... I agree with the previous Tribunal decision that two crossovers and associated driveways restrict the opportunity for substantial planting at the front of dwellings which might assist the integration of the development within the streetscape.

1. The Applicant's response has been to reduce the extent of both driveways to provide more opportunities for landscaping. It is a response which the Council referred to as being 'tokenistic'. The Council also compared the proposed planting scheme with that shown on the landscape plan considered by Member Naylor. In the earlier plan, the landscaping was to consist of groundcovers with a height and spread of 0.4 metre x 0.4 metre, and two trees that were expected to have a height and width at maturity of 6 metres and 5 metres, respectively. As evidenced by the decision to refuse a permit, the Tribunal was not satisfied that such a response would adequately respond to the neighbourhood character.
2. The latest landscape plan shows two trees with a height and spread of 5 metres by 5 metres, a range of groundcovers that will not exceed 0.5 metre in height and width, and selected other plants which will not exceed a height of 1.0 metre. The Council's submission is that this outcome is little different to what the Tribunal considered in Bainbridge Ridge Pty Ltd, and that something more than a revised landscape proposal is required to appropriately address the Tribunal's concerns.
3. The residents expressed their frustration at having to come to the Tribunal for a third time in order to argue against a proposed two-dwelling development on this land. They, too, consider that the revised proposal does not satisfactorily respond to the reasons why the earlier Tribunal refused a permit. It was submitted that the built form remains unchanged, the two driveways and garages remain and there is no improvement in landscaping because there is an inadequate front setback to provide space for planting. The streetscape presentation was described as being dominated by the driveways and garages which, when combined with the limited setback, unacceptably limit landscaping opportunities.
4. The Applicant's submission is that the additional landscaping in the front setback represents an adequate response to the criticisms of the earlier Tribunal. Notwithstanding this, the Applicant went on to submit that further planting could be provided if the garage of Dwelling 2 was converted to a single-width garage with a commensurate reduction in the extent of the driveway. Both the Council and the residents criticised the Applicant's submission, referring to it as 'planning on the run' and expressed uncertainty as to what the final outcome might look like.
5. I commence by saying that, in accordance with the principles of 'repeat appeals' outlined in an earlier section of these reasons, I give great weight to Member Naylor's decision and will focus on the extent to which the proposal has been modified to address the concerns she expressed regarding the development's neighbourhood character impact.
6. I have undertaken a site inspection. The character of this neighbourhood has not altered materially from the description included in the Bainbridge Ridge Pty Ltd decision. The neighbourhood is characterised by dwellings set within a garden context. While the nature and extent of the planting varies, there is nonetheless an apparent vegetated context derived from both the planting in the front setback areas and the street trees. Dwellings are generally well set back from the frontage, and garages are positioned to be subservient in location and appearance to the dwellings. The prevailing pattern is of single crossovers and associated driveways.
7. The development has a stark appearance in the street, quite out of character with what exists in this neighbourhood. I agree with the submissions of the Council and the residents that the streetscape presentation is dominated by driveways and garages. What planting does exist within the remaining areas of the front setback is entirely ineffective in providing a garden setting reflective of that which characterises this neighbourhood.
8. The issue then becomes whether the Applicant's proposed changes as shown on the Application plans, will increase planting to the extent that an acceptable neighbourhood character outcome will be achieved. My conclusion is that they would not. The Council demonstrated that in an overall sense, there will be little (if any) meaningful change to the landscaping in the front setback, as compared to the scheme considered by the Tribunal in the earlier case. It does not, in my view, represent a significant change in the application such that I should depart from Member Naylor's decision to refuse a permit.
9. As to the Applicant's offer to modify the garage of Dwelling 2 and reduce the extent of the driveway further, I have not been persuaded that I should grant a permit subject to such a condition. It is too uncertain. No plan indicates how this change would be achieved, what consequential changes might be needed or, indeed, what the actual extent of increased landscaping may be. It is simply not possible to foresee whether it would respond acceptably to the concerns regarding the landscaping within the front setback.
10. The Council's reasons for refusing a planning application for this current proposal have been known since June 2013. The Application for review was lodged on 21 June 2013. The Applicant was advised of the hearing date by a 'Notice of Hearing' dated 6 September 2013. There has been more than sufficient time for the Applicant to prepare and circulate amended plans showing the modified proposal suggested at the hearing. I do not think it is fair to attend a hearing, suggest such a change without circulating modified plans beforehand, and expect the parties to make informed submissions as to whether it would represent an acceptable outcome. Nor is it reasonable to expect the Tribunal to make a decision to give effect to this modified scheme in the absence of any such plans. That being so, I will base my consideration and decision on the plans which are the subject of the Application.
11. It will be apparent that I do not accept the Applicant's submissions that the changes to the plans are sufficient to provide landscaping opportunities that will enable the development to integrate acceptably into the character of this neighbourhood.
12. The Council's decision is affirmed. No permit is granted.

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

[2] (1983) 1 PABR 166 at 169 per (the then) Senior Member Morris

[3] (1977) 9 VPA 184 at 187