1. Pursuant to Section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, Mr Adrian Finanzio is joined as a party to the proceeding.
2. Pursuant to Section 127 and Clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the application is amended by substituting the plans identified as Ground Floor Plan TP05 Revision B, First Floor Plan TP06 Revision B, Second Floor Plan TP07 Revision B, Third Floor Plan Revision B, Roof Plan TP09 Revision B, North Elevation & West Elevation TP10 Revision B, South and East Elevation TP11 Revision B, Shadow Analysis on 22nd September at 9.00am & Shadow Analysis on 22nd September at 10.00am TP 12 Revision A, Shadow Analysis on 22nd September at 11.00am & Shadow Analysis on 22nd September at 12.00pm TP13 Revision A, Shadow Analysis on 22nd September at 1.00pm &Shadow Analysis on 22nd September at 2.00pm TP14 Revision A, Shadow Analysis on 22nd September at 3.00pm TP15 Revision A, and Site Sections TP16 Revision A, prepared by Ridolfi Design for the application plans.
3. The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. In Planning Application No. MPS/2009/9 a permit is not granted and no permit is to issue.

Mr Chris Taylor, Solicitor of Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd.

• Mr David Crowder, Town Planner of Ratio.
• Mr Mark Sheppard, Urban Designer of David Lock and Associates.

The written evidence of Ms Charmaine Dunstan, Traffic Engineer of Traffix Group, and Mr Michael Smith of Ridolfi Architcture were tabled. Ms Dunstan and Mr Smith were not required to be called to give evidence.

The proposal is to construct a four-storey building accommodating 11 dwellings, all of which will comprise either one or two bedrooms. Car parking for eight vehicles, a bin storage area and a bicycle store are provided at the ground floor level. The car park is accessed from Brunswick Road via a driveway that extends along the site's western boundary. With the exception of the ground floor dwelling, which is provided with a courtyard, private open space is to take the form of balconies/terraces.

The development is to extend in part to the east, south and west boundaries. A minimum front setback of 2.83 metres is nominated, with setbacks from the remaining boundaries generally ranging between 0.5m to in excess of 5 metres.

Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987

cl 32.01-4 (construction of two or more dwellings on land within the Residential 1 Zone)

cl. 52.29 (creation or alteration of access to a road within a Road Zone Category 1)

The review site is located on the southern side of Brunswick Road, approximately 250 metres to the east of Sydney Road. The land is of regular proportions, displays a frontage of 12.6 metres, a depth of 40.23 metres and yields an overall area of 506 square metres. A single storey detached dwelling presently occupies the property. The site does not have any discernible fall and is devoid of any significant vegetation.

To the east is a single storey dwelling, set back some 5.4 metres from the common boundary. A driveway is situated within this setback. A bedroom window and two non-habitable room windows have an outlook toward the review site. At the rear of the dwelling are a covered verandah area, an outbuilding and a secluded private open space area in the form of a traditional 'backyard'.

To the west is a three-storey block of flats, set back 2.7 metres from the common boundary. This area has been divided into courtyards for several of the ground floor units. The development has a number of windows at all levels that face the review site. The rear portion of the property is occupied by a concrete car parking area.

To the south is a four-storey block of flats that has frontage to Park Street. At ground level, the car parking area of this development abuts the common boundary with the review site. The upper levels of this development have habitable room windows and balconies that overlook the subject land.

Opposite the review site, on the north side of Brunswick Road, is further residential development comprising a mixture of single dwellings and multi-level blocks of flats. The prevailing scale of development is one or two-storeys.

Brunswick Road is characterised by residential development from various eras. This includes both traditional single dwellings and more recent infill development, including blocks of flats up to three-storeys in height.

1. St George Builders Pty Ltd applied to the Moreland City Council for a planning permit to construct a four-storey residential development comprising 11 dwellings and associated car parking.
2. The Council refused the application on grounds relating to neighbourhood character, impact on the amenity of adjoining land, inadequate internal amenity, insufficient car parking and non-compliance with policy.
3. The applicant seeks a review of the Council's decision.
4. The key considerations in the assessment and determination of this application are:
   • Whether the development is consistent with the relevant planning policy context.
   • The development's impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood character.
   • The impact of the development on the amenity of adjoining land.
   • Whether the development will provide an acceptable level of amenity for its occupants.
5. On the basis of Mr Dunstan's written evidence, it was accepted by the Council that the development provides an adequate number of car parking spaces and that traffic generated by the development will not have an unacceptable impact on the operation of Brunswick Road. I will therefore not address this issue in my reasons, as it was not contested by any of the parties.
6. I also record that, subsequent to the hearing, the Tribunal received a submission from Ms Denielle Gorman, who is not a party to the proceeding. As leave had not been granted for the making of any further submissions after the hearing, I have not considered Ms Gorman's submission.

1. State planning policy[3] promotes increased densities in established urban areas and, in particular, encourages higher residential densities in and around activity centres that are situated on the Principal Public Transport Network. The policy is aimed at maximising use of existing infrastructure and services as a means of restricting the outward growth of the metropolitan area where it not only impacts on non-urban land that has value for agricultural, conservation and other related purposes, but also as a means of reducing the costs associated with providing the necessary infrastructure in these locations.
2. Further policies seek to ensure that good urban design outcomes are achieved and that liveability of areas is enhanced by new development[4].
3. The benefits of urban consolidation policy are recognised in the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Moreland Planning Scheme[5]. These include reduced transport and energy costs, supporting local economies and providing a local employment pool. As part of the implementation of this policy at the local level, the Planning Scheme identifies a hierarchy of activity centres within which higher densities will be encouraged. This hierarchy comprises a Principal Activity Centre (Coburg), a Major Activity Centre (Glenroy) and 17 Urban Villages. These Urban Villages are typically (but not always) centred around a railway station or are on a tram route.
4. The review site is within the boundary of the Jewell Urban Village. Clause 21.05-1 has objectives which include encouraging well designed housing in urban villages; ensuring that development makes a positive contribution to neighbourhood character; providing a diversity of housing; and achieving environmental sustainability. Relevant strategies include supporting increased housing density in urban villages in accordance with a structure plan or (in the absence of such a plan) the neighbourhood character study and policy; ensuring development responds to the changing household demographics (including smaller households); and ensuring that housing responds to the mixed use nature of the urban village to minimise conflicts. Development that is based on best architectural practice and sustainability principles is encouraged.
5. Specific policy direction in respect of development within Urban Villages is provided at Clause 22.02. Of relevance to this application are the following objectives of this policy:

To promote attractive and safe living environments with a strong identity and sense of community.

To increase the choice of housing available to a wide range of ages and lifestyles.

The use and development of land is consistent with any approved structure plan. If there is no approved Structure Plan, development must be consistent with the Moreland Neighbourhood Character Guidelines 2006 and Neighbourhood Character Local Policy.

Developments in the Residential, Mixed Use and Business Zones, which are four storeys and above, are built consistent with the Design Guidelines for Developments of Four or More Storeys 2005 and the Local Planning Policy for Developments of Four or More Storeys.

New development constitutes contemporary architecture that respects the scale and form of surrounding buildings.

1. Both Clause 21.05 and Clause 22.02 refer to the Neighbourhood Character Policy. This policy is at Clause 22.10 and applies to all development in Residential, Mixed Use and Business Zones. In summary, the objectives of the policy are that development responds to the positive elements of the existing character and that it reflects the preferred character. A specific objective for residential areas is that new development respects the existing scale and siting of the predominant built form of the precinct.
2. According to the Neighbourhood Character Policy, the preferred future character for residential areas is one where building height does not exceed two-storeys. Departures from this will be considered where the prevailing height of surrounding buildings is two-storeys (in which case up to one-storey higher than the prevailing is acceptable) or the site is proximate to infrastructure and services and the site is large enough to mitigate off-site impacts. Again, one-storey higher than the prevailing height at the frontage is acceptable in these circumstances.
3. The policy states that development in rear yards should be single-storey, and that two-storey buildings will only be considered where reduced site coverage is a characteristic of the surrounding rear yards. It is policy that prevailing front and side setbacks are retained, and rear setbacks should have regard to the importance of rear yards and the importance of garden outlooks.
4. Also of relevance to this application is the 'Development of Four of More Storeys' Policy at Clause 22.11. This is a detailed policy which has the general objective of providing local design guidelines to achieving good urban design solutions for development that is four or more storeys in height. The policy is divided into 5 design themes: public-private interface, off-site impacts, movement and access, internal planning and design, and technical performance.
5. In their submissions, the parties referred to the draft Brunswick Structure Plan. This document does not include the review site within one of the areas identified for higher density development. As this is a draft document and has not yet been adopted by Council, I place little weight on it in my consideration of this application.
6. In summary, the policy framework of the Planning Scheme encourages higher density developments within Urban Villages. Developments, however, are to be respectful of their context, so that they represent appropriate built form outcomes to both the public and private realms.

DOES THE DEVELOPMENT REPRESENT AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THE PLANNNG POLICY CONTEXT?

1. I agree with the submissions of Mr Taylor that the proposed redevelopment of the site for higher density residential is consistent with both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks of the Planning Scheme. It is a well located site, within an identified Urban Village, and has access to a range of infrastructure, services and public transport. In addition, the development will enhance the diversity of housing types within the locality by providing single and two-bedroom dwellings to cater for smaller households.
2. The issue in contention, however, is not so much the land use or even the density, but the resultant built form - particularly the height and extent of the development.
3. The Council submitted that, as there is no structure plan for the Jewell Urban Village, the development should be consistent with the neighbourhood character guidelines and policy, as required by Clause 22.02. These guidelines describe the existing character as being comprised primarily of single storey houses, with many groups of two and three storey terraces and flats. A key characteristic is a building height that ranges between one and four-storeys. The preferred character is as described in paragraphs 14 and 15 of these reasons.
4. I questioned the Council on the implementation of this policy, as I perceived some inherent conflicts associated with a policy direction that seeks to increase densities within an Urban Village area, while requiring that new development be in accordance with neighbourhood character guidelines that largely seek to achieve modest incremental change from what currently exists. The Council advised that the application of the neighbourhood character guidelines and policy would be tempered in locations such as this, in recognition of their strategic role in achieving urban consolidation.
5. I acknowledge that this apparent conflict may be addressed once a structure plan for the area has been approved, as this would then take precedence over the Neighbourhood Character Policy. In the meantime, however, decision-makers are faced with the task of reconciling a policy that promotes quite significant change with one that seeks to achieve built form outcomes that do not deviate substantially from what currently exists.
6. In contemplating the application of these policies, I am reminded of the comments of the Tribunal in the case of Domus Design v Glen Eira CC [2001] VCAT 2330 where it was stated (at paragraph 31), that asking for significant change, while demanding an observance of "character" is the equivalent of driving a motor car with the foot on the accelerator and brake at the one time. This observation applies equally to this case.
7. I consider that the application of the Neighbourhood Character Policy to redevelopment proposals within Urban Villages is unlikely to facilitate the degree of change that is sought to be achieved in these areas. Indeed, the policy places the same expectations on development in the Urban Villages as it does on development in the residential hinterland that is removed from the activity centre context. I consider that the strict pursuit of the Neighbourhood Character Policy's implementation will, in all likelihood, inhibit the achievement of optimum development within areas identified for higher densities.
8. This is not to say, however, that neighbourhood character is an irrelevant consideration in these circumstances. A balance must still be struck between achieving development that furthers the strategic vision of increased densities in and around nominated activity nodes and ensuring that developments represent acceptable outcomes within their context. In my view, this necessitates contemplating a level of change that its greater than what would be expected (or accepted) in the residential neighbourhoods that are distant from activity centres.
9. The degree of change, however, must be tempered by a number of factors. These may include the site's location within the activity centre hierarchy (ie whether it is in a Principal Activity Centre, Major Activity Centre, Urban Village or Neighbourhood Activity Centre); its location relative to the core of the centre (where more intensive development may be anticipated than at the periphery); the nature of adjoining development (with non-residential development/use presenting a more robust interface in respect of tolerance to change); the existence or otherwise of sensitive interfaces; and the composition of the streetscape.
10. Having regard to the context of the review site, being at the periphery of the Urban Village, I consider that the development needs to adopt a scale that reflects a greater degree of graduation from that of surrounding and nearby development than is proposed. In particular, the sensitive nature of the residential interfaces (particularly those to the east and west) necessitate a more recessive building form to mitigate amenity impacts.
11. Looking more broadly at the streetscape, it is evident that a multi-level building would not appear out of place. The four-storey height, however, would be particularly dominant as viewed from the east and would be of a scale which does not sit well within its context.
12. I consider these issues in more detail in the following sections of these reasons.

IS THE DEVELOPMENT AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THE STREETSCAPE AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA?

1. The Council submitted that, in considering the streetscape implications of the development, I should confine my assessment to the south side of Brunswick Road, between Stranger Street and Sydney Road. I find this approach to be artificial and with no basis in the reality of how one perceives a streetscape.
2. On both the eastern and western approach along Brunswick Road, developments on both sides of the road are apparent and influence the perception of the streetscape's composition. The form, scale and siting of buildings on the north and south sides is evident, and the visual relationship between the two sides creates the relevant streetscape context.
3. Brunswick Road in the vicinity of the review site displays a predominance of single dwellings, principally of a single-storey scale. Interspersed amongst these are two-storey dwellings and blocks of flats. More isolated examples of three-storey development are also present.
4. The development will be substantially greater in its scale and mass than any of the existing buildings in the area. Consequently, it will represent a dominant form in the streetscape, particularly as viewed from the east.
5. The Applicant submitted that over time, as the planning policies of the Planning Scheme are implemented, the neighbouring properties to the east are likely to be redeveloped in the form of multi-level buildings. As this occurs, it was submitted, the development will be provided with a built form context more reflective of the proposal than is currently the case.
6. While this may be what eventuates, there is no guarantee that those redevelopment proposals will result in built forms of a scale similar to that proposed here. Site-specific considerations may well constrain development on these modest sized lots. Further, there is no guarantee than the lots will be redeveloped, or if this were to occur, over what time period.
7. In my view, the development should achieve an appropriate 'fit' within its existing context, whilst representing a level of change that is greater than what would be expected in the residential areas outside of the Urban Village.
8. Based on the streetscape context, I consider that the development is too large. Its overall height and mass, in combination with its proximity to the side boundaries and the three-storey boundary wall, result in a building that would be unduly dominant in the streetscape. The built form needs to be significantly moderated to achieve a site responsive outcome. This involves a reduction in its height and the provision of greater setbacks from the property boundaries.
9. From a broader character perspective, I am not persuaded that the elongated form of the building extending the length of the lot is entirely unacceptable. There are several examples of developments in the immediately surrounding area that display a high site coverage.
10. It was not argued that the site is within an area that is characterised by a corridor of open rear gardens extending across the rear of properties such that the intrusion of the development would be an uncharacteristic outcome. Nor was there any submission that greater landscaping opportunities should be provided throughout the site. I consider that the diversity of siting displayed by development in the locality provides a context that could support the proposed siting, subject to modifications that address the impacts on the streetscape and on the amenity of adjoining land.

WILL THE DEVELOPMENT HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT ON THE AMENITY OF ADJOINING LAND?

1. The principal concerns I have in respect of the amenity impacts of the development are the presentation of visual bulk, overshadowing and overlooking. These impacts are in relation to the adjoining residential properties to the east and west. I am less concerned about the impacts on the flat development to the south, as the ground level interface is with the car parking area and the more sensitive interfaces of the balconies and habitable room windows are at first floor level and above. The elevated areas are not affected by shadows from the proposed development and, although their outlook will be altered, there is sufficient separation between the rooms/balconies and the development to avoid any unreasonable presentation of building bulk. The modifications agreed to by Mr Finanzio, the Applicant and the Council will further reduce any impact by virtue of recessing the second and third floor level further to the north, away from this property.

1. It can be tempting to have less regard for the amenity of the multi-level blocks of flats that exist throughout many areas on the basis that they can frequently display little or no regard for their context and unreasonably impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties.
2. The adjoining flat development to the west is one such example. It is bulky, displays very little articulation, is entirely out of scale with its single storey neighbours, has minimal setbacks from the side boundaries, causes excessive overlooking of private open space areas (and, potentially, windows), has minimal landscaping and extensive paving and incorporates no design elements that reflect the residential architecture that characterises the streetscape and neighbourhood. It is an unsympathetic intrusion on the streetscape and on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.
3. Nonetheless, the occupants of these flats are entitled to a reasonable level of amenity. This neighbouring development's abuttal with the review site is comprised of both non-sensitive and sensitive interfaces. The non-sensitive interface is the concrete area to the rear of the building. This utilitarian space plays no role other than to accommodate occupants' vehicles. It is not used for secluded private open space purposes.
4. The sensitive interfaces comprise a series of habitable room windows at all levels, and ground level private open space areas that have a width in the order of 2.7 metres. The development, due its scale and proximity to the western boundary, will overwhelm these courtyards and impact unacceptably on their amenity.
5. As part of its justification for the proposed siting, the Applicant submitted that there needs to be an equitable sharing of development potential between sites. I cannot see how this is reflected by the proposed development. The flats to the west are set back 2.7 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. The proposed building is proposed to be set back between 1.0 metre and 2.5 metres from the neighbouring courtyard spaces. If any weight is to be given to the Applicant's submission then, at the very least, one could reasonably expect that the setbacks of the development would match those of the neighbouring building.
6. The building is too close to the adjoining courtyard spaces. It will create an unreasonable sense of enclosure and detrimentally affect the amenity of these areas. A reduced height and greater setbacks from the courtyards are required to achieve a more acceptable interface.
7. The other sensitive interface is the open rear yard of the neighbouring property to the east. Again, the scale of the development and its proximity to the boundary will result in the proposed built form presenting excessive visual bulk to this area. The impact on the amenity of this space is unacceptable. Even with the revisions that set the second and third floor levels further toward the north, the resultant minimum eastern setback of 1.5 metres for a 9.5 metre high wall adjacent to the open space area is nowhere near sufficient. In parts, the development extends to within 1.0 metre of the eastern boundary (albeit adjacent to a verandah element and low profile outbuilding), with the balconies projecting a further 500m into this setback. Even considering the Applicant's argument that the adjoining land is likely to be redeveloped in the future, I cannot see how these minimal setbacks could be seen to represent a reasonable sharing of development potential. My view is that the proposed building would unreasonably constrain development on this neighbouring land.
8. The four-storey mass of the development will be apparent from within the rear yard of this property and the setbacks from the boundaries are not sufficient to ameliorate the resultant adverse amenity impacts. This is compounded by the fact that the building extends the length of the lot to the rear boundary, creating a largely unrelieved built form along the entire western boundary of the adjoining residential property.
9. The proposed three-storey eastern boundary wall, rising to a height of 9.66 metres is a further unacceptable intrusion on the amenity of the adjoining property. Aside from the visual impact of the wall, it will also prejudice daylight to a bedroom window of this adjoining dwelling.
10. Boundary walls of this scale are not a characteristic of this locality. Typically, where they do exist, such walls are of a single storey scale. This is not a Business zone where boundary-to-boundary construction is common. It is a Residential zone and, notwithstanding the site's location within an Urban Village, development should acknowledge its residential context and adopt a siting that is reflective of that which prevails. While there may be scope to incorporate boundary walls at various locations throughout the site, the height and extent of these walls must be moderated to acknowledge their context, interface and visibility.
11. The proposed three-storey high boundary wall is excessive and is further evidence of attempting to fit too much development on this site. It displays little or no regard for the modest single storey dwelling to the east and accentuates the overall mass and scale of the development. The inclusion of coloured panels in the boundary wall is insufficient to ameliorate the bulk of this element and moderate its impacts. A boundary wall of this height is not acceptable in this context.

1. Clause 22.11-3.6 includes the following guideline:

For development in a Residential 1 Zone, at least 75% of adjacent residential private outdoor spaces and habitable room windows must receive a minimum of 5 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September each year.

1. There was some discussion at the hearing as to the relevance or otherwise of this guideline. It was generally agreed, however, that compliance was not achieved. I accept that given their orientation, narrow width and abuttal to a three-storey wall, it would be difficult to achieve compliance in respect of the courtyards to the west. These spaces are overshadowed in the afternoon by their own development, and only receive sunlight during the morning and midday period. The development will overshadow these spaces in the morning and their access to sunlight will be restricted to 11.00am-12.00 noon. A greater degree of sunlight penetration, however, could be achieved with a development that is lower and which provides greater setbacks from the boundary, albeit it is unlikely that compliance with the guideline would be achieved.
2. Non-compliance with the guideline in respect of the open space area to the east would occur between 1.00pm and 2.00pm. Again, a reduction the height of the building, in conjunction with increased setbacks from the boundary may achieve a greater degree of compliance with the guideline.
3. The guideline refers to a minimum of 5 hours of sunlight to habitable room windows between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 September. I cannot see how this guideline can be complied with on lots that have a north-south orientation as, by midday the sun has moved to the north, and the east and west facing windows would not receive sunlight. A detailed assessment of the proposal (including cross-sectional diagrams) against this guideline was not provided by any of the parties. Accordingly, other than observing that compliance would be difficult to achieve, I make no finding in this respect.

1. As it extends the length of the lot and has habitable room windows and balconies in its side and rear elevations, the development has the potential to allow unreasonable overlooking of adjoining land. This issue has not been successfully resolved and requires further consideration. Although it may be possible to include screening to limit overlooking, this will be at the expense of internal amenity. Due to the rectilinear form of the development, there is very little opportunity to provide the required screening and still maintain some outlook for the dwellings. This is particularly so for the dwellings in the central portion of the development. Alternative design solutions that achieve a balance between internal amenity and protection of neighbours' privacy should be considered.

1. The development would have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining residential properties. The review site is not a generous allotment. It has an area of only 506 square metres. The development is too large for this lot. It is too high and provides inadequate setbacks from the side boundaries. Consequently it will present excessive visual bulk, create an unreasonable sense of enclosure to the adjoining open space areas and have consequential overshadowing impacts. Overlooking should also be addressed in a manner which achieves a balance between internal and external amenity.
2. A far more modest scale should be adopted. This would allow the desired increase in density to be achieved while maintaining a reasonable level of amenity for the adjoining properties.

WILL THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY OF ON-SITE AMENITY FOR OCCUPANTS?

1. The Council's concerns regarding the internal amenity of the development were primarily focussed on daylight to bedrooms and north light to living areas. Additional concerns were expressed regarding the amenity of the private open space area of the ground level dwelling, as it would abut Brunswick Road, and the opportunities for cross-ventilation for dwellings.
2. The bedrooms that face the external walkway of the first floor level will have daylight access to their windows reduced by the screening along the western side and by the walkway of the level above. This is not an ideal arrangement and the amount of daylight these rooms receive will be dependent on the permeability of the screening measures.
3. The lightwell associated with Unit 1 should be sufficient to provide daylight to the bedrooms of this dwelling as it is open to the sky and adjoins the driveway of the property to the east, giving it an open aspect on one side. The remaining windows in the development either face the balconies or are located around the perimeter of the development where they should receive adequate daylight, depending on the form of screening proposed to address overlooking.
4. Due the orientation of the lot, and the apartment style of development, it will not always be possible to provide each living area with exposure to north light. The majority of the dwellings have living areas that are orientated to the north, east or west. There is only one dwelling that has a south facing living area. I do not consider this to be an unreasonable outcome.
5. Generally speaking, cross-ventilation is more difficult to achieve in apartment style building than with the more conventional townhouses style development. In this instance, the dwellings extend the width of the development and it is possible to provide some additional windows in the west elevation of selected dwellings to provide for cross-ventilation.
6. The siting of a secluded private open space area within the front setback area can be supported in this location as a higher fence to provide visual and acoustic privacy to this space can be provided without detrimentally impacting on the streetscape. The main road status of Brunswick Road and existence of higher fences provide a basis for a suitable fence to be erected on the frontage.

1. For these reasons, I have concluded that the development does not represent an acceptable planning outcome. Although there is policy support at both the State and local level for increased densities in this location, the development is too large for this modest site. It will present as a dominant element in the streetscape and detrimentally impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. The design has failed to have sufficient regard to its context and will not be approved.
2. I will affirm the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct that no permit be issued.

[1] Ms Ali, an owner of the adjoining land to the east, did not apply to become a party to the proceeding. I have had regard to the submission of Ms Ali pursuant to Section 98(1)(c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

[2] I have considered all submissions and accompanying material, assisted by my inspection. I do not recite all of the material presented as all documentation is retained on the Tribunal's file.