(b) Full details of facade treatment to both dwellings.

(c) No fences along the Palm Street and Grevillea Crescent frontages and between the two units within the front setback area.

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. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and drives must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plan and must be drained and provided with an impervious all-weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Vehicular access to the subject land from any roadway or service lane (and vice versa) must be my 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 location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Council. Any existing unused, crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. 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:

(b) The location, type and height of all fencing other than along the Palm Street and Grevillea Crescent frontages and within the front setback area between the two units.

(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.

(e) North facing windows to have deciduous trees for solar control.

(f) Landscaping at the corner of Grevillea Crescent and Palm Street to consist of garden beds. No trees are to be provided within the garden beds.

6. 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.

7. The appearance of the subject land must not, in the opinion of the Responsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

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 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.

10. This permit will expire if the development permitted by this permit is not completed within two years from the date hereof. The time within which the development must be completed may on written request made before or within three (3) months after the expiry of this permit be extended by the Responsible Authority.

Application for Review No. 1999/72810 (Variation of Restrictive Covenant)

By the consent of the parties the Application for Review is withdrawn.

Ms Adrian Finanzio of Counsel, instructed by Madgwicks, appeared on behalf of the Applicant for Review. Mr Finanzio presented a written and oral submission and called Mr Peter Carapelloti, Town Planner of Gattini and Partners, Town Planners, to give evidence. Mr Carapelloti gave evidence and presented a written report.

Ms Lisa Stojanovski, Town Planner, appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority. Ms Stojanovski presented a written and oral submission.

Mrs L. Fillipone appeared on her own behalf and on behalf of Mr D. Fillipone, and was assisted by Ms D'Angelo. Mrs Fillipone and Mrs D'Angelo presented oral submissions.

Various plans, photographs and other documents were tendered, either as attachments to written submissions or as separate items. The evidence submitted together with the written submissions, have been retained on the Tribunal's file.

1. These reasons relate to Applications under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

2. Application for Review No. 1999/72801 is an Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by J. & S. Trajkovski to review a Decision by the Wyndham City Council ("the Council") to refuse a Permit to develop land at 45 Grevillea Crescent, Hoppers Crossing for the purpose of two single storey dwellings.

3. Application for Review No. 1999/72810 is an Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") also brought by J. & S. Trajkovski to review a Decision by the Council to refuse a Permit to vary a restrictive convenant to allow the land to be developed for the purpose of two dwellings.

4. At the commencement of the Hearing it was brought to our attention that the Applicant for Review had failed to comply with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Practice Note No. 1 in relation to the exchange of expert reports. In accordance with that Practice Note, any expert report is to be served on the Tribunal and all other parties no later than 10 days prior to the hearing. The report of Mr Carapelloti, a Town Planner on whose evidence the Applicant for Review sought to rely, was received by the Tribunal and the other parties on Friday 25 February, 2000, one business day prior to the hearing.

5. Having regard to the above, the parties were advised that they were entitled to object to the receipt of the expert report and to Mr Carapelloti giving evidence in this matter. Ms Stojanovski who appeared on behalf of the Council, and Mrs Fillipone, an Objector who appeared on her own behalf, did not object to the late receipt of the report or to Mr Carapelloti giving evidence.

6. Mr Finanzio then sought the leave of the Tribunal to withdraw Application for Review No. 1999/72810 which relates to the Permit Application for the variation of the restrictive covenant applying to the land.

7. In support of this Application Mr Finanzio indicated that, in his view, alternative methods were available to his client to achieve a variation of the restrictive covenant and that these alternative methods stood a better chance of success then the current Application for Review.

8. Mr Finanzio advised that notice of his Client's intention to seek the leave of the Tribunal to withdraw this Application for Review was delivered to both the Council and Mrs Fillipone on Friday the 25th February, 2000.

9. A review of the documentation on the Tribunal's files for both Applications for Review indicated that Mr and Mrs Fillipone had been an Objector to Application for Planning Permit No. WYP0064 which related to the variation to the restrictive covenant. Mrs Fillipone was not an Objector to Application for Planning Permit No. WYP0063 which was the Application for the development of the land, and was not therefore a party to that Application for Review (1999/72801).

10. Having regard to the above matters, Mrs Fillipone applied on behalf of herself and Mr Fillipone for leave to become a party to Application for Review No. 1999/72801, pursuant to Section 60(2) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunals Act 1998. There was no objection to Mr and Mrs Fillipone's application and, being of the opinion that Mr and Mrs Fillipone were persons whose interests are affected by the preceedings, we ordered that Mr and Mrs Fillipone be joined as parties to Application for Review No. 1999/72801.

11. Ms Stojanovski and Mrs Fillipone indicated that they had not incurred any costs in relation to their preparation for the hearing of Application for Review No. 1999/072810. Leave was therefore granted to the Applicant for Review to withdraw Application for Review No. 1999/072810.

12. At the conclusion of the hearing, we issued Directions requiring the Responsible Authority to provide details of the setbacks of the medium density development on Birchwood Boulevard, Hoppers Crossing. The required information has been submitted to us.

13. The subject site is located on the north east corner of Grevillea Crescent and Palm Street, Hoppers Crossing.

14. The subject land has a frontage of 16 metres to Grevillea Crescent with a splay of 5.66 metres at the intersection with Palm Street. The site has a sideage to Palm Street of 33 metres and a total site of 732 sq. metres.

15. The site is currently vacant, is flat and contains no significant vegetation. It is located within an area which is characterised by a mixture of single and double storey dwellings of both brick and painted rendered finish. Many of these dwellings have garages located either forward of the dwelling or in line with the dwelling and accessed via single crossovers.

16. Housing styles in the area vary from modest single storey brick dwellings to more grand, double storey dwellings. Most dwellings have no front fences and individual property owners have continued their landscape treatment to the road reserve.

17. The surrounding area is typical of many developing, outer suburban residential subdivisions. Notwithstanding this observation the subject site does enjoy reasonable access to a range of community, recreational and retail facilities. In particular the Skeleton Creek Reserve is located to the north just 100 metres from the subject site. The Bellbridge Primary School is located approximately 1 km from the site and a Child Minding Centre is approximately 600 metres away. Convenience shopping is available on Bellbridge Drive approximately 900 metres from the site and the Werribee Plaza Shopping Centre is approximately 3.6 kms away. A bus route runs along Bellbridge Drive and connects to the Hoppers Crossing Railway Station, the Werribee Plaza Shopping Centre, and the Hoppers Crossing Shopping Centre.

18. We adopt the following description of the proposal taken from Ms Stojanovski's written submission.

"The Applicant seeks approval for the development of the land for the purpose of two single storey dwellings.

* A living area that looks onto the secluded private open space and on to Palm Street.

* Three bedrooms, the master bedroom having an associated ensuite and.

* An open living family, meals/dining, and kitchen.

* Separate laundry, bathroom and powder room, and

* Three bedrooms, the master bedroom having an associated ensuite.

The development includes secluded private open space with a service yard for each unit. The area of secluded private open space for Unit 1 is 67 sq. metres and Unit 2 has an area of 76 sq. metres. The private open space areas of the two units are segregated by a 1.7 metre high timber paling fence.

Unit 1 fronts Grevillea Crescent and has a building setback of 4.5 metres, with the sideage having a 2 metre setback to Palm Street. Vehicle access is via a single crossover off Grevillea Crescent. Unit 2 addresses Palm Street and has a building setback of 3 metres. Access to this dwelling is also via a single crossover, with access off Palm Street.

The development attempts to provide two car spaces per unit by accommodating a single garage for each unit with a tandem space.

Both units are proposed to be constructed of brick, with a tiled and pitched roof. Verandahs are provided for each unit. Aluminium windows, with varying sizes and colorbond garage doors are proposed. The proposed landscaping consists of lawn garden beds with trees and shrubs at the front of each unit."

18. The subject site is zoned Residential 1 pursuant to the Wyndham Planning Scheme. No Overlay controls apply to the land or the surrounding area.

19. A Permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Planning Scheme. An Application for Medium Density Housing is required to be considered against the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), and the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

20. With respect to the SPPF Clauses 14.02 and 16.02 are relevant. The thrust of these Policies is to promote high residential densities close to activity centres and public transport to reduce urban sprawl and the social, environmental, and infrastructure costs associated with it. The policy seeks to make more efficient use of land in established Urban areas to provide more dwellings which are better suited to the needs to todays households, while ensuring that the amenity and neighbourhood character effects of these initiatives are reasonable and not excessive.

21. With respect to the LPPF Clause 21.04-3 encourages access to a range and quality of housing opportunities which meets the needs of the population. The Council's MSS identifies an ageing of the population and change in family structure, and a need to provide wider housing choices particularly as Wyndham's housing stock comprises mainly single detached dwellings.

22. Notwithstanding the above the Council's MSS (Clause 21.05-10) seeks to ensure that all development contributes to an improvement in the image and appearance of the Municipality and encourages high standards of urban design which seek to optimise surrounding environmental assets.

Council Decision and the Application for Review

23. The Application was lodged with the Responsible Authority on 24 April 1999. The Applicant was required to give Notice of the Application and in response to that process, four objections and a petition containing ten signatures were submitted. The main grounds of objections were summarised for us as follows:

* Land owners in the area purchased properties with the knowledge that the covenant applicable to the land restricts more than one dwelling being constructed on a single allotment.

* The new units will escalate traffic and on street parking problems.

* The concentration of units in other sectors of the subdivision and in Palm Street encroach upon the subject area.

* The type of inhabitant which occupies dual occupancies is not in keeping with the predominant traditional family households in the neighbourhood and are undesirable.

* Traffic safety will be compromised as the proposed dual occupancy will result in a reduction of already limited visibility of vehicles travelling west along Grevillea Crescent, posing dangerous traffic conditions.

24. The Application was refused by the Council at its meeting on 12 July 1999, on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development does not adequately meet the objectives of the Good Design Guide, particularly those relating to neighbourhood character.

2. The proposal is contrary to the orderly planning of the area.

25. An Application for Review of the Council's decision was subsequently submitted with the following grounds specified:

1. The proposed development is in accordance with the Good Design Guide.

2. The proposed development will maintain and/or enhance the character of the neighbourhood.

3. The proposed development is in accordance with the principles of proper and orderly planning.

26. Having considered the written and oral submissions and the evidence presented to us, we are of the view that the Application for Review should be allowed and a Permit issued subject to conditions requiring minor amendments to the submitted plans. In arriving at our decision we consider that the relevant issues fall into the following broad categories:

* Impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbours.

* Impact of the proposal on the character of the neighbourhood.

27. We will address each of these matters in turn.

28. With respect to the policy basis underlying this proposal, we are satisfied that the proposal is supported by both the provisions of the SPPF and the LPPF which were outlined previously. The basis of these policies is to consolidate urban growth within existing urban areas in order to maximise access to existing infrastructure and to minimise the environmental costs associated with indiscriminate development on the outskirts of existing settlements.

29. The subject site is located within a developing residential area and enjoys reasonable access to commercial, social and recreational infrastructure.

30. We are also influenced by the Council's assessment of the Municipality's future housing needs which is included in its MSS. At Clause 21.02-5 it is stated that:

"While Wyndham must cater to the present day needs of its many large, young households, it must also anticipate future needs. There is already evidence that an increasing number of mature aged home buyers are seeking a second or third residence in Wyndham. Other members of the community will require accommodation more in keeping with their particular needs. For example, there is likely to be an increase in demand for unit accommodation as the population ages."

Impact of the Proposal on the Amenity of Neighbours

31. We are satisfied that the proposal will not contribute to any substantial or unreasonable loss of amenity to adjacent properties. We are satisfied that a high degree of compliance with the objectives, criteria and techniques of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing has been demonstrated.

Impact of proposal of the character of the neighbourhood

32. The Responsible Authority's primary concern in relation to this application was that the proposal was not respectful of its neighbourhood and did not make a positive contribution to the character of the neighbourhood. Ms Stojanovski submitted that:

"The neighbourhood character of Grevillea Crescent and the surrounds is characterised by a predominance of single storey brick veneer dwellings of a mixture of contemporary, traditional and historic style, with the exception of some two storey dwellings located to the north and west of the subject property. ..........

It is acknowledge that the proposed units do incorporate the single storey brick veneer characteristics of the area, and as such could be regarded as respectful of the character. However, Council is of the view that the following aspects do not meet the objectives set out in this element of the Good Design Guide.

* Significant landscaping has not been provided within the setback to Palm Street of Unit 1 in order to minimise the impact of the small setback."

33. Mr Carapelloti, in his evidence, submitted that the proposal was entirely consistent with the neighbourhood character and that each of the proposed dwellings are in keeping with the style, scale, bulk and setback of the majority of the dwellings in the neighbourhood.

34. During the course of the hearing there was considerable discussion regarding the proposed setback of the front unit to Palm Crescent (proposed 2 metres) and the extent to which this was consistent with the prevailing pattern of setbacks in the surrounding area.

35. In our view the proposal would be substantially improved if the sideage setback of the front unit to Palm Street was increased from 2 metres to 3 metres. This would provide a greater opportunity for effective landscaping to be incorporated into the side setback. In forming this view we are influenced by the fact that the 3 metre setback would be more in keeping with the prevailing pattern of development. In particular we note that the 2 medium density developments located on the corner of Birchwood Boulevard and Palm Street, to the west of the subject site make provision for setbacks of between 3 and 3.6 metres to 4.5 metres. But it is not setback alone that is one of the arbiters of character, as attested to by the marked difference between the two unit developments on the opposite corners of Birchwood Boulevard and Palm Street. Quality landscaping in the setbacks together with absence of front fences contribute strongly to the character of the neighbourhood.

36. With regard to the side setback we note that Mr Carapelloti's evidence that the proposal in its submitted form is consistent with the Good Design Guide techniques at E6.T1. Notwithstanding this, building setbacks must also be respectful of the established neighbourhood character and design suggestions under Criteria E3.C1 of the Good Design Guide makes specific reference to building setbacks and the contribution they make to the neighbourhood character. In this context we are of the view that an assessment of the proposal in its neighbourhood context is a more meaningful test than compliance with the prescriptive techniques of the guide.

37. We also believe that the proposal would be further improved by requiring improvements to the facade detailing and decorative elements. The submitted landscaping plan we also considered to be deficient and ought to be improved. These matters can be adequately dealt with through permit conditions.

38. The proposal makes provision for two car parking spaces per dwelling, with each dwelling having a single garage with a tandem parking space. This is in excess of the requirements under E8.T1 of the Good Design Guide and we consider this provision to be adequate.

39. In our view the increased side setback can be accommodated without prejudicing the integrity of the secluded private open space provided to dwelling 1.

40. Vehicle access to the site is proposed to be provided via a crossover from Palm Street commencing 19 metres from the intersection with Grevillea Crescent. An existing crossover from Grevillea Crescent is located on the property's southern boundary approximately 21.5 metres from the intersection with Palm Street.

41. We are satisfied that the proposal will not contribute in any way to a reduction of road safety. The concerns of Mrs Fillipone and Mrs d'Angelo that the proposal would restrict site lines for vehicles approaching this intersection, are not substantiated.

42. Notwithstanding the above the permit applicant indicated that landscaping on the northern side of dwelling 1 near the intersection of Grevillea Crescent and Palm Street would be low scale in order to protect existing site lines. We consider this to be sensible.

43. Having regard to the above, we are satisfied that the proposal is consistent with both State and Local Planning Policies and, subject to the incorporation of minor amendments as detailed, the design meets the objectives, criteria and techniques of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing, and the amenity of surrounding neighbours will not be unreasonably affected.

44. It follows that a permit is directed to be issued.