The proposal is to demolish the "wet areas" and construct a new bathroom and kitchen facilities at the rear of the premises, plus an upper floor extension which is to be used as a study. The ground floor of the building will be 3.526 metres from the rear boundary. The upper floor extension will be set back 10.5 metres from the existing front wall.

The land has a frontage of 6 metres and a depth of 21 metres. It is the end dwelling in a row of single storey Victorian terrace houses on the south side of Greeves Street. It abuts a lane (that is, a right of way) to the east.

The land is in the Residential 1 zone pursuant to the Yarra Planning Scheme. It is also subject to a Heritage Overlay pursuant to Clause 43.01 of the Yarra Planning Scheme. Planning permission is required for the proposal pursuant to both the zoning and the overlay control.

The proposal would destroy the heritage integrity of the precinct, as no other property in the block has a second storey.

The proposal will be clearly visible from the back yard of 28 Greeves Street and will have a detrimental impact on amenity.

There will be an unacceptable loss of light to 28 Greeves Street.

1. These written reasons follow a decision and outline of reasons given verbally at the conclusion of the hearing.

2. Numbers 2 to 28 Greeves Street is a row of Victorian single storey terraces on the south side of the street. The Heritage Overlay, which applies to the South Fitzroy Precinct, does not identify this row of buildings as individually significant.

3. Clause 43.01-5 of the Planning Scheme requires the responsible authority (and this Tribunal on review) to consider a number of matters when making decisions on planning permit applications pursuant to the Overlay. There are two relevant studies. The South Fitzroy Conservation Study 1979 identifies the identical terraces on either side of Greeves Street (numbers 1-30) as significant and notes that numbers 17, 19, 21, 23, and then 22, 24, 26 and 28 Greeves Street are intact. Number 30 is not identified as being intact.

4. The City of Yarra Heritage Review: Heritage Overlay Precincts 1997, which is a reference document in the Yarrra Planning Scheme, identifies 2-28 Greeves Street as making a particular contribution to the south Fitzroy Precinct.

5. The Heritage Guidelines included in the Yarra Planning Scheme at Clause 22.02 Parts 12 to 18 and 22 deal with additions and new works for all heritage places. The Guidelines clearly contemplate additions and extensions to buildings and have as an overriding policy that setbacks be encouraged which result in new additions not being visible when viewed from surrounding streets. Part 22 states that it is policy that "new upper storey additions should normally be permitted where:

The higher section is hidden from the street (such as behind an existing parapet wall); or

If the existing building is a terrace style or attached house, the higher section is setback at least the depth of two rooms from the front wall of the dwelling to ensure the preservation of the historic ridgeline and chimney.

In exceptional circumstances, new upper storey additions that do not comply with the criteria may be permitted ion sites that are exceptionally small provided that the requirements of Cl. 22.02-3.3 are met.

The proposed upper floor extension easily meets the overriding policy and the particular requirements in Part 22.

6. Given the above, the argument put by Mr Thomas that the upper floor extension would destroy the integrity of the precinct and/or of the terrace row cannot be sustained. His argument would have had more weight if the Heritage Overlay had identified the terrace or parts of it as individually significant, but the fact of the matter is that it does not and in any event the Heritage Guidelines referred to in 4 above imply that if the criteria specified are met, then a permit should be granted.

7. Shadow diagrams presented by Mr Radisch demonstrate that there will be no significant or unreasonable overshadowing of the skylights at 28 Greeves Street. Similarly, there will be no significant or unreasonable loss of light to 28 Greeves Street.

8. The proposed extension will not be visible from Greeves Street, and, being raked back from its eastern boundary, will be invisible from the lane to the east (to all intents and purposes). A glimpse of the extension may be gained by a person standing hard against the building abutting the eastern side of the lane in question.

9. There will be no unreasonable overlooking of the back yard of 28 Greeves Street because the south facing window in the upper floor has a sill height of 1.6 metres above floor level. I note here that appropriate test of acceptability is whether or not there will be unreasonable overlooking, not that there will be no possible overlooking.

10. The extension will be visible from the backyard of 28 Greeves Street. But it will not overwhelm or unreasonably intrude upon it. The extension abuts a single storey structure on number 28 and extends to the south a little more than three quarters of the length of that structure. Generally the top of the extension will be visible across the roof of the single storey structure along the common boundary. In the inner suburban context (and, indeed, in most suburban contexts) I do not consider that to be unreasonably intrusive.