1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.
2. In permit application PA0714452 no permit is granted.

1. This is an application to review the decision by Hobsons Bay City Council ('the Council') to refuse to grant a permit for the construction of two new dwellings at 12 Ararat Street, Altona North.

1. The review site is located on the north side of Ararat Street, approximately half way between Hansen Street to the east and McIntosh Road to the west. It is a typical rectangular allotment with a frontage of 15.24 metres, a depth of 37.04 metres and an overall area of 564.5 square metres.
2. The site currently contains a 1950's style weatherboard single storey house with a driveway adjacent to the western side boundary. This house is typical of the older style of housing to be found in the surrounding neighbourhood. Although there are also a number of examples of new development occurring in the surrounding neighbourhood including a number of dual occupancy developments in a side by side configuration. Ms Matthews property at 14 Ararat Street is located on the west side of the review site and contains a single storey brick veneer dwelling.
3. Ms Lunn explained the site is well serviced by existing infrastructure with a train station approximately 2 kilometres away, a shopping centre approximately 500 metres away and schools, parkland and other sporting facilities located within the surrounding area.

1. It is proposed to construct two new dwellings on the site, one behind the other with a common driveway adjacent to the eastern side boundary. Dwelling 1 (at the front of the property) will be double storey and contain three bedrooms. Dwelling 2 (at the rear) will be single storey and contain two bedrooms.

1. The review site and all surrounding properties are contained within a Residential 1 zone under the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme ('the planning scheme'). Planning permission is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot and the development must meet the requirements of clause 55 (otherwise known as ResCode).
2. There are no overlay controls that affect the site or surrounding properties.
3. Ms Lunn highlighted the State Planning Policy Framework at clauses 12, 14 and 16 encourage urban consolidation and the development of well designed medium density housing which respects the neighbourhood character.
4. The Municipal Strategic Statement has a vision for residential housing within the municipality:

The residential areas will provide a choice of housing types to meet the needs of the diverse households in the municipality. Dwelling styles and designs will contribute to preferred neighbourhood character by harmonising with existing buildings and also by architectural innovation, uniqueness and excellence. A high standard of development and maintenance will be encouraged in the municipality and garden and trees in private areas will complement green streetscapes.[1]

1. The Hobsons Bay North Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policy at clause 22.08 of the planning scheme identifies the existing key characteristics and preferred neighbourhood character for the residential areas of Hobsons Bay North. The review site is contained in Precinct 3 for Altona North, which contains the following character description:

This area, developed through the 1950's and 1960's, is one in which the horizontal emphasis of the dwelling form is important, resulting from the low elevations of the buildings in relation to their height. Most have similar, moderate front setbacks and are setback from both side boundaries, giving an open, garden setting to the streetscapes. In some areas of the precinct, established avenues of paperbarks give the streets a more enclosed feel. The "Walter Burley Griffin-esque" street layout in the eastern area of the precinct is another unique characteristic of this area.

1. The statement of preferred neighbourhood character is to retain and strengthen the horizontality of the dwellings and the garden settings of the dwellings. This is to be achieved by a series of objectives and design responses. The objectives are:
   • To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of the dwellings;
   • To maintain the existing dwelling pattern;
   • To minimise the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures;
   • To ensure that buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape; and
   • To maintain the sense of openness in backyards and the tree canopy backdrop to the streetscapes.

1. Ms Lunn acknowledged the proposal has very good compliance with the standards of clause 55 but explained the key concern of the Council is the appropriateness of the proposal within this neighbourhood character precinct. She submitted the key issues are the building bulk; the two storey construction; and the proposal to build boundary to boundary.
2. Ms Matthews expressed concern about the extent of the building to the boundary; the size of the dwellings; and the impact of the proposal on available on street parking. She also made reference to the Council's residential design policy, which Ms Lunn explained is a council document only and does not form part of the planning scheme. As such, I have given this document no weight in determining the merits of the proposed design.

1. This is not the first application for review considered by the Tribunal for this site. Member Gilfillan considered a proposal for two, two storey side by side dwellings on the site in late 2004. He found the proposal appeared as an overdevelopment and was not respectful of the area. Specific concerns mentioned included:
   • Side by side dwellings not being a neighbourhood characteristic;
   • The visibility of the second storey from the private open space of the property to the rear;
   • The unacceptable visual bulk of the two storey building form to the adjoining property to the rear; and
   • The incorporation of two roof forms rather than one in the streetscape elevation.
2. The Tribunal has over many years adopted a consistent approach in dealing with repeat applications for review. Whilst the Tribunal is not bound by previous decisions, caution needs to be exercised when determining whether the reversal of an earlier decision is warranted. The Tribunal in K & B Reichert v City of Banyule and others (1996/38819) identified a number of tests of relevance to the consideration of repeat applications for review that might justify a departure from an earlier decision:

While the Tribunal is not bound by precedent, there needs to be reasonable grounds for a later appeal determination to depart from a Tribunal view on a very similar proposal earlier. ... It seemed to me that the factors which might justify a departure from an earlier determination could include:

• Significant changes in the application itself;
• Changes in the circumstances of the land and its surrounds;
• Changes in planning policy; and/or
• Changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.

1. The decision of Member Gilfillan was issued approximately 3½ years ago and I find there has been changes in the circumstances of the surrounding area of the review site, as there have been a number of new dwellings constructed in that period. I also find that there has been changes in planning policy as the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies now provide specific guidelines in regard to the assessment of a proposal in light of the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. Finally, I also find the detail of this proposal, being one dwelling behind the other rather than dwelling side by side, is a significant change in the application itself. For all of these reasons I am of the opinion it is appropriate to assess the merits of this proposal in light of the change in circumstances of the surrounding land; the changes in planning policy; and the changes in the proposed form and layout of the development.

1. Mr Bowden explained he was involved in the 2004 application as well as this application. The development of this design response to the review site and surrounds has considered various options including another side by side proposal in light of other examples of side by side developments that have been approved in recent years in the North Altona area. However, Mr Bowden explained, in view of resident concern about other number of crossovers and safety in addition to the Member Gilfillan's comments about neighbourhood character, the design approach of one dwelling behind the other was considered to be the best response to the Neighbourhood Character policy.
2. Ms Lunn submitted the development of the site with two dwellings needs a cautious design response given the Neighbourhood Character local planning policy seeks a preferred character that retains and strengthens the horizontality of the dwellings and the garden settings of the dwellings. She submitted the Council is concerned the approval of this proposal will encourage further double storey multi unit developments that will fail to respect the preferred neighbourhood character.
3. I am of the opinion the inclusion of a two storey building on the review site is appropriate and respectful of the preferred neighbourhood character. The existing characteristics of the neighbourhood include both single and double storey dwellings, and within Ararat Street there are already examples of two storey dwellings either constructed or approved. These examples and other recent two storey buildings constructed in nearby streets, including Hansen Street, are evidence of the changing existing character of this neighbourhood, including a horizontality achieved through single and double storey building forms. I am satisfied the inclusion of a two storey building on the review site can satisfy the objectives contained in the local policy, which are the mechanisms by which the preferred neighbourhood character will be achieved.
4. Having said this, I do have concerns about the appropriateness of this particular design response. For example, the design of dwelling 1 with the first floor projecting over approximately half of the secluded private open space area is unusual and out of character with other two storey dwellings in surrounds which generally have a ground floor situated below. In addition, this first floor structure will cast shadow onto the private open space and restrict daylight into the only ground floor north facing window (a bedroom window)[2]. The extent of building to the east side boundary, together with a water tank and a minimum 1 metre side setback provides no opportunity for the planting of new landscaping between the east side boundary and the proposed dwelling. In my opinion this does not assist in strengthening the garden settings of the dwellings in the neighbourhood.
5. The extent of driveway and turning circles required to access both garages in combination with the construction of the rear dwelling from side boundary to side boundary again limits the opportunity for the planting of new landscaping that can contribute to the garden settings of the dwellings. Whilst the rear dwelling is a single storey form, which is sought in the design responses of the local planning policy, the siting and layout of this dwelling does not maintain the sense of openness in backyards and provides only one opportunity for the planting of a new canopy tree.
6. Mr Bowden submitted the question is whether a better design outcome would be a side by side dwelling development or a development of one dwelling behind the other on this site. One of the objectives in the Neighbourhood Character local policy is to maintain the existing dwelling pattern but there are no design responses provided for this objective to explain what is sought. Mr Bowden suggested this objective is aimed at preventing side by side or boundary to boundary development. Ms Lunn agreed with this but also stated it is aimed at preventing two crossovers to one property and advised for the last 18 months the Council has been refusing any side by side development.
7. I am of the opinion maintaining the existing dwelling pattern could be an encouragement for side by side dwellings that are situated generally in line with existing dwellings on adjoining allotments. This allows for the retention of a rear back garden that is, again, a characteristic found in this neighbourhood. There is nothing in the objectives or design responses in the local planning policy that prohibits or specifically discourages the construction of buildings boundary to boundary or side by side. In my opinion, the only issue potentially associated with boundary to boundary construction is achieving the objective of maintaining and strengthening the garden settings of the dwellings. However, the creation of two dwellings side by side, even with separate driveways and crossovers, does create the opportunity for the establishment of a front garden and a back garden, which is consistent with the existing dwelling pattern found in this neighbourhood and does contribute to the garden settings of dwellings. Whilst a front garden can be established in the proposed design, it is more difficult to create any landscaping through the middle of the site and there are limited opportunities for landscaping at the rear of the site. The extent of driveway adjacent to the west side of the site limits landscaping opportunities; and I agree with Ms Matthews that the length and bulk of wall proposed along the eastern side boundary is a poor design response to the amenity of No.10 Ararat Street.
8. In light of the new housing built and being built in this neighbourhood, which includes double storey dwellings and dwellings that are built side by side, I am of the opinion a better design response to the preferred neighbourhood character as outlined in the Neighbourhood Character local policy is a side by side development, possibly two storey in height, with increased opportunities for landscaping at both the front and rear of the site.
9. My findings are different to that of Member Gilfillan but this is because there has been a change in planning policy in regard to the preferred character, the objectives and design responses to achieve that character; and there has been a change in the neighbourhood with a number of new dwellings being established in the surrounding area over the last three or four years (including two storey dwellings and dwellings built side by side). Mr Bowden provided photographs of the existing side by side development at 35 Ararat Street as well as plans of another proposed side by side development at 40 Ararat Street and an approved side by side single storey development at 29 Ararat Street. The layout and style of each of these developments is of a contemporary nature but is attractive and creates opportunities for landscaping at both the front and back of the dwellings. In my opinion these developments are respectful of the preferred neighbourhood character. I find a more appropriate design outcome for this site would be the inclusion of a similar style of development.
10. Ms Matthews expressed concern about the number of new dwellings being built in the street impacting upon the availability of on street parking. Ms Lunn submitted that one of the Council's grounds of refusal did relate to traffic and parking problems in Ararat Street, but she acknowledged the application complies with clause 55 in regard to the provision of parking and there are no currently no parking restrictions in Ararat Street.
11. I have inspected Ararat Street and the surrounding streets and note that there is opportunity for vehicles to be parked on individual properties due to the length of driveways, regardless of whether it is a single dwelling or dwellings built side by side. In addition to which, there was available on street parking at the time of my inspection; and I note no concerns were raised by the Council's traffic engineers during the processing of this permit application. For these reasons, I do not share the concerns of the Council or Ms Matthews regarding parking in the street. At the end of the day, it is up to the residents and the Council to determine whether or not there need to be parking restrictions imposed in the street. Provided the car parking provision complies with clause 55, there is no justification for the refusal of this application on parking and traffic grounds.

1. I accept that this site is suitable for redevelopment for two dwellings but I am not satisfied with the detail of this design response. I find that it is not respectful of the preferred neighbourhood character and I am of the opinion a better design outcome that maintains the existing dwelling pattern as well as a garden setting and a sense of openness in back yards would be for a side by side development creating the opportunity for landscaping in front and back gardens. Such a development could include two driveways and could include two storey building forms. The detail of the design is a matter to be determined by the applicant and the Council as part of any subsequent planning application.

[1] Refer to clause 21.06-1 of the Municipal Strategic Statement

[2] If this was done to comply with the Council's residential design policy, it must be remembered this is a Council document only. The Planning Scheme emphasis is to achieve a good design outcome that is respectful of the character and amenity of the neighbourhood. This must take precedence over a Council document.