The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied. The Tribunal directs that Permit must contain the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit D/132/2007 issued by the Responsible Authority on 8 February, 2008 with the following modifications:

1. Conditions 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) must be deleted.
2. Consequential renumbering of condition 1.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a modified permit in accordance with this order.

Mr R Hocking, town planner of CityShire Planning, appeared for the permit applicant in both matters.

Mr J McAffrey, town planner appeared for P Veis in both matters.

1. Application for Review No. P690/2008 is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to grant a permit for the construction of a dwelling at 25 Main Street, Northcote.
2. Application for Review No. P691/2008 is an application to review conditions placed on the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit issued by the responsible authority for the construction of the dwelling at the above mentioned address. The conditions in dispute require the submission of amended plans showing a redesign of the proposal including changes to the front setback, the reduction in the number of bedrooms and the removal of on site car parking
3. At the conclusion of the hearing I gave oral reasons for my decision to vary the decision of the responsible authority and direct the grant of a permit. A summary of my reasons are set out below.
4. I think there are three issues which require my consideration in this matter.
5. The first is the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the property to the north and as I said during the hearing I do not think the those impacts are unacceptable. The dwelling to the north is oriented toward the park abutting its northern side boundary. The dwelling effectively presents its back to the review site, notwithstanding that there does appear to be an entrance feature on the southern side. The dwelling presents to the review site in the form of sheer two storey walls and highlight windows close to the southern boundary. I think the applicant is entitled to design to that interface and in my view has done so appropriately. The construction of a single storey wall adjacent to the private open space of the dwelling to the north does not constitute an unacceptable impact.
6. Mr Menegazzo sought to have what I regard as minimal setbacks to the proposal's northern boundary walls but I do not consider that requiring such setbacks would have any benefits in terms of reducing the amenity impacts of the proposal on his property but they would have the disbenefit of compromising the functional design of the proposed dwelling.
7. The second issues is the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the property to the south. The property to the south does have a more sensitive interface because the dwelling on that property has north facing habitable room windows and it also has secluded private open space against which boundary walls are proposed.
8. Standard A13 of clause 54 of the Planning scheme contains the relevant provisions against which the proposal's impact on the north facing windows must be assessed. The proposal meets the standard and the applicable objective is therefore also met. The design of the proposal has responded to the existence of that sensitive interface by doing what it is required to do and by creating an appropriate light court adjacent to the north facing habitable room windows. I acknowledge that there will be an impact on the amenity of the dwelling to the south as a consequence of the construction of the proposed dwelling adjacent to those north facing windows but I am unable to conclude that that impact is unacceptable or unreasonable especially in the circumstances where the standard is met.
9. Similarly there is a single storey wall on a boundary opposite the secluded private open space of the dwelling to the south. Again I do not think that this aspect of the proposal creates an unreasonable impact. The private open space of the property to the south is quite wide if not deep, so I think the visual impact of the single storey wall when viewed from that open space is not excessive. Overshadowing was not raised as a concern by either the objector or the Council and I am satisfied that there will be no unacceptable overshadowing impacts.
10. The third issue I need to address is that of neighbourhood character. The review site is an anomaly in the street because it has a frontage of some 6 m and an area of 225 m2. The typical frontage dimension of lots in Main Street is 12 to 13 m with lots having an area in excess of 500m2.
11. The extent to which the Council's neighbourhood character guidelines can be realistically applied to consideration of a development of this site is in my view limited. The guidelines cannot be ignored but they must be applied sensibly and flexibly and it seems to me that there needs to be an acceptance that any development on this lot is probably not going to "fit in" all that well. Having said that I do not think this proposal will have any significant adverse impacts on the character of this street primarily because it is located in the northern, dead end of the street. If the lot was situated mid block within that section of the street which exhibits an intact interwar context, then the changes sought by the Council may have more merit in my view. At the northern end of the street however, which exhibits a more eclectic streetscape context and where the site's visibility from the balance of the street is quite limited, I do not think the changes sought are justified.
12. In general terms the changes sought by the Council are intended to remove on site car parking and to create a front setback more consistent with the prevailing setback pattern in the street, and to increase landscaping opportunities within that setback. For the reasons I have outlined above I do not regard these changes as necessary to achieve an acceptable built form. Ms Long acknowledged that the requirement to delete upper level rooms was related to the sheer, two storey wall on the northern boundary, but that the need for these changes was now lessened because of the recent construction of the dwelling to the north, which reduced the visibility of that wall. I agree with that observation and as a consequence I am satisfied that the double form as proposed is acceptable.
13. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be varied and a permit be granted.
14. The permit will include the conditions contained in the notice of decision to grant a Permit issued by the responsible authority with modifications which have regard to the matters which arise from these reasons.