VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P875/2021
Permit Application no.PP-535-2020 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Greater Geelong Planning Scheme; Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ3); Heritage overlay (HO1635); Demolition, Alterations and additions, including a rear two-storey addition to existing dwelling; Impact on heritage significance, Construct a second dwelling; Increased Housing Diversity Area; Clause 55; and Off-site amenity impacts.     	

Applicants	Margaret Brockman & Eve Patricia Brockman	

Responsible Authority	Greater Geelong City Council	
Respondents	David and Kimberley Jessup	

SUBJECT LAND	29 Villamanta Street
GEELONG WEST VIC 3218	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	

DATE OF HEARING	16 December 2021	

DATE OF ORDER	13 May 2022	

CITATION	Brockman v Greater Geelong CC [2022] VCAT 529	

Order
1	In application P875/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is varied. 
2	In planning permit application PP-535-2020 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 29 Villamanta Street Geelong West Vic 3218 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Partial demolition of the existing dwelling;
•	The construction of a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on a lot;
•	The construction of a building, vehicle crossover and the construction and carry out of works;
•	Subdivision of the land.

Shiran Wickramasinghe
Member			

Appearances
For Ms M Brockman and Ms E Brockman	Mr M Bell, Architect	
For Greater Geelong City Council	Mr P Spinazzola, Senior Statutory Planner	
For Mr D Jessup and Ms K Jessup	Mr M King Solicitor of Kings Lawyers.
He called the following witness:
•	Mr J Briggs of John Briggs Architects Pty Ltd	

Information
Description of proposal	Part demolition and alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, construction of a second dwelling, alterations to the rear vehicle crossover and two (2) lot subdivision. 	

Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Greater Geelong Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 (NRZ3)
Heritage Overlay (HO1635 – Villamanta Street Heritage Area)
Special Building Overlay (SBO)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-6 - permit required to construct a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on a lot in NRZ3
Clause 32.09-3 - permit required to subdivide land in NRZ3. 
Clause 43.01-1 - permit required to demolish or partially demolish a building, construct a building or construct or carry out works, construct a vehicle crossover and subdivide land in HO1635.
Clause 44.05-2 -  permit required to construct building or carry out works on land in SBO. 
Clause 44.05-3 - permit required to subdivide land in SBO 
	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clause 11, 11.01-1S, 13, 13.03-1S, 15, 15.01-1S, 15.01-2S, 15.01-3S, 15.01-5S, 15.03-1S, 16, 21.06-3, 21.06-4, 21.06-5, 22.27, 22.09, 22.63, 32.09, 43.01, 44.05, 52.01, 52.06, 55, 65.01 & 65.02   	
Land description	The site is located on the south side of Villamanta Street and has a frontage of 18.64 metres, an average depth of 23.69 metres and a rear abuttal to Timms Lane of 18.55 metres. This results in a slightly irregularly shaped allotment of approximately 440 square metres.  

The site is occupied by an existing dwelling with ‘D’ listed (contributory) Heritage significance. The dwelling is situated toward the east boundary of the site.

To the west the site abuts 35 Villamanta Street, that is comprised of three lots and occupied by a large heritage dwelling. 

To the east is 27 Villamanta Street that is occupied by a single-storey heritage dwelling.
	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied site inspection was conducted.   	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This is an application for a review of the Greater Geelong City Council’s (Council) decision to grant a permit for part demolition and construction of alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, construction of a second dwelling, alterations to the rear vehicle crossover and two (2) lot subdivision.
2	The applicants submit the proposal should not be supported because it is an overdevelopment, is non-compliant with clause 55 standards and objectives, will cause unacceptable off-site amenity impacts, fails to respond to the heritage place and neighbourhood character and does not provide acceptable vehicle access.
3	The Council and the respondents submit the proposal is supported by State and local policy and has been designed in accordance with relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme. They also say, whilst the proposal requires some variation to selected standards of clause 55 it is an efficient and orderly development of the site that does not cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts. 
4	An order was issued on 20 December 2021 requiring submissions on a confined matter relating to an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of clause 55.04-5, Overshadowing open space objective - Standard B21. Since the hearing, the Tribunal has been sent numerous pieces of correspondence from the parties addressing matters in addition to the confined matters sought by the order, without leave having been given by the Tribunal to do so. In the circumstances, submissions other than those sought by the order should not have been provided by the parties. As such, in making my decision, I have only considered the material required by the order, the submissions presented at the hearing and the evidence.
What are the key issues?
5	Based on the submissions, the key issues to be considered in this proceeding for review are:
•	Is the proposed dwelling an acceptable response to the heritage context of the site?
•	Does the development acceptably respond to the neighbourhood character?
•	Does the development meet the requirements of clause 55 of the Planning Scheme?
•	Are the car parking and vehicle access arrangements acceptable?
6	Having considered the submissions and evidence with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme, assisted by my inspection, I have determined to vary Council’s decision and grant a permit subject to conditions. My reasons are as follows.
what is the relevant planning context?
7	In addition to the State policies that encourage the conservation of heritage places, the Planning Scheme also includes objectives and strategies at clause 21.06 and local policies at clause 22 that apply specifically to developments within Heritage Overlays.  
8	At clause 21.06-5 with respect to urban consolidation, the objectives and strategies are provided:
Objectives
•	Facilitate infill development to increase its housing supply contribution to 50 per cent, by 2047.
•	Nominate the preferred location for increased housing densities.
•	Manage the impact of increased housing densities on neighbourhoods.
Strategies
•	Manage urban consolidation and housing change across the municipality, by: 
•	Accommodating medium and high density housing in Key Development Areas (as defined by the maps included in this clause).
•	Maximising opportunities for housing within Increased Housing Diversity Areas (as defined in Clause 22.63 Increased Housing Diversity Areas) by accommodating;
•	high density housing in the activity centres consistent with their primary commercial and retail role; and
•	medium density housing in residential areas with more intensive development being located closest to the core of activity centres.
•	Supporting appropriate medium density housing in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 1) areas.
•	Providing for incremental change in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 8) areas.
•	Limiting change in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedules 1 - 7) areas.
•	Encourage medium density housing in the Mixed Use Zone.
•	Optimise the contribution the rail corridor can make to future housing needs.
•	Increase the level of high quality residential development in Central Geelong.
•	Review housing opportunities within established areas to determine if further localised housing intensification can be achieved. 
•	Require retirement accommodation to be located within urban areas, preferably within close proximity to existing or proposed activity centres and public transport facilities.
9	With respect to neighbourhood character, clause 21.06-6 includes the following:
Objectives
•	To manage the impact of urban change on existing neighbourhoods.
•	To ensure that new development responds to the existing neighbourhood character. 
•	To protect areas with a significant garden character.
•	To protect areas with identified views to significant landscape features
Strategies
•	Acknowledge that neighbourhood character in the Increased Housing Diversity Areas will adapt and evolve over time, particularly within and on the edges of activity centres, where land use and development will intensify.
•	Ensure that development is responsive to the established character of the area.
•	Support appropriate medium density housing that respects the existing neighbourhood character in the General Residential Zone areas. 
•	Ensure that development in the transition areas of the Residential Growth Zones is responsive to and respectful of the neighbourhood character in any adjoining residential zones. 
•	Support the redevelopment of dwellings owned by the Office of Housing, as part of urban renewal initiatives.
•	Retain existing vegetation wherever possible, particularly vegetation that contributes to the municipality’s tree canopy.
•	Avoid gated communities.
•	Maintain the character of the Rural Living and Low Density Residential Zoned areas. 
10	With respect to Heritage and identity, clause 21.06-7 provides the following objectives and strategies:
Objectives
•	To ensure that urban development enhances Geelong’s sense of place and identity.
•	To identify, conserve and enhance individual places and areas of pre and post contact cultural heritage significance.
Strategies
•	Protect places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance in partnership with Traditional Owners.
•	Retain culturally significant heritage places and areas recognised as being of State, regional, local and contributory heritage significance.
•	Ensure that the use and development of a heritage place respects its heritage significance and contributes to its longevity.
•	Encourage the design of new development in heritage areas to provide for a contemporary interpretation that relates to the location, bulk, form and materials of existing and/or neighbouring significant buildings.
11	Relevantly, the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone includes: 
•	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. 
12	At clause 43.01 the purpose of the Heritage Overlay includes: 
•	To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. 
•	To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.
•	To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. 

13	The relevant decision guidelines at clause 43.01-8 are as follows:
Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
•	The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.
•	Any applicable statement of significance (whether or not specified in the schedule to this overlay), heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.
•	Any applicable heritage design guideline specified in the schedule to this overlay.
•	Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
•	Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.
•	Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
•	Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
•	Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
•	Whether the proposed subdivision may result in development which will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
14	Clause 22.27, HO1635: Villamanta Street Heritage Area, outlines the following policy basis and objectives: 
Policy Basis
The Villamanta Street Area is characterised by the large allotments originally sub-divided by James Austin (1889) and a considerable number of large single storey, late Victorian and Edwardian residences, some of the finest in Geelong West. The houses represent the first buildings on this land. Historically the houses were built for prominent business people who preferred the rising ground and aspect of this part of Geelong West. All the houses fronting Villamanta Street are single detached houses.
The houses are extremely decorative in appearance and complex in form, incorporating hipped roofs, gablets, gables, curved profile verandahs and turrets (37 & 51). They are predominantly of timber construction with the exception of No 35 which is polychrome brick. Decoration is provided by cast iron and/or timber fretwork to verandahs and cast iron ridge decoration.
The integrity of the precinct is upheld by Potter Street (the rear lane) which provides the vehicle entry for the houses and still contains bluestone crossovers, drainage channels and a collection of original out buildings fronting the lane. Minimal street planting and nature strips are provided in Villamanta Street which has a generous street width and bluestone kerb and channel. Generous front and side setbacks are prevalent.
Objectives
•	To retain the bluestone detailing in Villamanta Street and the rear laneway of Potter Street, street tree planting, and traditional garden settings. 
•	To retain the intact examples of Victorian, Edwardian and Californian Bungalow style predominately single storey double fronted detached houses. 
•	To retain the uniformity of scale of the area including single storey height, regular front and side setbacks, rear vehicle access from Potter Street, building separation and subdivision pattern. 
•	To encourage the contemporary interpretation of traditional building design within the area. 
•	To encourage the use of traditional construction materials in the area. 
•	To encourage the use of appropriate fence types (up to 1400mm), designs and locations. 
•	To encourage the appropriate development, form and scale of garages and/or carports. 
Where a permit is required for a proposal, it is policy to:
•	Promote buildings that incorporate the following design characteristics:
•	Detached, single storey, double fronted buildings.
•	Complex buildings with late Victorian and Edwardian roof forms comprising turrets and multiple roof outlines and wall planes.
•	Hipped and/or gable roofs with a pitch between 20-35 degrees.
•	Narrow or wide eaves and verandahs (some recessed).
•	Rectangular timber windows (that are vertically orientated singularly, or as a horizontal bank if grouped).
•	Rich architectural detail in timber and cast iron.
•	Pressed, evenly coloured brick.
•	Horizontal weatherboard wall cladding (an alternative to horizontal weatherboard cladding is a smooth render over masonry).
•	Timber framed windows.
•	Non-zincalume corrugated sheet metal roofing.
•	Encourage the existing allotment configuration to be retained.
•	Discourage buildings that are constructed boundary to boundary.
•	Encourage the separation between buildings to be equivalent to neighbouring buildings.
•	Encourage front setbacks that are equivalent to the setback of neighbouring buildings or if these are different, the setback may be at a distance that is between the setbacks of neighbouring buildings.
•	Encourage existing and intact culturally significant Victorian, Edwardian, and Californian Bungalow places to be retained.
•	Encourage building heights to be single storey and to incorporate the following:
•	The highest point of the roof should not be greater than the highest adjacent single storey building, whereby height of the roof should not be greater than the main (overall), adjacent ridge line.
•	The proportion of building roof should not be greater than the proportion of roof to walls of the buildings visually connected to it.
•	The springing height of the roof should be equivalent to neighbouring buildings, or if these are different, the springing height may be between those of neighbouring buildings.
•	The roof form and massing of the building should be drawn from the significant neighbouring buildings visually connected to it.
•	Encourage new garages and/or carports to be located at the side or rear of existing and/or infill buildings.
•	Buildings, works and fences should comply with the City of Greater Geelong Heritage and Design Guidelines 1997, which is an Incorporated Document.
15	Clause 22.63 identifies the site as being located within the Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown Increased Housing Diversity Area (IHDA) as shown below.

Source: Responsible Authorities submission (page 8).
16	Policy guidance with respect to development in a IHDA seeks high quality design to ensure a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. For areas of heritage significance, it is stated new development should balance the preservation and restoration of the identified heritage place and other opportunities for new housing. Relevant objectives and design objectives are as follows:
Objectives
•	To evolve the character of these areas through more intensive development.
•	To ensure that the density, mass and scale of residential development is appropriate to the location, role and character of the specific IHDA.
•	To ensure development makes a positive architectural and urban design contribution to the IHDA.
•	To promote a diversity of housing types to cater to a variety of lifestyle needs.
•	To promote walking trips and pedestrian safety within the IHDAs.
•	To ensure that streetscape character in heritage areas is maintained.
•	To encourage new development to provide a high level of on-site amenity for future residents.

Design Objectives
Built Form
•	Encourage innovative, high quality, site responsive medium density housing development.
•	Encourage development that incorporates a combination of horizontal and vertical articulation, materials, textures and colours to create visual interest.
•	Encourage a sympathetic design response when addressing any unique characteristics such as heritage places, significant vegetation, topography and public spaces.
•	Discourage storage areas located within the minimum area of secluded open space.
Building Height
•	Encourage two and three storey development. Three storey development should be encouraged on larger sites abutting the activity centre or where the amenity of adjoining properties will not be unreasonably impacted.
•	Encourage the recessing of the third storey to reduce dominance of the building from adjoining properties and the streetscape.
•	Ensure that the height and bulk of the new development on interface properties, between an IHDA and other residential areas, is responsive to the adjoining character and provides a transition in the built form between areas.
Landscaping and Vegetation
•	Where appropriate, provide a street tree to enhance the contribution of the development to the streetscape.
Subdivision and Consolidation
•	Encourage the consolidation of lots to increase development potential.
•	Discourage the fragmentation of sites and underdevelopment of sites.
Car Parking
•	Ensure that the visual prominence of car parking structures is minimised by locating them behind the line of the front façade and designing them to form a visually unobtrusive part of the building.
•	Where more than one car space is provided, encourage the use of a single-width garage or carport and a tandem parking space on existing or proposed lots with a frontage of less than 10.5m.
•	Minimise the number of vehicle crossings and where possible, access should be from lower order roads and rear laneways.
Heritage
•	Ensure that development in or adjacent to heritage places is sympathetic and respects the significance of the place.
•	Where new development is proposed in or adjacent to a heritage place, ensure building elements above one-storey in height are set back behind the roof ridge-line of the heritage buildings.
Is the proposed dwelling an acceptable response to the heritage context of the site?
17	The description of the heritage context of the site provided in the policy basis of HO1135 says the Villamanta Street Area is characterised by large allotments and a considerable number of large single-storey, late Victorian and Edwardian residences. The houses are said to represent the first buildings on this land with the houses fronting Villamanta Street being single detached houses. Further, the houses are said to be extremely decorative in appearance and complex in form, incorporating hipped roofs, gablets, gables, curved profile verandahs and turrets.
18	Both the applicants and the respondents provided submissions with respect to the wider heritage context of the site. With respect to the site Mr Briggs in his written evidence stated:
The subject property is located within the Heritage Overlay – HO1635 and the house on the land is graded ‘D’ or ‘contributory’ to the heritage significance of the Villamanta Street Heritage Precinct. 
The subject site is located on the south side of Villamanta Street, one property to the west of Coronation Street, which is the eastern end of the Villamanta Street Heritage Area. South side of the street is elevated giving added prominence to the distinctive heritage house by comparison with the north side of the street that is not included in the Heritage Overlay.

The subject house is the remnant part of a former shop/dwelling shown in the photograph above that has the appearance of having been constructed at the one time in 1895. A house and the cast iron lacework to the verandah has been replaced with timberwork. The existing paling fence is evidently not the early or original timber picket fence that can be seen in the photograph on both sides of the shop that was built to the front boundary with a verandah over the foot path.
19	The application proposes to respond to the heritage context by demolishing part of the rear of the existing dwelling, constructing a two-storey addition to its rear and constructing a two-storey second dwelling to the side of the existing dwelling (on the western boundary). Two double garages are also proposed with access from Timms Lane.

20	The applicants oppose the proposal and say:
To date the south side of Villamanta Street (from numbers 27 to 55 Villamanta) has been very fortunate to retain its integrity and so far to be preserved in terms of heritage. The 12 houses are all of heritage eras, all single storey, all double fronted, typically on wide allotments with generous setbacks from the front (from 35 to 55) and with fine front gardens of typically perhaps around 5 to 7 m set-back to the front of the verandahs.
There are no recent developments so far between 27 and 55 Villamanta Street. Certainly there are no pairs of double storey town houses in this sequence. The proposal would be the first one since the last of the houses was built in 1920, and if it did go ahead, it is likely to remain as the only recent one. This is because all other houses are most likely to remain virtually as they are, remaining as single storey, on undivided lots with no new developments.
To interject a single fronted double storey new house on a small narrow block, unlike any others in this sequence of double fronted single storey houses on wide blocks, (and also to add a terrace above the second storey as for Townhouse 1, unlike anywhere else), will stand out like a sore thumb in the street. This is totally inappropriate. It does not match the heritage, built form, or density of the rest of the street. It destroys the integrity of the sequence and should be rejected.
21	I am persuaded by Mr Briggs’ evidence, that the proposal will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place and find the proposal to be acceptable having regard to the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme. 
22	The proposed works will retain and restore the existing Victorian house that was previously attached to a shop which has since been demolished. The retention of the existing dwelling accords with relevant objectives and policy contained in clause 22.27 that seek to retain intact examples of Victorian, Edwardian and California Bungalow style dwellings. 
23	The additions to the existing dwelling are two-storey with a roof top deck. Policy at clause 22.27 promotes development that is detached, single-storey, and double-fronted. Further, there are a number of design characteristics promoted by the policy including the incorporation of hipped and/or gable end roofs, narrow or wide eaves and verandahs, rectangular windows and horizontal weatherboard cladding. There is also encouragement for front setbacks to be equivalent to the setback of neighbouring buildings. Where these vary, the setback may be at a distance that is between the setbacks of neighbouring buildings. The objectives and policy do not prescribe a mandatory outcome and acceptably designed proposals are permissible.
24	Whilst the proposed additions are two-storey, I find them to be acceptable as they are located to the rear of the existing dwelling and set back approximately 12.2 metres from the frontage. The roof top deck has a greater setback, approximately 16.5 metres from the frontage. 
25	The addition is located behind the ridge line of the existing single-storey dwelling and comprises a contemporary form and materials. The location and setback will limit its visibility from the frontage and it will not dominate the heritage place. The first floor will be visually recessive when viewed from Villamanta Street and is an acceptable response in the context of the heritage place.
26	The new two-storey dwelling is proposed within the western side setback that was previously occupied by the shop. The dwelling is to be set back 3.28 metres from the front boundary, equivalent to the setback of the existing dwelling. A verandah is also proposed that is to be set back in line with the verandah of the existing dwelling. The front single-storey section of the dwelling is to have a hipped roof form with rectangular front windows. 
27	The first floor is set back approximately 6.6 metres from the front boundary. It has a hipped roof that is set back behind the ground floor ridgeline of the proposed dwelling and approximately in-line with the ridge of the roof of the neighbouring Victorian dwelling at 27 Villamanta Street. The adjacent heritage dwelling to the west is located approximately 18.8 metres from the common boundary and 9.3 metres setback from Villamanta Street. This dwelling will not be impacted having regard to its separation from the common boundary.
28	The dwelling is to be constructed of horizontally-aligned ‘Weathertex’ wall cladding and a Colorbond roof with rectangular windows. The verandah is to be supported by square timber posts. 
29	Whilst the proposed dwelling is two-storey, it incorporates many of the design outcomes promoted in clause 22.27 such as a hipped roof, horizontal external cladding, rectangular windows, provision of a verandah and front setback that is consistent with the existing dwelling. In this context I find the articulated built form, recessive two-storey component, the setting-in of the two-storey component on the west side (when viewed from Villamanta Street) and the matching forms and materials of the proposed dwelling to the existing dwelling to be an acceptable response to the heritage place. 
30	I find the siting of the proposed dwelling within the west portion of the site to be acceptable in the context of the design form of the dwelling and the front setbacks proposed. The siting of the proposed dwelling will not dominate the existing heritage dwelling on the site as it has a narrower width and is single-storey with a hipped roof in proximity to the frontage of the site.
31	Vehicle access to the site is retained from Timms Lane in the form of two double garages. The proposed access and location of the garages is acceptable and consistent with the provisions of clause 22.27 that encourage new garages and/or carports to be located at the side or rear of existing and/or infill buildings.
32	The proposed two-lot subdivision will alter the configuration of the existing lot however, the subdivided lots will retain a rectangular configuration and have frontage to Villamanta Street. Whilst clause 22.27 encourages the existing lot configuration to be retained, I find the subdivision of one lot into two will not have a detrimental impact on the heritage place. The lots created have frontage to the street and the existing dwelling maintains its frontage to Villamanta Street. I am satisfied with the design and siting of the proposed dwelling that provides a contemporary interpretation of the heritage houses in the area. Therefore, I find the subdivision acceptable. 

Does the development acceptably respond to the neighbourhood character?
33	Council described the neighbourhood as follows.
Surrounding dwellings are also within the Villamanta Street Heritage Area, and a range of housing stock can be found within Villamanta Street and its environs. This includes a number of townhouse/flat developments, which is not limited to 38 Villamanta Street (3 dwellings), 34 Villamanta Street (2 dwellings c. 1990), a 17 dwelling development at 12-22 Emerald Street constructed in approximately 2014, a 3 dwelling development constructed in the 1980’s immediately south of the proposal across Timms Lane at 5 Coronation Street, and a two storey 1970’s apartment building situated to the east at 25 Villamanta Street. This is interspersed amongst single dwellings on allotments of varying size and pattern ranging up to 1107 square metres (35 Villamanta Street). 
34	As stated, I have found the proposal to be acceptable having regard to the heritage context of the site. Similarly, I am satisfied the proposed two-storey additions to the existing dwelling and new two-storey dwelling are acceptable from a neighbourhood character perspective having regard to the purpose of the NRZ3, the relevant policies of the IHDA, and clause 55.02-1 – Neighbourhood character objectives. I say this for the following reasons:
•	The materials and architectural form are generally consistent with a mix of dwelling styles proximate to the site in Villamanta Street that includes attached and detached dwellings, up to two storeys in scale.
•	The presentation to the street will not dominate the streetscape and is respectful of the heritage place as discussed earlier in these reasons. 
•	The built form rhythm of dwellings to Villamanta Street is generally maintained with garages accessed from the rear lane.  
•	A 1.1 metre high front fence is proposed and there is opportunity to establish canopy trees within the front setback that will contribute to the landscape character of the area.
•	The dwellings have varying heights and roof forms with a single-storey height to the street frontage. The articulation in the single and double-storey form provides a respectful transition and response to the prevailing single-storey development on abutting land.
•	The dwellings vary in height with a maximum height of 8.39 metres to the top of the roof top deck privacy screen associated to the existing dwelling. The height is below the maximum 9.0 metre height specified in the provisions of the NRZ3.
Geelong West, Manifold Heights and Newtown Increased Housing Diversity Area (IHDA)
35	The site is located within the IHDA. Policy guidance with respect to development in a IHDA seeks high quality design to ensure a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. For areas of heritage significance, it is stated new development should balance the preservation and restoration of the identified heritage place and other opportunities for new housing. This policy guidance is consistent with the relevant purpose of the NRZ that seeks to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.
36	The proposal responds to the purpose of the NRZ and policy contained in the IHDA as its built form and pattern of subdivision are respectful of the neighbourhood character and heritage place as discussed earlier, whilst increasing the housing diversity and typology in the IHDA albeit by one dwelling. 
Does the development meet the requirements of Clause 55 of the planning scheme?
37	Several areas of non-compliance with the Standards and objectives of clause 55 were raised by the applicants. These include neighbourhood character, street setback, site coverage, overlooking and overshadowing. I have previously found the neighbourhood character response and street setback to be acceptable and will address the remaining matters in turn.
Site coverage
38	The objective of clause 55.03-3 is to ensure the site coverage respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. Standard B8 specifies a maximum site coverage of 60% whilst the proposal has a site coverage of 65.4%. Accordingly, a variation is sought. 
39	Having regard to the relevant decision guidelines I find the variation acceptable as the design response provides a garden area of 30.9% that exceeds the mandatory 25% required in the NRZ and permeability area of 33% that exceeds the minimum 20% required pursuant to clause 55.03-4, Standard B9. Further, the additional site coverage does not manifest an unacceptable built form outcome or visual bulk impact. The dwellings are acceptably articulated with a minor length of wall (3.69 metres) located on the west boundary and the upper levels have a minimum setback of 2.1 metres and 3.0 metres from the west and east boundaries respectively. Notably to the west the dwelling at 35 Villamanta Street has a setback of approximately 18.8 metres from the common boundary that limits the opportunity for an unacceptable amenity impact.  
Overlooking
40	The objective of clause 55.04-6 is to limit views into existing habitable room windows and secluded private open space areas. The related Standard B22 details the means by which the objective can be met and refers to the screening of habitable room windows, balconies, terraces, decks or patios to a height of 1.7 metres above floor level.
41	The plans variously show the provision of obscure glazing, screens and the use of high-sill windows to limit overlooking. During the course of the hearing it became apparent there may be opportunity for overlooking at an oblique angle into the secluded private open space (SPOS) associated with 27 Villamanta Street from the north portion of the roof top deck. Further, evidence from Mr Briggs suggested the 1.7 metre high privacy screen proposed along the east edge of the roof top deck could be replaced with a planter box in the event there was a concern with the height of the screen. His evidence was the planter box would prevent overlooking, stating:
If the Tribunal is concerned in relation to the 1700mm high screen required to prevent overlooking to the east I would recommend addition of an elevated garden bed along the east side of the roof garden to prevent downward views into the eastern neighbour without the need for the higher screen.
42	I find any potential overlooking impacts can be addressed by condition. Having regard to the potential for overlooking from the roof top deck I consider it appropriate to retain the screen along the east elevation subject to an increased setback discussed later in these reasons. Further, I will require provision of a screen along part of the north edge of the roof top deck that will limit overlooking of the SPOS associated with 27 Villamanta Street.
Visual bulk
43	The siting of the development complies with standard B17 at clause 55.04-1. However, this is not the sole indicator that the building may not have unacceptable visual bulk impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties.
44	The assessment of the acceptability or otherwise of the development’s presentation to the neighbouring sites requires consideration of other factors. These include, but are not limited to, the architecture of the building, the length and height of the walls, the materials and external finishes, the nature and extent of fenestration, any modulation provided by variable wall planes, the level of articulation and the presence of landscaping. A holistic assessment requires consideration of these factors in combination to determine whether visual bulk impacts will manifest so as to have an unacceptable effect on neighbours’ amenity.
45	Having regard to these matters, I find the upper level section of ‘wall’ located on the east elevation associated to bedroom three and the roof top deck will create unacceptable visual mass. 

46	This portion of the elevation has an accentuated vertical form, is unarticulated with respect to variation in setback and located in proximity to the SPOS of 27 Villamanta Street. Therefore, I find there is a need to reduce the visual mass of this portion of the elevation by setting back the roof top deck and associated screen a further 0.5 metres from the east boundary. Accordingly, I will impose a condition requiring the roof top deck and associated screen to be set back a minimum 4.1 metres from the east boundary. I find the provision of the roof top deck to be generally acceptable as its use will be associated with the residential occupation of the dwelling.
Overshadowing
47	Clause 55.04-5 has the objective of ensuring buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. Standard B21 reads:
Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.
If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.
48	Parties provided extensive submissions with respect to the extent of existing and proposed shadow impact on the SPOS of 27 Villamanta Street. The applicants identify the SPOS associated with the dwelling to be solely located to the west of the dwelling and comprising an area of approximately 78 square metres. They say the area located to the south of the dwelling is not SPOS as it is occupied by a driveway. 
49	The respondents say the SPOS has an area of 158 square metres and includes both the land to the east and south of the dwelling as it is enclosed by fencing. With respect to the area of SPOS, I note the driveway is located within the backyard of the dwelling and enclosed by fencing. It can serve a dual purpose and be used as open space when required. During my site inspection I observed this area to have an overgrown grass surface.
50	The shadow diagrams submitted by the respondents and applicants show the SPOS is impacted to varying degrees by shadow from existing development between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on 22 September. 
51	The shadow diagrams submitted by the respondents show that between 10.00 am and 3.00 pm approximately 59 to 72 square metres of SPOS (total 158 square metres) with a minimum dimension of 3.0 metres will receive sunlight. The additional shadow impact from the proposed development is said to commence at 2.00 pm progressively increasing from 1.0 square metre to 2.0 square metres and 4.0 square metres at 2.00 pm, 2.30 pm and 3.00 pm respectively. 
52	The applicants say there is a greater level of impact through the course of the day. The additional shadow impact is said to commence at  2.00 pm with a 3.6 square metre impact at 2.30 pm and progressively increasing to a 8.0 square metre impact at 3.00 pm.

Source: Applicants

53	Clause 55.04-5 provides the following decision guidelines that must be considered before deciding an application:
The design response.
The impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.
Existing sunlight penetration to the secluded private open space of the existing dwelling.
The time of day that sunlight will be available to the secluded private open space of the existing dwelling.
The effect of a reduction in sunlight on the existing use of the existing secluded private open space.
54	Having regard to the decision guidelines, I find the design of the proposal to be responsive to potential shadow impacts due to the two-storey addition proximate to 27 Villamanta Street being set back a minimum 3.0 to 3.6 metres from the common boundary and partially opposite the garage. This siting results in the greater portion of the west SPOS area not being impacted by additional shadow, as the additional shadow will be cast toward the south end of this open space area. Further, the shadow does not encroach the southern driveway area that can also be used for SPOS purposes. 
55	The east portion of SPOS associated with 27 Villamanta Street has a north orientation enabling sunlight access. The additional maximum 8 square  metres of shadow (as submitted by the applicants) cast by the proposed development is from 2.00 pm and does not interfere with the existing sunlight access prior to this time. Therefore this portion of SPOS, with a minimum dimensions of 3.0 metres, has access to sunlight between 10.45 am to 2.15 pm. In this context I find the proposal meets the objective of clause 55.04-5. 
Are the car parking and vehicle access arrangements acceptable?
56	The applicants raised concern regarding the access to the garages from the lane. They say the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of clause 52.06 and the requirements of Australian Standard AS2890.1-2004 as the 3.6 metre width of the lane is too narrow to provide satisfactory access. They say an accessway width of approximately 5.6 metres to 7.0 metres is required by the Australian Standard.

57	Traffic engineering evidence was not presented at the hearing, however, Council stated its Traffic Engineers had considered the plans and are satisfied that access can be achieved subject to modification that will likely require the garages to be set back from the Timms Lane (south boundary). 
58	Timms Lane has a width of 3.6 metres and is not dissimilar to other lanes in suburban areas that are used to gain vehicle access to sites. The provision of the garages at the rear of the site is consistent with policy at clause 22.27 and the modifications sought by Council’s Traffic Engineers will effectively address the concerns raised by the applicants. Therefore the location of garages and access arrangements are an acceptable response subject to the modifications sought by Council’s Traffic Engineers. Accordingly, I will impose the conditions proposed by Council in relation to the garages.
59	I note any additional setback of the garages could potentially reduce the  provision of SPOS for the dwellings. To avoid an unacceptable reduction in the provision of SPOS I will include a condition requiring provision of SPOS in accordance with clause 55.05-4, Private open space objective – Standard B28.
Conclusion
60	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Shiran Wickramasinghe
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PP-535-2020	
Land	29 Villamanta Street
GEELONG WEST  VIC  3218 	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Partial demolition of the existing dwelling;
•	The construction of a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on a lot;
•	The construction of a building, vehicle crossover and the construction and carry out of works;
•	Subdivision of the land.	

Conditions
Amended Plans
1	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and be approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans identified as Sheets 1 to 20, revision C, dated 7 September 2020, prepared by Tony Preiato & Associates Building Designers but modified to show:
(a)	Turning movements via a three-point turn for B85 vehicles to enter and exit each garage from Timms Lane while a B85 vehicle is parked in the other parking space within the garage;
(b)	B85 cross sectional plan for a B85 vehicle entering from the rear lane to all garage spaces with finished surface levels with clearance from the underside of the vehicle to the finished surface levels;
(c)	Garage setbacks from Timms Lane in order to achieve turning movements and vehicle clearance into the garage as described in Conditions 1(a) and 1(b) above and the provision of private open space areas in accordance with Standard B28 at clause 55.05-4 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme;
(d)	Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 4;
(e)	The roof top deck and associated screen set back a minimum 4.1 metres from the east boundary;
(f)	Provision of a screen in accordance with Standard B22 at clause 55.04-6 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme along part of the northern edge of the roof top deck to limit overlooking of the secluded private open space associated to 27 Villamanta Street.
Endorsed Plans
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
Stormwater Management
3	The site stormwater system must be designed and installed such that the site stormwater discharge is not increased by the proposed development. (Note: An appropriate on-site detention system designed in accordance with the Infrastructure Design Manual may be required to the satisfaction of the responsible authority).
Landscape Plan
4	Before the development starts, a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified or experienced person, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, must be submitted to and be approved by the responsible authority. The plan(s) must be drawn to scale and show:
(a)	A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/ or removed;
(b)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;
(c)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;
(d)	Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;
(e)	One canopy tree per dwelling, a minimum height of 1.5m, when planted.
all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit.

Before Occupation of the Dwellings
5	Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, the owner must:
(a)	Construct the site stormwater system including separate connection for each unit / lot into the kerb & channel in Villamanta Street, or other nominated point/s as approved by the Responsible Authority. The stormwater connection must be in accordance with City of Greater Geelong Standard Drawings;
(b)	Construct vehicular crossings in accordance with the requirements and standards of the responsible authority with no change to existing surface levels in the road reserve;
(c)	Remove any redundant vehicular crossings with kerb and channel and the footpath/nature strip area reinstated to match existing construction in the street;
(d)	Clean and finish all walls on boundaries;
(e)	Complete all works, including landscaping works, in accordance with the endorsed plans;
all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Special Building Overlay
6	The Finished Floor Level (FFL) of the main dwelling and habitable area of Townhouse 2 must be no lower than 28.90 m AHD.
SUBDIVISION
Endorsed Plans
7	The layout and site dimensions of the subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the responsible authority. (Note: There are no requirements to alter or modify the endorsed plan if a plan is certified under the provisions of the Subdivision Act 1988 that is generally in accordance with the endorsed plans).
Telecommunications
8	The owner of the land must enter into agreements with: 
(a)	A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and,
(b)	A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network (NBN) will not be provided by optical fibre.
Servicing Authorities
9	The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time. 
10	All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created. 
11	The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.
Prior to Certification
12	The Plan of Subdivision submitted for certification must include all easements deemed necessary to protect existing or future drainage lines within the subject site, and any easements required between the subject site and the nominated legal point of discharge must be created to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Prior to Statement of Compliance
13	Before a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 is issued, the owner must:
(a)	Construct the site stormwater system including separate connection for each unit / lot into the kerb & channel in Villamanta Street, or other nominated point/s as approved by the Responsible Authority. The stormwater connection must be in accordance with City of Greater Geelong Standard Drawings.
(b)	Construct vehicular crossings in accordance with the requirements and standards of the responsible authority with no change to existing surface levels in the road reserve. 
all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
EXPIRY
14	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
(c)	The plan of subdivision has not been certified within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(d)	A statement of compliance is not issued within five (5) years of the date of certification.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
– End of conditions –