1. There was no dispute between the parties that this site is physically capable of accommodating two dwellings. There was also no dispute that this site is appropriate for two dwellings given:
   • It is zoned Residential 1;
   • Urban consolidation policies at both the State and local level encourage consolidation of Ocean Grove; and
   • This site is identified in an incorporated document under the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) as being within an "Increased Housing Diversity Area".
2. As such, there was no dispute about the consequential two lot subdivision of the land following its development. Rather, what is in dispute is the appropriateness of the proposed building form. The objectors submitted it appears as a four storey building from The Esplanade public car park, and it creates amenity impacts including the loss of views from some of the surrounding properties and building bulk. The objectors stated the Council's assessment of the application has focussed on the urban consolidation objectives, and has not appropriately balanced all of the planning policies and the fact that this site is affected by a Significant Landscape Overlay[2].
3. I have decided that the proposed building form is not appropriate, particularly having regard to the coastal character of the immediate area, the impact of visual bulk and the issue of view sharing with 53 The Esplanade. Before explaining the reasons for my decision, it is necessary to understand the planning controls and local planning policies that must be considered in this case.

1. Planning permission is required to construct two dwellings and subdivide the land into two lots under the Residential 1 Zone; and to construct a building over 7.5 metres in height and with impervious surfaces that exceed 30% of the site area under the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7.
2. State planning policies require planning for urban growth to consider neighbourhood character and landscape[3], and to seek to ensure development recognises its relationship to landscape and vegetation[4]. As a coastal area, the State planning policies also include strategies to ensure development is sensitively sited and designed to respect the coastal settlement character[5]; and to protect sensitive landscape areas, such as coastlines, and ensure new development does not detract from their natural quality[6].
3. A key issue identified in the MSS is the need to carefully manage and direct outward urban growth in the municipality to designated locations; and that all development should contribute positively to the quality of the urban environment for the existing and future communities[7].
4. Ocean Grove is a preferred and nominated urban growth area on the Bellarine Peninsula in the MSS[8]. Further, the site and neighbouring properties are included within an incorporated document in the planning scheme titled 'Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas July 2009' (the IHDA). The urban consolidation policy in the MSS seeks to manage change through maximising opportunities for housing within the IHDA by accommodating appropriate medium density housing in Residential 1 zoned areas[9].
5. The neighbourhood character policy in the MSS has an objective and strategy to ensure new development responds to the existing character, which the objectors rely upon in this case. This same policy also has another strategy to acknowledge neighbourhood character in the IHDA will adapt and evolve over time, particularly within and on the edges of activity centres[10]. The Applicant highlighted this, but the objectors stated it is a qualified strategy as it particularly refers to the activity centre and its edges. In contrast, this site is located at the edge of the IHDA adjacent to the coastline and approximately 400m from the activity centre along The Terrace.
6. In regard to this case, it is clear that State and local planning policies require consideration of neighbourhood character and landscape. Whilst this site is in the IHDA, the strategy about the character adapting and evolving over time is qualified by highlighting this is particularly in or on the edges of the activity centre, which this site is not. Rather, this site is at the edge of the IHDA and adjacent to the coastline. State planning policy requires development to be sensitively sited and designed to respect the coastal settlement character and not detract from the sensitive coastal landscape. Hence, I have considered the relevant planning policies and controls in determining that the proposed built form is not an appropriate design response.

1. There was dispute between the parties as to whether this proposal should respect the existing neighbourhood character or contribute to a preferred neighbourhood character. The objectors highlighted the following objectives that relate to neighbourhood character in clause 21.06:
   • To manage the impact on urban change on existing neighbourhoods
   • To ensure that new development responds to the existing neighbourhood character.
   • To protect areas with a significant garden character.
2. The strategies to achieve these objectives include the one I have already discussed about the IHDA adapting and evolving over time particularly in the activity centre and at its edges, as well as ensuring development responds to the established character, and retaining existing vegetation where possible.
3. Whilst this policy anticipates change within the IHDA area of Ocean Grove, the objectors stated the planning policies do not include a preferred neighbourhood character statement or description. However, there does not need to be a specific statement or description in the planning scheme as change can be inferred from the overall direction of the planning policies themselves, including the fact that this site is included in the IHDA. In regard to the degree of change envisaged, the planning policies seek to accommodate appropriate medium density housing in this area; and none of the parties suggested two dwellings on this site is not an appropriate type of medium density housing. Rather, it is the siting, height and overall scale and size of the proposed development that is at issue. In regard to detailed design, I find there is no guidance in the IHDA or other planning policies and, indeed, the parties (including the Applicant) relied upon the existing built form characteristics in the IHDA precinct to support their various view points.

1. Mr Taylor described the existing surrounding residential character as:
   1. Dwellings are generally visible and form a prominent part of the landscape.
   2. Vegetation cover within private properties varies considerably and has been limited in many respects by property owners seeking to obtain and retain coastal views. ...
   3. Within the IHDA (and outside), there is already ample evidence of an evolving character, comprising the replacement of older dwelling stock with more substantial and more prominent built form, including in the form of single detached dwellings and medium density housing.
2. The Applicant's submission is that the proposal will integrate with the evolving surrounding neighbourhood character. Mr Taylor provided many photographs of buildings (particularly houses and townhouses) on streets inland from the coast contained within SLO7, the IHDA or both. In terms of this inland character, I agree with Mr Taylor's submission that older dwelling stock is being replaced with more prominent and substantial buildings that are visible, and that landscaping does not necessarily play a great role. If this site was located further inland, these characteristics may have carried greater weight.
3. However, in this case, I am not persuaded these inland characteristics are determinative of the neighbourhood character. Rather, I find these inland characteristics need to be balanced against the need to respond the site's coastal character as well given it has a direct relationship with the main beach and associated public car park, picnic areas, coastal reserve and walking tracks. It must be remembered that the State planning policies seek sensitively sited and designed development that respects the coastal settlement character and does not detract from the natural quality of the landscape, including the coastline.

1. I find the proposed design is not respectful of, nor does it contribute to the character of the immediate coastal environs.
2. I agree with Mr Taylor that this site is not prominent in the landscape from long or medium distant views, but I find it will be prominent in views from the adjacent coastal reserve, public car park, picnic areas, walking tracks and sections of the beach. Mr Taylor acknowledged the proposal will take on greater prominence in short range views, particularly from the public car park. He relied upon the evidence of Mr Sheppard and Mr McFall in relation to the appropriateness of the design give this prominence.
3. Mr Sheppard described the site as one of a small group of properties fronting the public car park, and of these all but the site and No. 57 are on higher ground. He stated this is important in regard to the landscape and coastal character because this site is low lying and therefore has less visual impact. I am not persuaded of this. This site has a similar elevation at its rear to both Nos. 53 and 51 The Esplanade. This site also has greater exposure to the car park and the beach because there is limited intervening foreshore vegetation. I note the planning permit for the works within the public car park adjacent to the southern end of the site indicates there will be no landscaping in front of the site, therefore its exposure to the public areas will remain significant, and in my opinion greater than that of Nos. 53 and 51 The Esplanade. As such, the proposed dwellings will be highly exposed and I note Mr Sheppard stated under cross-examination that the site is prominent from a public realm viewpoint and is located at a focal point because of the public car park.

1. I agree with Mr Sheppard's evidence that SLO7 is perhaps the most specific guidance in the planning scheme at present about the character including the coastal character and the relationship sought between built form and landscape. Mr Sheppard relied upon the proposed landscape concept as contributing to the achievement of the landscape objectives of SLO7, but I am not persuaded Mr McFall's landscape concept achieves a suitable balance between landscape and built form. Particular landscape character objectives in SLO7 that I have focussed on in this regard are:

To encourage the development of buildings that fit within the landscape and do not dominate the streetscape and long distant views.

To minimise the impact of buildings projecting above the vegetation canopy.

To provide space around buildings for the retention and planting of vegetation, particularly high canopied coastal vegetation and other native coastal species common to the area.

1. Mr McFall advised he was engaged after the proposed development was designed, hence the landscape concept plan responds to this design. In response to Mr Cicero's cross-examination, Mr McFall said he was not aware of the 30% permeability sought through SLO7, and that it was a detail he had missed. Mr McFall also expressed the opinion that SLO7 is flawed because it is written by planners. It is not my role to critique SLO7 but rather to seek to implement its objectives in my consideration of the merits of this proposal. Whilst a balancing of planning controls and policies must be achieved, I am not persuaded SLO7 is flawed. Rather, its intent is clear (as described in the landscape character objectives I quoted in the previous paragraph).
2. In regard to the objective about providing space around buildings for vegetation, Mr McFall agreed under cross-examination that 2 metre side setbacks would have been better than 1.2 metre setbacks; and the canopies of the trees will be "squished" because of the proposed buildings on No. 57. He did not agree with Mr Cicero that it is a "tight space all around" because he said it is medium density housing. Whilst medium density housing in the form of two dwellings on this site is accepted by the parties, that does not mean any size or shape of housing is appropriate. The siting and size of the dwellings should seek to implement the SLO7 objectives, and I am not persuaded this design including this landscape concept achieves an acceptable outcome in this regard.
3. I agree with Mr Taylor that the SLO7 landscape objectives are not necessarily being achieved in the inland areas of Ocean Grove, but in my opinion these objectives are important in this case given the prominence of the site from public areas and the main beach of Ocean Grove. Mr Taylor provided many photographs of buildings to the east and west of this site along the coastal reserve walkway. There is no doubt that buildings are visible but my finding is they are generally either in or located behind a landscape setting, even if that landscape setting is the coastal reserve itself. In contrast, this site is highly exposed with no intervening coastal reserve vegetation because of the existence of the public car park. Hence, the balance of landscaping to be achieved in this case is, in my opinion, significant and may well be more than what may be required elsewhere in the inland areas of Ocean Grove.

1. This brings me to the photo montage prepared by Mr Goss. The role that photo montages play in a hearing needs to be understood - they are just an aid and are rarely relied upon in determining the merits of the design. The Tribunal does rely upon development plans and elevations and a landscape plan (if one is provided). Mr Goss' montage was prepared in accordance with the list of items identified in Austcorp Group Ltd v Monash CC (Red Dot) [2006] VCAT 812. In that case, one third of the hearing was spent debating the content and the reliability of montages prepared. The Tribunal determined "any such images would benefit from an accompanying statement explaining the methodology used in their preparation". In this case, Mr Goss' statement identifies the list of items including a photograph of the existing conditions. During Mr Cicero's cross-examination, Mr Goss acknowledged the photo montage did not reflect the existing conditions as the montages were prepared on 14 November 2011, well after the photo that forms the basis of the montage was taken on 2 December 2010. This is significant as the vegetation on the site and at No. 57 in the original photo has since been removed. Mr Goss stated he was just asked to update the montage (from one lodged with the permit application). This means the depiction of the existing vegetation in the montage is not accurate.
2. The Austcorp decision gave guidance on the preparation of photo montages to provide greater assistance to parties and decision makers in assessing the accuracy of the images, their relevance and hence the weight to be given to them. Mr Cicero questioned Mr Goss about the accuracy of the new landscaping depicted in the montage as well. Mr Goss stated the montage was sent to Mr McFall before sign-off and he explained this 'sign-off' can be by phone, email, etc. Mr Goss was not sure what the form of sign-off was in this case. Mr McFall stated during his cross-examination by Mr Cicero that Mr Goss' montage was "a bit over the top" as the montage overstated the landscaping heights for the Drooping She oaks (by 2-2.5m), the Coast Beard Heath (by about 1m) and the Moonahs (by 1-2 metres). In the context of a development with overall building heights of between 3.25 and 8.7 metres, this variation in the proposed landscaping heights and the lack of existing vegetation impacts upon the prominence of the building, particularly when viewed from the coastal reserve, public car park and beach. These deficiencies in the representation of existing and proposed landscaping are significant, especially in regard to the prominence of the building. As such, I find the montage unhelpful and I have not relied upon it in making my decision.
3. In conclusion in regard to the landscape concept, I find the landscaping does not assist to create the outcome of a building that fits within the landscape. I find the building is prominent in the coastal character of the surrounds and does dominate the streetscape. I also find there is insufficient space around the building for the planting of vegetation to assist in minimising the prominence of the building upon the coastal character of much of its surrounds.

1. There are two issues associated with the height, setbacks, size and shape of the proposed building. The first is the appropriateness of the building form within the neighbourhood and coastal character (which I have already discussed); and the second is the visual bulk or building bulk impact to the neighbours, particularly No. 53.
2. Having inspected the site with the benefit of the height poles from near and afar, I am satisfied that the highest part of the development will sit within the range of building heights found in this neighbourhood, including on the immediately surrounding properties (such as, for example, 51 The Esplanade and 54 Hodgson Street). However the overall length, height and shape of the building is larger than the majority of the buildings on the surrounding properties and the side setbacks are minimal.
3. I acknowledge the list of building heights and setbacks provided by Mr Taylor that demonstrates many of the wall sections meet the clause 55 standard. Clause 55 endeavours to deal with the issue of building bulk by providing recommended standards for the length of walls on boundaries; the heights of walls on boundaries, and the heights of walls setback from boundaries. However, in my opinion these standards are not the only measures of visual bulk.
4. Visual bulk is the planning term used to describe the impression that a building will make in its surrounds. In this case, each of the dwellings are approximately 488 square metres in floor area with 121 square metres of decks and pools on an allotment of 836 square metres. The building has a length in the order of 33 metres on a 45 metre long site, and this length is greater adjacent to No. 53 which is a slightly shorter site (estimated at 42 metres). The length of the walls and the wall and building heights of the dwellings are emphasised by the ground level side setbacks of 1.2 and 2.1 metres, which in my opinion are minimal. Overall, these setbacks provide limited separation between the dwellings and the adjoining properties. I am of the view the landscaping potential along each of the side boundaries is limited and cannot effectively filter the visual impact of the building bulk, particularly from No. 53. In simple terms, the visual bulk impact of this building form is overwhelming in regard to the amenity of No. 53.
5. In my opinion, the design is seeking to rely, in part, upon the existing amenity of the generous open space on No. 53 and the proposed intention to build similar sized dwellings on No. 57 to make this proposal acceptable. However, I find this is an unacceptable design outcome. It is incumbent upon the development site to provide appropriate setbacks and landscaping as well as articulation in terms of building style, height and size to ensure that it is respectful of the neighbourhood and coastal character as well as the amenity of adjoining properties.

1. The final issue in this case is the impact of the proposed new dwellings upon the views of the coast currently enjoyed by 53 The Esplanade and 17 and 19 Lookout Road.

1. Impact upon a view is a matter that is commonly raised in planning applications in coastal areas and, whilst there is no legal right to a view, it has been accepted by the Tribunal for many years that views do form part of the amenity of a property and are therefore a consideration. The oft quoted Tribunal cases that enunciate this are Tashounidis and Healy:

1. There is no legal right to a view; 2. Views form part of the existing amenity of a property and their loss is a relevant consideration to take into account;

1. The availability of views must be considered in light of what constitutes a reasonable sharing of those views;

1. In addressing the concept of "reasonableness", it is relevant to consider 1. The importance of the view to be lost within the overall panorama available; and 2. Whether those objecting have taken all appropriate steps to optimise development of their own properties 2. Added emphasis will be placed on principles (b) and (c) above if the issue of views is specifically addressed in the planning scheme.[11]
2. Since the Tashounidis decision in 1988, many coastal municipalities in particular (including this Council) have implemented overlay controls with objectives and policies that seek to achieve a reasonable sharing of views. In this case, the parties agreed there is "added emphasis" as the planning scheme specifically refers to the sharing of views in both the planning policies (clause 21.14) and the planning controls (SLO7). One of the landscape character objectives to be achieved in SLO7 is to maximise opportunities for view sharing and the decision guidelines include the following:

The siting and design of buildings to achieve a reasonable sharing of views between properties with significant landscape features having particular regard to the following:

• The impact of the proposed buildings and works on the view from another property as a result of the design, siting, height, size, bulk (including the roof) and colour of the building.
• The opportunity for a reasonable sharing of views having regard to the extent of the available view(s) and the significance of the view(s) from the properties affected.

1. There is no definition in SLO7 as to what constitutes significant landscape features. The parties were in general agreement that it is not really referring to features on a site but rather views of significant features such as the coastline.

A Qualification upon Considering View Sharing in this Case

1. There is concern in this case about the impact on, and loss of, view from 53 The Esplanade (next door) and 17 and 19 Lookout Road (behind this site). I am of the opinion that the circumstances of this case warrant a qualification from the established view sharing principles for the Lookout Road properties behind this site, and I will explain why.

1. The Tashounidis and Healy cases were about single houses in coastal locations that did not have any specific planning policies or controls about the growth of the coastal town. In 1988 at Safety Beach in the Shire of Flinders, Tashounidis concerned the construction of a new house on a lot in a street already containing a number of houses that enjoyed views. In 2005 at Anglesea in Surf Coast Shire, Healy was about the construction of a new house on a lot where the SLO permit trigger related to the height of the building and included objectives about sharing views. Each of these cases involved coastal towns but not urban areas, and not areas where the consideration of view sharing impacted upon the achievement of other planning policies or controls.

1. This site is affected by SLO7 but is also within an Increased Housing Diversity Area in the MSS. This IHDA is not merely a 'bubble map' or a conceptual map in the planning scheme. Rather, it is a map that designates a specific area within a 400 metre radius of the town centre, including this site and the objectors properties, as an area for housing growth. Further, this IHDA is included in the planning scheme as an incorporated document, which means it carries the same weight as other parts of the planning scheme and will be used to guide the exercise of discretion as to whether to grant a permit[12]. The MSS identifies the need to review the application of SLO7 in Ocean Grove[13], and the Council has advised this review will consider issues raised in the Ocean Grove Structure Plan and "provide clear direction in relation to the role of the IHDA having regard to the SLO7". The inclusion of the area alongside and to the rear of this site in the IHDA is a relatively recent change to the planning scheme (2010). In my opinion, the inclusion of the IHDA elevates the status of Ocean Grove beyond that of a mere coastal town. It is now a designated growth area which is anticipated in the MSS policies as accommodating medium density housing.

1. During the hearing, I referred the parties to the decision of Justice Kellam and Member Gilfillan in Juliano, Furletti and Scott and Ors v Melbourne CC (1999/19285) on pages 35-36:

... in a location where planning controls allow and encourage high or medium density developments, a view is something that is fortuitously enjoyed and cannot be the sole or even major determinant of what type of development may be permitted in adjacent areas. ... Secondly, in circumstances where planning controls apply and which encourage medium rise buildings, we do not conclude that there can be a reasonable expectation that a view will be retained particularly where preferred or prescribed height controls are in place (as in this case). ... The protection of private views in areas where high or medium rise buildings are encouraged would in our view cause significant inhibition upon development and would be opposed to the central thrust of current planning policy.

1. Having regard to the thrust of this finding, I asked the parties whether in these circumstances where the IHDA and associated policies apply, this is a case where the balance of discretion swings away from protecting views. Mr Taylor stated SLO7 should not neutralise the IHDA designation and 'reasonable sharing' does not mean equal sharing. Mr Fadgyas and Mr Cicero submitted the established view principles remain of assistance in exercising discretion in this case. Mr Cicero submitted this is not an urban environment with height controls, and hence the Juliano case (above) can be distinguished. I am not sure it is that simple. Ocean Grove like many coastal towns within commuting distance of Melbourne are experiencing growth. In my opinion, the inland areas around the town centre (the activity centre) in particular have an urban character given the density of housing that already exists, and for reasons I will shortly explain this growth is now becoming evident around 17 and 19 Lookout Road as well. Mr Taylor relied in part upon the Tribunal decision in McKinlay v Greater Geelong CC[14] for 5 double storey dwellings on land further to the northwest of this site that made the following findings, including describing Ocean Grove as an urban area:
   1. Before turning to the impacts, it is appropriate to make a number of points. First, I accept that the views that are available to the neighbouring properties to the north contribute to the amenity of those properties. Second, I accept that the planning scheme contains policies that encourage the notion of view sharing. Third, while the planning scheme supports the notion of view sharing, this does not amount to the protection of an existing view. Fourth, redevelopment in urban areas is inevitable, particularly when, like in this case, land presents itself as suitable for redevelopment. Fifth, access to views in urban areas is vulnerable to "as of right" development, not just in terms of new buildings, but also in terms of things like landscaping.
2. In my opinion, these points are equally applicable in this case, particularly in regard to 17 and 19 Lookout Road.

1. The relationship of 17 and 19 Lookout Road to the site and surrounding properties is best described by the illustration of the allotments on the following page. They are inland properties that are separated from the coastal reserve and coastline by intervening private properties. 17 Lookout Road is a generally single storey house with a view over 54 Hodgson Street of the coastline encompassing sand, waves and sea, and then extending over the subject site and 57 The Esplanade of waves and the ocean. 19 Lookout Road is a two storey house with a view over 54 Hodgson Street and 57 The Esplanade of the coastline and then extending over the subject site of waves and the ocean.
2. The views from both properties are affected by the possible future development of a house on a new 466 square metre battleaxe style lot[15] up to 7.5 metres in height 'as of right'[16] at the rear of 54 Hodgson Street. If such a development occurs, the remaining views are likely to extend over the subject site and 57 The Esplanade of waves and the ocean.
3. There is a proposal to construct two dwellings on 57 The Esplanade and the application plans show the rear dwelling built partly on and within 2 metres of the boundary with 54 Hodgson Street to a height less than 7.5 metres. This would impact upon the remaining views of the waves and the ocean from 17 and 19 Lookout Road.
4. The rear of the proposed development on this site is less than 7.5 metres in height and is set back at least 7.2 metres from the boundary with 54 Hodgson Street. This would also impact upon the remaining views of the waves and the ocean from 17 and 19 Lookout Road.

Note: 54 Hodgson Street lot boundaries are not correctly shown on this illustration - what has been approved is a battleaxe two lot subdivision

1. The approval of two lots at 54 Hodgson Street, combined with the two applications for two dwellings on this site and No. 57 The Esplanade is implementing the IHDA and associated planning policies. The question is whether it is reasonable to limit the development potential of this site in order to retain a sea view from 17 and 19 Lookout Road, a view that is gained across private properties.
2. Mr Fadgyas stated a sharing of views can be achieved if the development on the subject site is single storey at the rear rather than double storey. I cannot agree this is a reasonable outcome as a single storey building or indeed a building up to 7.5 metres in height does not require planning approval under SLO7. In addition, such a limitation may impact upon the ability of the site to develop two houses on it, and this would be contrary to the housing growth identified and encouraged for this area. Having regard to the Healy principles, I note 17 Lookout Road could be further developed with a two storey house that may create new view opportunities, and I also note the sea view from the first floor of 19 Lookout Road may well be retained because it is elevated.
3. However, regardless of these possibilities for views from the Lookout Road properties, I find it is not reasonable to limit the development of this site in this case in order to ensure the Lookout Road properties can share a view over it because:
   • Ocean Grove is no longer a mere coastal town but is now a designated growth area on the Bellarine Peninsula in this municipality;
   • The IHDA places the subject site and the objectors properties in a designated growth area where a greater density of housing is encouraged;
   • The inland areas of Ocean Grove have characteristics of an urban area;
   • The level of development anticipated and approved immediately surrounding the Lookout Road properties is a significant change that is creating urban area-type characteristics and this will impact upon their existing views, possibly to the extent of removing these views;
   • It is not reasonable to limit the development potential of the subject site in terms of the number of dwellings (given the IHDA) or the heights of buildings (to less than the permit triggers of SLO7); and
   • The views are at best fortuitous views gained over other private properties.

1. In my opinion, the issue of view sharing for 53 The Esplanade is different because it is located on the edge of the coastal reserve and coastline with no intervening properties. Further, the IHDA does not extend into or include the coastal reserve. Hence, No. 53 has a coastal character abuttal that I have already made findings about. Mr Cicero described No. 53's view to the coastline from the balcony and living room at the southern end of the single storey house as "significant, important and valued".
2. Having regard to the established view sharing principles, I asked Mr Cicero whether the development potential of No. 53 had been fully realised. He explained the house was renovated in 2007-2008 and created the front living and deck areas at that time. Mr Cicero stated "it is what it is" and he pointed out that any expansion further south could impact upon the existing views of the adjoining property to the west at No. 51 The Esplanade. Given these circumstances, I am satisfied it is appropriate to consider the reasonable sharing of the currently enjoyed views of No. 53.
3. The key issue of concern is the coastline view to the southeast, which is the most valued by No. 53. The parties had the opportunity to experience this view during the accompanied inspection. At the resumption of the hearing on Day 2, Mr Taylor stated the issue is the "sliver" of coast view that remains if the proposed development is constructed. He offered to reduce the height of the development by 500mm so that "an appropriate depth" of the south and southeast views from the living area and on the deck of No. 53 are retained. This would mean the proposed lift core would be 7.1-7.9 metres high and the parapet 6.8 metres high and therefore largely below the permit trigger in SLO7 of 7.5 metres in height. Mr Cicero welcomed this reduction and stated it is of some improvement but questioned whether it is sufficient given the overall impact upon the coastline view.
4. I estimate No. 53's current view extends between 90 and 120 degrees and much of it is to the south and southeast. I am cognisant that the majority of the building would be below the height specified in SLO7 if it is reduced by 500mm. However, this is not the only trigger for this proposed design, as there is also the extent of impervious surfaces on the site, which ties back into my findings about the building bulk and visual bulk impact upon No. 53. As I see it, it is not just the height of the proposed development that impacts upon the view loss, but also the siting, length, size and bulk of the building. These are considerations under the decision guidelines of SLO7. As such, I find reducing the building height in combination with reviewing the siting, length, size and bulk of the building is necessary. I think such an approach is the preferable way to create a reasonable sharing of view with No. 53.

1. For these reasons, I have decided to set aside the Council's decision and order that no permit be issued.

[1] Mr J Mahon, Dr H & P McMahon, L & J Stanton, R & M Brownell, F & R Pinney and S Sutherland

[2] Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 (Ocean Grove Coastal Area)

[11] These are the principles set out in paragraph 21 of Healy v Surf Coast SC [2005] VCAT 990, which have built upon other cases including Tashounidis v Flinders SC (1988) 1 AATR 116 and Centrum Architects Pty Ltd v Surf Coast SC [2002] VCAT 155.

[12] An extract from the Incorporated and Reference Documents VPP Practice Note (August 2000)

[13] Under the heading "Further Work" in clause 21.14-3

[14] [2008] VCAT 716 relating to land at 4 Driftwood Street Ocean Grove

[15] approved in a planning permit issued on 21 July 2011

[16] As no planning permission is required to construct a house on a lot between 300 and 500 square metres in R1Z and no planning permission is required to construct a building under 7.5 metres in height in SLO7.