VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P592/2020
Permit Application no. PP-471-2019	
	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Greater Geelong Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone GRZ1; Development Plan Overlay DPO29; Lara West Growth Area; Manzeene Village Development Plan; Dwelling Density; Response to Medium Density Residential Design Principles.	

APPLICANT	Oreana Project Management Pty Ltd	
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY	Greater Geelong City Council	
SUBJECT LAND	9-13 Manzeene Avenue
LARA  VIC  3212	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Margaret Baird, Senior Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATES OF HEARING	21 and 22 September 2020	
DATE OF ORDER	8 October 2020	
CITATION	Oreana Project Management Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2020] VCAT 1126	
Order
Permit granted
1	In application P592/2020, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2	In permit application no. PP-471-2019, no permit is granted.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			
Appearances
For applicant	Ms J Sharp of counsel.  She called the following person to present expert evidence:
•	Mr J Fetterplace, town planner.	
For responsible authority	Ms L Lunn, Louise Lunn Planning.	
Information
Description of proposal	Construction of 89 dwellings.  Four dwellings are double storey and the balance are single storey.  A mix of dwelling sizes with varied architectural details is proposed.  All dwellings are attached or semi-detached.  All dwellings have single garages with the 38 three and four bedroom dwellings provided with a second tandem car space.  Visitor parking includes 13 spaces at the Manzeene Avenue (main) entry and six further spaces adjacent to internal accessways.  	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.	
Planning scheme	Greater Geelong Planning Scheme [scheme].	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone schedule 1 [GRZ1].  Development Plan Overlay schedule 29 [DPO29]. Development Contributions Plan schedule 7 [DCPO7].  	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08 – to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. Clause 52.17 – to remove native vegetation (remnant patches of 0.051 hectares in the Patullos Road reserve).	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22.17, 32.08, 43.04, 45.06, 52.06, 52.17, 65 and 71.	
Subject land description	The subject land is 2.174 hectares in area.  It is bounded by Manzeene Avenue to the east, Patullos Road to the south and O’Hallorans Road to the west.  Not all roads have yet been constructed.  The Lara West Urban Growth Area is to the west of the subject land with three residential estates having commenced development. Ten residential properties fronting Cadence Avenue abut the land’s northern boundary.  Nine are developed with single storey dwellings.  A retarding basin (approximately 1,700m2 in land area) is located immediately adjacent the south-east corner of the land. It is landscaped and vested in the Council.  The subject land contains two temporary buildings associated with residential sales but is otherwise vacant.  It is flat with little vegetation.	

Reasons
ABOUT this application
1	Oreana Project Management Pty Ltd [applicant] proposes to develop the subject land with 89 dwellings.  It has applied to the Tribunal seeking a permit for this project because the Greater Geelong City Council [Council] failed to grant a permit within the prescribed time.

2	In summary, the applicant submits that:
•	Having regard to the strategic context of the subject land (including the endorsed Manzeene Village Development Plan as amended [MVDP], and state and local policies such as clauses 16, 21.06, 21.08 and 21.13), the proposed development for medium density housing is anticipated and is a highly acceptable outcome.  
•	In terms of neighbourhood character, the proposal has been carefully designed to result in a dwelling and street layout that will create its own attractive character of landscaped smaller homes in a well-connected vehicle and pedestrian environment. 
•	Variation in built form created by building breaks, variation in height, setbacks, design and materials together with landscaping in front of dwellings will ensure that the character of the site will comfortably fit with the surrounding area.  
•	The proposal will provide highly liveable dwellings with appropriate provision of car parking, open space and landscaping in a location which is now, and in the future, well located near services, open space and public transport.
3	The applicant relies on expert planning evidence.  It also relies on the recommendation of the assessing Council officer that a permit be issued subject to revisions to the proposal through an amended plans condition to produce a “more acceptable presence regarding neighbourhood character features”. The officer proposed conditions to “increase the proposal’s opportunity to provide an appropriate level of occupant amenity and integrate the development into the existing community to a greater degree”.  Mr Fetterplace also recommends changes to the plans in his evidence.
4	The Council does not support the permit application.  Its eight grounds focus on its concerns about the density of the development in this location, the design including attached built form and setbacks, and insufficient open space to service a development at the density proposed.  
5	I must assess whether the permit application will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the scheme.  Clause 71.02-3 of the scheme requires the decision-maker to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. However, in bushfire affected areas, planning and responsible authorities must prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations.
KEY ISSUES
6	Based on the grounds, submissions and expert evidence, and having regard to the matters that I must consider under the scheme, the key matters to be determined are whether:
•	the permit application is “generally in accordance with” the MVDP.
•	the proposed dwelling density is acceptable.
•	the design and layout are an acceptable neighbourhood character and built form response, including how they address the Medium Density Residential Development Design Principles in the MVDP.
•	the design response meets the objectives of clause 55.
7	I address these issues next.
PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THIS AREA
8	The parties agree on the framework for my decision in this proceeding, which I briefly refer to next.  The parties differ on the acceptability of the proposal’s response to the framework.   
General Residential Zone and DPO29 (MVDP)
9	The subject land is in GRZ1 and DPO29:
  
10	The purpose of clause 32.08 includes:
•	To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.
•	To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
11	Land to the west of O’Hallorans Road is part of the urban growth area with approved residential development.  To the south of Patullos Road is land within rural living and farming zones.  In future, the intersection of O’Hallorans Road and Patullos Road is to be a major intersection.
12	DPO29 relates to the MVDP that was approved in 2018 and subsequently amended in May 2019. 
13	The MVDP endorsed in 2018 nominated the south-west corner of the MVDP area for potential medium density residential or commercial uses. It stated that specific uses will be subject to a future planning application and may include, but not be limited to, medium density residential development, a medical centre, a service station and convenience restaurant.  Having considered the permit applicant’s request to amend the MVDP, in May 2019 the Council endorsed an amended MVDP by removing reference to “commercial uses” and adding Medium Density Residential Development Design Principles [RDPs].  The RDPs detail matters to be considered when assessing a residential development.  These are shown below.  

Strategic context
14	The above controls (and others such as DCPO7 and additional policies and provisions that I do not recite) are consistent with the identification of the area for residential development and the protection of specific environmental values (such as with respect to native vegetation).
15	In addition to relevant state policies listed in the ‘Information’ section of these reasons, key local policies in determining this application for review are:
•	Clause 21.06-2 addressing urban growth.  Its objectives include limiting urban sprawl by directing the majority of new greenfield residential development to primary urban growth areas including Lara. Additional strategies include:
•	Require a minimum residential density of 15 dwellings per hectare in all new urban growth areas.
•	Ensure new residential neighbourhoods provide a mix of housing suited to the needs of a diverse range of household types.
•	Clause 21.06-3 relating to urban consolidation.  Its objectives include providing for the consolidation of existing urban areas in a managed way and encouraging an appropriate range of development densities.
•	Clause 21.04-4 addressing neighbourhood character.  Its objectives include to manage the impact or urban change.  Clause 21.06-4 seeks that all development should contribute positively to the quality of the urban environment so that it may be enjoyed and respected by the existing and future community.
•	Clause 21.13 addressing Lara. Its objectives and strategies include:
Objectives:
•	To maintain a compact urban form and provide for sustainable communities.
•	To maintain and enhance the rural characteristics of Lara.
•	To provide an efficient and integrated movement network for public transport, vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian movements.
Strategies:
•	Ensure new subdivision developments on General Residential Zone Schedule 1 zoned land incorporate urban design treatments that reinforce the rural characteristics of the town.
•	Provide additional bicycle and pedestrian opportunities and connections throughout the township including new footpaths and bicycle lanes.
GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
16	Clause 43.04-2 requires a development plan to be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority before a permit can be granted.  A permit granted must be generally in accordance with the development plan and include any conditions or requirements specified in a schedule to the overlay (being DDO29).
17	The Council’s grounds refer to the proposal as “not consistent” with the MVDP as the proposed dwelling density is excessive in its delivery of medium density housing.  The Council does not, per se, contend the permit application is not generally in accordance with the MVDP.  Ms Lunn explains that the Council considers the proposed medium density development is “at the higher end of what is acceptable”.
18	The applicant submits that, to the extent that the Council’s ground potentially calls into question whether the proposal is “generally in accordance with” the MVDP, and given the Tribunal must also satisfy itself that a permit can issue pursuant to clause 43.04-2, it is necessary to address this matter.  Ms Sharp refers to the fact that the Council officer considered the permit application to be “generally in accordance with” the MVDP.  Mr Fetterplace concurs.  Ms Sharp also refers to principles considered in many Tribunal decisions that are not in dispute in this proceeding.  Among those are that general accordance is a question of fact, to be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case and that the less precision there is in the primary document/s, the more flexibility is given by the phrase “generally in accordance with.”.
19	The MVDP is written with flexibility in relation to the future development of the subject land (Lot F).  It states:
Land in the far south-west corner, known as Lot F, of the Development Plan has also been identified as a potential medium density. 
Should market conditions allow, additional medium density sites within the Development Plan area may be identified in the future. Medium density development may be appropriate in locations in close proximity to amenities such as public open space, community facilities or local activity centres. Should development of some of these facilities occur within the Lara West growth area, medium density housing in or around the corner of O’Halloran’s Road and the east-west collector road may also be considered. It is intended that this Development Plan will allow sufficient flexibility for alternative styles of accommodation and densities to be considered in the future to allow appropriate responses to market conditions.
20	The parties disagree as to whether the density of the proposed development can be described as ‘medium density’, whether the proposed density is appropriate given access to services, and whether the proposal adopts an acceptable design outcome.  I address these matters below.  
21	I determine that the permit application is generally in accordance with the MVDP because the subject land is identified for medium density housing.  The RDPs are used to assess the acceptability of the proposal.  The proposal’s response to these is a matter for assessment even though some are written as “must”.  For example, whether the building form to Patullos Road and O’Hallorans Road, dwelling typologies and diversity, and the depth of front setbacks to Patullos Road and O’Hallorans Road with respect to tree planting and landscaping.
DWELLING DENSITY
22	The proposal has a density of 40.9 dwellings per hectare, based on the size of the subject land.  The proposed lot sizes are in the order of 150m2 to just over 200m2 based on Mr Fetterplace’s oral evidence.
Is the proposed development characterised as ‘medium density’?
23	When considered in the context of Manzeene Village as a whole development area, Mr Fetterplace calculates the lot yield related to the developable area is 14.4 dwellings.  The proposed development would increase this to a density of 15.61 dwellings per hectare across the Village.
24	There is no definition of medium density in the MVDP or scheme.  As indicated above, flexibility is afforded to the development of the subject land for this purpose.  
25	The parties variously refer to state policy (such as clause 11.03-2S) and the following policies and documents in support of their submissions:
•	Clause 21.06-6 includes a strategy to “require a minimum residential density of 15 dwellings per hectare in all new urban growth areas”.
•	Design Guidelines for Manzeene Village are referred to in the RDPs.  One version of these guidelines refers to small lots under 300m2 where the Small Lot Housing Code is to be applied.  The Small Lot Housing Code has been developed and updated over time and applies to land within an Urban Growth Zone where a Precinct Structure Plan has been incorporated into a planning scheme (or other Special Purpose Zones).  Neither is the case here.  The standards do not assist to identify what is intended by the term medium density housing. 
•	Housing Diversity Strategy 2007 is a reference document in the scheme.  The Study Area shown in the document indicates it does not include the subject land.  The document defines different housing types and densities:
Conventional housing Single detached dwellings on lots generally ranging between 500 and 1,000 square metres (sqm). The development of an area for conventional housing generally results in a gross residential density1 of 10 – 15 dwellings per hectare.
Medium density housing The provision of two or more detached or attached dwellings, townhouses or apartments on a site below four stories. The development of an area for medium density housing generally results in a gross residential density of 20 – 40 dwellings per hectare.
Higher Density housing Attached townhouses or apartments, usually more than 3 storeys in height. The development of an area for high density housing generally results in a gross residential density of more than 40 dwellings per hectare.
The definitions above are not ‘target’ densities under the Housing Diversity Strategy.  Different areas will achieve different development densities, depending on the capacity of the area, the nature of the housing market and the specific policy context.
•	Clause 22.63 Increased Housing Diversity Areas applies to nominated housing diversity areas and does not apply to the current permit application.   The reference document to the clause is the Housing Diversity Strategy 2007.
•	The Lara West Precinct Structure Plan which applies to land west of O’Hallorans Road has an objective to achieve an overall density of at least 15 dwellings per net developable hectare.  It refers to medium density housing as achieving an overall average of at least 20 dwellings per net residential hectare and higher density housing (in excess of 25 dwellings per hectare) that “may be acceptable in close proximity to the Neighbourhood Activity Centre and Local Activity Centre”.  The Structure Plan shows medium density housing abutting commercial, community and open spaces.
Is this a suitable location for the density proposed?
26	I agree with Ms Lunn’s submission that the proposal is at the higher end of the density envisaged by the range of strategic documents referred to by the parties.  Mr Fetterplace also reaches this conclusion.
27	Ms Lunn submits the proposed density is far greater than other development that has occurred within the Manzeene Village.  She submits that for a development site to provide a residential density of 40 dwellings per hectare it must be “exceptionally well located to services such as public transport or an activity centre or provide for an exceptional amenity that may be due to its location in proximity to parkland etc”.  Ms Lunn refers to part of the assessing officer’s report:
that the proposal for 89 dwellings to the subject site of 2.2 hectares puts this proposal in the category of high density (in excess of 25 dwellings per hectare), and that this scale of development should be located in strategically identified locations where occupants have a high level of amenity afforded to them in adjacent locations, such as around activity centres, or directly abutting community open space facilities.
28	Further, the officer’s assessment also states (among other things in balancing a range of considerations):
The site is fully serviced by utilities, and the established road network. However, at this time, the proposal is considered to be not ideally positioned for such an intense housing development. Ideally, such a proposal should be strategically located where residents will have close access to recreation, transport and services.
29	Mr Fetterplace sets out the availability of other services and facilities in his evidence.  Ms Lunn does also.  The assessing officer, and applicant, refer to future development that will mean services and facilities will become available within the Lara West precinct as well as, for example, expanded public transport on Patullos Road.  I accept this is the case and is a very relevant consideration, although the timing is uncertain based on responses to my questions of the advocates at the hearing.  
30	The Precinct Structure Plan shows a neighbourhood activity centre, school/s and community centre/s north along O’Hallorans Road.  Land opposite the subject land is shown as conventional residential with an indicative neighbourhood park and potential drainage treatment.  The nearest (neighbourhood) activity centre in Lara West is, in Ms Sharp’s estimate, approximately 400-600 metres from the subject land.  
31	I accept that housing diversity and affordability are key strategic considerations in state and local policies as well as the purpose of clause 32.08 and within the MVDP.  This proposal presents alternatives to what appears in the main dwelling types in the MVDP area today.  These broader considerations have been favourably weighed in the officer’s assessment and applicant’s case. 
32	The Council’s submission challenges the applicant’s position that the proposal has significant diversity within it, describing the predominance of one typology, being single level dwellings.  Mr Fetterplace refers to 12 typologies having regard to varied design and layout elements.  While there is some variation in dwelling designs, the lots are all small.  The Council’s grounds do not suggest that this aspect of the proposal is inconsistent with the vision for the MVDP.  Having said that, the dwellings provide a different housing offer to those otherwise in the MVDP area.
33	I find that the subject land’s designation in the MVDP for medium density housing means the Council has determined it to be acceptable for this purpose.  However, this is not a situation where the subject land is strategically located to have been expressly earmarked for higher/high density residential development. This does not mean the permit application must or should be refused.  I next address whether the density and intensity of the proposal are acceptable particularly in terms of the response to the RDPs,  neighbourhood character considerations and the suitability of the internal layout.  
BUILT FORM AND CHARACTER 
Issues
34	The key built form and character issues arising in submissions and evidence focus on the proposal’s response to a number of the RDPs and, more broadly, neighbourhood character.  My reasons focus on the design considerations in dispute between the parties.  These relate to:
•	the attached form of housing, that the Council describes as “repetitious”;
•	pedestrian amenity and the internal layout that the Council says provides for compromised pedestrian movement given the proposed “trafficable footpath” in the “common driveway”; and
•	landscaping provision that the Council criticises as “limited opportunity for landscaping throughout the site and between dwellings” .
35	These matters are relevant to the proposal’s response to the RDPs (particularly nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6) and an assessment under clause 32.08 and clause 55.  The RDPs assist to articulate the preferred character for this area mindful that broader policies such as clause 21.13 seek to maintain and enhance the rural characteristics of Lara and the land to the south/south-west is not proposed for urban development.
36	The Council’s position relies in part on internal referral comments from its Urban Design Unit that did not support two versions of referral plans.  Ms Lunn also identifies changes to the plans recommended by the assessing officer for, among other things, less continuous building and greater setbacks.
37	The applicant challenges all grounds advanced by the Council through submissions that rely on Mr Fetterplace’s evidence, which I do not recite and have fully considered.  The applicant submits the focus of the RDPs is on the edges and interfaces with existing public roads.  As indicated, the applicant submits the proposed development demonstrates very good compliance with the RDPs and clause 55 relying on Mr Fetterplace’s evidence.  The extent of attached development is acceptable taking into account separation provided, noting the RDPs do not require detached housing.  The variation in height, design detail, and landscaping opportunities all work to achieve an acceptable outcome.  
38	The evidence includes a landscape concept plan that the parties agree should/could include greater reference to indigenous and native species.  The evidence also responds to changes advanced in ‘without prejudice’ permit conditions.  It recommends changes to the plans including more two storey dwellings instead of single storey dwellings in several blocks to provide a stronger and more prominent built form response rather than the limited number toward the corner of O’Hallorans and Patullos Roads.
Findings
Neighbourhood character
39	I agree with the Council’s submission that aspects of the development fail to adequately address the RDPs.  This includes building form along the Patullos Road and O’Hallorans Road boundaries where the RDPs seek to avoid built form that runs the entire length. The RDPs also seek physical breaks with landscape treatment between building form that must be integrated along the frontage.  
40	I accept the Council’s submission that the extent of continuous built form is not supported given the repetitious element of the design on both frontages and extent of attached form.  Where there is some separation (eg. between Lots 6 and 7 and between Lots 24 and 25) fencing aligns with the front of each dwelling to provide privacy for secluded private open spaces.  I appreciate that there is some landscaping intended forward of the fencing, within front setbacks and on-street, however, the landscape plan does not demonstrate to me that the impact would be sufficiently mitigated.  The recommended changes by conditions also do not persuade me that the proposal satisfactorily responds to the character outcomes sought for the MVDP and, more broadly, for Lara through clause 21.13.
41	Further, the dwellings facing O’Hallorans Road are ‘rear-loaded’ insofar as they have access from an internal road.  However, as the Council states, dwellings opposite face that internal road looking to garage doors and 1.8 metre high fencing to protect the privacy of secluded private open spaces (eg. Block B) with few windows.  The same is the case for dwellings in Block H that face the reserve and dwellings in Block N (which is on the main entry into Lot F from Manzeene Avenue).  Rear-loaded dwellings might expect a laneway servicing residential properties either side.  In the case of Block N, a row of visitor parking is opposite.  I agree with concerns about the visual treatment to this main entry.  Overall, I am unable to accept the applicant’s submission that the outcome provides an appropriate internal amenity and character.  The visual presence does not respond to the character of the Village as it has emerged and results in a streetscape character that limits passive surveillance.
42	The RDPs seek an architectural feature or statement to hold built form corner of Patullos and O’Hallorans Roads.  Three double storey dwellings are proposed on O’Hallorans Road and two double storey dwellings are proposed on the Patullos Road intersection. The Council does not believe that this design creates an ‘architectural feature or statement’ designed to anchor this corner.   I agree.  I note the recommendations from expert evidence are in part said to further strengthen the visual response to the corner.  However, the outcome still includes the side wall and 1.8 metre high fencing associated with a dwelling on Lot 17.  This fails to capture the intended urban design outcome and opportunity associated with this increasingly prominent and important corner location.
43	The RDPs seek a transition in lot sizes and setbacks along the northern interface with existing dwellings, with rear yards of a size to accommodate an upright narrow tree(s).  The setbacks for dwellings on Lots 69-73 are 3 metres and no trees (upright or otherwise) are shown on the landscape plan.  There are better opportunities associated with several dwellings further west where rear setbacks are deeper and staggered.  There is limited spacing between dwellings on Lots 62 and 66-73, running along the northern interface and this is also where some of the smallest proposed lots are located, rather than transitioning from the existing dwellings of lots of more than 500-600m2 in Cadence Avenue.
44	The officer recommended a setback of 4 metres for the northern dwellings and this is included in the ‘without prejudice’ conditions.  As indicated, the proposal is not acceptable as presented.  Changes are necessary to reduce the singular setback of the extended row of attached dwellings and to facilitate tree planting.
45	Ms Lunn refers to the Council officer’s clause 55 assessment that includes:
The development is of an extent and attached form that is at odds with the typical residential development located within the Manzeene Village estate and does not provide a high degree of response for preferred character guidance of the Manzeene Development Plan.
Character aspects for improvement include greater separation of dwellings, incorporation of typical footpath to accessways, increased opportunity for landscaping and relocation of visitor car parking away from primary entry allowing for scope to incorporate landscaping or dwelling presentation to Manzeene Avenue.
46	These are the basis of changes recommended by the officer and included in ‘without prejudice’ permit conditions. Those conditions are uncertain in my view and would not overcome the layout issues to which I have referred.
Pedestrian amenity and access
47	The internal roads are to be private and not public roads.  They will, however, be publicly accessible; this is not a gated community.
48	In addition to issues about the presentation of several internal roads with the backs of dwellings, garages and high fencing (as referred to above) the Council is concerned about the network of 1 metre wide “trafficable footpaths” that form part of the road.  This treatment was opposed by the Urban Design Unit but was not identified as an issue in the Engineering Services responses, based on the information within the officer’s report to the Council.
49	The applicant submits the design response includes safe, accessible and attractive pedestrian spaces through the provision of 1.5 metre wide footpaths to Patullos and O’Hallorans Roads, 1.0 metre wide footpaths on one side of the internal road network, and a pedestrian connection from Manzeene Avenue through to O’Halloran’s Road. Landscaping in front gardens, visible dwelling entries and windows will provide visual interest and public surveillance.  The officer’s report recommended an additional internal pedestrian footpath but, based on Mr Fetterplace’s evidence, the applicant submits this is not required.  His evidence includes that it is:
unnecessary to provide a separated path between vehicles and pedestrians as the common driveway is not a municipal road subject to high vehicle movement numbers and speeds, but a slow vehicle moving shared space. The inclusion of low level landscaping between a separated path has the potential to cause efficiency, maintenance and safety issues, inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 55 of the planning scheme.
50	A photograph of a “trafficable footpath” in Pakenham was shown at the hearing.  I could not be referred to any similar form in the Manzeene Village or other growth areas in Greater Geelong.
51	The internal road network is intended as a shared space.  However, the 1 metre wide “trafficable footpath” does not persuade me that the focus on walkability and pedestrian amenity is adequately achieved.  The assessing officer said the pedestrian experience internal to this site should be given greater consideration.  I agree.
52	The MVDP refers to a network of safe walking and cycling paths that are integrated with public open space and the local street network, within a broader planning context of providing a high degree of internal permeability and promote alternative transport modes.  In addition, Figure 14 of the MVDP describes road profiles with 1.5 metre pedestrian footpaths.  A separate footpath would minimise potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.  I am not persuaded the provision of a separate footpath/s demonstrably gives/ rise to potential efficiency, maintenance and safety issues as advanced as issues in the expert evidence.
Landscaping
53	I have referred to a landscape plan that was appended to the planning evidence and its focus on exotic vegetation.   A different planting theme should be adopted as applies elsewhere in the Village and through the Design Principles and Landscape Master Plan.
Open space
54	No communal open space is proposed.  All dwellings have an area of secluded private open space of more than 25m2 with around one third having areas of more than 30m2 (several are considerably larger than this figure).  
55	The Council submits the proposal is not consistent with the strategies of clause 21.08-4 (Open Space) as it does not provide for open space to the site where the residential density is proposed to be increased. Clause 21.08-4 encourages the enhancement to open space provision in the private and public realms when residential densities are increased, and this is considered lacking with this proposal.  As noted by the assessing officer, Ms Lunn submits ideally, a communal space would be provided somewhere central to the site, of a size that can cater to the proposed use by residents and allow opportunity for provision of substantial landscaping, including canopy trees. The open space could also serve as a convenient location for adjacent visitor car parking, away from the main entry, providing for convenient use by all.
56	The applicant submits that there is no statutory requirement for additional open space on the land having regard to the approved subdivision of Manzeene Village and the MVDP.  In terms of clause 21.08-4, the applicant notes that the Manzeene Village provides public open space in the form of the Manzeene linear park and as well as encumbered land within the Manzeene Village, noting the subject land is only 250 metres from the linear park.
57	The Council submits that 38 dwellings have three or more bedrooms and fail to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of the residents given the potential for these dwellings to house a family.  Ms Lunn submits it would be reasonable to expect that those dwellings would provide a minimum of 40m2.   It is not clear from the plans how many of the dwellings each has a total area of 40m2.   
58	I note that Manzeene Village public open space/parkland is located some 350 to 400 metres to the north-east of the site although there is the available reserve to the south-east of the subject land and another proposed within the Lara West precinct.  
59	The RDPs do not require additional communal open space, noting the drainage reserve will allow public access.  The RDPs state that any communal open space should be consolidated (where possible) to ensure useability.  I have not refused a permit because there is no communal open space.  Having said that, a development of lesser intensity should be able to increase open space provision for larger dwellings and/or potentially include a communal area.
Conclusion
60	For the above reasons, I find the proposal does not achieve an acceptable outcome when assessed against the RDPs in the MVDP, and clauses 32.08 and 55 with respect to built form and character outcomes.
clause 55 response
61	The applicant submits that the proposal demonstrates excellent compliance with all standards and objectives of clause 55.
62	My earlier findings are relevant to my assessment under clause 55 with respect to neighbourhood character (clause 55.02-1), landscaping (standard B13, 55.03-8), safety and passive surveillance (clause 55.03-7), location of visitor parking (55.03-10) and open space provision (clause 55.05-4).  I find the relevant objectives are not met.
63	An additional issue identified by the Council is that multiple dwellings rely on an internal lightwell to meet the scheme’s daylight requirement to a bedroom: lots 20/21, 22/23, 25/26, 27/28, 29/30, 38/39, 40/41, 42/43, 44/45, 46/47, 48/49 and 66/67.  The Council submits this indicates an overdevelopment of the site and is not warranted in Lara (not to the extent proposed). In response, the applicant submits standard B19 is met and therefore the objective to clause 55.04-3 is met.  Ms Sharp notes that this was accepted in the officer’s assessment.  
64	The relevant standard is B27.  It appears to be met.  The objective of clause 55.05-3 is therefore met.
BUSHFIRE
65	Part of the subject land is within a bushfire prone area:

66	Clause 13.02-1S requires that in a bushfire prone area, bushfire risk should be considered when assessing planning applications for certain uses and development.  When assessing a planning permit application for this use and development, I must:
•	Consider the risk of bushfire to people, property and community infrastructure. 
•	Require the implementation of appropriate bushfire protection measures to address the identified bushfire risk. 
•	Ensure new development can implement bushfire protection measures without unacceptable biodiversity impacts.
67	The permit application was referred to the Country Fire Authority.  It recommended conditions to be included on any permit issued.  Conditions have not been opposed by the applicant.
68	Having considered the matters in clause 13.02-1S, taking into account the advice of the CFA, I find bushfire protection measures should be able to be implemented through permit conditions to address the identified bushfire risk.
CONCLUSION
69	When weighing all relevant matters as I am required to under clause 71.02, I am unable to conclude that the proposal achieves an acceptable outcome.  I am not persuaded that the proposal’s contribution to housing diversity and other housing goals outweigh my findings that the layout and resultant amenity of the development do not adequately respond to the RDPs and MVDP.  The dwelling intensity is too great, resulting in multiple unacceptable design and layout compromises.  I find the proposal does not achieve an acceptable outcome under clause 32.08 and fails to achieve several clause 55 objectives.
70	For the above reasons, no permit is granted.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member