APPLICANTS Johnny Saliba and Sandra Saliba (Subject Land owners)

FIRST INTERESTED PARTY Robert Knight of 9 Gloucester Court, Seaholme

SECOND INTERESTED PARTY David DiLisio and Sandra DiLisio of 12 Seaholme Avenue, Seaholme

CITATION Saliba & Anor v Hobsons Bay City Council [2026] VBAB 5

Having considered all the submissions and information placed before it, the Building Appeals Board (BAB) determines that:

1. Pursuant to s 149(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (the Building Act), the decision of the Respondent, the Hobsons Bay City Council refusing consent to a garage and carport to be constructed on or within 200mm of the side boundary of an allotment with a total combined length of 39.75 metres in lieu of the maximum length on the boundary of 18.73 metres as required under reg 80 of the Building Regulations 2018 (the Regulations) is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to sch 3, cl 16(3) to the Building Act, liberty to apply on the question of costs, subject to such liberty being exercised within 14 days of the date of this determination.

_______________________ ________________________

1. On 13 March 2025, Johnny Saliba and Sandra Saliba (the Applicants) applied for the consent of the Respondent, Hobsons Bay City Council, (the Council) for a building permit application for a proposed design in respect of a garage and carport to be erected/built at 11 Gloucester Court, Seaholme (the Subject Land).
2. The garage and carport would be constructed on or within 200mm of the side boundary of an allotment with a total combined length of 39.75 metres, in lieu of the maximum length on the boundary of 18.73 metres as required under reg 80 of the Building Regulations 2018 (the Regulations).
3. Under reg 80 of the Regulations:

The report and consent of the relevant council must be obtained to an application for a building permit in relation to a design that does not comply with this/[these] regulation[/s].

1. On 18 August 2025 the Council refused consent, reasoning that:

The location length and or height of the wall on a boundary;

1. will result in a significant impact on the amenity of existing dwellings on nearby allotments; and
2. the wall does not abut a side or real laneway; and
3. the increased wall height is not required to screen a box gutter; and
4. will not be appropriate taking into account the prevailing location length and or height of boundary walls of existing buildings on nearby allotments.

1. On 19 September 2025, the Applicants appealed the decision (the Appeal) under s 144(1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 (Building Act) to the Building Appeals Board (BAB).
2. The Appeal was considered 'on the papers' on 11 December 2025.
3. I have considered the parties' written submissions and the material filed with the BAB. I have also had regard to the applicable Decision Guidelines set out under the Minister's Guideline MG-12: Siting and Design of Dwellings (MG-12), given they are relevant considerations for the BAB to consider. Based on these considerations I make the following findings and observations.
4. The objective of Siting requirement 9: Walls and carports on boundaries in MG-12 is to ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings on adjoining allotments.
5. Considering the Decision Guidelines in MG-12 Siting requirement 9: Walls and carports on boundaries, I find:

a) The location, length and height of the wall will result in a significant impact on the amenity of existing adjoining dwelling at 9 Gloucester Court as the proposal will extend the carport and walls within 200mm of the boundary to approximately 88% of the total boundary length. The extent of the carport and walls within 200mm of the boundary is excessive, as it will extend the full length of the adjoining dwelling and the backyard. I note the consent of the owner of the adjoining property; the amenity impact is assessed on the property not the current owner (Criterion a). > > b) There is no building envelope approved under the planning scheme or planning permit and or specified in an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Criterion b). > > c) There is no evidence presented that shows: > > 1. the proposal is consistent with a relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in the relevant planning scheme applicable to the location, length and height of the wall on a boundary (Criterion c): > 2. the location, length and or height of the wall is more appropriate taking into account the prevailing location, length and or height of boundary walls of existing buildings on nearby allotments (Criterion d); or > 3. the location, length and or height of the wall will be more appropriate taking into account the preferred character of the area, where it has been identified in the relevant planning scheme (Criterion e); > > d) The slope of the allotment and or existing retaining walls or fences does not reduce the effective height of the wall (Criterion f). > > e) The wall does not abut a side or rear lane (Criterion g). > > f) The increased wall height is not required to screen a box gutter. (Criterion h).

6. I find that the proposed wall and carport within 200mm of the allotment boundary does not meet any of the decision guidelines in MG-12 that are applicable and that the Council's refusal of consent under reg 80 should be affirmed.