VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P532/2021
Permit Application no. P340/2020 	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a refusal to grant a permit; Brimbank Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone 1 – Incremental Change Areas; nine (9) double storey dwellings and reduction of visitor parking; repeat appeal; neighbourhood character; reverse living; detailed design; landscaping; amenity and car parking.	

Applicant	ALX Ventures Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Brimbank City Council	
Respondents	Dianne Jansen & Frank Jansen	

SUBJECT LAND	52-56 Selwyn Street
ALBION VIC 3020	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	29 October 2021	

DATE OF ORDER	23 November 2021	

CITATION	ALX Ventures Pty Ltd v Brimbank CC [2021] VCAT 1405   	

Order
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
Amended plans		
Prepared by:	Grove Architecture	
Drawing numbers:	TP00 – TP18 inclusive	
Revision:	V	
Dated:	08/09/2021	
3D Perspectives		
Prepared by:	Grove Architecture	
Drawing numbers:	TP20 – TP30 inclusive	
Revision: 	I	
Dated:	04/11/2020 and updated on 08/09/2021	
Landscape plan		
Prepared by:	Faulkner and Chapman Landscape Design	
Drawing number:	01	
Dated:	07/09/2021	
2	In application P532/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
3	In planning permit application P340/2020 no permit is granted.

Christopher Harty
Member			

Appearances
For ALX Ventures Pty Ltd	Mr Mark Stanojevic, Town Planner from Ask Planning Services Pty Ltd	
For Brimbank City Council	Ms Irene Plakidis, Town Planner from Refine Town Planning	
For Dianne Jansen and Frank Jansen	Mrs Dianne Jansen	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of nine (9) double storey dwellings and a reduction of car parking associated with one visitor car parking space. 	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Brimbank Planning Scheme. 	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 1 – Incremental Change Areas (GRZ1)
Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 2 – Brimbank Development Contributions Plan (DCPO2)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 - to construct two or more dwellings on a lot	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 18, 21.02, 21.04, 21.06, 21.07, 21.10, 22.02, 32.08, 45.06, 52.06, 53.18, 55, 65 and 71.02   	
Land description	The site is on the west side of Selwyn Street and located at the corner of Delmont Street.  It comprises three lots – Nos. 52, 54 and 56.  It has a combined Selwyn Street frontage of 54.55m, a depth of 28.7m and a total area of 1,863sqm.  Each lot contains a single storey detached house.  Council advises No. 58, at the corner of Selwyn and Dalworth Streets, has a permit to construct three double storey dwellings on it.  
On the opposite side of Selwyn Street is Selwyn Park.  	
Tribunal inspection	19 November 2021 unaccompanied   	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	ALX Ventures Pty Ltd (applicant) seek planning permission to construct nine (9) double storey dwellings on the combined three lots at Nos. 52, 54 and 56 Selwyn Street in Albion (site).  Figures 1 and 2 show the site and its relationship with Selwyn Park opposite.  Brimbank City Council (Council) determined on 4 February 2021 to refuse to grant a permit.  The applicant has lodged a review of Council’s decision.

Figure 1: The site opposite Selwyn Park

Figure 2: The site comprising 52, 54 and 56 Selwyn Street
2	The proposed design is for dwellings 1 to 8 to front Selwyn Street and dwelling 9 facing Delmont Street with dwelling 8 wrapping around the corner with sideage to Delmont Street (refer to Figures 3 to 5).  The design includes four of the dwellings with a traditional layout of living areas at the ground floor.  Five of the dwellings have a 'reverse living' layout with the principal living areas at first floor level.  These ‘reverse living’ layouts propose balconies facing Selwyn Park across the road to the east.

Figure 3: Perspective view from Selwyn Street

Figure 4: Ground floor plan

Figure 5: First floor plan
3	Council says the proposal for nine (9) dwellings is an uncomfortable fit for the site.  It says the proposal is of an intensity and layout which is unacceptable and is asking too much of the site because it is too tightly packed and an overdevelopment.
4	The respondent, Ms Dianne Jansen (objector), agrees with Council and says the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.  She says the proposal risks increasing traffic safety with additional vehicle movements and car parking and will also be unable to place bins out for waste collection due to the extent of frontage taken up by crossovers and on-street parking.
5	The applicant refutes these concerns and says the proposal is an appropriate response to the concerns expressed in an earlier Tribunal decision and is an acceptable outcome that responds to the policy and provisions of the Brimbank Planning Scheme.  The applicant says the site is in the General Residential Zone where housing growth and diversity are encouraged.  The applicant says the proposal for nine (9) dwellings is a realistic and acceptable outcome in this area.  This is because the site is on a corner location comprising three consolidated lots of more than 1,800 square metres.  It is next to the opposite corner lot at 58 Selwyn Street, which has planning approval for three double storey dwellings in a similar format.  The proposed density is reflective of recent approvals where three dwellings on a lot has been approved or developed.  The applicant says it follows that nine (9) dwellings across three lots can also be considered a reasonable outcome.  
previous decision 
6	As mentioned by the applicant, this is the second application to come before the Tribunal to develop the site (Keyway case).  
7	The Keyway case was determined by Senior Member Naylor and involved a similar development comprising nine (9) double storey dwellings on the site.  The previous permit application, like the current matter, was refused by Council.  The Tribunal affirmed the previous decision.  The parties have variously referred to Senior Member Naylor’s decision in their submissions.  
8	The parties refer to the principles of ‘repeat appeals’, articulated in many Tribunal decisions and re-stated in Zumpano and Sprut.  Relevant factors to consider when reviewing an application that is similar to a proposal that has been the subject of previous Tribunal findings are:
•	significant changes in the application itself;
•	changes in the circumstances of the land and its surrounds;
•	changes in planning policy; and/or
•	changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration.
9	As set out in Sprut, proceedings described as ‘repeat appeals’ are not determined by whether the proposal would have satisfied the earlier (and perhaps differently constituted) Tribunal, nor by summarily determining the matter solely by reference to the usually-applied principles or factors.  Rather, the Tribunal must consider the new application before it on its merits.  The Tribunal is not bound by the previous Tribunal decision but, in considering the merits of the new proposal, great weight should be given to the Tribunal’s decision on the earlier application having regard to principles that have evolved for this purpose.     
10	It is clear that, in respect of this matter, it is in the nature of a ‘correcting’ repeat appeal in that the proposal has made various changes in an attempt to address the earlier Tribunal’s reasons for refusing to grant a permit.   
11	I acknowledge that regarding the relevant factors of ‘repeat appeals’, there have been no significant changes in the circumstances of the site or surrounds, to planning policy or in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration.  However, there have been changes in the proposal itself.
12	In this case, the relevance and weight to be given to the previous decision must take into account what changes have occurred to the proposal.  
13	The Keyway case outlined the following key findings: 
•	That the layout of the proposed dwellings in general terms was acceptable.
•	That the extent of attached form in Delmont Street and the use of a reverse living style of housing for dwelling 8 were aspects which did not acceptably respond and fit in to Delmont Street.
•	That the requirement for one visitor car space is appropriate to waive.
•	That the design of vehicle access to dwelling 7 in Delmont Street was not acceptable.
•	That dwelling 1 did not comply with Standard B17 regarding setback from the southern side boundary and requires modification.
•	That the flat and skillion roof forms and extent of cantilevered elements along Selwyn Street are acceptable.
•	That the extent of attached form and cantilevered elements in Delmont Street were not acceptable and greater separation at ground and first floors and the extent of first floor cantilevering needed consideration and attention.
•	That the reverse living layout for the dwellings fronting Selwyn Street was an acceptable feature of the proposal.
14	The current proposal has made the following design changes in response to the previous Tribunal concerns:
•	Dwellings 7 and 8 have been re-oriented to front Selwyn Street allowing for a substantial first floor break between these dwellings and dwelling 9.
•	Deletion of cantilevers along Delmont Street.
•	Dwelling 8 oriented to face Selwyn Park in a reverse living format.
•	The crossovers along Delmont Street positioned to ensure adequate clearance to the corner including an amalgamated crossing.
•	Compliance with Standards B17 and B20 is fully achieved along the southern boundary (under existing conditions and when considering the future townhouse development at 58 Selwyn Street), achieved through the incorporation of greater setbacks and chamfered walls.
15	The applicant described additional changes as a result of responding to a request for further information and with the substituted amended plans.  Some of these changes, as relevant, include:
•	Revised entry design to dwellings 1 to 6 fronting Selwyn Street with all doors moved to face the driveway and large operable windows included to face the street directly which improve surveillance, daylight, and cross ventilation opportunities.
•	Front setbacks increased to match the setback at 58 Selwyn Street of 6.5 metres with garages set deeper into the site making them more recessive and tandem parking spacious (setbacks ranged from 6.5 metres to 5.99 metres with variations to Standard B6 of 300 to 500mm mainly associated with dwellings 6, 7 and 8).
•	First floor north façade of dwellings 8 and 9 facing Delmont Street redesigned for a more traditional pitched roof look.
16	My decision considers the proposal before me on its merits, assessed against the relevant provisions and policies in the Brimbank Planning Scheme (planning scheme).  The question before me is, does the proposal represent an acceptable planning outcome on its merits, such that a permit should be granted?
What are the key issues?
17	The issues raised within the context of this review relate generally to the design response of the proposed development to the physical and policy context of the area, amenity, and traffic considerations.  Having heard the submissions and inspected the site and locality, the key issues arising from this proposal are:
•	Whether the proposal respects neighbourhood character?
•	Whether the site layout and amenity response is acceptable?
•	Whether parking is appropriate? 
18	I must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the planning scheme.  Net community benefit is central in reaching a conclusion.  Clause 71.02-3 – Integrated Decision Making of the planning 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.  
Test to be met – ‘acceptable planning outcome’
19	It needs to be understood that VCAT hearings have a particular purpose – to focus on the acceptability or otherwise of the particular design being presented to the Tribunal, now being the Revision V plans that I have substituted as the plans before me.
20	I say ‘acceptable’ on the basis of the Supreme Court case of Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd confirming this to be the standard that needs to be met by planning permit applications.  So, planning proposals do not need to be ideal or perfect, but equally they cannot be sub-standard.
21	I note and agree with the comment of Senior Member Naylor in paragraph 2 of the Keyway case that:
Assessing the merits of a planning application for multiple dwellings does not focus upon the number of dwellings.  Rather, planning policies focus on the acceptability of the design.  If the design response is acceptable, so too are the number of dwellings within the design.  
22	Assessment of proposals is not a numbers game in terms of dwelling yield or a ‘tick a box’ approach in terms of responding to planning provisions.  It is about the design response and this is what is called for by the planning scheme. 
Summary of findings
23	With this proposed development I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the planning scheme, I find the proposal represents an unacceptable outcome and does not appropriately respond to its physical and policy context for the area.
24	I acknowledge that the proposal has made significant changes in a genuine attempt to address the concerns outlined in the Keyway case.  
25	I accept the concept of the dwellings facing Selwyn Park and the use of ‘reverse living’ design that capitalises on this aspect.  I also accept the earlier Tribunal’s findings that waiver of the one visitor car parking space is acceptable. 
26	However, I agree with Council that the changes have not fully addressed other design concerns with the proposal.  I find there are a number of design features that, individually, may not be significant, but cumulatively, result in a sub-standard design outcome.  In my view, these design features, together, represent a proposal that is seeking too much from the site and an overdevelopment.  These design features include:
•	A reliance on a chamfered wall design for dwelling 1 to the southern side boundary setback, as apart from first floor recession, that, although meets the requirements of Standard B17, continue to relate poorly to the existing dwelling to the south at 58 Selwyn Street and to the development approved for that site.
•	The failure to retain, as part of the design, two large canopy trees located at the rear of 56 Selwyn Street, which are identified, in an arboricultural sense, as having medium retention value, that does not respond to the policy for retaining existing canopy trees.
•	The lack of functional external access between the front and rear areas of dwellings 3 and 5 forcing future occupants to use internal areas such as bedroom 2 in each instance to access the rear open space areas for maintenance.
•	The design response to the corner of Selwyn and Delmont Streets with dwelling 7 not having a more direct means of access between the garage and the dwelling and dwelling 8 lacking a service yard area that is out of view from the public realm.  The design response to the corner generally requires further consideration.           
27	Accordingly, I have decided to affirm the decision of Council and that a permit is not granted.  My reasons follow.
Whether the proposal respects neighbourhood character? 
28	The site is located in the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 – Incremental Change Areas (GRZ1) and is not affected by overlays that guide built form design.  The GRZ1 supports housing diversity and growth.  Clause 21.07-1 – Residential Growth seeks to accommodate appropriate residential growth in identified locations and supports increased residential densities in the GRZ.
29	However, residential growth is supported within a sphere of respecting neighbourhood character.  Apart from State policy under Clause 15.01-5S – Neighbourhood character, local policies under Clause 21.07-3 – Residential Design reinforce this aspiration by acknowledging that new development will respect neighbourhood character in terms of siting, colours and finishes, setbacks, design detail, and landscape setting.
30	The planning scheme does not contain specified policies to guide preferred neighbourhood character, so any design response is required to respond to existing neighbourhood character.  In this regard, Clause 21.07-3 seeks to promote development that is well designed, innovative and responds to its location and context.  In this setting, the site is a large, relatively flat area of land with few development constraints.  One of the few constraints is the presence of two canopy trees located at the rear of 56 Selwyn Street.   
31	The GRZ1 and policy under Clause 21.07-3 encourages incremental change and recognises that change will occur.  Change is evident in this area.  The objector identified that the broader Albion area has strong historical links with the H.V. McKay ‘garden city’ movement of the early 1900s.  Past development has occurred in the suburb which has been perceived as resulting in poor outcomes and a diminution of the ‘garden city’ design ethos and character of the area.
32	The site and surrounds currently exude a low scale, detached and spacious garden character that is very much evident of what occurred post-war and in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.  However, there is also evidence of change with contemporary development evident, with modern additions to existing dwellings and medium density housing development. 
33	The proposal is of a contemporary two-storey design.  Dwellings 1 to 8 all front Selwyn Street and face Selwyn Park across the road.  Dwellings 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 all have been designed in a ’reverse living’ format with primary open space areas set aside as first-floor balconies looking towards Selwyn Park.  I am comfortable with this form of design aspect.  
34	I note Council did not support this design aspect, primarily from a policy position because Clause 21.07-1 only encourages reverse living in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ).  I note the concept of reverse living was accepted in the Keyway case and I also consider it an acceptable design response.  First-floor living areas and balconies oriented towards Selwyn Park will provide an attractive outlook for occupants of the proposal, whilst also providing a level of passive surveillance over the street and parklands.  
35	I also consider the use of materials, finishes and roof design to be a contemporary design that is respectful and an acceptable response.  
36	Despite my view regarding the reverse living aspect of the proposal and the benefits of the orientation towards Selwyn Park, I am not convinced the approach to the side-by-side or terrace style layout of the proposal is acceptable.  I say this because the site is on a prominent corner, which is a result of the hexagonal street network that surrounds Selwyn Park (refer to Figure 6).  The combination of corner prominence and position opposite a large community parkland (Figure 7) highlights the sensitivity of the site to the public realm and heightens the importance of the policy intent for well-designed, innovative, and responsive design to location and context.

Figure 6: The prominence of the site on a corner approaching from the north
37	Council is concerned the design response to Selwyn Street is too tight with the extent of built form, minimal spacing, excessive hard paving in the street setbacks and lack of landscaping resulting in an outcome that is too imposing to the streetscape.  It is the narrow built form of dwellings 1 to 6 which are limited to a garage door, window and an entry door that faces side-on to the driveway and is oblique to the street that creates a sense of tightness across the Selwyn Street frontage.  Only dwellings 7, 8 and 9 provide a wider ground floor façade where ground floor surveillance is provided with habitable room windows.

Figure 7: The site viewed from Selwyn Park
38	Dwellings 1 to 6 present to Selwyn Street as three sets of attached built form to two-storeys separated by a combined width of 2 metres.  Council says the combination of attachment with upper levels that are not significantly recessed, and which include cantilevered form and window and balcony boxing, adds to the sense of overpowering form and limited space for landscaping.
39	The lack of space for landscaping is reflected in the extent of hardstand.  This is a combination of driveways and double crossovers and the lack of retention of mature canopy trees that add to the landscape character of the neighbourhood and complement the vegetation found within Selwyn Park.
40	With respect to the dominance of garages across the frontage, I am reminded of the decision by Member Liston in Kostarakis v Moonee Valley CC [2015] VCAT 1695 where consideration was given to the dominance of garages in an application for row houses, stating in paragraphs 12 and 13:
As described above, dwellings one and two and dwellings seven and eight are relatively narrow side-by-side dwellings located either end of the land.  The issue in question is the dominance of the proposed garages in respect of these dwellings and their relationship to neighbourhood character. 
The garage for dwelling one occupies 75% of its front facade and the garage for dwelling two occupies 62% of its front facade.  These statistics would be similar for dwellings seven and eight.  In my experience when these percentages are greater than 50%, then the dominance of the garage is in the streetscape becomes a matter of concern.
41	Considering the proposal, I note that based on proposed garage widths of 3.5 metres, the percentage of front façade of each dwelling fronting Selwyn Street occupied by garages are approximately 50% for dwellings 1, 2 and 4, 54% for dwellings 3 and 5 and 58% for dwelling 6.  These percentages reflect the threshold concerns referred to by Member Liston.  
42	The applicant says the ground floor presentation to the street is addressed by using wide operable windows, which provide both daylight and solar access and offer an outlook to the street from the ground floor hallways of the dwellings.  Despite this design response, I find the extent of occupation of the façade of each dwelling taken up by the proposed garages excessive and not consistent with the policy for them not to dominate streetscapes.  Generally, with the exception of two of the townhouses at 50 Selwyn Street, this lack of ground floor street activation is not evident in the neighbourhood.  
43	Council is also concerned that the extent of landscaping is insufficient and does not retain two large canopy trees at the rear of 56 Selwyn Street.  These trees include a Brush Box (Lophostemon confertus) which has a height of 13 metres and canopy width of 9 metres and a Snow in Summer (Melaleuca linariifolia) which has a height of 10 metres and a canopy width of 9.5 metres.  Both trees were assessed by the applicant’s arborist as having medium retention value.  Policy under Clause 21.07 recognises the value of landscaping and Standard B13 under Clause 55.03-8 – Landscaping objectives encourages the retention of mature vegetation on the site.         
44	The proposal has not sought to retain these trees, yet their size is demonstrated to contribute, despite their location at the rear of 56 Selwyn Street, to the leafy character that is established by the extent of vegetation opposite the site and around Selwyn Park (refer to Figures 2 and 7).  I acknowledge that there are no tree controls under the planning scheme.  However, I accept that these types of large, mature canopy trees are of value, particularly when they are not in poor health and when they provide a backdrop to built form and can complement proposed landscaping and other existing canopy trees in the neighbourhood.  The presence of large canopy trees in private gardens is not extensive and much of the large canopy tree presence in the neighbourhood is provided by either street trees or trees within Selwyn Park.  The retention of these trees would achieve both maintenance of landscape character and assist with buffering the proposal to the residential property to the west.  
45	The conclusion that I reach is that the proposal is too intense for the Selwyn Street frontage.
Whether the site layout and amenity response is acceptable?
46	Council was critical of some of the detailed design aspects of the proposal including poor surveillance at ground floor level, lack of space for landscaping and poor functionality of dwellings due to lack of separation, inadequate setbacks, and limited landscaping.
47	Despite the proposed use of single garages and large operable windows facing the street, the small façade widths of each dwelling and the limited opportunity for habitable room windows at ground floor level results in a design that I consider fails to provide activation to the street.  It fails to appropriately respect the neighbourhood character and policy direction under Clause 21.07-3 where housing in the locality provides good activation and surveillance from habitable room windows at ground floor level and not solely from first floor habitable room windows.  I do acknowledge that the reverse living balconies would provide for some surveillance from living rooms associated with dwellings 1, 3 and 5, but at first floor level and not at ground floor level.
48	One of the constraints with a side-by-side attached built form typology on lots with an east-west orientation is that, inevitably there are dwellings located on the south side of the development which restricts solar access.  I am comfortable that daylight access can be achieved, however, limited access to sunlight penetration into active habitable rooms can be problematic.   
49	I note that the proposal was supported by a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA), which was required by Clause 22.02 – Environmentally Sustainable Development, which identified a BESS score of 55% representing achievement of best practice for the proposal.    
50	I note the proposal has attempted to address solar access deficiencies by using a reverse living format for dwellings 1, 3, 5 and 7 that are located on the south side of the attached built form formats.  This alleviates the issue to a degree by allowing eastern or morning sunlight to penetrate the open space balconies and living room areas on the first-floor levels.  Unfortunately, the kitchen areas in each of these dwellings, being located towards the back of the living area space, may present as lacking in solar access and without skylights or the like, will have poor daylight access and require lighting for functionality.   
51	Improvements could be made including separation at first floor levels, however, this is not what is before me.
52	The functionality and amenity of dwellings 3, 5 and 6 is a concern with respect to the ability to access both the front and rear open space areas for maintenance without the benefit of external access.  For these dwellings, an occupant would need to access the rear open space area through a bedroom or living room area.  I consider this a reflection of poor functionality of the dwelling and representative of too intense a design response with regard to spacing between dwellings in a side-by-side typology.
53	Dwelling 8 lacks a service area that would be out of view of the public realm.  It is the dwelling that hugs the corner of the site on Selwyn and Delmont Streets.  I have recognised that it is a prominent corner and exposed to the public realm (refer to Figures 6 and 7).  I note changes to lower the height of fencing on this corner and to allow greater visibility of proposed landscaping.  However, there is no location for a clothesline and the applicant’s response that a clothes hoist could be located on the balcony equally exposes an amenity issue to the public realm where this dwelling is more highly exposed as part of this development.
54	Generally, I find this is a poor design response and one that contributes in a cumulative sense to a proposal that is unacceptable in design outcome.
55	The setback and interface response to 58 Selwyn Street to the south is another matter that I have a concern with.  This was an issue raised in the Keyway case and the applicant changed the design to introduce a chamfer roofline to achieve numerical compliance with Standard B17.
56	This is noted, but I remain uncomfortable that a more genuine response that includes increasing the side boundary setback at first floor level to make it more recessive was not applied.  The sloping of the roofline is considered a change that does not go far enough and is minimal in nature.
57	Generally, the proposal seeks to retain its original concept and has sought to tweak some design aspects and included a re-arranged corner design that either fails to materially address design issues or introduces new ones.
58	Together the issues result in a proposal that does not appropriately respond to the characteristics and context of the neighbourhood and creates amenity and functionality issues that are not satisfactorily addressed.
Whether parking is appropriate? 
59	The proposal seeks a waiver of one car parking space for visitor purposes.  As addressed in the Keyway case, I accept and agree with Senior Member Naylor’s findings and support the visitor parking waiver.
60	I acknowledge that Council and the objector were concerned regarding traffic safety from additional vehicle movements and on-street parking and the effect of introducing three double crossovers to Selwyn Street and one double and one single crossover to Delmont Street.  Safety issues were also highlighted by the width of the double crossovers to 5.8 instead of 6 metres and the effects that will have on space for on-street parking and the potential for conflict between residents’ cars reversing out from driveways and any on-street parking.
61	Generally, I am not concerned these impacts will be significant.  The site is close to forms of public transport including Sunshine Railway Station and vehicles manoeuvring between the site and the road network can occur at slow speeds and with good sightlines to minimise potential traffic and pedestrian safety hazards.  
Other matters
62	There was concern about a tree located on adjoining land at 1 Delmont Street to the west of proposed dwelling 9 and impacts on the tree from the carport and driveway works associated dwelling 9 and the extent of encroachment.  I am not so concerned with this because the existing shed and driveway at 52 Selwyn Street probably already affects the root system of that tree, which does not show signs of detrimental effect.
Conclusion
63	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.  No permit is granted.

Christopher Harty
Member