A permit is granted for two attached dwellings at 8 Delta Avenue, Coburg (Merlynston) in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

* Before the use or development commences, three copies of amended plans must be submitted to and when approved by the responsible authority become the endorsed plans and form part of this permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the original plans submitted, but must be amended to show:

* The removal of the existing second dwelling to the north of the site so that any subdivision of the land can be undertaken creating two orderly lots.

* The protection of the Oak tree at the front of the site, by no construction or compaction under the drip line.

* Both dwellings moved back to 7 metres from the front boundary with the upper floors a further 1 metre back and the garages to 7.6 metres from the front boundary.

* The crossover should be made in a straight line to facilitate safe access and egress from the site.

* External screens to cut off oblique views on the second bedroom windows of each dwelling (east and west facing windows).

2. Compliance with endorsed plans of the development.

3. A vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the responsible authority.

4. The external material, colour and finishes of all buildings and works permitted must match those on the existing building to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5. Details of the front fence must be provided and be to a design to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The front fence must not exceed a height of 1.2 metres if solid or 1.5 metres if at least 50% transparent.

6. Before the use or development commences, a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The landscape plan must show the location, quantity, size and botanical name of each proposed tree, shrub and ground cover and show the treatment of each landscaped surface. An endorsed copy of the plan will form part of this permit.

7. The existing oak tree shown on the endorsed plan as nominated to be retained must be suitably marked before the development commences on the land and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped unless with the written consent of the responsible authority. Any damage to the tree to be retained must be repaired at the owner's expense to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

8. All stormwater from the land must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

9. All telecommunications and power connections (where by means of cable) and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground.

10. Electricity, gas, and water metres must be located to the requirements of service authorities.

11. A clothesline must be provided to each dwelling and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

13. This permit expires if the development is not commenced within 12 months from the date of issue of the buildings and works are not completed within 24 months of the date of issue unless either of these dates are extended by the responsible authority in writing. An application for extension of time must be lodged in writing before the permit expires or within 3 months after the expiry date of the permit.

14. The existing outbuildings are to be removed within 60 days of the completion of the development and the issue of certificates of occupancy for the dwellings.

A separate building permit is required for the proposed development from the relevant building surveyor.

Separate Council consent and report is required for a building over an easement pursuant to the Building Regulations 1994.

15 A carport must not be constructed within the frontage of the dwelling.

Mr Peter English, Town Planner of Peter English & Associates, for the Responsible Authority.

Mr Russell Hocking, Consultant Planner, for the permit applicant and applicant for review.

appeared on their own behalf and on behalf of other objectors.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to refuse a permit.

1. The proposal does not comply with Council's Crossing Policy June 1997 in that it would result in 2 crossovers.

2. The proposal will result in unreasonable detriment to the Oak Tree in western Section of the front garden.

3. The bulk and scale of the proposal is out of character with the immediate neighbourhood and streetscape and therefore does not comply with element three of The Good Design Guide For Medium Density Housing.

4. The proposal does not comply with the benchmark density under element one of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing.

5. The proposal does not constitute the orderly and proper planning of the area.

6. The proposal does not comply with element nine of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing in that it would result in unrelated "pockets" of Private Open Space that add no amenity value to the proposed dwellings.

1. The proposal is a site-responsive, well-designed medium-density housing development that takes advantage of the site features and opportunities and provides for a development that fully complies with the standards of The Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing;

2. There is nothing special or notable about the neighbourhood character of the precinct that would prevent either medium-density housing or double-storey development and the proposal is acceptable within the neighbourhood setting;

3. Council's Crossing Policy, dated June 1997, is not an incorporated document, has not been subject to public exhibition or review and is of little relevance insofar as it only seeks to prevent medium-density housing by limiting multi-unit developments to one crossing per site, which is unreasonable and contrary to the directions of planning policy;

4. There is no evidence that the proposal will result in unreasonable detriment to the Oak tree and we challenge Council to provide such evidence, documented by a person with suitable expertise. It is a feature of the development that the Oak tree has been retained within the overall site plan when there are no statutory protections and the tree could be removed at any time;

5. The proposal is a perfect example of the orderly and proper planning of the area by providing for a diversity of housing and a variety of dwelling types within this local area, designated as an Urban Village within Moreland Plan - 1997; and

6. The proposal has an efficient and effective site layout that does not provide for unnecessary or wasted portions of land and in that context, two dwellings on the subject site is a perfectly acceptable density.

1. This is an application by the Waylan Consulting Group to review a decision of the City of Moreland to grant a permit for two attached dwellings at 8 Delta Avenue, Merlynston.

2. The applicant wishes to demolish an existing dwelling at the front of the site and construct two double storey attached dwellings and also to retain an existing outbuilding at the rear of the existing house. Both dwellings are to have their living areas on the ground floor and three bedrooms on the first floor. Each dwelling is to have its own vehicular crossing with a single garage and tandem visitor space. The north facing open space is to be established at the rear of each dwelling. The open space for the easterly unit will be very large as it includes the existing outbuilding.

3. I have adopted Mr English's description of the site and surrounds in which he states that:

"The subject site is located on the northern side of Delta Ave, diagonally opposite the Glyndon Avenue intersection.

The site is irregular in shape with a frontage to Delta Avenue of 14.30 metres. The depth along with the western side of the site is 27.97 metres, and 38.22 metres along the eastern side. A right of way abuts the north-eastern boundary of the property.

The subject site contains a double fronted post-war weatherboard dwelling. The dwelling is accessed by a single crossing on the eastern side of the property. To the rear is a separate self-contained dwelling, which is accessed from the right of way at the rear of the property.

The surrounding area is residential, consisting of single storey detached dwellings. Construction materials are a mix of brick and weatherboard.

The Merlynston Railway Station is within 200 metres to the east of the subject site, whilst diagonally opposite the subject site, on the corner of Delta Avenue and Glyndon Avenue is a large Church."

4. The new format Moreland Planning Scheme was recently gazetted. This zones the site and the surrounding area as Residential 1. No overlays apply to the site but there is a heritage control over a church diagonally opposite the subject site. A permit is required according to clause 32.01-4 for more than one dwelling on a site and this clause also requires the proposal to be considered in accordance with the parameters of the Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing. State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies are also to be considered under clause 65 of the scheme.

5. Mr English's submission details the applicable matters from the Municipal Strategic Statement. It would appear that the proposal complies with the major objectives of that statement.

6. The site is also located within the Merlynston Urban Village designated as a priority urban village in the MSS. The urban village concept has been developed in order that economically sustainable and livable areas can be developed with residential developments based around good public transport and employment nodes and open space.

7. The application after being received by the Responsible Authority was advertised to surrounding properties and eight objections were received. The principal concerns were issues of neighbourhood character, overdevelopment, bulk and the problems that may be incurred with the retention of the existing habitable outbuilding at the rear. The application was referred to various internal Council units. The traffic unit required access to and from the site to be in a straight line. The street tree co-ordinator agreed the street tree could be removed and replaced and commented that the existing Oak tree could suffer detriment from this proposal. Under delegation after considering the application and other matters the responsible authority resolved to refuse the application on the grounds as listed.

8. All the parties spoke to written submissions. Photographs and other information were tabled. The submissions, photographs and other information are all retained on the Tribunal file and are available for anyone who wishes to peruse them. Consequently I will not repeat all the matters put to me but will concentrate on what I perceive to be the major issues.

9. While Mr English submitted that there were no strategic issues involved in this application the matter of the priority urban village strategy was used by Mr Hocking as the reason why this proposal should be approved. In Mr Hocking's opinion the priority urban village concept and other sections of the MSS are supportive of his client's proposal. For instance the Moreland population is in decline and will decrease markedly unless more housing is constructed, according to the MSS. The site is within the central part of an urban village area that according to Mr Hocking an area where change is expected. In his submission the subject site meets all of the objectives of the housing strategies in the MSS.

10. In relation to the strategic elements and the promotion of the urban village concept, such strategies are meant to be vehicles by which municipalities can embrace change and consider higher densities in these areas. In other areas within these municipalities there is often not the same encouragement for change and higher densities. If municipalities are going to promote their urban village concepts then they must accept that change is to occur. That change may not lead to preservation of existing neighbourhood character or streetscape but rather the development of new neighbourhood character and streetscape. Unless the municipal authorities and their residents are prepared to accept a change of more than an incremental nature in these urban villages then the whole concept of them seems flawed.

11. In this matter two double storey dwellings are proposed. There are no other double storey dwellings in this particular section of Delta Avenue but, according to Mr Hocking, there are examples of double storey dwellings in the surrounding area. Double storey dwellings are not two headed monsters. They are a normal housing type throughout the Melbourne metropolitan area. Under the present planning and building regulations there is no prohibition of double storey single dwellings in most of the metropolitan area unless heritage or design and development overlays affect them. In this case there are no overlays. From this point of view then there is no reason why this development of two terrace houses with single garages should not be acceptable.

12. One of the biggest issues for a number of objectors was the retention of the existing outbuilding and all the problems that this could cause from the point of view of traffic and servicing. This outbuilding is inappropriately placed on the site and severely restrains the proper allocation of private open space to each unit. Further, although it has a planning permit as a habitable outbuilding, it is inconceivable that this site could support three dwellings. Even its retention long term as a non habitable outbuilding is questionable. Under the circumstances its removal is preferred. However, the applicant has expressed a desire to live in it while the two new dwellings are being constructed. This is quite acceptable provided the outbuilding is removed within 60 days of the completion of the development as proposed. The outbuilding is to then be removed and the allotments subdivided centrally from north to south.

13. On the other issues the following comments were made:

* There is no valid reason why this site should not have two crossovers. One vehicle space may be lost in the street, however there are no parking restrictions on parking in the street and two visitor parking spaces will be achieved on the site.

* The existing Oak tree can be preserved by judicious protection during the construction phase and if appropriate porous paving such as brick or concrete pavers are used then its long term retention should be ensured. The Responsible Authority is requested not to allow crushed rock or gravel pavements in these areas.

14. The issue of bulk was addressed by Mr Hocking when he submitted that the bulk could be significantly reduced by moving the proposal one metre away from the front building line so that, at 7 metres, the development is in line with the dwellings on either side. He also suggested reducing the size of the upper floor slightly so that it can be set back a further metre i.e. 8 metres from the front building line. This was certainly preferred by the other parties and from my point of view is a good suggestion. Mr Hocking then agreed to move each garage back to 7.6 metres from the frontage which would give a far better curve for the driveway around the Oak tree and make it easier for ingress and egress on the western unit.

15. While density was raised as a ground for refusal and by other parties it was not an issue which was argued at any length by Mr English and in fact is not an issue for this Tribunal.

16. Grounds of refusal in relation to orderly and proper planning of an area are often raised by responsible authorities but never seem to be argued at length by them It is easy to understand why this is so because this is a rather tenuous ground of refusal at the best of times and one wonders how two little dwellings can possibly upset the orderly and proper planning of any area such as this. The proposal with the removal of the outbuildings on the site and the setback of the buildings further from Delta Avenue will have far less impact on the neighbours.

17. Overshadowing and overlooking should not be a problem and overlooking will only occur from an upper bedroom window that, if required, can be appropriately addressed by vertical screens to stop oblique overlooking.

18. Under the circumstances I am overturning the Council's decision and a permit will be granted subject to conditions.