1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is granted and is to issue for land at 5 McCubbin Court, Point Cook in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions contained in Appendix A.
2. The permit allows the construction of three single storey dwellings and associated works.

1. This is a review of a refusal of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for the three single storey units at 5 McCubbin Court, Point Cook for the following reasons:
   • The proposed density and site coverage are contrary to the character of the neighbourhood.
   • The proposed infill development compromising medium density housing is totally at odds with the surrounding residential neighbourhood character.
   • The proposed infill development comprising medium density housing does not constitute orderly planning in the surrounding areas.
2. Council officers recommended that the Council issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit subject to conditions and that was overturned by the above decision.
3. The application resulted in 20 objections being received, eight of the submitters applied to become party to these proceedings.

1. The land is zoned Residential 1 under which a permit is required under Clause 32.01-4 for two or more dwellings on a lot. The application is subject to Clauses 55 and 65 of the planning scheme.
2. It is also subject to Clauses 12 and 16 of the State Planning Policy Frameworks and Clauses 21 and 22 of the Local Planning Policy Frameworks. Point Cook is one of the key growth areas within the City of Wyndham and the Point Cook Concept Plan and Point Cook Concept Plan Addendum 2006 are reference documents under Clause 22.01-3.

1. This 800m2 lot with a frontage of 20 metres is situated on the southern side of McCubbin Court. It is relatively flat. It is vacant. It is within an area of single storey dwellings on lots of around 800m2 but there are also large double storey dwellings situated within the area. Until 2008, there were covenants over the land including a single dwelling covenant.
2. The location of the site provides easy access to commercial and community facilities, public transport and public open space.

1. This is to construct three single storey dwellings on the site setback 4 metres from the street. The front dwelling, unit 1, is detached from the rest and is to have three bedrooms and a single car garage on its eastern side with a tandem parking space. Units 2 and 3 will be accessed by a separate driveway on the western side with unit 2 to have two bedrooms and a single car garage and unit 3 three bedrooms with a single garage and tandem parking space. The dwellings range in area from 121 to 140m2. The street pavement between rollover kerbs is approximately 4.8 metres in width and McCubbin Court is created by a road closure at its western end.

1. At the hearing, Mr Chessell and Ms Gray spoke to written submissions while Ms Corallo and Mr Saker made brief oral ones. Both Mr Chessell and Ms Gray referred to two previous Tribunal decisions not far from the subject site. These decisions were P158/2009 Tony Sass v Wyndham CC and Others [2009] VCAT 1247 of Senior Member Baird and T Sass v Wyndham CC [2009] VCAT 1433, a decision of Member Rundell. In both these cases it was agreed that the Tribunal set aside the Council's decision to grant permits for developments very similar to this but on smaller lots. It was Mr Chessell's submission that the present estate is different from the estate in which those two previous decisions are resulted.
2. Both Ms Corallo and Mr Saker were in agreement with the Responsible Authority's submission and in particular, Mr Saker was concerned about parking traffic in the street and the fact that there would be a triple crossover because Ms Corallo's lot on the eastern side of the subject site already has a double crossing, therefore this would result in the triple crossing reducing parking in the street. Ms Corallo supported that and stated that she was in the process of negotiating to building a large double storey house with a triple garage abutting the eastern boundary of the site. Both believed that the proposal would be totally out of character with the preferred character of the neighbourhood, that being single houses.
3. It would seem that the Responsible Authority has adopted an attitude of resistance to multi dwellings within these areas. However, as Ms Baird and Mr Rundell commented, they have not brought in any other form of restriction or policy to prohibit multi dwelling units in these areas. This proposal is in fact consistent with both the State and Local Planning Policies for the area including:
   • The provision of a range of densities and a variety of dwellings to meet the needs of all households;
   • Provision of a diversity of housing choice in growth areas and diversity in subdivision and housing of both lot size and housing form.
4. The character of the neighbourhood, while single dwellings, does not preclude multi dwelling units of the type proposed. This development presents as one house when one is immediately facing the lot from the street. While the front dwelling is set forward somewhat ahead of the normal setback, because it is adjacent to a vacant block owned by Ms Corallo, a 4 metre minimum setback is allowed under the provisions of Rescode. Since the proposal was designed, a new dwelling has been built on the western side of the land and is setback over 6 metres from the frontage. In order to respond to that, Ms Gray suggested that the proposed front dwelling have its setback staggered in order to provide a transition to that new dwelling's setback. Such a setback could be the same as its garage on its eastern side of 5.5 metres.
5. There is concern about the width of the now triple crossover as it will reduce the amount of parking available on street. However when analysed, a 4.8 metre wide pavement is not conducive to on street parking. It would seem that the Council, in adopting the narrower street widths encouraged by VicCode 1 and the Good Design Guide, has not gone the full way in providing on-verge hard stands for people to park off the pavement and therefore allow free flow of traffic along the street. These types of provisions were originally researched and determined by the Amcord Taskforce of which, incidentally, the city engineer of the previous City of Werribee was a member. This was discussed with the parties at the hearing and the Council representative, Mr Chessell, agreed that the Council did not prohibit hard standing areas on the verges of streets such as McCubbin Court. The issue of a permit would be subject to the provision of such. I note that there are already some similar verges along the street and would expect that the Responsible Authority has given approval for these and approval for pavement details such as depth, compaction, etc.
6. I have decided that a permit will issue subject to conditions but in discussion with the parties, I believe that matters such as the garage to unit 1 and unit 1 setback from the street, need to be addressed as I have previously stated. Also the movement east and south of dwelling 1 allows for more landscaping to be provided at both the front and along the driveway. It also allows for the long western driveway to be meandered from the street frontage back to opposite the driveway entry of unit 2 so that the area of landscaping along the western fence line can be increased to reduce the gun-barrel affect of the driveway and also to allow for the planting of medium sized canopy trees along that section.
7. In reaching my decision, I agreed with the majority of the conclusions of both Ms Baird and Mr Rundell in relation to planning policy, neighbourhood character, the suitability of the site for multi dwellings, amenity and consistency with orderly planning of the area. I will go no further in detailing this. I will say this however, and that is the proposal is well situated, will not cause any major traffic issues, as in reality it will allow approximately 14 to 16 vehicle trips a day into this network, it will not cause a sudden surge in development of multi dwelling units around this area as most of the lots seem to be built on and, even if those that are still vacant were used for multi unit development, this would not significantly change the single dwelling nature of the Point Cook growth area.
8. At the hearing, I alluded to a decision of Senior Member Marsden some years ago when he stated that multi developments in courts should be subject to higher standards than in other places. I agree with that. Ms Gray agrees with that. Ms Gray submitted that, in her view, this proposal did exactly that. She stated that the proposal had a high level of compliance with both the objectives and standards of Clause 55 and I agree.
9. I note that the proposal does not have good energy efficiency, in particular for dwelling 3, and that it needs some measure of alterations to gain a good level of sustainability. For instance, the windows on the northern and western sides of dwellings should be provided with either wide eaves, shade battens or some other means of providing control of sunlight and heat to the windows of rooms along those two sides. This applies in particular to dwellings 1 and 2.
10. As I have often said, there is no need to place little storage sheds in these small rear yards as sufficient storage can be provided within the large garages now required under Rescode, in the form of cupboards or shelving and so I have required the deletion of them.
11. I have deleted proposed condition 5 as I don't believe the development will adversely affect the amenity of the locality. Because the kerb and channel is rollover and no separate vehicle crossings are required I have deleted sentences out of condition 9; also the Tribunal is approving the location of the driveways and therefore it is not necessary for the Council to then approve the location of such. I question the need for a concrete kerb along garden areas as this is not a requirement on single dwellings and generally looks messy in an internal situation and I question whether condition 12 is applicable as the proposal should be subject to an engineering design for stormwater drainage rather than arbitrary detention requirements. Conditions should be peculiar to the proposal rather than simply standard ones. I have also increased the time for completion to the normal standard ones that most Responsible Authority's use. I have also deleted all notes.

The permit must contain the following conditions:

1. The development and/or use(s) permitted by this permit must not be commenced until three copies of a site layout plan drawn to scale and with dimensions is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. Such plan must show:
   • (a) Timber fencing to be replaced with colourbond fencing. Height and colour to match that of the existing colourbond fencing of the estate.
   • (b) New vehicle crossover proposed to service Dwelling 1, to be constructed as an extension of the double vehicle crossover of the abutting property Lot 312, No 4 McCubbin Court.
   • (c) Eaves or shade battens or similar over north and west facing windows.
   • (d) Plans to show the existing two (2) storey dwelling on the abutting property Lot 310 No 6 McCubbin Court.
   • (e) Deletion of storage sheds and storage in garages.
   • (f) The garage of unit 1 moved to the east boundary (whole unit moved east).
   • (g) The western "wing" of unit 1 stepped back to 5.5 metres from the front boundary.
   • (h) The southern driveway to meander away from the western fence from the street to opposite the siting to garage of unit 2.
   • (i) The provision of on-verge hardstanding area between the vehicle crossings. The hardstand to be constructed in gravel with pavement details to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The development and/or use(s) permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plan(s) and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, three copies of a landscaping plan prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to the Responsible Authority and when endorsed will form part of this permit. Such a plan will show the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) All surface treatments.
   • (b) The location, type and height of all fencing.
   • (c) The botanical name, height and width at maturity, and location of all vegetation to be used.
   • (d) A works specification, and the method of preparing, draining watering and maintaining the landscape area.
4. The landscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and once landscaped must not be used for any other purpose except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5. The appearance of the subject land must not, in the opinion of the Responsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality.
6. Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.
7. Vehicular access to the subject land from any roadway or service lane (and vice versa) must be by way of a vehicle crossing(s) constructed at right angles to the road, to suit the proposed driveway(s) and vehicles that will use the crossing. The design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Council.
8. The whole of the subject land, including landscaped and paved areas, must be drained to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. The development must incorporate underground drainage to cater for 1 in 5- year return, and connect to Council's underground stormwater drainage system.
10. The development is to make provision to store or detain a minimum total volume of 4,000 litres before discharging to Council's stormwater drainage system, unless an alternative drainage design is provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
11. The new vehicle crossing for Dwelling 1 to be constructed in accordance with Council standard drawing SD4-2 for double residential vehicle crossings.
12. Any services or infrastructure affected by the crossover location (eg public lighting poles, street trees, side entry pits) must be relocated or modified at the developer's cost, or permission must be obtained to build over services from the relevant service authority.
13. The development permitted by this permit must not be occupied until:
    • (a) The parking area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and
    • (b) The garden and landscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been planted to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. All activities associated with the construction of the development permitted by this permit must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and all care must be taken to minimise the effect of such activities on the amenity of the locality. All noise associated with the construction of the development must comply with EPA's Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997 No. 120 and State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.
15. This permit will expire if the development permitted by this permit is not commenced within 2 years and completed within a further two years from the date thereof. The time within which the development must be commenced and completed may on written request made before or within three (3) months after the expiry of this permit be extended by the Responsible Authority.