The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Mr Paul Little, Town Planner, appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority, Port Phillip City Council.

Mr and Mrs Bill and Jenny Taylor, the applicants for review, appeared on their own behalf.

Mr Anthony Brearley, Solicitor, appeared on behalf of Underwood Designs, the respondent/permit applicant. Mr Brearley called Mr David Underwood, the building designer as a witness in support of his submissions.

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Responsible Authority to permit an extension to a dwelling in Merton Street, Albert Park. The parties and the witness to the appeal made both written and verbal submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. The Tribunal inspected the locality and the subject land, both from the surrounding streets, and from the rear garden of the applicant's property.

2. The subject dwelling is one of a terrace of substantial two storey Victorian dwellings located on the north-east side of Tribe Street in Albert Park. The proposal is to extend the existing dwelling at first floor level to provide a bedroom, ensuite bathroom, separate toilet and screened balcony above the existing rear ground floor wing of the dwelling. In addition to this it is proposed to construct a carport at the rear of the property with access from a wide laneway, Little Tribe Street.

3. The applicants own and occupy the adjoining terrace dwelling to the south east of the subject dwelling. They oppose the proposed extension on the basis of the effect it will have on the issues of heritage, overshadowing, and privacy.

4. In relation to the heritage issue, it is true that while the architectural forms of the proposed extension are respectful of the established Victorian character of the area, the extension will significantly alter the rear elevation of this particular terrace dwelling at first floor level. There has been little first floor alteration in the terrace of dwellings as a whole. The proposed extensions will be visible from the public realm to a degree. Nevertheless I am of the view that because they are extensions located at the rear of these important heritage buildings, they are acceptable in their context of the heritage area. Heritage areas such as this are not merely museums of the past, they continue to be lively residential environments, and some adaptation of these dwellings to the needs of their modern occupants is appropriate. In striking this balance in this case I am of the view that the proposed adaptation of the dwelling is reasonable.

5. The issues of overshadowing and privacy are related directly to the amenity impacts of the proposed extension on the applicant's property. The proposed building will have some effect on the amenity of the applicant's property, there will be additional overshadowing, there will be some loss of daylight, and there will be some sense of enclosure as a consequence of the larger building mass on the adjoining property. The decision to be made is are these effects in the realm of what is reasonable, having regard to the characteristics of these terrace dwellings. On balance I am of the view that the extension proposed in this case does not go beyond what could be regarded as a reasonable extension of the subject dwelling in its context. In reaching this decision I have in part been influenced by my opinion that in the longer term, all these terrace dwellings will be extended and renovated at the rear, to adapt these dwellings for modern life as discussed above. The proposed extension is located precisely in that part of these lots where you would expect such renovation and adaptation to occur.

6. The Responsible Authority has by condition required the proposed louvred screens around the balcony to be fixed in a way in which limits the possibility of overlooking into adjoining properties, and for this reason I do not consider that there will be any unreasonable effects on privacy.

7. Mr Taylor tabled a brief written submission from Ms A. Daly, of 49 Merton Street, the property which adjoins the subject land to the north-east. The observations and conclusions set out above apply equally to this submission.

8. It is my conclusion that the Responsible Authority has made an entirely appropriate decision in this case, and its decision should be upheld.