITHOUT THE CONSENT IN WRITING OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.

10 ALL AREAS OF THE DEVELOPMENT MUST BE DRAINED TO THE EXISTING DRAIN AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY VIA AN UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR OTHER APPROVED METHOD OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.

11 PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION HERBY PERMITTED, THE PLAN MUST BE REFERRED TO SOUTH EAST WATER, UNITED ENERGY AND MELBOURNE WATER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 8 OF THE SUBDIVISION ACT 1988.

12 PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION HEREBY PERMITTED THE OWNER MUST ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 173 OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987. THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE REGISTERED ON THE TITLE TO THE SUBJECT LAND AT THE COST OF THE OWNER. THE AGREEMENT MUST PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING MATTERS:

(a) THE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE MUST NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE DWELLING ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT IS ERECTED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON LOT 2.

13 NO POLLUTED OR SEDIMENT LADEN RUN OFF IS TO BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTO DRAINS OR WATERCOURSES OF MELBOURNE WATER.

14 PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE, THE SUBDIVIDER MUST ENTER INTO AND COMPLY WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH MELBOURNE WATER OR OTHER RELEVANT SERVICE PROVIDER, UNDER SECTION 269A OF THE MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS ACT 1958. THIS AGREEMENT MUST PROVIDE FOR DRAINAGE WORKS AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF SURFACE AND STORM WATER FROM THE SUBJECT LAND DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM OF MELBOURNE WATER.

15 PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE, THE SUBDIVIDER MUST ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH EAST WATER LIMITED FOR THE PROVISION OF RETICULATED WATER AND RETICULATED SEWERAGE TO ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. THE SUBDIVIDER MUST FULFIL ALL REQUIREMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF SOUTH EAST WATER.

16 PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A STATEMENT OF' COMPLIANCE, THE SUBDIVIDER MUST ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH UNITED ENERGY FOR THE EXTENSION, UPGRADING OR RE-ARRANGEMENT OF THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY TO THE LOTS ON THE PLAN AS REQUIRED (A PAYMENT TO COVER THE COST OF SUCH WORK WILL BE REQUIRED).

17 THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:

(a) THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT STARTED WITHIN 2 YEARS OF THE DATE OF THIS PERMIT.

(b) THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN 4 YEARS OF THE DATE OF THIS PERMIT.

THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY MAY EXTEND THE ABOVE PERIODS IF A REQUEST IS MADE IN WRITING BEFORE THE PERMIT EXPIRES OR WITHIN THE FOLLOWING 3 MONTHS.

Ms L Kelleher, solicitor. Evidence was called from Mr A Robertson, town planner, and Mr N Archer, arborist.

1 This is an Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 brought by P G & J M Rowe seeking review of a decision made by the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council ("the Council") to refuse to grant a permit in permit application no. 02/0079. A Notice of Refusal was issued on 25 March 2004. The Application was lodged on 17 May 2004.

2 At the commencement of the Hearing, Ms Kelleher tendered a draft landscape plan for the site.

3 During the course of the Hearing, Ms Kelleher sought leave to amend (clarify) the purpose of the permit application, being subdivision of the land into two lots, construction of a dwelling on Lot 2 including an associated swimming pool, buildings and works pursuant to DDO4, and vegetation removal pursuant to VPO1 and Clause 52.17. There was no objection to the description of the proposal being amended in these terms and leave was granted to make the necessary amendments to the documentation.

4 The subject site is located on the north-west side of Winona Road. The land has an area of some 4,793 square metres with a frontage to Winona Road of around 46 metres. The site falls toward the rear, by some 13 metres. There is an easement along the rear boundary (which I describe as "north" for ease, given the off-set orientation of the land). Mature vegetation exists across the site with a large grouping toward the front, along the western boundary and to the rear of the land. The review site is occupied by a single storey dwelling that is setback by some 18 metres from the street. It is accessed by a circular driveway with two crossovers.

5 To the east, at No. 45 Winona Road, and west, at No. 41 Winona Road, are single storey dwellings. To the rear are dwellings with a frontage to Alverstone Grove, including single storey forms and a part double storey dwelling at No. 4 Alverstone Grove.

6 The area comprises detached dwellings on generous allotments. The bushland character of the area is evident on inspection. The submission by the Council referred to lots in the area ranging from 2,500 to 3,600 square metres. Winona Road is a narrow and undulating local road.

7 It is proposed to subdivide the land into two lots. Lot 1, which would retain the existing dwelling, has an area of 2,178 square metres while Lot 2 would be 2,615 square metres. The layout is battle-axe in form with access to the Lot 2 along the western boundary.

8 It is proposed to construct a double storey dwelling on Lot 2. The residence would comprise four bedrooms and a study, with a double car garage. The upper level contains a master bedroom and associated facilities with the remainder of the habitable areas being at ground level. Some excavation and fill would be required. A swimming pool is proposed to the north of the new dwelling. The setback of the proposed dwelling from the rear boundary (north) would be 17 metres with side setbacks of a minimum of 6 metres and 12 metres from the east and west boundaries respectively. The driveway would abut the western side boundary, using an existing crossover to the front of the land. The dwelling would have a maximum wall height of 6.7 metres and an overall height of 7.9 metres.

9 The existing dwelling would be retained in its current form using the circular driveway and double carport.

10 The proposal requires the removal of some vegetation mainly to allow the construction of the driveway. Based on Mr Archer's evidence, a total of 18 trees (8 indigenous) would be removed and the landscape plan provides for 21 replacement trees (all indigenous) as well as new ground cover and understorey plantings.

11 The subject site is zoned Residential 1 under the provisions of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme ("the Scheme"). A permit is required to subdivide the land and develop a dwelling on the second lot. The decision guidelines of Clause 32.01-4 require consideration of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and Clauses 55 and 56.

13 A Vegetation Protection Overlay (Township Vegetation Schedule 1) applies to the land. A permit is required to remove vegetation except where a development is otherwise approved.

14 A Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 4 - Environmental Design) applies to the land. It has a complex set of provisions relating to new development and subdivision.

15 As the review site is located east of Canadian Bay Road, Mt Eliza (and not between Jacksons Road and Williams Road, west of Watts Parade) no more than two dwellings are allowed for every 2,600 square metres of site area in accordance with the provisions of DDO4. Design objectives are set out in Schedule 4 to the Overlay. They include:

* To ensure that development densities are compatible with the environmental and infrastucture capacities of the area...

* To recognise areas, including Mt Eliza, where substantial vegetation cover is a dominant visual and environmental feature of the local area, by ensuring site areas are large enough to accommodate development while retaining natural or established vegetation cover and to provide substantial areas for new landscaping and open space.

* To recognise the landscape character of environmentally sensitive areas...

* To ensure that new development has proper regard for the established streetscape and development pattern in terms of building height, scale and siting, and to protect shared viewlines where reasonable and practical.

* To ensure that buildings are designed and sited to avoid being visually obtrusive, particularly in terms of creating a silhouette above a skyline or existing tree canopy line when viewed from surrounding streets and properties.

* To ensure that subdivision proposals will enable new buildings to be integrated with their site and the surrounding area in terms of the relationship to existing buildings, open space and the coastal landscape.

* To recognise areas where a lower intensity of residential activity and traffic movement contributes to the amenity of the area.

16 Pursuant to DDO4, a permit is required for subdivision. A permit is also required for buildings and works as the proposed dwelling has a wall height of greater than 5.5 metres and would exceed a maximum height of 6 metres. Decision guidelines are set out in the Schedule, in addition to the decision guidelines at Clause 43.02. These decision guidelines have been taken into account by the Tribunal in reaching a determination. The site is not within the Mt Eliza escarpment that has been recognised by the National Trust.

17 A permit is also required pursuant to Clause 52.17 for the removal of native vegetation as the subject land has an area of more than 0.4 hectares. Decision guidelines included in the Clause have been taken into account.

18 A number of other Clauses are relevant to the consideration of this Application, including Clauses 11, 15, 16, 19, 21, Clause 22.13 (township environs local policy) and Clause 65 (general decision guidelines and guidelines relating to subdivision). Melbourne 2030 has also been taken into account by the Tribunal.

19 I have considered all submissions presented and have inspected the subject site and locality. I do not recite all of the material presented, as the written submissions and evidence tendered are retained on file, although I do refer to some of the main points. I set out my findings in relation to the key issues in this Application having regard to the policies, objectives and decision guidelines of the Scheme. The key issues for determination are:

* whether the proposed subdivision is acceptable, in principle, in terms of the policy directions of the Scheme and requirements of Clause 56 particularly in relation to DDO4 and neighbourhood character.

* whether the proposed dwelling is acceptable in terms of streetscape and neighbourhood character considerations particularly taking into account the vegetation removal proposed.

* whether the proposed dwelling would cause unacceptable off-site amenity impacts.

20 The submissions by local residents expressed concern about the principle of subdividing the land and the creation of smaller lots. Reference was made by Respondent Objectors to the healthy balance between bushland and development achieved by larger lots, the achievement of diversity objectives by the retention of larger lots, and resident expectations that 2/3 acre lots would be retained. The potential for a precedent to be set was a major issue.

21 The Council's grounds also raised issues with the density of development. Mr Newman referred to the findings of the Tribunal in P430/2003 Forde v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and others and stated that the outcome of that case is only relevant in so far as it concluded that change in lot sizes is possible under DDO4 and the key issue is whether a proposal is acceptable in terms of neighbourhood character.

22 In P430/2003 Forde v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and others, determined by the same division of the Tribunal, the following findings were made in relation to the potential for a reduction in lots sizes in the DDO4 area that allows such an application to be considered:

I am mindful that the provisions of the Overlay give a discretion for the type of application that is before me to be allowed in the low density area in contrast to other parts of Mt Eliza where the same discretion to approve subdivision to the density proposed in this Application is not available. ....

I accept that there is not a policy imperative to significantly increase densities; the area is recognised as low density and is intended to remain at a low density.

In my view, the proposal can be fairly said to represent low density compared with more conventional suburban development, although it is obvious that when compared with existing lots in the vicinity of the review site it is at a higher density.

That the Scheme allows an application to be made for two dwellings on a land of the size involved here gives weight to the submission made by the Applicant that the proposal would maintain the low density of development, in contrast to areas where more intensive development is allowed. The provisions of the Scheme have been prepared with an awareness of the existing level of service provision in the locality. In addition, they have been formulated with the strategic intent to "Maintain the existing transition area of low- density residential development in Mt Eliza, having regard to its particular environmental, landscape, township character and heritage values" (Clause 21.07). Therefore, the Scheme contemplates the possibility that lot sizes may be reduced and densities increased to the nominated level without undermining its strategic foundation and while recognising the current level of servicing.

Consequently, I am not persuaded that there is a policy basis to adopt the position put in some submissions that there should be no change in relation to lot sizes on the Mornington Peninsula side of Humphries Road.

23 The same principle applies in the current proceeding. I find there to be no basis to depart from that principle as I understand that the controls and policies are the same as when that Application (Forde) was determined. Moreover, although in the current proceeding issues about servicing (eg. water pressure), access to public transport and impacts on schools were raised, I remain of the view that the DDO4 provisions have been prepared with an awareness of existing servicing provision, as is identified in the first objective that I have cited at paragraph 15 of these reasons.

24 The proposal in this Application meets the requirements of Clause 56 and DDO4 in relation to subdivision layout. The main issue is in terms of neighbourhood character. I am satisfied that the layout of the proposed lots is sufficiently responsive to the Scheme's policies, the setting of the site, topographic and vegetation considerations and the existing pattern of development. I reach that finding for the following reasons:

* Some lots to the west of the review site and three others opposite and to the south-east have all been divided into a battle-axe form, as is the form of this proposal. The proposed layout ensures that the presentation to the street is little changed and maintains the rhythm of building spacing.

* There is a wide mix of lot sizes in the DDO4 area and in close proximity to the review site. The proposed lots, at 2,178 square metres and 2,615 square metres, are within the range of lot sizes in the immediate area based on the information provided to me at the Hearing. The lot that would contain the existing dwelling would be smaller than others in the area but I do not consider it to be substantially or obviously different. By retaining the existing dwelling there would be little perceptible change in the streetscape other than the new driveway using an existing crossing.

* The proposed driveway to Lot 2 would require removal of some vegetation but I am persuaded that new plantings can ensure a net gain in terms of native vegetation.

25 To reach this view in relation to the current Application is not to conclude that the same arrangement might be suitable for other lots in the area. The nearby properties to the north and east are around 2,600 - 3,700 square metres and their subdivision would result in considerably smaller lots than is the case here. Their subdivision may also have different streetscape impacts given the narrower frontages and vegetation removal involved.

26 A significant concern raised by the Council and Respondent Objectors in relation to the second dwelling also related to neighbourhood character reflecting arguments that I have referred to above and, associated with that, a loss of vegetation.

27 These submissions were challenged by Ms Kelleher through the evidence of Mr Robertson and Mr Archer. In summary, she submitted that the proposal is consistent with and supportive of planning policy and that the proposal is an acceptable response to the character of the area particularly given the spacing to the dwelling and net vegetation gain that would be achieved.

28 Despite the Council's grounds of refusal including reference to "preferred neighbourhood character", there is no statement of preferred character for this area. The area was well described by Mr Newman in terms of its bushland character and feel. That is a function of the lot sizes and frontages to the street, planting on individual sites and vegetation within the road reserve. This valued character seems to be based on this sense of space and bushland setting.

29 I am not persuaded that the proposed dwelling would jeopardise that valued character for the following reasons:

* The driveway to Lot 2 would require removal of some vegetation but new indigenous plantings can achieve a significant net gain in terms of native vegetation and thereby enhance the bushland setting.

* A total of 21 indigenous trees is proposed on the draft landscape plan to replace the 8 indigenous trees that would be lost. Most of those trees to be removed have some structural concerns and/or are of low retention value based on Mr Archer's evidence. New trees, and the creation of an understorey which is otherwise limited at present, would have the benefit of creating new habitat.

* The streetscape presentation associated with the existing dwelling would essentially be unchanged. It is a factor in support of this proposal that no new vehicle crossing is required.

* The proposed dwelling is located in an area that is mainly cleared at present and to the rear of the subject land. The setbacks proposed, and retention of existing trees to the rear of the land (including tree #29 that can be retained with a slight adjustment to the position of the dwelling, based on Mr Archer's evidence) ensure an appropriate landscape setting is maintained to the rear of the site. The proposed building would, like others in the area, be nestled into the landscape.

* The design of the dwelling is a suitable response to the topography and does not require excessive earthworks.

* The upper level of the proposed dwelling is relatively modest given dwelling styles and forms in the area and, as a result of the slope of the land, the dwelling would not be prominent or an obvious element in the streetscape.

30 In summary, I am satisfied that the proposal represents an acceptable outcome in terms of the character of the area and the objectives of DDO4 and VPO1.

31 Few issues were raised in submissions in relation to potential off-site amenity impacts. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 55 in this regard. The siting and form of the dwelling ensures that there would not be unreasonable visual bulk or loss of privacy to adjacent dwellings, assisted by the considerable setbacks from side and rear boundaries and the ability to supplement planting to the rear of the subject land.

32 Finally, I summarise my findings in relation to several other issues that were raised in written statements of grounds and briefly at the Hearing:

* Traffic - I find no reason to reject the Application for reasons relating to increased traffic on the local street network. Winona Road is quite narrow and undulating and there are some visibility constraints. However, the addition of one dwelling will not result in a perceptible change in the traffic conditions and, importantly, the proposal allows for both dwellings associated with the review site to depart the site in a forward motion.

* Earthworks - there was some concern about the extent of earthworks required however, the works involved do not trigger a permit under the provisions of DDO4.

* Precedent - as I have alluded to, a decision in this case gives no comfort or support to other subdivision proposals that might be pursued in this area. Each case must be dealt with on its merits, based on the factual circumstances that apply to a site and any proposal and considered in the context of the directions and policies applicable at the time. The review site and proposal in this Application have the benefit of:

o a lot size that is larger than most in the immediate vicinity;

o a well considered layout that involves the retention of the existing dwelling, utilisation of existing crossings and new dwelling that has minimised vegetation removal and responded to its setting;

o an expert and careful review of existing vegetation;

o the demonstrated ability to achieve a net gain in terms of native vegetation on the land.

33 For the reasons I have set out above, I conclude that the proposal represents an acceptable outcome in terms of the policies and decision guidelines of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. I will therefore allow the Application and direct that a permit issue, subject to conditions.