1. The relevant objective and standard for building height are set out below.

Building height objective

To ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Standard A4

The maximum building height should not exceed the maximum height specified in the zone, schedule to the zone or an overlay that applies to the land.

If no maximum height is specified in the zone, schedule to the zone or an overlay, the maximum building height should not exceed 9 metres, unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the maximum building height should not exceed 10 metres.

1. In this case, as the proposed dwelling has a height of 7.57 metres, it complies with Standard A4. This is conceded by the applicant in their written submission.[3] As this standard is one of the nominated 'deemed to comply' standards, it means that I must find that the objective is also achieved. As set out above, compliance with the objective means that the height of the proposed building respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. It is therefore unarguable that the height of the front façade of the proposed dwelling respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. This was conceded orally by Mr McKenna at the hearing of this proceeding.
2. The applicant's second concern is in relation to the extent of articulation in the front façade. The proposed front façade will comprise two different wall materials, a prominent front door, and two good sized windows in a very narrow front façade. Having regard to these design elements, I find that the proposal will provide an interesting and well articulated façade. It is also a façade that will integrate with the surrounding streetscape and neighbourhood character, noting the following observations made in Council's written submissions.
   1. The proposed exposed brickwork would respond to the heritage character of the Port Melbourne precinct.
   2. There are other examples of exposed brickwork within the streetscape, including the three attached dwellings at 217-221 Pickles Street and directly across the road at 473 Coventry Street.
   3. The colourbond cladding is a neutral tone that would complement the brickwork and provide a simple material pallet to the streetscape.
   4. The timber door provides a neutral tone and is consistent with adjoining timber framed dwellings and the timber doors at 203 and 203A Pickles Street.
   5. Large windows are appropriately proportioned to the front façade to provide visual interest and passive surveillance.
3. On a broader assessment, I find that the proposal is an appropriate response to the neighbourhood character of the surrounding locality and the guidance from the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. As no other neighbourhood character related matters were raised by the applicant, it is appropriate in this context to take a streamlined approach to my assessment, by adopting the detailed analysis and reasons set out at paragraphs 75 to 102 inclusive of the Council's submissions, as my own reasons for finding that the proposal is an appropriate neighbourhood character response.
4. For these reasons I find that the proposal is an appropriate response to the surrounding neighbourhood character, and the guidance provided by the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

WILL THERE BE ANY UNREASONABLE OFF-SITE AMENITY IMPACTS?

1. The applicant raises a number of concerns regarding potential offsite impacts on the adjoining property. They submit that the proposed dwelling on the review site will cause a range of unreasonable off-site amenity impacts on the applicant's dwelling and property, arising from:
   1. Noise from the proposed roof deck;
   2. Overshadowing of private open space;
   3. Overshadowing of internal living areas and the impact on the energy efficiency of the applicant's dwelling;
   4. Receipt of daylight to the ground floor living area via the light court on the applicant's northern boundary;
   5. Visual bulk of the proposed development; and,
   6. Loss of view from the rooftop terrace.
2. In raising concerns regarding these impacts, the applicant submits that the failure of the proposal to comply with the following standards is unreasonable, and should not be approved:
   1. Standard A7 - Energy efficiency protection
   2. Standard A10 - Side and rear setbacks
   3. Standard A11 - Walls on boundaries
   4. Standard A12 - Daylight to existing windows
3. I am not persuaded by these submissions, and instead find that the proposal will provide for an appropriate level of amenity for the applicant's dwelling and property. I make this finding for the following reasons, addressing each of the concerns identified above.

1. Noise from the roof deck will comprise residential noise, which is to be expected in a residential area. There is no expectation in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme that one dwelling will be protected from the residential noise associated with the use of a neighbouring dwelling. Given that some of the abutting neighbours also have roof decks, it is considered appropriate that a roof deck be permitted here, with the noise from roof decks now an anticipated element of living in inner city locations such as this.

1. The applicant's dwelling has one area of secluded private open space at the rear of their lot, which will not experience any additional overshadowing between 9:00am and 3:00pm at the equinox, as compared to the existing conditions. There is a second area of secluded private open space on a roof deck at the applicant's dwelling, which also will not receive any additional shadowing from the proposed development of the review site at the equinox. As such, the relevant Standard and objective are achieved. While the light court at the applicant's property will be completely overshadowed at the equinox, this is also currently the case. As such, the proposed dwelling on the review site will not result in any additional shadow to the ground/floor of this light court.

1. I acknowledge that the increase of the southern boundary wall height from 3.7 metres to 6.69 metres adjacent to the applicant's light court will have shadowing impacts to the north facing living room windows at some times of the year. However, this outcome is consistent with what must be regarded as reasonable expectations in this neighbourhood, where single and double storey attached dwellings sit in close proximity to one another, and where the width of the review site is just 5.94 metres. Further, there is a carriageway easement along the northern boundary of the review site, that further reduces the width of the available building envelope on the review site. In this context, it is considered that any first floor layout, even one with a narrow side boundary setback, would have a significant effect on solar access to the narrow light court on the applicant's property, including the north facing windows to that light court. On this basis I find that the applicant's expectation that they could retain the existing level of solar access to their north facing windows, that are located roughly mid-block and are setback 1.83 metres from the common boundary with the review site, is not a reasonable expectation in this context.
2. I also note that the applicant's dwelling is one of a pair of side-by-side dwellings separated by a party wall. The other dwelling of the pair, which is to the south of the party wall, was approved with a near identical light court that is however south facing, and which would never receive any solar access. I can only conclude from this observation that the design of these dwellings does not rely on sunlight entering the windows that face the light court, to achieve an acceptable level of energy efficiency. However, even if I am wrong about that, I am satisfied that the proposal that is before me is acceptable, for the reasons set out elsewhere in this assessment.
3. As such, if there is any impact to the energy efficiency of the applicant's dwelling arising from the proposed development of the review site, it is an impact that should have been reasonably anticipated, and therefore is not of such a level as to warrant a refusal of the proposal that is before me. I note that the relevant part of Standard A7, which is set out below, does not anticipate there being no impact on the energy efficiency of existing dwellings, but rather that the energy efficiency of existing dwellings is not unreasonably reduced. For these reasons set out above I find that this Standard is achieved, and it therefore follows that the Energy efficiency protection objectives are also achieved, insofar as they relate to the impact on the applicant's dwelling.

• Sited and designed to ensure that the energy efficiency of existing dwellings or small second dwellings on adjoining lots is not unreasonably reduced.

1. Despite the proposed boundary wall height as identified above, the existing ground floor living areas in the applicant's dwelling will still receive an adequate amount of daylight. I make this finding having regard to the fact that the light court on the applicant's property will still provide daylight to this internal living area, as will the wide west facing window that opens out to their rear area of secluded private open space. As the open plan living area does not rely on the light court adjacent to the boundary with the review site for its only source of daylight, I do not regard the reduction of daylight to this light court as representing an unreasonable amenity impact on the applicant's dwelling. I also do not regard it as a reasonable expectation that there be no loss of daylight to the applicant's light court, considering its location part way along a side boundary, in a neighbourhood characterised by narrow allotments and one and two storey side boundary wall heights.

1. The proposed development will not be sited adjacent to the applicant's area of secluded private open space at the rear of their site, and as such there will be no visual bulk impact to this space. Indeed, in this respect the proposal represents an improvement over the existing conditions, as the length of the on boundary wall is reduced from the existing 25 metres to a proposed 18 metres, and the reduction in wall length results in the removal of existing boundary wall adjacent to the rear area of secluded private open space on the applicant's property.
2. Views from and through the ground floor light court are currently terminated by the existing 3.77 metre high boundary fence, as demonstrated by the photographs of this space provided by the applicant. The proposed addition to the height of this boundary wall will therefore have a negligible visual bulk impact on this space.
3. At first floor of the applicant's dwelling, some of the existing bedroom windows will have a view to the proposed development on the review site, but that view will be from an elevated position, of development no higher than the applicant's own dwelling. Further, each of the bedrooms also have windows that face a different orientation other than to the north and the review site, and the windows to two of the three first floor bedrooms in the applicant's dwelling that directly face north towards the review site are highlight windows, and so allow a restricted view. The third and final bedroom on this floor presents a black two storey wall to this interface, and so does not have a window that directly faces towards the review site. In this context I do not regard the proposal as being capable of resulting in an unreasonable visual bulk to the applicant's dwelling and property.

1. As there is no right to a view in an inner city context such as this, the loss of city views from the applicant's rooftop deck is not a relevant consideration in this proceeding, in accordance with the guidance provided in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. Therefore while I accept that there will be an impact on the available views from the applicant's dwelling, it is not an impact which I can take into account in my decision making on this application.

1. It therefore follows that as the off-site amenity impacts are found to be reasonable and acceptable, that the extent to which the proposal exceeds Standards A10, A11, A12 and A13 is also acceptable in this compact inner city context. For the reasons set out above I find that the proposal achieves the Side and rear setbacks objective, the Walls on boundaries objective, the Daylight to existing windows objective and the North-facing windows objective. Further, as set out above, Standard A14 is achieved, and therefore it follows that the proposal also complies with the Overshadowing open space objective.

IS AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF INTERNAL AMENITY PROVIDED?

1. None of the parties raised any concern in relation to the level of internal amenity to be provided to the future occupants of the proposed dwelling on the review site. I confirm from my own analysis that an appropriate level of internal amenity will be achieved. I make this finding having regard to the size of the individual rooms, their ability to receive adequate daylight and solar access, the overall size of the dwelling, and the size and orientation of the areas of secluded private open space.

DOES THE PROPOSAL APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE FOR CAR PARKING?

1. Again, none of the parties raised any concern regarding the proposal to waive the car parking requirement for this dwelling, as is the normal approach to dwellings on the narrow lots in this neighbourhood. I am also persuaded that it is appropriate to waive the usual car parking requirement, and adopt as my own reasons for that approach the following extract from the Council's written submissions.

1. Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5 sets out the car parking requirement that applies to the use of the land for a dwelling. 2. The equates to a requirement to provide two car parking spaces on the land. 3. The application proposed to provide zero spaces, resulting in proposed reduction of two spaces. 4. The applicant has provided a parking demand assessment in support of their proposed reduction. This is included at Attachment 6. 5. The decision guidelines of Clause 52.06-10 are assessed below:

140.1 The existing dwelling on site has no crossover or onsite parking, the replacement dwelling would maintain this arrangement, albeit with two additional bedrooms. The single dwelling is not expected to generate significant increases to parking demand when compared to existing conditions. > > 140.2 There is an adequate amount of street parking within the immediate vicinity as identified in the car parking demand assessment Attachment 6. > > 140.3 The subject site is located within the PPTN and is proximal to public transport, including

• 220m walk to the 236 Bus at the Pickles and Dorcas Street stop.
• 350m walk to the 234 Bus at the Raglan and Crockford Street stop.
• 650m walk to the 96 tram at the South Melbourne Light rail station.
• 700m walk to the 109 tram at the South Port Light rail station.
• 750m walk from the 1 tram at the Montague and Park Street stop.

140.4 Given the small lot size (143m2) and the lack of rear access, the feasibility of providing two onsite car spaces on site whilst maintaining a quality design response is questionable. > > 140.5 This part of Pickles Street generally has small front setbacks and no on-site parking, the proposal meets this character without car parking. The introduction of a crossover and a garage to the front façade would likely result in a poorer urban design outcome. > > 140.6 The site is nearby the Bay Street activity centre, however the proposal would not affect the viability of this centre, given its single dwelling scale.

1. On balance, the proposed car parking reduction is acceptable.
2. The proposed reduction of 2 spaces to 0 spaces is worthy of support giving weight to the decision guidelines of Clause 52.06 and considering the provided car parking demand assessment.

1. A number of other matters about permit conditions were raised by the parties. With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:
   1. The applicant requested three permit conditions be added to Condition 1 to provide for design changes to reduce the amenity impact on their dwelling. As for the reasons set out above I have found that the amenity impact is acceptable without any design changes, I will decline to include the three conditions as requested by the applicant.
   2. After consultation with the parties, I will add the mandatory condition prohibiting a gas connection that applies under Clause 53.03 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme to this permit for a new dwelling.
   3. The conditions include those that are subject to the consent order request in Application for review P1450/2024.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Construct or extend one dwelling on a lot less than 300 square metres.

Reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and an electronic copy must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as 'The advertised plans', prepared by 'ABP ARC', revision B, dated 8/10/2024, and council date stamped 21/10/2024) but modified to show:

(a) 1.8m fence and clothesline to side setback on ground floor plan to be removed and the inclusion of a solid pedestrian gate with a minimum height of 1.8m to be positioned across E-1, between 2m to 3.5m from the front title boundary.

(b) Rainwater tank on ground floor plan to be noted as connected to toilets

(c) Front fence to be noted as maximum height of 1.5m on ground floor plan and streetscape elevation.

(d) Any modifications required as a result of the Water Sensitive Urban Design response required by Condition No. 7 of this permit.

(e) The removal of the zen garden and no plantings within E-1, and a sealed surface to be provided within E-1.

(f) Show all existing habitable windows and pedestrian gates for 207 Pickles Street along the northern boundary that align with E-1.

(g) Remove the window shroud of the northern window of the study at ground level.

(h) The front fence is to include a sliding gate along the width of E-1 and must be designed to allow stormwater runoff to flow through it.

1. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the issue of any Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Final Inspection for the development approved by this permit the installation of privacy screens must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed plans. The privacy screens must be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the issue of any Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Final Inspection for the development approved by this permit all new or extended walls on or facing the boundary of adjoining properties and/or a laneway must be cleaned and finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Unpainted or unrendered masonry walls must have all excess mortar removed from the joints and face and all joints must be tooled or pointed also to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Painted or rendered or bagged walls must be finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any plant, equipment or domestic services visible from the primary street (other than a lane) or public park must be located and visually screened to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans under Condition 1 of this permit, a Water Sensitive Urban Design (Stormwater Management) Report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority in electronic format. When approved, the Water Sensitive Urban Design Report will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The report must:

(a) Demonstrate how the development meets the water quality performance objectives as set out in the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (CSIRO, 1999) or its updated equivalent. This must include:

1. Design details of the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatments to be used, including cross-sections and connection to legal point of discharge.
2. A STORM report with a score of 100 per cent (%) or greater (or MUSIC modelling for large scale developments).
3. A plan showing all stormwater catchment areas, permeable and impermeable areas in square metres (m2).
4. A plan illustrating the location of the nominated water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures in relation to buildings, sealed surfaces and landscaping areas, with connection notations.

(b) Details of how the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures will be maintained on an on-going basis. This must be demonstrated by providing a maintenance manual including the following information:

1. A full list of maintenance tasks.
2. The required frequency of each maintenance task (monthly, annually etc.).
3. Person responsible for each maintenance task.

Incorporation of Water Sensitive Urban Design Measures

1. Prior to the issue of any Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Final Inspection for the development approved by this permit, the provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Water Sensitive Urban Design Report must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Construction Management Water Sensitive Urban Design

1. The developer must ensure that throughout the construction of the building(s) and construction and carrying out of works allowed by this permit:

(a) No water containing oil, foam, grease, scum or litter will be discharged to the stormwater drainage system from the site.

(b) All stored wastes are kept in designated areas or covered containers that prevent escape into the stormwater system.

(c) The amount of mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones deposited by vehicles on the abutting roads is minimised when vehicles are leaving the site.

(d) No mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones are washed into, or are allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system.

(e) The site is developed and managed to minimise the risks of stormwater pollution through the contamination of run-off by chemicals, sediments, animal wastes or gross pollutants in accordance with currently accepted best practice.

1. No buildings or works are to be constructed over any easement or other restriction on the land or any sewers, drains, pipes, wires or cables under the control of a public authority without the prior written consent of the relevant authority and the Responsible Authority.

1. Any new dwelling allowed by this permit must not be connected to a reticulated gas service (within the meaning of clause 53.03 of the relevant planning scheme). This condition continues to have force and effect after the development authorised by this permit has been completed.

1. This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issued date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] This is the only planning policy relied upon in the applicant's written submissions.

[3] At page 11 of the pdf document, where the written submission concedes that the proposal complies with the 9.0 metre mandatory building height found in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, which means that it also complies with the 9.0 metre height limit at Standard A4.