VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1294/2023
Permit Application no. 23/0047 	
CATCHWORDS	
Consistency with neighbourhood character, width and size of proposed lots, side-by-side dwellings, two crossovers     	

ApplicantS	Lyndelle Zuccolin, Julia Spink & Others	
Responsible Authority	Surf Coast Shire Council	
Respondent	James Chivers	
SUBJECT LAND	115C Strathmore Drive
JAN JUC 	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	31 May 2024	
DATE OF ORDER	17 June 2024	
CITATION	Zuccolin v Surf Coast SC [2024] VCAT 551	

Order
1	In application P1294/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is varied. 
2	In planning permit application 23/0047 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 115C Strathmore Drive, Jan Juc in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of two dwellings in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 
•	Construction of buildings and the carrying out of works within the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 22
•	Two lot subdivision of the land in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1

K Birtwistle
Member			

Appearances
For applicants	L Zuccolin	
For responsible authority	N Helliwell, town planner	
For respondent	T Cincotta, solicitor of Best Hooper. Expert evidence was called from:
•	D Iles, town planner of Hansen Partnership	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of two dwellings and two lot subdivision. The two storey dwellings are in a side-by-side format.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Surf Coast Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (‘GRZ1’)
Design & Development Overlay – Schedule 22 (‘DDO22’)
Bushfire Management Overlay (‘BMO’)
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 6 (‘SLO6’)
Development Contributions Plan Overlay (‘DCPO’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-3 – Subdivision of land in the GRZ1.
Clause 32.08-6 – Construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the GRZ1.
Clause 43.02-2 – Construct a building or to construct or carry out works in the DDO22.
Clause 44.06-2 – Construct a building or works for accommodation use in the BMO.
Clause 44.06-2 – Subdivision of land in the BMO.	
Land description	The review site is located on the western side of Strathmore Drive almost at the western edge of the township of Jan Juc. The site is currently vacant and forms the front block of a battle-axe subdivision. The site has a maximum width of 25 metres, a depth of 46.8 metres and an area of 1,166 square metres. The site slopes from north to south with a fall of just over 5 metres. The site is grassed and devoid of any trees or other vegetation except in the south-eastern corner of the site where there is a group of seven trees which are either weed species or planted natives. 	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied subsequent to the hearing   	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	In September 2023, Surf Coast Shire Council (the ‘council’) issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit (‘NOD’) for the construction of two dwellings and the two lot subdivision of land at 115C Strathmore Drive, Jan Juc (the ‘review site’). The NOD is subject to a number of conditions, which are unopposed by the permit applicant (‘respondent’).
2	Ms Zuccolin represents a group of abutting/nearby property owners (the ‘applicants’), and they seek a review of the Council’s decision. The statement of grounds relates to, in summary, the side-by-side nature of the dwellings, the two crossovers and the proposed lot widths which they say are all out of character with the area. The applicants for review acknowledge that the proposal provides the required statutory on-site carparking, technically complies with the landscaping and overlooking requirements of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme (‘planning scheme’), and that the proposal is not required to consider the issue of view sharing as this is not protected in this location under the planning scheme. 
3	The permit applicant is a respondent in the proceeding. 
What are the key issues?
4	The issues in dispute largely relate to the proposed attached side-by-side dwellings, the two access/crossovers and the subdivision alignment with respect to the existing neighbourhood character. There are largely no other amenity standards or clause 56 subdivision matters in dispute.
5	Having considered all the submissions, I must determine whether the proposal is acceptable from a neighbourhood character perspective. I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the planning scheme, assisted by my site inspection, my finding is that the proposal is an acceptable planning outcome. The proposal is an appropriate response to neighbourhood character given the site context, and I conclude that a permit should be granted. My detailed reasons follow. 
Preliminary matters
6	The review site is affected by two restrictive covenants and a Section 173 Agreement. As confirmed in council’s delegate report, the requirements of these encumbrances are satisfied by the proposal.
7	The vegetation removal and building and works do not trigger a planning permit requirement under SLO6. While a permit is required for buildings and work and subdivision in the BMO, the recent Supreme Court decision in Myers v Southern Grampians Shire Council [2023] VSC 658 confirms that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider permit triggers that are exempt from notice and review rights in Section 82 appeals (appeals initiated by objectors), even if multiple planning permissions are sought.
8	Consistent with these findings, the BMO is not a matter before the Tribunal and any permit which the Tribunal directs must issue, may not be for the purpose of buildings and works and subdivision within the BMO nor can it include any permit conditions relevant to these permit triggers.
9	In light of Myers, the respondent submits that irrespective of the outcome of this proceeding, the council should issue a permit for the proposal under the BMO and that should the Tribunal determine to issue a permit in this proceeding, it should be amended to remove the permit trigger and any related conditions arising under the BMO.
10	The BMO and the SLO6 are not relevant to the matter before the Tribunal. Conditions contained on the NOD that relate to the BMO will be removed from the conditions imposed on this permit. As per the findings in Myers, Council will be required to issue a separate permit (and apply relevant conditions) for those matters not before the Tribunal.
Is the proposal acceptable from a neighbourhood character perspective?
Proposal
11	The application seeks to subdivide an existing approximately 1,166 square metre lot into two lots, with Lot 1A having an area of 585 square metres and Lot 1B having an area of 581 square metres. Both lots will have a frontage to Strathmore Drive. It is further proposed to construct two dwellings on the land, one on each of the proposed lots. The proposed dwellings would be semi-detached with a shared ground level party wall on the boundary between the two proposed lots. Each lot would have a maximum width of 12.5 metres and depth of 46.6 metres.
12	Whilst the dwellings would be constructed as a pair, they adopt a different design aesthetic with Dwelling A having a monopitch and flat roof design whilst Dwelling B would have a gabled and flat roof design. A visual break between the upper floors of the two dwellings of 4.1 metres will be provided. The built form steps down across the two proposed lots as they face the street following the natural fall of the land. The dwellings would be constructed with a variety of materials including natural timber, light grey render, smooth finished concrete and monument colored colourbond roof.
13	The dwellings have a minimum front setback of 9 metres and a maximum height above natural ground level of 7.4 metres. Each dwelling would have its own separate vehicle access and single width crossover.
Policy
14	The Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape (‘DAL’) was declared on 19 September 2019 under Section 46AO of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). A Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy was approved by the Governor in Council in September 2022 and has come into effect. The site is located within the protected settlement boundary of Torquay and is identified within the ‘incremental change’ area, which are designated for moderate change where residential development occurs within the context of the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. The incremental change area provides a transition between areas of increased density around the Torquay Town Centre and lower-density residential areas located on the edges of Torquay–Jan Juc. Relevantly, the site is not identified as a ‘minimal change’ area where the existing, low density residential character areas located on the periphery of Torquay – Jan Juc is sought to be retained. 
15	Within incremental change areas, development should be designed to fit in with the coastal character, which comprises low-scale built form set in well-landscaped gardens. Generous boundary setbacks help to minimise visual bulk, protect existing vegetation and allow space for additional landscaping including canopy trees. Materials and finishes reduce the visibility of development, so that the surrounding vegetation is the dominant feature.
16	Clause 15.01-5L-02 Torquay – Jan Juc preferred neighbourhood character applies to an application to construct or extend one or more dwellings or subdivide land in a residential zone in Torquay and Jan Juc as shown on the Torquay – Jan Juc residential development framework plan to this clause. It seeks to ensure development achieves architectural and urban design outcomes consistent with the preferred character of the residential areas of Torquay-Jan Juc. 
17	Relevant strategies for all precincts include to:
•	Retain and enhance landscaping and trees as a major element in the appearance and character of Torquay-Jan Juc’s residential environments. 
•	Provide contemporary coastal architecture with a lightweight appearance, visually interesting well-articulated facades, simple detailing and roof forms, and a variety of lightweight materials and natural colours. 
•	Provide visually recessive garages that are set back behind the building line or to the rear of dwellings so as not to dominate the streetscape or building façade.
•	Retain the openness of front gardens to the street by avoiding the use of front fences or by providing low or open style front fences, except in the General residential (standard density) precinct where all front fencing should be avoided. 
•	Minimise adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties by way of visual bulk. 
•	Provide a landscape treatment that enhances the overall appearance of the development and the streetscape, including by siting development to maintain the predominant pattern of front setbacks in the street to allow for space to retain or plant canopy trees and shrubs. 
18	Clause15.01-5L-02 Torquay – Jan Juc residential development framework plan identifies the site as being within the Bush Residential precinct. Bush residential precinct strategies include to: 
•	Provide space around dwellings to retain and plant vegetation, in particular indigenous canopy trees and large shrubs. 
•	Encourage landscaping to achieve bushy front gardens. 
•	Support development of a low-scale and modest form. 
•	Where the topography is hilly, design buildings to follow the contours of the land. 
•	Site buildings, including those taking advantage of ocean views, so that they do not dominate the streetscape. 
19	The sole Bush Residential Precinct policy guideline is to consider as relevant, a maximum development height of 2 storeys (7.5 metres).  The proposal complies with this preferred maximum building height provision.
20	Policy documents to consider as relevant (Tribunal emphasis) in this clause include the Torquay – Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study Review (Surf Coast Shire, 2012). 
21	DDO22 applies to the review site and broader area. The purpose of imposing a Design and Development Overlay over land is to identify those areas which council determine need specific guidance relating to the design and built form of new future development. Subdivision must occur in accordance with any lot size or other requirement specified in a schedule to the overlay. None are specified in Schedule 22 to the DDO.
22	Decision guidelines to the DDO require consideration, as appropriate:
•	The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	The design objectives of the relevant schedule to this overlay.
•	The provisions of any relevant policies and urban design guidelines.
•	Whether the bulk, location and appearance of any proposed buildings and works will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
•	Whether the design, form, layout, proportion and scale of any proposed buildings and works is compatible with the period, style, form, proportion, and scale of any identified heritage places surrounding the site.
•	Whether any proposed landscaping or removal of vegetation will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
•	The layout and appearance of areas set aside for car parking, access and egress, loading and unloading and the location of any proposed off street car parking.
•	Whether subdivision will result in development which is not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
•	Any other matters specified in a schedule to this overlay.
23	Schedule 22 to the DDO applies to Jan Juc. Design objectives include:
•	To encourage building design that respects and contributes to Jan Juc’s low rise coastal character and complements the streetscape with respect to building form, height, massing, setbacks, colours and materials.
•	To encourage building setbacks and areas of private open space that are sufficient to retain a sense of space around buildings and to provide sufficient room for landscaping.
•	To encourage a diversity of dwelling types and sizes, in particular smaller and/or adaptable dwellings within 400 metres of the Jan Juc activity centre, to cater for the emerging trend in smaller household size.
•	To encourage the retention and establishment of native and indigenous vegetation that serves to soften buildings within the streetscape and when viewed from adjoining properties.
•	To ensure driveways and parking areas are designed to be visually recessive in the streetscape and complement the design of buildings.
•	To ensure that front fences reflect the preferred character of a sense of openness between properties and the street.
24	The following buildings and works requirements apply to an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works:
Building height
•	Buildings should not exceed a height of 7.5 metres above natural ground level.
Private open space
•	An area of at least 80 square metres of private open space should be provided for each dwelling, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 50 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room.
•	Secluded private open space within front setback areas should be avoided.
Landscaping
•	Sites, in particular the front and rear building setback areas, should be landscaped in a manner that softens the appearance of buildings in the streetscape and from adjoining properties and complements the character of the town.
•	On sites where a multi-storey development is proposed, at least two canopy trees should be planted within the front setback area.
•	On sites where a single storey development is proposed at least one canopy tree should be planted within the front setback area.
Car parking and access
•	Garages and carports should be set back from the street at least 1 metre further than the wall of the dwelling and should be visually compatible with the development.
•	Garages and carports should not exceed 50 per cent of the total building width as seen from the street.
•	Only one single width vehicle crossover should be provided to each dwelling fronting the street.
•	A landscape strip should be provided on either side of a driveway capable of supporting a variety of shrubs and small trees, with a minimum width of 0.5 metres adjacent to the side boundary and a 1 metre width adjacent to the dwelling. Where retention of an existing dwelling is considered to be consistent with neighbourhood character, the above minimum width can be reduced.
•	Driveways on battle-axe lots or common property should be curvilinear to create visual interest and avoid a gun barrel effect.
Fencing
•	A fence should not exceed a height of 1.5 metres and should be at least 50 per cent permeable.

25	The following relevant decision guidelines apply:
Building design and siting
•	Whether the building design adopts architectural forms and rooflines which convey a lightweight, contemporary coastal image and avoids a suburban appearance or historic replication.
•	Whether buildings incorporate the use of external colours and finishes that are subtle, neutral, non-reflective and unobtrusive and reflect the preferred coastal character.
•	Whether the setback of buildings from front, side and rear boundaries is sufficient to:
o	maintain a vegetated front garden setting consistent with the streetscape
o	enable the retention and establishment of mature vegetation that softens the visual appearance of buildings.
•	Whether any upper storey element of a dwelling has been designed and scaled to minimise visual bulk through articulation, disaggregation, materials, roof forms and reduced floor area.
•	In multi-dwelling developments, whether the development provides for a diversity of dwelling types and sizes, in particular dwellings with no more than two bedrooms, and a diversity of built form, materials and colours.
•	Whether dwellings, in particular side-by-side developments, have been designed to have a visual interconnection with the street rather than presenting merely as garages and front doors only.
•	Whether dwellings have been designed and sited to avoid the excessive application of screen devices required to minimise overlooking.
•	Whether the placement of roof top structures such as solar panels, hot water systems, air conditioning units and the like avoids detrimental impact on the streetscape or adjoining properties.
•	Whether the retention of an existing building is considered consistent with neighbourhood character.
Car parking and access
•	The extent to which driveways and parking areas have been designed to be visually recessive in the streetscape by:
o	avoiding, as appropriate, undercover or enclosed car parking forward of the dwelling façade
o	sharing driveways where appropriate
o	softening driveways and parking areas with vegetation
o	limiting the number and width of vehicle crossovers
•	The extent to which driveways on battle-axe lots or common property have been designed to create visual interest and avoid a gun barrel effect.
•	Whether the width of garages and carports is proportional to the total building width as seen from the street.
•	Whether provision has been made for accommodating future demand for undercover parking (if necessary) in a manner consistent with the objectives of this schedule
Private open space
•	Whether the provision of private open space is sufficient to create a sense of space around buildings and to allow for the retention or planting of vegetation, including canopy trees.
•	Whether the provision of secluded private open space has been located to the rear or side of dwellings to avoid the requirement of high fencing within the building’s front setback.
•	Whether a larger area of secluded private open space should be provided for large dwellings with three or more bedrooms (including studies).
•	Where a reduced area of secluded private open space is proposed, whether an increased level of landscaping has been provided within front setback areas and along driveways, to offset the loss of planting opportunities in private gardens.
Landscaping
•	The extent to which the landscaping of the site will achieve the effect of:
o	softening the appearance of buildings in the streetscape and from adjoining properties
o	complementing the landscape character of the town.
•	The extent to which excavation, retaining walls, paths and other ancillary works reduce the ability to appropriately vegetate the site.
Fencing
•	Whether a front fence more than 1.2 metres in height is appropriate having regard to the streetscape character and the level of compatibility of the fence with the prevailing style, scale and materials of existing fencing within the streetscape.
•	The need to discourage the use of brick, stone, masonry or sheet metal as fencing material.
Summary of parties’ positions
26	The review site is one of six properties located on the western side of Strathmore Drive that are contained within the GRZ1. Apart from those six properties, all properties located on the western side of the Strathmore Drive road reserve are contained within the Low Density Residential Zone (‘LDRZ’) and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6 (Strathmore Drive West).

Figure 1: Zone map Source: Applicant submission
27	Much of the applicant’s submission was focused on historic issues relating to the zoning of the review site and its neighbours, the previous subdivision that created the review site and resident expectations about the role of this site with respect to its relationship with land more broadly to the west which is in a LDRZ. These issues are not relevant to this proceeding and the Tribunal’s role is to apply the Planning Scheme as it exists. 
28	The applicants sought to rely heavily on the background document, Torquay – Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study Review (which was prepared in 2012) to demonstrate that the proposal was not consistent with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. I have given this document no weight in reaching my decision. Firstly, because it was a product of its time, being more than a decade old and superseded by further strategic work undertaken by council since that time. Secondly, the council has adopted a suite of DDO controls that expressly establish preferred built form outcomes for particular precincts across the municipality, including DDO22 in which the review site is located. This DDO is the council’s expression of preferred neighbourhood and built form character outcomes sought to be achieved for this precinct.
29	The review site is located towards the western edge of the Jan Juc township area (settlement boundary). The applicants for review say this is relevant and a defining characteristic, with the western side of Strathmore Drive in particular acting as a transitional corridor between the low and medium density lots to the east towards the rural density living to the west. They say that the immediate area is currently characterized by lots with large (minimum 20 metre) frontages and sizes ranging from 800 square metres to over 4000 square metres.
30	They say that policy seeks to achieve a density of 10 dwellings per hectare, and that whilst this is not mandatory, the guideline suggest this forms a key element of the neighbourhood characteristics sought to be established. They say that the narrow width of the proposed blocks (being 11 metres and 12.5 metres), are out of character for this area of Strathmore Drive West with all other GRZ blocks in Strathmore Drive West having a minimum 20 metre street frontage and all lot widths in the nearby Seaview Rise Estate being a minimum 15 metres with an approximate width/length ratio of 2:1. They say that all recent sub-divisions in the area of Strathmore Drive West have supported larger lots, and street frontage widths of 20 metres and over.
31	They say that policy supports medium density development within 400 metres of the Jan Juc Activity Centre and seeks diversity of dwelling types and sizes, and the proposal achieves neither of these elements. The arrangement of driveways is not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood character, as there will only be enough space to park one car in front of the combined properties, forcing visiting and owner’s cars to park further away in front of neighbouring properties up and down the street. This will make the neighbourhood more congested, reduce visibility and generally make the streetscape less safe for pedestrians and motorists.
32	Finally, they say that side-by-side development are not supported in the Torquay – Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study Review. 
33	The respondent relies on the expert evidence of Mr Iles. In summary, he says the proposal is an appropriate response to its GRZ context, will assist the implementation of a range of housing policies by delivering an incremental level of change and a design that will add to the built form diversity in an area of mixed character. He says that the design is complementary of the mixed character of the GRZ1 environs and substantively complies with DDO22 with only the second vehicle crossing and the extent of the proposed garages being a matter that seeks a variation to the DDO22 requirements. 
34	In the case of the proposed variations to the DDO22, he says the extent of frontage allocated to the proposed garages is only marginally above the 50% specified, and that the landscape strip dividing the garages will reduce the visibility of these elements from the streetscape to an acceptable level. While there are two crossings proposed to the current review site, as a result of the proposed subdivision only a single crossing per allotment would be provided, which would comply with DDO22. He says that the proposed crossings are spaced to support a landscape area to separate them as they present to the streetscape and the proposed crossings do not remove available on-street parking spaces given the location of the review site towards the bend of Strathmore Drive.
35	Finally, he says that the design of the development is appropriate for its context. He says the proposal provides appropriate setbacks from the frontage and adjoining properties, adopts a domestic residential form that responds well to the falling topography and utilizes visually interesting roof elements and a contemporary architectural expression. He notes that the two storey scale of the development complies with the DDO22 provisions, reinforces the low rise built form character of the Jan Juc environs and has no amenity impacts towards neighbouring properties. 
36	With respect to the proposed subdivision, he says that the creation of two lots over 580 square metres is acceptable given the range of lot sizes in the precinct which range between 300-800 square metres, along with some larger allotments within the LDRZ. With respect to the applicants call for a transition in lot sizes to the LDRZ land, he says that the review site does not abut the LDRZ and sits within the broader GRZ1 context of Jan Juc where greater lot diversity and subdivision variation exist.
Tribunal findings
37	Having undertaken an inspection of the review site and immediate area, I agree with respect to building design, that the existing built form character comprises varied dwelling typologies ranging from traditional weatherboard homestead designs through to more contemporary designs. Buildings are generally set back well from the street in open garden settings. The informal roll over kerbing and wider nature strip verges contribute to this coastal character. There are properties in the immediate area that have two crossovers and some properties have wider than standard single crossovers. 
38	Turning to built form character, and the specific elements the planning scheme seeks to support (clause 15.01-5L-02 and DDO22 provisions), I am satisfied that the proposal provides:
•	well moderated building forms which respond to the contour of the land and which do not exceed the maximum building height of 7.5 metres.
•	a built form that is of a low scale, lightweight appearance with well-articulated facades and roof forms. 
•	a materials selection that is reflective of the contemporary and emerging coastal architecture.
•	visually integrated garages which are set back behind the building line (more than 1 metre) which will not dominate the streetscape or building façade.
•	buildings set back from side and rear boundaries to create the sense of space between themselves and its neighbours.
•	no front fencing which will retain the open streetscape evident in the immediate area.
•	minimal hard paving within the front setback, to maximise landscape space.
•	one single width crossover to each dwelling fronting the street.
•	secluded private open space to the rear of the buildings.
39	I do not agree that the width of the garaging, at 51% as compared to the 50% sought by policy is unacceptable. I say this because whilst the proposed garages marginally exceed 50% of the total building width at the frontage, they would not be a visually dominant element given their significant setback from the frontage, their siting under the cantilevered upper level of the building and the level difference between the buildings and Strathmore Drive.
40	I do not agree that the side-by-side nature of the proposal is inconsistent with the preferred neighbourhood character as expressed in DDO22. This is because DDO22 calls up a particular consideration being ‘whether dwellings, in particular side-by-side developments, have been designed to have a visual interconnection with the street rather than presenting merely as garages and front doors only’. This acknowledges that applications of this type may be consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character aspirations of the scheme, subject to providing a visual interconnection with the street. I am satisfied that the design provides for forward projecting studies that will allow visual connection to the street.
41	Turning to landscape character, and the specific elements the planning scheme seeks, I am satisfied that the proposal will enhance the landscaping and treed character of the site with Condition 5 of the NOD requiring the provision of an amended Landscaping Plan. I am satisfied that sufficient space is provided around each of the proposed dwellings to provide for the planting of indigenous canopy trees and large shrubs to enhance the landscape character of the area. 
42	Turning to subdivision character, the objective to clause 56.03-5 seeks to design subdivisions that respond to neighbourhood character. The Standard says that subdivision should respect the existing neighbourhood character or achieve a preferred neighbourhood character consistent with any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in the scheme, respond to and integrate with the surrounding urban environment and protect significant vegetation and site features.
43	Clause 32.08-14 requires the responsible authority to consider, as appropriate, the pattern of subdivision and its effect on the spacing of buildings. 
44	The DDO head clause at 43.02-3 provides that subdivision must occur in accordance with any lot size or other requirement specified in a schedule to this overlay. Schedule 22 to the DDO does not contain any mandatory or preferred lot sizes. There is nothing in the preferred character statement for the DDO22 that identifies a preferred lot size/range of lot sizes.
45	Respecting neighbourhood character does not mean replicating forever. So even if I accept that lot sizes or widths form an integral part of the neighbourhood character, this does not mean such must be retained in perpetuity. 
46	While the applicants urged me to consider the policy guideline at clause 16.01-1L-02 (Torquay – Jan Juc housing growth) which seeks to achieve a density of 10 dwellings per hectare within the ‘Bush Residential’ precinct, this policy guideline is not a mandatory requirement and does not prohibit alternative densities, provided that the relevant strategies are satisfied. 
47	I am satisfied that the proposed lots of 585 square metres and 581 square metres will comfortably fit within the range of lots sizes in the immediate area which sit within the same zone and overlay context. The subdivision pattern will not appear incongruous in this setting. Within the southern leg of Strathmore Drive and in nearby streets such as Seaview Rise, Ozan Crescent and Marner Close there are already existing lots smaller than that proposed. I was advised that at 130 Strathmore Drive to the north on the east side of Strathmore Drive council has a recent approval for a five lot subdivision with lot sizes from 651 square metres to 904 square metres.
48	While I accept that the proposed lot widths differ from those particularly opposite the site, they are not dissimilar to the lot widths of approximately 15 metres on nearby lots in Strathmore Drive including at 85 Strathmore Drive. Further, the existence of battle-axe development on the western side of Strathmore Drive means that there is not a repetition or ‘rhythm’ of consistent lot width spacing along this side of the street. The proposed lot widths are consistent with the varied character of lot widths in the immediate area.
49	There are otherwise no special or other characteristics that would warrant refusal of a subdivision layout as sought. The General Residential zoning, absence of specific varied lot sizes or dimensions in either the zone or overlay, the sites location within the protected settlement boundary of Torquay/Jan Juc and the designation of this area as one being suitable for incremental change, all lead to a conclusion that the proposed subdivision, which facilitates the creation of individual lots to two dwellings which in themselves I also find to be acceptable, is an appropriate planning outcome supported by the Planning Scheme.
50	An objective to DDO22 is to encourage a diversity of dwelling types and sizes, in particular smaller and/or adaptable dwellings within 400 metres of the Jan Juc Activity Centre, to cater for the emerging trend in smaller household size. While the site is not located within 400 metres of the Jan Juc Activity Centre, the development of one additional dwelling on the land (two in total) will make a small contribution to increasing housing supply within the defined settlement boundary of Torquay – Jan Juc, the main urban growth centre of the Shire. 
51	I do not agree that this provision requires diversity of housing within each individual site. It requires a holistic approach across the entire DDO area to achieve diversity (in dwelling types and sizes), with a particular focus on delivering smaller and adaptable dwellings within the 400 metre range of the activity centre. 
52	Finally, under clause 52.06-5 each dwelling is required to provide two car parking spaces and both dwellings include a double garage, together with additional tandem car parking capacity within each driveway. While the applicants are concerned with overflow parking in the street, council has identified no safety or traffic reasons why the proposal should not be supported. While the property is nearby a curvature of the road, the safety of this road (with respect to the prohibition of street parking if required) is managed by council as the responsible road manager.
What conditions are appropriate?
53	Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions. 
Conclusion
54	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

K Birtwistle
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	23/0047	
Land	115C Strathmore Drive
JAN JUC 	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of two dwellings in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 
•	Construction of buildings and the carrying out of works within the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 22
•	Two lot subdivision of the land in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1	

Conditions
Commencement of permit
1	This permit will operate from the issued date of this permit.
Compliance with documents approved under this permit
2	At all times what the permit allows must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of any document approved under this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Endorsed plans
3	The development as shown on the approved and endorsed plans must not be altered unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
Amended plans
4	Before the development starts, plans prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and be submitted in electronic form. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans forming part of the application and identified as TP001 dated 26 June 2023, TP002 to 003 dated 19 July 2023, TP100 dated 19 July 2023, TP101 dated 19 July 2023, TP200 dated 19 July 2023, TP300 dated 19 July 2023, TP301 dated 19 July 2023, TP302 dated 19 July 2023 and TP900 dated 19 July 2023 prepared by PKStudio but amended to show the following details:
(a)	The location of the proposed crossovers within the road reserve ensuring an offset of 1m from the existing Stormwater Side Entry Pit.
(b)	Depth of garages to be dimensioned on plan with a minimum dimension of 6 metres.
(c)	Deletion of the roofs over the first floor front decks of each dwelling and the southern first floor side deck of Dwelling A except for the eaves.
(d)	Details of retaining wall materials, heights and treatments including the retaining wall adjacent to the driveway of Dwelling B so as to add visual interest and detail to the streetscape.
Landscaping
5	Before the development starts, landscape plans prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and be submitted in electronic form. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans forming part of the application and identified as Landscape Schematic Design Report Revision 01 dated 16 August 2023 prepared by Tract but amended to show the following details:
(a)	Layout of landscaping and planting within all open areas of the subject land.
(b)	A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed.
(c)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
(d)	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 
(e)	At least two canopy trees (minimum two metres tall when planted) in the front garden of each proposed dwelling.
(f)	A 0.5 metre wide landscape strip to the northern side of the driveway of Dwelling B.
(g)	Details of how the project responds to water sensitive urban design principles, including how storm water will be mitigated, captured, cleaned and stored for onsite use and the location and type of irrigation systems to be used including the location of any rainwater tanks to be used for irrigation.
(h)	Details of retaining wall materials, heights and treatments including the retaining wall adjacent to the driveway of Dwelling B so as to add visual interest and detail to the streetscape.
The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary the details on approved landscape plans.
6	Before the development is occupied, the landscaping shown on the approved landscape plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
7	At all times the landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan must be maintained (including the replacement of any dead, diseased or damaged plants) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Stormwater management
8	Prior to certification of the plan of subdivision and/or the commencement of the development, a stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The stormwater system should be designed to:
(a)	Ensure flows from the site are detained on-site in accordance with the requirements of the Infrastructure Design Manual
(b)	Meet the current best practice performance objectives for stormwater quality as contained in the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999).
(c)	Contribute to cooling, improving local habitat and providing attractive and enjoyable spaces.
(d)	Connect to council infrastructure
9	The stormwater management system approved by the responsible authority and included in the endorsed stormwater management plan must be constructed, managed and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
10	The details of the stormwater management system must not be altered from the details in the endorsed stormwater management plan without the written consent of the responsible authority.
Construction Management Plan
11	Prior to certification of the plan of subdivision and/or the commencement of the development a construction management plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The construction management plan must describe how the site will be managed prior to and during the construction period and set out requirements for managing:
(a)	Erosion and sediment.
(b)	Stormwater.
(c)	Litter, concrete and other construction wastes.
(d)	Chemical contamination.
Development contributions
12	A payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be made to Surf Coast Shire Council based on the net change in demand units in accordance with the incorporated Torquay– Jan Juc Development Contributions Plan. Payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy must be made before the development starts. Payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy must be made prior to the issue of a building permit.
Vehicle access and parking
13	Before the occupation of the development, the area(s) set-aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a)	Constructed;
(b)	Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
(c)	Drained;
(d)	Surfaced with an all-weather-seal coat;
to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
14	Before the occupation of the development, any new vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
15	Before the occupation of the development, all existing disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the nature strip and kerb and channel reinstated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority at the cost of the owner.
Expiry – Development
16	The approval granted by this permit for the construction of buildings and/or works will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development (buildings and/or works) is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
(b)	The development (buildings and/or works) is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
Subdivision
Easements
17	The Plan of Subdivision submitted for certification must include all easements deemed necessary to protect existing or future drainage lines within the subject site, and any easements required between the subject site and the nominated legal point of discharge must be created to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Endorsed Plans
18	The layout and site dimensions of the proposed subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan(s) shall not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. There are no requirements to alter or modify the endorsed plan if a plan is certified under the provisions of the Subdivision Act 1988 that is generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.
Service Authorities
19	The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.
20	All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.
21	The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.
22	The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:
(a)	A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
(b)	A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.
Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance
23	Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:
(a)	A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
(b)	A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.
24	Before a statement of compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988 the applicant must:
(a)	Provide access to and drainage of each lot;
(b)	Pay the Development Infrastructure Levy to the Collecting Agency (Surf Coast Shire Council) based on the net change in demand units in accordance with the provisions of the incorporated Torquay – Jan Juc Development Contributions Plan applying to the land. The payment must be made after certification of the relevant plan of subdivision but not more than 21 days before a Statement of Compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988; 
to the satisfaction of responsible authority.
25	Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance:
(a)	The development approved by this Planning Permit must be substantially completed (eg. lockup stage as a minimum) in accordance with the endorsed plans forming part of the Planning Permit (or any amendment to the permit) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Evidence must be submitted which demonstrates that the development is substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; or
(b)	The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which provides for all development to be in accordance with the endorsed plans forming part of this Planning Permit (or any amendment to the permit) or any subsequent Planning Permit.
The owner must pay the costs of preparation, review, execution and registration of the agreement and the agreement must be registered on the newly created title/s.
Expiry – Subdivision
26	The approval granted by this permit for the subdivision of the land will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The plan of subdivision is not certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 within two years of the date of this permit
(b)	Five years after the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing in accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
 
– End of conditions –