1. The size of the review site compared to the prevailing lot size in the surrounding neighbourhood, and therefore the extent to which it could be capable of being subdivided; 2. Whether medium density development of a similar intensity already exists in the surrounding neighbourhood;

1. The extent to which a proposed development is consistent with the height of surrounding development; and,

1. Whether a proposal complies with any varied standards to Rescode, and in the absence of any varied standards, Clause 55.
2. We identify that these considerations may be expanded upon as other proposals in different contexts are assessed by the Tribunal.
3. In assessing the proposed development against the considerations set out at paragraph 40 we find:

1. The review site at 3908 square metres is much larger than any other nearby parcel and dwarfs the size of most surrounding properties. It is therefore capable of being developed with multiple dwellings via a subdivision and development scenario, even in the absence of the transitional provisions; 2. Many of the surrounding properties have been developed with multiple dwellings, including: 1. three, four and six unit developments on the three parcels immediately to the north of the review site; 2. 17 dwellings on a large parcel opposite the review site at 16-22 Landcox Street; and, 3. 18 dwellings on an L shaped parcel at 1-5 Landcox Street.

1. The proposed development at two storeys in height, and between 6.6 and 8.15 metres above natural ground level, is consistent with the height of nearby development, which comprises a mix of one and two storey development; and,

1. The proposal complies with the Rescode standards varied by Schedule 3 to the NRZ, aside from the height of the existing and proposed front fence, and otherwise exhibits a high level of compliance with Clause 55.
2. For these reasons we find that this proposal does indeed limit residential development in the manner that is intended by the provisions of the NRZ, as that concept can be contextually applied to this neighbourhood, and as it is relevant to a proposal which has the benefit of the transitional provisions. It is therefore consistent with the third purpose of the NRZ. We come to assess compliance with the neighbourhood character purposes of the NRZ in a separate analysis below.

1. In the most general terms, we find the planning policies encourage evolution, not revolution in this neighbourhood. We find the particular planning outcome is for this area to remain residential in nature and character while accommodating a modest, gradual increase in the number of dwellings. With regard to the housing policies we find they neither encourage nor discourage the proposed density. With regard to the site's physical context we find its location and size favours medium density development.
2. With regard to the zone's purpose and provisions, we find they facilitate a proposal that responds to the ways that the zone provisions intend to limit opportunities for increased residential development. Our analysis above identifies that this proposal achieves a good response.
3. From this, we conclude that medium density development on this site contributes positively to the Bayside Planning Scheme's urban consolidation objectives. As such, a medium density development can be contemplated, and should be able to be executed, in a manner that is also respectful of neighbourhood character. We next turn to the assessment of whether the proposal before us successfully achieves such an outcome.

IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RESPECTFUL OF NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?

The relevant zone purposes and policy context

1. The purposes of the NRZ aim to ensure development respecst a neighbourhood's character. They include:

To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.

To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

1. Clause 22.06 of the Bayside Planning Scheme contains the Council's Neighbourhood Character Policy. The objectives of this policy include:

To ensure that development is responsive to the preferred future character of the area.

To retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to the character of the area.

1. The policy usefully contains guidance at Clause 22.06-3 for decision makers in the application of the preferred future character statements:

Where a permit is required to develop or subdivide land in residential areas it is policy to take into account:

• The preferred future character and the precinct guidelines including objectives, design responses and avoid statements for each precinct as described in this policy.
• The extent to which the characteristics of the built and natural environment in the immediate vicinity of the site may determine a preferred future character that is different from that applying to the remainder of the precinct in which the site is located.

1. The review site is located within Precinct D1, for which the following preferred character statement applies:

The dwellings sit within established gardens that contain substantial vegetation including trees. The area retains some dwellings from the Inter war era, along with new complementary development. The spaciousness of the area is maintained by setting buildings back from both side boundaries and keeping front fences low and appropriate to the era of the dwelling. The strong horizontality of the existing dwellings is respected by recessing upper levels of new dwellings, incorporating low pitched roof forms and articulating the front facades.

1. A series of objectives and design responses, along with outcomes to avoid, follow the preferred character statement.
2. Mr Kane's contends the NRZ places a greater obligation on the protection of neighbourhood's character because new development in areas set aside for higher density development may fundamentally change their character.
3. As evidence of this, he contends:
   • The NRZ purposes restrict new residential development in favour of protecting the existing neighbourhood character;
   • The NRZ purposes creates a positive obligation to implement neighbourhood character policy and guidelines; and
   • As the character of a neighbourhood where growth is encouraged[21] might fundamentally change, there is a greater burden on applications in minimal growth areas to respect the neighbourhood's character.
4. We give some weight to his submission regarding the positive obligation to implement neighbourhood character policy and guidelines, yet note the first purpose of the NRZ and its predecessor (the Residential 1 Zone) requires the implementation of planning policy.
5. We consider the zone purpose to ensure that development respects the identified character carries more weight. We note the difference from the previous Residential 1 purpose, which was to encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character. We find that ensuring a respect for character is a greater obligation.
6. Finally, we refute the notion that applications in minimal growth areas carry a greater obligation to respect the neighbourhood character because high or moderate growth areas exist. We consider the designation of high, moderate and minimal growth areas is a separate process. Once it is completed, then the zone and particular policies related to it stand alone. We find the overlap implied by Mr Kane misinterprets the Planning Scheme's provisions.

The proposal's response to the purposes and policy context

1. As was explored with Mr McGurn during the course of the hearing, the preferred character statement identifies two features to which new development must respond. The first is the need to maintain the spaciousness of the area, while the second is to respect the strong horizontality of existing dwellings. On a site as large as this, it is appropriate to consider the response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character at each interface.

1. With regard to the frontage to Landcox Street, a large Sydney Blue Gum is retained. This is a positive response to the character statement's preference for established gardens with substantial vegetation including trees.
2. The proposal makes a number of design concessions to retain the Blue Gum. Firstly, it provides a varied set of front setbacks ranging from 9.0 to 15.7 metres. These setbacks, along with those to each of the side boundaries, meet the objective of protecting the spaciousness of the area as well as retaining the tree. Secondly, the largest of the front setbacks are centrally located, and combine with the pedestrian accessway to provide a complete and effective break between the two buildings facing the street. These buildings relate comfortably to the objective of spaciousness, as their size and spacing is comparable to other large buildings in this street.
3. The proposed two storey height of these buildings is consistent with the height of nearby development. They are a similar height to the two storey unit located immediately to the north, and as high but not as wide as the three attached dwellings opposite at 18-22 Landcox Street.
4. We find the proposal's contemporary style is challenging but acceptable. We find the permit applicant would have been on safer ground had they slavishly adopted the preferred character techniques of recessed upper levels, pitched roofs, conventionally articulated facades and a colour scheme in tones of brown and dull red. Such techniques would replicate the existing character.
5. Yet, respect for a neighbourhood's character is not the same as replicating the existing character. We note the objective, as opposed to the techniques, seeks a respectful response to the horizontality of existing buildings and note the policy allows for variations to the preferred character based on the characteristics of the immediate area[22].
6. We find this section of Landcox Street is diverse due to its building styles which are derived from a range of eras. As such, we find the existing buildings do not display a strong horizontality. Rather, there is some strong upright form adjacent to and opposite the site. As well as this, the mass of the buildings facing the street is wider than it is tall, meaning its mass displays 'horizontality'. We accept this mass is vertically divided into separate townhouses yet consider the buildings' overall composition strikes an acceptable balance between horizontal and vertical elements.
7. We find the proposal's details such as first floor projecting roofed balconies and framed elements reference the expressed verandahs of the street's older period housing stock. We note that a number of more recent developments have flat, rather than pitched roofs. Overall, we find the proportions of the front facades along with the contemporary detailing achieve a sufficient emphasis of the horizontal forms sought by the preferred character statement.
8. In conclusion, we find that the presentation to Landcox Street respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. We make this finding having regard to the significant landscaped setbacks, the ability to retain a significant tree, the well articulated and segmented front elevation, and the style and materials used.

1. The rear interface is non-typical, as it adjoins a large area of public open space, known as Landcox Park. A casual walk through Landcox Park reveals it is common, particularly in more recent development, for dwellings to overlook the Park from a two storey form. The Planning Scheme's design policies support a response that continues this characteristic of the neighbourhood because it can only improve safety and perceptions of safety for this important public asset.
2. The proposal seeks to provide a high level of surveillance of the Park. It does so through two groupings of two storey townhouses, one consisting of three dwellings, the other four dwellings. These townhouses combine in forms that are 15.9 and 21.2 metres long respectively, set behind a 4.5 metre wide landscaping strip. The two building forms along the rear boundary are separated by a 4.68 metre wide break that allows direct pedestrian access from the review site to the park.
3. We find the vegetation proposed within the review site, and that existing in the park itself will acceptably reduce the proposal's visual impact on the park. Of the existing park vegetation, a large Morton Bay Fig located some 9.7 metres from the rear boundary of the review site will screen or filter views from many locations within the park to much of the proposed development. Other mature trees to the north of the Fig will filter views to the development from other locations within the park.
4. Mr Kane submits that an existing Himalayan Cedar (Tree 50) should be retained, along with other existing vegetation along the review site's rear boundary. He submits that the emphasis within the preferred character statement on retaining substantial vegetation including trees, and the health and condition of Tree 50, encourages its retention. While we recognise the significance of Tree 50, we consider that it contributes little to any public or private view of this neighbourhood. We consider there is merit in removing tree 50, and the other smaller trees identified along the rear boundary, given the substantial side and rear setbacks provided, and the new landscaping outcome that can be achieved on site.
5. In response to key aspects identified in the preferred character statement, we consider the setbacks to the rear boundary and to the side boundaries at the rear of the site ensure an appropriate degree of spaciousness. We also consider that it is not so important to achieve a horizontality in the built form in the context of an interface to the park. We therefore support the strong vertical rhythm of the terrace style housing at the rear of the site.
6. Having regard to all of these factors, we find that the proposed development will be a polite addition to the existing urban context and character of Landcox Park. It will integrate more successfully than other modern buildings facing the park due to its setbacks and landscaping scheme.

1. We now turn to the side elevations, and an assessment of their impact on neighbourhood character. This assessment is framed by the way that deep sites such as the review site have typically been developed in this neighbourhood. We observe that continuous built form is common to the medium density development on the three sites immediately to the north of the review site, though often of a single storey height at the middle and rear of properties. We consider the property that adjoins to the south of the review site is an exception, that being a single detached dwelling on a very deep site, which clearly does not exhibit the length of built form that we find characteristic elsewhere in this neighbourhood.
2. Mr Kane contends the lack of space between buildings makes the proposal inconsistent with the preferred character statement. We are not so persuaded, and instead prefer the evidence of Mr McGurn that the spaces sought by the preferred character statement are those to the side of buildings in a streetscape view, and not between buildings within a site. In this case generous side setbacks are provided to both side boundaries, and so we find that this element of the preferred future character statement is achieved.
3. We are concerned by the extent of two storey form down the length of the site because it disrespects the existing neighbourhood character.[23] To both side boundaries, two storey form will be relatively continuous from the front setback to the rear setback, aside from breaks of 1.6 metres and 3.0 metres respectively. We note that the 3.0 metre breaks are compromised by some cantilevering of the first floor in Dwellings 1 and 6 that narrows the effective width of this break at first floor level.
4. While we acknowledge that side setbacks of some 4.0 to 4.3 metres are proposed along each side boundary, we find that the continuous nature of the two storey form, with such narrow breaks, will likely result in an unreasonable extent of built form when viewed from the adjoining properties to the north and south of the review site.
5. Having regard to the existing neighbourhood character, we consider that more relief to this continuous two storey form is necessary. We have considered a larger complete break in the built form, but have ultimately decided that a mix of single and double storey form is an appropriate response to the neighbourhood's existing character.
6. As such we will require by way of conditions for the double storey form currently occupied by Dwellings 11, 12, 20 and 21 to be modified to single storey form. We acknowledge that in this exercise, the Applicant may choose to provide fewer dwellings on the review site. We leave that decision up to the Applicant and Council to determine through an amended plans process.
7. Subject to this change, we find for the reasons already given that the proposed development is an appropriate response to both the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.

ARE THERE ANY UNREASONABLE OFF-SITE AMENITY IMPACTS?

1. Off-site amenity impacts usually comprise those relating to visual bulk, overlooking and overshadowing. We find the proposal, as amended to respect the neighbourhood's existing character, does not cause unreasonable visual bulk impacts.
2. Issues of overlooking have been addressed by consent between the Applicant for Review and the owners of adjoining properties to the north and south of the review site. The consent position reached was presented to the Tribunal in the form of a set of agreed conditions, which we will include in the Conditions at Appendix 1 to this decision.
3. That only leaves an assessment of overshadowing for us to undertake. No submissions suggested the impact of shadowing from the proposed development were in any way unreasonable. Our own analysis confirms that the shadows from the proposed development at the equinox will mostly fall within the boundaries of the review site. At this time of year they will not come close to affecting any north facing windows on the dwelling at 15 Landcox Street, and will only affect a very small proportion of the area of secluded private open space on this adjoining property.
4. For these reasons we find that, subject to the one change that we have imposed, there will be no unreasonable impacts to the amenity of the adjoining properties as a result of the proposed development.

WILL AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF INTERNAL AMENITY BE ACHIEVED?

1. The Council criticised two aspects of the future internal amenity. One related to the design of some entrances to dwellings, while the other related to the distance between basement car spaces and dwelling entrances.
2. Council criticised the lack of direct entrances from the street for Dwellings 2 and 4. While we generally support the concept that dwellings at the front of sites should interact with the street, we note that the dwellings involved are located immediately adjacent to the common pedestrian accessway in this case. As such, there is little benefit in providing individual accessways for these dwellings. We also consider that it will not increase activation of the street and will only result in a high wall being replaced in two parts with a high gate. Finally, we also consider that the positioning of a possible direct pedestrian access for Dwelling 4 may conflict with the pedestrian access ramp provided along part of the site's frontage. For these reasons we do not share the Council's concerns regarding the entrances for Dwellings 2 and 4.
3. The other dwelling entries that were criticised were those for Dwellings 13, 14, 15, 18 & 19. The Council submitted that these entrances via a 1.6 metre wide accessway between two, two storey buildings will be unpleasant and potentially unsafe. Given the length of the accessways involved, we do not share the Council's concerns in relation to its width. We also note that our decision to require Dwellings 11, 12, 20 & 21 to be single storey in height will reduce the apparent narrowness and enclosed nature of these accessways.
4. The second concern of Council is the distance to be travelled to and from the basement car parking spaces and the dwellings that are furthest from the lift. This layout may not be as convenient as having a car space immediately adjacent to one's dwelling. However, we consider the extent of inconvenience is not sufficient to dissuade our thoughts that overall a high level of internal amenity is achieved.
5. Turning to other aspects of internal amenity, we consider that a relatively high standard will been achieved on site. In particular, we note the high level of northern orientation achieved to the internal living areas and areas of secluded private open space. We are also supportive of the size of the internal living areas, the convenience of basement car parking absent of car stackers, and the direct access provided to Landcox Park. In all we consider the proposed development will provide a high level of internal amenity to future occupants.

DOES THE PROPOSAL APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE FOR CAR PARKING AND TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS?

1. A number of nearby and surrounding residents lodged detailed Statements of Grounds raising concerns in relation to car parking and traffic pressures in this neighbourhood. Ms Oxlade relayed those concerns in her submission.
2. The proposal comprises 25 dwellings, although that number may now be reduced with the changes we will require by way of conditions. The 25 dwellings comprise 21 dwellings with three bedrooms each, and four, two bedroom dwellings. Under Clause 52.06 of the Bayside Planning Scheme, this proposed development is therefore required to be provided with 46 resident car parking spaces[24] and five visitor car parking spaces[25] on site.
3. The proposal provides 69 car parking spaces on site. That is 18 more car parking spaces than is required by the Bayside Planning Scheme. In his evidence Mr Fairly expressed the opinions that car space No 3 should be deleted due to access difficulties, and that car space 39 should be used for motorbike or scooter parking, due to its width. Mr Fairlie also agreed with the Tribunal's suggestion that the removal of spaces 18-22 inclusive would allow the removal of the awkward kink in the access aisles within the basement. This in turn removes the need for some car parking spaces to be identified as either reverse only spaces, or spaces for small vehicles, or both. Given the surplus of car parking that is proposed, we consider the deletion of these spaces will be an appropriate.
4. After accounting for these design changes, the proposal will still provide 62 car parking spaces on site, which are 11 more than is required. We therefore cannot give any weight to the concerns expressed by residents that the proposal may cause parking pressures on Landcox Street as we have no power to require additional car parking. Nor can we refuse to grant a permit based on the provision of car parking on site.
5. Some of the residents also expressed a concern with the single lane access ramp that is proposed, and the need to manage traffic movements along this ramp using essentially a set of traffic lights. While it may not be the usual method, we accept the evidence of Mr Fairlie that this system has been designed in a manner whereby it will provide for safe and efficient vehicle movements. As the traffic lights will be set mostly on allowing vehicles to enter the site without delay, it will also ensure that there is minimal impact on traffic movements in Landcox Street.
6. On the subject of traffic movements, Mr Fairlie opines that the proposed development will generate around 200 vehicle trips per day, with 20 such movements occurring in the peak hour. This equates to an average of one vehicle movement every three minutes. He believes the surrounding road network can easily accommodate this level of increased traffic. That is before one even takes into account the past traffic levels associated with the dwelling and serviced apartments currently located on the review site. We are persuaded by the evidence of Mr Fairlie in relation to this matter.
7. For these reasons we find that the proposal appropriately provides for car parking and traffic movements.

DO ANY OTHER MATTERS WARRANT REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL?

1. The residents raised a number of other matters that deserve attention. The first is their concern about the adequacy of the waste management strategy to be implemented on site. We dismiss this concern as we find the proposed strategy is a best practice model for the storage and transfer of waste in this type of development because:

1. It allows for the sharing of large rubbish and recycling bins by the residents, stored in a dedicated storage room within the basement; 2. It provides for the collection of waste and recyclable materials directly from the basement car park and avoids bins being stored temporarily on the side of the street; and

1. It avoids traffic management issues caused by a large rubbish truck parked kerbside during collection.
2. Ms Oxlade also submitted that the neighbourhood needs 'family houses' not small townhouses. We are not persuaded by this submission as planning policy supports a diversity of housing types in all locations in order to cater for people in all stages of a life cycle.

1. Our ultimate task as decision makers is to determine whether a given proposal achieves a net community benefit. This task recognises that a proposal need not be ideal in order to receive a planning permit. Instead what is sought is a reasonable or appropriate outcome that may contain a variety of individual benefits and disbenefits.[26]
2. We recognise that there are some disbenefits from the proposed development. These include a level of change to the character of this neighbourhood that we have deemed to be acceptable, a level of built form impact to the adjoining properties that we have sought to moderate, and the loss of Tree 50.
3. We find that these disbenefits are more than counter-balanced by the range of benefits that will be achieved. Such benefits include the fulfilment of State and local policy by providing new housing in a location that enjoys a high level of access to a range of services and facilities. The provision of new housing in this location will incrementally reduce the pressure for urban sprawl, while placing additional population within walking distance of existing public transport. Another benefit is the achievement of front, side and rear setbacks that will allow a landscaping response that will benefit the broader community.
4. For these reasons we find that the proposed development will achieve a net community benefit, and thus is worthy of the grant of a planning permit.

1. At the conclusion of the hearing we were presented with a revised set of conditions that contained those agreed to with the owners of adjoining properties to the north and south of the review site, as well as conditions which were largely agreed to by Council, should we decide to grant a permit. With respect to the few disputes about conditions that remained between the Applicant and Council, other than those already addressed above, we summarise our conclusions as follows:

1. We have deleted the Council's suggested changes to the plans where they seek an alternative method of providing a bigger break between buildings, to that we have described above. We have also deleted the Council's suggested changes to the dwelling entry designs, given our findings above that they are satisfactory as proposed by the Applicant. 2. The conditions as agreed to between the Applicant and its neighbours to the north provided for the undertaking of works to construct an acoustic fence along part of the boundary. The parties proposed that such a condition be included in an mended plans condition. This is an inappropriate location for a condition requiring works to be undertaken. We have therefore lifted this requirement out of the amended plans condition, and placed it in its own condition at Condition 3.

1. The conditions agreed to between the parties included a condition requiring evidence that the substation would not impact on trees, without stating when and how this must be done. We have added these important details to the first part of this condition, with the redrafted condition appearing now at Condition 9.

1. The Council had circulated a draft set of conditions which included some very detailed drainage conditions. At the conclusion of the hearing the Council orally agreed to delete these conditions and replace them with a single condition requiring drainage to be provided to its satisfaction. We will implement this agreement. 2. Finally, we have also redrafted the time limit condition to accord with the Tribunal's now standard approach.

1. For the forgoing reasons the decision of the Responsible Authority will be set aside, and a permit granted.

The construction of more than one dwelling on the land and construction of a front fence in accordance with the endorsed plans.

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 three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Wolveridge Architects and referred to as Revision U (dated 16 July 2014) but modified to show:

1. The front fence either reduced in height to a maximum of 1.2m or provided with a minimum 25% transparency. 2. Deletion of the first floors associated with Dwellings 11, 12, 20 & 21. The applicant may choose to retain four separate single storey dwellings in these locations, or reduce the number of dwellings to provide larger single storey dwellings.

1. Skylights provided over all staircases and bathrooms at first floor level where not otherwise provided with a window.

1. All windows treated in accordance with Standards B22 and B23 of ResCode. 2. 6m³ of conveniently accessible storage areas nominated and allocated for each dwelling. 3. Car space Nos. 1-3 reduced to two car spaces, each a minimum of 6.7 metres in length. 4. Car space 39 modified to be a motorcycle/scooter bay. 5. Deletion of car spaces 18-22 inclusive, and removal of the kink in each of the basement access aisles that requires some car parking spaces to be identified as reverse only access or for small vehicles. 6. Allocation of five car parking spaces in a convenient location for visitor car parking. 7. Tree protection zones in accordance with AS4970 for all trees to be retained on the development site and all trees on adjoining properties and street trees where the tree protection zones for such trees intrude into the subject site. 8. Movement of the vehicle crossover 500mm to the north with the transition in alignment to the basement access ramp to occur at or before the position of the entry gates;

1. A stop/go indicator system for the basement ramp, which gives priority to vehicles entering the site;

1. Provision of a 2 metre by 2.5 metre sight splay to the north and south of the access ramp in accordance with Design Standard 1 of clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme; 2. Along the northern boundary, show: 1. For that section of the fence adjoining unit 3 of the property the north, the plans are to show 400mm of lattice added to the existing fence; 2. For that section of the boundary adjoining unit 2 of the property to the north, the existing garage wall/fence is to be removed and replaced with a new paling fence to match existing paling fences either side, completed by adding approximately 400mm of lattice; 3. For that section of the boundary adjoining unit 1 of the property to the north, show a new brick wall for the length of the unit 1 terrace, abutting existing garage brick wall to the east, return the wall into the existing gateway between units 1 and 2 and reinstate the gate once complete. The height of the new brick wall is to be approximately the same height as the existing garage rainhead at the western end. The new wall and existing garage wall interface is to be as per the applicant's engineer's design; 4. Cleaning, bagging and if necessary, painting of the southern wall of the garage on the southern boundary of 1/23 Landcox Street; 5. Provision of an acoustic fence along the northern property boundary in accordance with Condition 3 below.

• Along the southern boundary, show: 1. The proposed substation with a maximum of 1.8 metres in height; 2. The location of all air conditioning units as shown on the plans described as revision V, first floor plans (drawing 1.6), south and west elevation (drawing P2.2). 3. The location of any other plant or other equipment on the roof must not be located within 20 metres from the common southern boundary and shall be no more than 1.0 metres in height above the top of the external roof surface. 4. The screening of all external hot water systems from view from external properties and they shall not be located adjacent to or within 4 metres of the southern property boundary. 5. Ventilation shafts associated with the basement mechanical exhaust system to be located in the central common area and must not be located within 20 metres of the southern adjoining property boundary. 6. A minimum of 5 visitor parking spaces provided in the basement. 7. Signage provided adjacent to the basement entry stating "Visitor Parking available in the basement". This sign shall have minimum dimensions of 0.3m2 and be positioned so it is clearly visible from the street. 8. A 2.2 metre high paling boundary fence constructed along the southern boundary but tapered in height at the eastern end to match the height of the front fence. 9. Obscure glass or privacy screening consistent with the provisions of Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Bayside Planning Scheme to all first floor south facing habitable room windows. 10. Detail of external screens in compliance with Standard B22 of the Bayside Planning Scheme. The screens shall be of sufficient depth and width, with slats inclined upwards at 45 degrees to the horizontal plane, to prevent downward vision. 11. All south facing first floor non habitable room windows are to be screened as shown on the plans described as revision V, south and west elevation (drawing P2.2), section B-B (Drawing P3.2), section A-A (drawing P3.1). 12. Security lighting, suitably baffled to prevent glare to the adjoining property.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
3. Before the buildings are occupied, an acoustic fence must be erected along the north eastern boundary of the site (to the east of the garage of the property to the north). The design of the fence must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer. The details of the design and acoustic qualities of the fence must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. In terms of the visual treatment of the fence, for unit 1 of the property to the north, show a built a new brick wall between the existing garage and front fence to the east at a height to match the height of the wall to the west of the garage to be built in the event that the neighbour obtains Council approval to remove the cypress tree on that land. The plans must show that in the event that the neighbour to the north does not obtain Council approval to remove the cypress tree, a fence is to be built with a different footing structure and clad so as to provide the visual characteristics of the brick/rendered fence.
4. Before the development starts, three copies of a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours in muted tones (incorporating colour paint samples) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
5. Privacy screens must be in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be installed prior to the occupation of the development. The privacy screens must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. The southern common boundary fence shall be maintained in good condition during construction and the new fence shall be completed prior to the occupation of the new dwellings. Other than during construction of the fence, at no time will the common southern boundary be left without a common boundary fence.
7. No external lighting shall be located on the first floor of any dwelling or be oriented to an adjacent property. Any other external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
8. Before the development starts, three copies of a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by John Patricks & Associates dated August 2014. The plan must show:

1. A survey of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed and appropriate tree protection zones; 2. Buildings and trees on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary;

1. Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;

1. A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant; and 2. Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site. 3. The planting of evergreen trees in the north eastern corner of the site along the alignment of the basement entry. Such trees are to be specified to be planted at a minimum of 1.8 metres in height, the intent to provide visual screening over time due to tree spacing. 4. Evergreen trees along to the southern boundary of the site and adjacent to the proposed dwellings. These trees shall be evergreen species selected from the following palette (with a mixture of more than one species): 1. Acmena smithii var. minor (Lilly Pilly) 2. Hakea multilineata (Grass-leaf Hakea) 3. Syzygium australe 'AATS Pinnacle' (Lilly Pilly) 4. Syzygium paniculata 'Backyard Bliss' (Lilly Pilly) 5. Olea europaea 'Tolley's Upright' (Sterile Olive)

and shall be planted at intervals of 1-1.5 metre and planted at a height of 2.0 metres.

All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must also indicate that an in-ground irrigation system is to be provided to all landscaped areas.

1. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a tree management plan must be lodged with and approved by the responsible authority. The tree management plan must demonstrate that the design and construction of the substation (including associated footings and slab) meets tree protection zones (TPZ) and does not have a detrimental impact on tree 7 and 8 or that the proposed dwellings will not have a detrimental impact on tree 13. These tree numbers are as identified in the Arborist report by Rob Galbraith dated the 19 December 2013. Any variation from the TPZ are only possible in accordance with the undertaking of exploratory work by a suitably qualified Arborist. If required by the Arborist report, the substation and/or dwelling footprint must be relocated or altered to meet required setbacks from the TPZ to protect the trees from damage.
2. All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site (other than downpipes) must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building(s) without the written consent of the responsible authority.
4. Before the occupation of the development starts, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be:

1. Constructed; 2. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

1. Drained; 2. Line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes; 3. Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways;

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

1. All car parking spaces must be designed to allow all vehicles to drive forwards both when entering and leaving the property.
2. A vehicular crossing must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveway to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Before the occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan must be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include provision for collection of waste from within the basement.
6. Before the commencement of works, detailed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and be 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 three copies must be provided. The plans must be in accordance with the guidelines outlined in Clause 22.08 of the Bayside Planning Scheme and must show:-

1. The type of water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures to be used; 2. The location of the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures in relation to buildings, sealed surfaces and landscaping areas;

1. Design details of the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures, including cross sections;

These plans must be accompanied by a report from an industry accepted performance measurement tool, which details the treatment performance achieved and demonstrates the level of compliance with the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999. The water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment system as shown on the endorsed plan must be retained and maintained at all times in accordance with the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The construction management plan must address, but is not limited to:

1. Hours of construction, control of noise and airborne matter, deliveries, vehicle access, worker car parking, damage to public assets, and contact numbers for complaints; 2. All traffic management plans for the site demolition, excavation, deliveries and other construction related activities that will affect vehicle and pedestrian traffic;

1. The location of all areas on-and/or off-site to be used for construction staff parking;

1. A parking management plan for all associated construction vehicles; 2. All site sheds, portable toilet, storage and materials, etc must be confined to the site; 3. The covering and maintenance of all roads/storage areas/external stockpiles/or vacant areas to avoid dust nuisance to any residential and commercial premises; 4. A truck wheel-wash must be installed and used so vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways; 5. No water containing oil, foam, grease, scum or litter will be discharged to the stormwater drainage system from the site; 6. All stored wastes are kept in designated areas or covered containers that prevent escape into the stormwater system; 7. 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; and 8. No mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones are washed into, or are allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system.

All works must accord with the approved Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This plan shall also be provided to the owner of 15 Landcox Street.

1. The development must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
   2. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

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

[1] We have considered all submissions presented by the parties although we do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[3] This has occurred in two stages. Amendment C134 inserted an incorrect framework plan which identified land within the NRZ as residential areas, while Amendment C136 inserted the correct plan which identified all land within the NRZ as a 'Minimal Residential Growth Area.'.

[4] At clause 21.02 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.

[5] [2014] VCAT 967.

[6] [2014] VCAT 958

[8] [2014] VCAT 958

[10] While this conclusion was made in the context of seeking out housing policy specific to a transitional application, we consider it summarises the relevant housing policy objectives in the Bayside Planning Scheme.

[11] Which relates to policy at Clause 16.01-1 that seeks to facilitate increased housing on under-utilised land, and policy at Clause 16.01-4 that encourages medium density housing that respects the neighbourhood character.

[12] Which relates to policy at Clauses 16.01-1 and 16.01-2 that seeks new housing to be provided in well serviced locations, and integrated with those services, and Clause 16.01-4 which encourages medium density housing that makes better use of existing infrastructure.

[13] Which relates to policy at Clauses 15.01-5 and 16.01-4 that seeks development that respects and responds to its context, including the surrounding neighbourhood character.

[14] Found at Clause 32.09-3 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.

[16] Including those of Steward v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 441; Thistle Nominees Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 664; and Highett Grove Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 890.

[19] [2014] VCAT 830.

[21] For example, a Key Focus Residential Growth Area of the new Framework Plan.

[23] Clause 22.06-3 requires consideration of the existing neighbourhood character.

[24] At a rate of two car parking spaces to every three bedroom dwelling, and one car space to every two bedroom dwelling.

[25] At a rate of one visitor car parking space to every five dwellings.

[26] Drawing on paragraph 13 of the decision of Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375.