VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P544/2021
Permit Application no. M/2020/357	
CATCHWORDS	
Maroondah planning scheme;  Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 3 (NRZ3), Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 3 (SLO3); Proposal for 35 dwellings and vegetation removal; Neighbourhood character; Site responsive design; Vegetation removal; Landscaping adequacy; Off-site amenity impacts; Traffic, parking and pedestrian access.  	

Applicant	Bayswater North Development Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Maroondah City Council	
Respondent	Mary Jacinta Ingram	
SUBJECT LAND	191-193 Bayswater Road
BAYSWATER NORTH  VIC  3153	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	11, 12 and 13 October 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	31 March 2022	
CITATION	Bayswater North Development Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2022] VCAT 356	

Order
Amend permit application
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Jesse Ant Architects
•	Drawing numbers:	TP201 to TP204, TP301 to TP309, TP401 to TP409 and TP501 to TP503 all inclusive, Revision E
•	Dated:	26 July 2021
No permit granted
2	In application P544/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
3	In planning permit application M/2020/357 no permit is granted.

Mary-Anne Taranto
Member			
Appearances
For applicant	Mr Reto Hoffman, solicitor of Rigby Cooke Lawyers
He called the following witnesses:
•	Mr John Patrick, landscape architect of John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd
•	Mr William Bromhead, town planner of Ratio consultants Pty Ltd
•	Ms Charmaine Dunstan, traffic engineer of Traffix Group Pty Ltd	
For responsible authority	Ms Morgan Livingstone, town planner of SongBowden Planning Pty Ltd	
For respondent	Ms Mary Ingram, in person	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of 35 dwellings, all 2-storeys in scale, comprising 10 x two bedrooms, 11 x three bedrooms and 14 x four bedroom dwellings. A total of 60 car spaces for residents, in either garages or at-grade, and seven visitor spaces are proposed. All vehicle and pedestrian access is to occur via Jasmine Road on the site’s north side with circulation through the site via a proposed round-about treatment.  The dwellings are broadly arranged in two main wings either side of an east-west internal driveway. The design of the dwellings adopt contemporary rectilinear forms with skillion roofs. External materials include brick, render applied to light weight cladding and feature vertical aluminium cladding. 
The removal of 65 trees is also proposed while seven trees are to be retained.   	
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.	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 3 (Canopy Cover Ridgeline Protection) (NRZ3)
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 3 (Wicklow Hills Ridge and Loughnan Warranwood Ridge Landscape Protection Area) (SLO3)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-6 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in NRZ3
Clause 42.03-2 – Vegetation removal in SLO3 (43 trees)	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22.02, 52.06, 53.18, 55, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The review site is at the rear of and forms part of a larger 1.224 hectare irregular shaped parcel which presently has a frontage of 40m to Bayswater Road. The land is occupied by  a number of buildings, carparking and play areas for a long established use offering a variety of health and educational services for children with autism (Irabina). These features are heavily screened by existing vegetation in the western portion of the site.   The front part of the site has the benefit of a planning permit granted by the Council in March 2021 for a child-care centre, vegetation removal and altered access to Bayswater Road.
That part of the review site for this proposal comprises an area of approximately 9776sqm, with an east boundary dimension of 44.63m and depth of approximately 192.38m.  Unless otherwise specified, my references to the ‘site’ hereafter will mean the eastern part of the land which is the subject of the permit application now under review.  The site has a 1.83m wide easement which runs along its north and east boundaries. A third arm to the easement also bisects the site in a north-south direction, running between Jasmine Court and the south boundary.
The site falls moderately from south to north by and towards the north-west, the latter by as much as 6.4m. Re-shaping of the natural landform has occurred resulting in steep embankments along parts of the north and south sides to create a flatter central portion comprising fill and cut respectively. 
There are 72 trees on the site, 65 which are proposed for removal under this proposal.	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied after the hearing.	

Reasons

background
1	Bayswater North Development Pty Ltd (the applicant) is seeking a review of the Maroondah City Council’s failure to determine an application for a planning permit within the prescribed time. 
2	In bringing this review, the applicant relies on amended plans which I substituted at the start of the hearing for those that formed part of the permit application.
3	The Council does not support the now amended proposal. In essence, it says that the proposal is too intense for this location where the NRZ3 and SLO3 applies and that inadequate space would be available for a suitable landscaping response capable of compensating for the extent of tree removal.  As a consequence, the Council asserts that the proposal would fail to meet landscape and neighbourhood character outcomes that the planning scheme expects for this location and would provide poor levels of on-site amenity.
4	The Council also raises concerns with pedestrian access and access by waste collection vehicles.
5	These concerns are broadly supported in the statement of grounds by Ms Ingram. Additional traffic impacts on the surrounding local road network and overlooking are further issues raised.
6	Relying on its submissions and expert evidence in relation to planning and landscaping matters by Mr Bromhead and Mr Patrick respectively, the applicant contends that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between housing objectives, on the one hand and neighbourhood character, environmental and residential amenity outcomes, on the other hand.  The proposal is said to be one that is responsive to surrounding conditions on land that Mr Bromhead describes as an island site. The extent of vegetation retention supplemented by new landscaping and the design and siting of the proposed dwellings are all also said to be superior to surrounding development.
7	Through the traffic engineering evidence of Ms Dunstan, it is the applicant’s position that the site can adequately achieve appropriate and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access without unacceptable impacts on road safety, capacity or amenity.
8	I consider that the determinative issues in this case are:
•	The acceptability of on-site amenity including the design and appearance of the internal driveway network; 
•	Neighbourhood character considerations including the whether the design and siting of the dwellings and space for landscaping and tree retention is responsive to the features of the site and its surrounds;
•	Adequacy of parking, traffic and access arrangements.
9	Assisted by my inspection and having considered the submissions, evidence, various documents tabled and the relevant policies and provisions of the planning scheme I have concluded that the proposal is not an acceptable one and a permit must not be granted.  Primarily, I have found that the development is too intense and has not responded in an acceptable way to the features of the site and its surrounds, particularly topographical features. I have also found that too little space would be available to achieve an acceptable landscaping and neighbourhood character outcome.
10	My detailed reasons follow.    
physical context
11	The following image shows the different uses and development proposed for the east and west portions of the site, extracted from Mr Bromhead’s statement of evidence.

12	The review site is located within an outer suburban location in Bayswater North where surrounding use and development is predominantly residential interspersed with other community uses.
13	The site has a abuttals with 20 other dwellings, due in part to the site’s abuttal with existing multi-dwelling developments. This can be appreciated from the aerial photograph below.

Source: Nearmap

14	Abutting dwellings to the south comprise:
•	Three single storey timber dwellings at 195 Bayswater Road.
•	Fourteen 2-storey dwellings which were the subject of a permit granted by the council in 2013 for 197 Bayswater Road.  A number of permit conditions on the permit were the subject of a review in 2014 before a different division of the Tribunal in Travwest Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2014] VCAT 263 (Travwest). The site and surrounding land was in a Residential 1 Zone at the time and the SLO3 applied.
•	Multi-dwellings at 33-41 Home Street, six of which appear to abut the review site including some 2-storey forms with a backyard interface to the review site;
15	Abutting the site to the east are three detached dwellings comprising 12, 13 and 14 Kyamba Court with a backyard interface. A small park and playground also abuts the site at 11 Kyamba Court. Vegetation cover is typically denser, and has a more informal quality, on and in the vicinity of these properties.
16	Abutting dwellings to the north comprise the following:
•	East of Jasmine Court:
o	A single storey dwelling, the rear most of three dwellings at 16 Central Avenue, which has an open, spacious and exposed backyard and habitable room windows facing the review site;
o	A single storey dwelling at 3 Jasmine Road set within mature treed surrounds including a large cypress tree;
•	West of Jasmine Court:
o	At 4 Jasmine Court, a single storey dwelling with a carport and outbuilding sited on the common boundary and a row of habitable room windows facing the review site;
o	At 3/4A Central Avenue, is a recently constructed double storey brick dwelling with a hipped tiled roof. The rear yard abuts the subject site and there are habitable room windows facing the review site;
o	At 189 Bayswater Road, two rows of older style attached single storey units with what appears to be a common garden area at the rear. Some habitable room windows face the site.
17	In the broader area are similar residential properties, a small group of shops on the corner of Tintern Avenue and Bayswater Road to the north-west and a place of worship to the south at 199-201 Bayswater Road. 
18	Bus services run along Bayswater Road.
19	The nearest railway station and associated higher order activity centres are located approximately 3km away at Bayswater, Ringwood, Ringwood East and Heathmont. There is otherwise a small neighbourhood activity centre at the intersection of Bayswater and Eastfield roads, approximately 1km north of the site.
the planning context
Zone controls
20	The site and all surrounding land are within the NRZ3. In addition to the implementation of planning scheme policies, relevant zone purposes are:
To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.
To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.
21	A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A maximum building height of 9m and 2-storeys (or 10m on sloping sites) is specified and a garden area requirement of 35% applies.  The proposal would meet these requirements.
22	Schedule 3 to this zone refers to ‘Canopy Cover Ridgeline Protection’.  No neighbourhood character objectives, application requirements or decision guidelines are specified. A number of clause 55 standards are varied.  Relevantly, these relate to:
•	side and rear setbacks (Standard B17) as follows:
o	side setbacks – 1.2 metres, plus 0.3 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 1 metre for every metre of height over 6.9 metres;
o	rear setbacks – 5 metres, plus 0.3 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 1 metre for every metre of height over 6.9 metres;
•	private open space (Standard B28) – which requires a total provision of 80sqm of private open space of which 60sqm is to be a secluded area with a minimum dimension of 5m and convenient access from a living room;
•	front fence height (Standard B32) – 1.2m for streets abutting a Transport Zone and 0.9m for other streets.
Overlay controls
23	The site and surrounding land are included in the SLO3. Schedule 3 applies to ‘Wicklow Hills Ridge and Loughnan Warranwood Ridge Landscape Protection Area.’ A permit is required for the removal of most native and exotic species of trees if, amongst other things, a tree has a height of at least 5m. In this case, there are a total of 43 trees for proposed for removal for which permission under SLO3 is required. These are set out in the table below extracted from the arborist’s report prepared for the applicant.

24	It is worth setting out the statement of nature and key elements of landscape under SLO3:
Canopy trees are the main element of the urban character of Maroondah. Canopy trees in particular soften the impact of buildings in the environment and provide a distinct leafy character to Maroondah.
The continuous nature of the canopy vegetation throughout the ridgelines of Maroondah provides a strong character element and is much valued by the community. The canopy vegetation is a defining element of the ridgelines of Maroondah.
Contiguous canopy vegetation contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity through the provision of wildlife movement corridors, habitat and shelter areas.
25	In addition to the above statement of nature and key elements of landscape, landscape character objectives and decision guidelines are specified and must also be considered in the exercise of discretion.  The latter are:
To conserve the existing pattern of vegetation, landscape quality and ecosystems within the area and encourage the re-generation of vegetation.
To maintain a dense vegetation canopy that contributes to the environmental significance of the area.
To control or minimise the effect of future development upon natural features, particularly canopy trees and ridgelines.
To ensure that the development, use and management of land is compatible with the existing character and landscape protection of the area.
To maintain the overall scenic beauty of the municipality. [Tribunal’s underlining]
Key planning scheme policies
26	State and regional planning policies at clauses 11, 15, 15.01-1S, 15.01-1R, 15.01-2S, 15.01-4S, 15.01-5S, 15.02-1S, 16 and 18 variously ask for the following outcomes:
•	housing diversity and choice, particularly in metropolitan and major activity centres and neighbourhood activity centres with good public transport connections, and in well serviced established locations where efficient use of existing infrastructure and services can be achieved;
•	well designed housing that provides a high level of internal and external amenity;
•	building designs including the scale, form and appearance of development and provision of landscaping that contributes positively to the local context and enhances the public realm;
•	respectful neighbourhood character outcomes including development that reinforces a sense of place and valued features and characteristics of the local environment and place by respecting the pattern of local urban structure, underlying natural landscape character and significant vegetation;
•	encouragement for retention of existing vegetation;
•	the creation of safe, pleasant and attractive spaces including access and egress for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and designs that promote walking, sustainable transport use and which achieves high standards of urban design; and
•	the promotion of land use and development that is energy and resource efficient, supports a cooler environment and minimises greenhouse gas emissions.
27	Local policies of particular relevance include:
•	Clause 21.02 – Maroondah Vision and the Strategic Framework
•	Clause 21.06 – Built Form and Urban Design
•	Clause 21.07 – Housing and Residential Land Use
•	Clause 21.10 – Natural Resources
•	Clause 22.02 – Residential Neighbourhood Character
28	According to the strategic framework plan at clause 21.02 the site is within a ‘Landscape Protection Area’ and to the east of a ‘Ridge Protection Area’.
29	Built form and design policies support the creation of a high quality urban places and an attractive built environment which contributes to and enhances the preferred neighbourhood character of Maroondah. 
30	Policies within the Municipal Strategic Statement variously refer to Maroondah’s dominance by two geographic features – the Wicklow Hills Ridge and the Loughnan Warranwood Ridge. In the context of the municipality as a residential suburb, these two natural features are said to be primarily characterised by low density subdivision, developed with a variety of housing choices and covered by an extensive canopy of native and exotic vegetation.
31	According to policy at clause 21.07-1, these two ridges:
… are heavily vegetated, even though mostly developed as residential suburbs. Near-continuous canopy tree cover, interspersed by rooftops, dominates views to the ridgelines. The ridgelines and topography are unique within Melbourne.
The hills help define the sense of place and provide views from dwellings and streets that are evident both within and outside the municipality. These views provide topographic interest to many of the suburbs.
32	Relevant objectives variously seek to maintain and enhance the mix of housing, encourage development of additional dwellings within the Ringwood Metropolitan Activity Centre and the Croydon Major Activity Centre and to provide housing that complements the environmental character of Maroondah. A strategy is to:
Protect and enhance areas of special environmental quality by limiting the physical and visual intrusion of high density dwelling development. 
33	Objectives of policy at clause 21.10-2 include ‘to protect the overdevelopment of ridgelines’ and to ‘encourage the complete regeneration of the Wicklow Hills Ridge and Loughnan Warranwood Ridge environment’.  Relevant strategies variously include the following:
•	Promote the unique role of both ridgelines in Maroondah’s urban and environmental context.
•	Control the design and siting of single dwelling construction and extensions in sensitive residential areas such as the ridgelines and drainage catchment areas.
•	Ensure the visual amenity of the ridgeline is not compromised by dwelling design, building bulk or construction materials.
•	Limit the site density of new housing development to a level which is reflective of the surrounding housing pattern and respectful of environmental constraints.
•	Minimise the fragmentation of current land holdings below the existing subdivision pattern and density.
•	Encourage and promote the re-vegetation of private and public land with indigenous flora.
•	Enhance the natural ridgeline environment through innovate [sic.] planning techniques and community education. [Tribunal’s underlining]
34	The Residential Neighbourhood Character policy at clause 22.02 seeks,  amongst its objectives: 
•	To identify neighbourhood character and design elements that are special to maintaining and enhancing the character of the residential areas of Maroondah.
•	To identify and enhance areas of special neighbourhood character in Maroondah.
•	To ensure that all new residential development contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the canopy vegetation of Maroondah.
•	To ensure that new dwellings are sited and constructed in a manner that contributes to and enhances the preferred neighbourhood character of Maroondah. [Tribunal’s underlining]
35	Policy guidance for development at clause 22.02-3 is arranged under a number of headings that apply generally across Maroondah and more specifically by topics. These comprise residential objectives, integration with the street, landscaping, front fences and site services.
36	More particularly, policies for landscaping ask for the planting of at least one canopy tree in the private open space to each dwelling and in front yards with species whose height exceed the roof height of the dwelling. A preference is also expressed for the individual provision of bin and recycling storage for each dwelling rather than communal structures in developments.
37	Preferred neighbourhood character statements are identified for individual neighbourhoods by reference to a ‘Neighbourhood Character Map’ at clause 22.02-4.  The review site is located within Neighbourhood Area 13 – Bungalook. For this area, the preferred future character will be achieved by:
•	Ensuring a range of well articulated and site responsive dwellings.
•	Ensuring buildings are setback from all boundaries a sufficient distance to allow substantial vegetation, particularly canopy trees.
•	Ensuring the front setbacks are not dominated by impervious surfacing or car parking structures.
•	Encouraging the use of additional indigenous and exotic canopy trees in private gardens.
•	Encouraging native street planting to unify the neighbourhood and visually link public and private gardens.
•	Ensuring development adjacent to the Bungalook Creek is responsive to the landscape character of the area.
•	Ensuring low or no front fences.
•	Ensuring development is well buffered from adjacent non-residential uses. [Tribunal’s underlining]
38	Decision guidelines at clause 22.02-4 include the following:
•	Whether the proposed development makes a positive contribution to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area.
•	The ability of the proposed development to contribute to the retention and enhancement of canopy vegetation of the area.
•	The ability of areas of open space to provide for the retention and ongoing viability of canopy vegetation on the site. [Tribunal’s underlining]
39	The Maroondah Neighbourhood Character Study, Planisphere, 2004 (the NCS) is a reference document at clause 22.02-4. 
40	Although not a reference document in the planning scheme, Neighbourhood Character Study Brochures have been prepared as a companion to the NCS. A statement of preferred character for this character area is cited in the Council’s submission and was referred to by the parties.  I understand the statement is derived from this brochure. 
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND INTERNAL SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Overview of contentions
41	The Council is critical of the extent to which the dwellings are attached and otherwise asserts that there is insufficient space between dwellings and in driveway areas throughout the site to achieve an acceptable built form and landscape response.  The Council also takes issue with the extent of the development footprint which it says is disproportionate to the established pattern of surrounding development and not in keeping with the character of the area.
42	While acknowledging the large size of the site and its limited interface with Jasmine Road, the Council highlights the site’s abuttal with 20 dwellings which it says makes the site one that has a substantial level of exposure to its surrounds.  
43	In particular, concerns are raised about the design response in the site’s south-west portion adjacent to units 13, 14 and 19, and for Unit 1 at its northern interface.  The need for extensive screening and the visual impacts of such structures is also cited as a concern.
44	In terms of the design of the dwellings themselves, the council asserts that the extent to which the alignment of walls varies and upper levels are recessed and articulated is insufficient.  Council also submits that together with the large amount of hard paving in the internal street network and proportion of garaging relative to active facades at the pedestrian level, the development would create a harsh and unfriendly internal streetscape. 
45	The Council further submits that the proposal’s response to environmentally sustainable design (ESD) measures including stormwater management, shading of windows and modest floor to ceiling heights represents a lost opportunity and contributes to the proposal’s unacceptability.
46	Lastly, the Council does not oppose the removal of individual trees proposed but submits that insufficient space is available for a suitable replacement planting strategy including the use of larger canopy trees commensurate with the combined amount of vegetation proposed for removal in this location where the NRZ3 and SLO3 applies.
47	The applicant submits that there is nothing intrinsically unacceptable about the design and siting of the dwellings which it says is consistent with what is to be reasonably expected for a large site in this part of Bayswater North where other multi-dwelling developments are prevalent.  
48	The applicant further asserts that the proposal allows efficient use of the site, will be an improvement on current site conditions and will offer good levels of internal amenity. Setbacks from neighbouring dwellings are said to be responsive to different neighbouring interface conditions, including the use of larger boundary setbacks at the interface with neighbouring areas of secluded private open space (SPOS).  Conversely, the smallest boundary setbacks at the south-west portion of the site occurs at the interface with the neighbouring common driveway at No. 197 Bayswater Road which Mr Bromhead describes as having a limited degree of sensitivity from a residential amenity perspective.    
49	The configuration, siting and general footprint of the dwellings is said to be consistent with the prevailing pattern and footprint of surrounding development.  To support its position that the proposal is an acceptable one, the applicant also relies on the proposal’s high levels of compliance with the mandatory requirements of the NRZ such as garden area (42.3%) and building heights together with various standards under clause 55 including those varied under Schedule 3 to the NRZ such as site coverage ( 37%), permeability (43.5%), side and rear setbacks and the provision of open space and SPOS.
50	In terms of detailed design considerations, the use of skillion roofs instead of pitched roof forms is said to be an appropriate contemporary design response because the:
•	site is an island site in the sense that it has no overt streetscape presence to which it needs to respond;
•	preferred character does not refer to the provision of pitched roofs as a contributory character element.  Rather, it is said that the unifying characteristic is canopy trees, these are sporadically present and where they are present, they predominate in the public realm;
•	overall height of the dwellings is limited thus benefitting the contribution that canopy trees can make to the character of this area; and
•	overall architecture is a good quality contemporary response that is superior to much of what has occurred around the site in more recent years.
51	In relation to ESD measures, the applicant contends that the absence of eaves and window shading can be addressed by requiring deeper framing elements around windows and external blinds integrated into the design. 
52	On the issue of vegetation retention and landscaping related matters, it is Mr Patrick’s landscape evidence that the proposal conforms to relevant policies including neighbourhood character expectations for this location, the NRZ3 and SLO3. More particularly, it is Mr Patrick’s evidence that the site’s better trees have been retained and issues related to tree protection can be addressed through a Tree Management Plan.  Replacement planting with indigenous species is also said to offer habitat benefits and will be an improvement over existing conditions.
53	The planting recommended by Mr Patrick is also said to offer a pleasant landscape experience upon arrival to the site and that overall, the landscaping scheme will contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of Maroondah’s canopy vegetation. He explained that at least one canopy tree is also proposed to each rear garden which is generally expected to exceed the height of dwellings and planting along the north boundary is expected to reach above the height of fencing. 
54	That said, it was also Mr Patrick’s evidence that while the amount of space available for tree growth is acceptable he acknowledges that vegetation may not grow to its full potential at maturity in the spaces available. 
55	Within driveway areas, Mr Patrick supports the use of different forms of paving to create some visual relief, supplemented by lower lying vegetation including ground covers around dwelling entries and the use of other planting including Callistemon (Bottle-brush) species throughout the internal streetscape. 
56	It is Mr Patrick’s evidence that the overall design scheme of skillion roof forms and buildings set within a canopy cover context can be likened to historically earlier design precedents such as those by Merchant Builders and Ellis Stone.  
Tribunal’s findings
57	Before turning to my findings on the merits of the proposal, I begin with some introductory findings about physical and strategic contextual influences that guide the exercise of my discretion.  These bear upon the weight that I give different considerations when balancing conflicting planning objectives in favour of net community benefit.
58	In its broader physical context, the site is located on the lower slopes of the Wicklow Hills and is identified in local policy Framework Plans as falling within a ‘Landscape Protection Area’. A notable feature is that the site rises above its northern neighbours in the broader landform. Past levelling works on the land have reshaped the landform so that its flatter central portion sits higher than the pre-existing topography on the north side but lower on its south side. Embankments – fill and cut – feature along parts of the site’s north and south sides respectively. 
59	The character of this broader area is also shaped somewhat by the presence of mature canopy trees often extending above the height of existing built form – both native and exotics with varying densities. The former are particularly prevalent as one moves further east towards Kyamba Court and to the north in and towards Central Avenue in both the public and private realm. The more recent 2-storey forms to the south are more exposed and frequently rise above existing planting that appears to still be in its formative stages of growth.
60	While I must also give the greatest weight to existing site conditions, I have also considered the existence of a planning permit for a child care centre to the west of the proposal before me. Plans tabled for the child care centre show the removal of large amounts of vegetation which presently offers substantial screening of the site from Bayswater Road.  I also note that the provision of driveways and car park areas will necessitate excavation and retaining walls for that development to a height of between 1.45m and 1.7m along boundaries. This leaves limited space for landscaping between the proposed dwellings south of Tree 5 on both sides of the future boundary between the two proposals.
61	The site is also in an area that is not within or closely proximate to activity centres identified in local policy where housing growth is promoted. Thus I agree with council’s description of this site as a hinterland location. 
62	In such locations, there is a strong emphasis throughout the policy framework to achieve built form outcomes that respect and contribute positively to sensitive visual and physical characteristics of Maroondah’s different residential areas. This includes development that contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of canopy vegetation.  
63	The inclusion of the site within the NRZ3 and SLO3 support these policy directions.  They place a greater emphasis on the achievement of neighbourhood character considerations rather than greater housing densities and diversity. That much is clear from the purposes of the NRZ and statement of nature and key elements of landscape and the landscape character objectives in SLO3.
64	As the SLO3 includes tree protection controls over both native and exotic vegetation, this circumstance highlights the value attached to the visual and aesthetic qualities of all canopy trees and their contribution to the landscape character as important qualities that the planning scheme seeks to maintain and protect.  This is in addition to the intrinsic environmental values sought by the planning scheme for the retention and regeneration of indigenous vegetation. 
65	In terms of zone controls, the purposes of the NRZ importantly seek ‘To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development’ and ‘To  manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character … environmental or landscape characteristics’.
66	These purposes can be distinguished from the purposes of other commonly applied residential zones in hinterland suburban settings such as the General Residential Zone (GRZ), which in addition to respect for neighbourhood character, ‘encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport’.   
67	The predecessor Residential 1 Zone, in place at the time of the Travwest decision in 2014, also included a nuanced but not dissimilar GRZ purpose ‘to provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings…’  
68	The NRZ purposes do not include encouragement for housing diversity and growth amongst its purposes. 
69	I therefore approach my task of assessing this proposal by giving greater weight to the neighbourhood character and landscape outcomes variously sought by the corresponding policies supported by the NRZ3 and SLO3 controls than the achievement of increased housing diversity and densities.  Further, the applicant’s general contentions that this proposal will achieve a comparable or superior design response to that achieved by other multi-dwelling developments needs to be tempered with consideration to the different zoning regime that existed at the time of those decisions.
70	This proposal needs to be assessed on its merits in deciding whether an acceptable outcome will be achieved.
71	In assessing this proposal, I firstly acknowledge that there are many positive aspects of the design.  More particularly I find that the following features are acceptable:
•	The location and type of trees designated for retention;
•	The use of a skillion roof form to the dwellings and the proposed materials and colours palette;
•	The reliance upon a single point of vehicle access via Jasmine Court;
•	The predominant use of indigenous and native planting throughout the site; 
•	The general siting pattern relative to neighbouring properties in relation to the dwellings east of and including Unit 7 on the site’s north side, and Unit 22 on the south side.   
72	I should also add that in-principle, redevelopment of the site with multi-dwellings is an acceptable repurposing of this site’s use.  I also consider that despite some minor non-compliances with clause 55 standards in numeric terms, for example, the varied areas of SPOS, I would not refuse a permit had I concluded that other key aspects of the proposal were acceptable. 
73	My primary concerns with this proposal revolve around the presentation of the internal streetscape in both amenity and landscaping terms, the density and amount of space for canopy trees throughout the site and the degree to which the proposal achieves a site responsive design outcome.
74	More particularly, in relation to the internal streetscapes, I find that the extent of garaging relative to the facades of dwellings at ground level, when juxtaposed with the following features is most problematic:
•	large areas of hard paving with insufficient space for planting with canopy trees and meaningful landscaping; and 
•	other hard surfacing associated with the 2-storey vertical forms of the dwellings which are either attached, frequently sited with little space between them and with upper level footprints that occupy a large proportion of their ground floor elements.
75	In making these findings I agree with Mr Patrick’s evidence that the Callistemon species for proposed use in the driveway cannot be regarded as canopy trees. These are said to grow to a height of 3m, and would not extend above the height of the proposed dwellings. As conceded by Mr Patrick, I also find that the spaces available for planting around steps to a number of dwelling entries as shown on the landscape plan (such as Units 28, 29, 32, 35, 36) are unlikely to be suitable for the practical viability of the vegetation proposed. 
76	In the internal streetscape, I find that the design response will be one that is harsh and dominated by paving and built form. This is particularly evident throughout the eastern arm of the development. Further, this response, together with the proposed spaces for landscaping elsewhere on the site for reasons that follow, is one that would respond poorly to planning scheme policies and the SLO3 that seek maintenance and enhancement of canopy vegetation and which promote high quality urban design and liveability. In saying this I am not persuaded that the areas of landscaping in the proposed areas of SPOS or retention of trees elsewhere would adequately compensate for the lack of an appropriate landscaping response throughout the internal street network.
77	I also find the proposal has not responded in an acceptable way to the particular features of the site and surrounding context.  This includes the particular topographic features of the site.  For example, the extent of cut and fill either already existing, or additional to existing conditions to facilitate this proposal, and the consequential relationship with other associated features including proposed landscaping, screening measures, the functionality of SPOS, provision of utility features such as water tanks, storage areas, pathways and the like has not been satisfactorily resolved and designed in an integrated fashion.  
78	An example of this is included below showing the layout of Unit 10. It, like other proposed dwellings at this interface, is to sit atop an existing fill embankment. 

79	In relative terms, the finished floor level of the dwelling at ground level would therefore be elevated by approximately 2.1m to 2.3m higher than the existing ground level at the northern boundary adjacent to the bottom of the existing fill embankment. A rainwater tank and storage shed are shown on the face of the steep embankment with a flight of stairs. It is unclear for example, how the storage shed will be accessed. My understanding is that existing levels are to remain as they are in this area but the landscape plan shows the use of a granitic sand surface to the embankment around the storage shed and water tank. Although only 1m higher than the roof of the 2-storey dwelling at 3/4A Central Avenue, the proposed dwelling would have wall heights rising to a height that is approximately 5m greater than the roof ridge of its single storey neighbours at 189 Bayswater Road.  To the south of this unit, Units 16 and 17 would rise by roughly a further 1.4m again.  From locations on lower ground to the north, I consider that built form rather than landscaping will present as the dominant feature.  This runs counter to the directions sought by local policies at clauses 21.07, 21.10 and 22.02 and the landscape character objectives of SLO3. 
80	Similar issues are present to a greater or lesser degree in other locations elsewhere along the north boundary. In addition, extensive screening measures to windows, boundary fences or alternatively to decks on their north side at the northern interface are also a consequence of the design proposed on this elevated north side. 
81	Given the 2-storey dwelling forms proposed, I also find that the elevated floor levels of dwellings on higher ground above neighbouring dwellings at No. 4 Jasmine Road and 16 Central Avenue would have a visually imposing impact from these properties.  Relative to 4 Jasmine Road, Unit 1 would have wall heights rising about 3.6m above the highest point of this neighbouring dwelling’s roof. Together with similarly scaled units proposed to the west, these would likely present as dominant built form elements from surrounding land to the north and in oblique views from the southern end of Jasmine Road. Planting with trees and shrubs where proposed at this interface is to occur at either the base of, or on the face of, the embankment along the north boundary. Relative to the proposed dwellings on higher ground, the effective height of this planting and its ability to screen and extend above buildings on the site will be consequentially diminished. Overall, I find that this response would not acceptably respond to landscape character objectives of SLO3 and local policies that variously seek to maintain and enhance a dense vegetation canopy.
82	At the southern interface, I accept Mr Bromhead’s evidence that the dwellings are to be cut into the site and their visual amenity impacts from neighbouring land to the south is therefore moderated. Notwithstanding, I agree with the Council’s concerns that insufficient space is provided for an appropriate amount and type of planting including canopy trees in the south-west portion of the site to satisfy landscaping related planning objectives.  I find that this location in particular is one where buildings are not set back a sufficient distance from boundaries to allow for the planting of substantial vegetation particularly canopy trees, as sought by clause 22.02-4.
83	At the interface with the proposed child care centre, I find that proposed Units 11 and 12 would not be ‘well buffered’ from this future non-residential use, contrary to the measures suggested at clause 22.02-4 for the achievement of the preferred character.
84	Overall, I find that the proposal would not respond to the features of the site and surrounds in an acceptable way nor contribute positively to the preferred neighbourhood character, contrary to the neighbourhood character objectives at clause 55.02-1. Nor would the development respect the landscape character of the area, contrary to the objective at clause 55.03-8.
85	My overall impression is that the design response is seeking to extract too much from this site and is too intense.  This is manifested in the features that I have described above together with other features, which although not fatal in their own right reflect what the Council describes as a lack of ‘breathing space’ throughout the site, including:
•	the siting of the reversing bay for garbage trucks and large vehicles which almost touches the front porch of Unit 10; 
•	the need for correcting manoeuvres to or from a number of garages or car spaces or otherwise tight spacing within driveway areas with little margin for error;
•	the poor siting of uncovered second car spaces for Units 13 and 14 (four bedroom dwellings) 0.5m from their respective master bedroom windows;
•	the absence of a dedicated footpath to at least service the eastern arm of the development proximate to the round-about which I consider is necessary given projected traffic volumes in this location at the entry/exit of approximately 213 movements per day; 
•	the limited amount of transitional space between front entries and driveway paving; and
•	the number of proposed dwellings (more than half) that are not designed with north facing living areas.
86	For all of these reasons I find that the proposal is not an acceptable one.
87	There is little utility in providing detailed reasons on other issues raised other than to record that I consider that the surrounding local road network is capable of absorbing the additional traffic volumes generated by this proposal.
conclusion
88	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
89	No permit is granted.

Mary-Anne Taranto
Member