VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P542/2022
Permit Application no. PA210088	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme; Partial demolition; Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling; Private Survey Precinct HO27; Contributory building; Extent of roof demolition; Form and position of additions; Impact on host building; Response to clause 43.01 and policy; Site context; Streetscape outcome; Clause 54; Standard A10.     	

Applicants	Kerry Brien and Deborah Frizza	

Responsible Authority	Hobsons Bay City Council	
SUBJECT LAND	3 Wilkins Street
NEWPORT  VIC  3015	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	21 October 2022	
DATE OF ORDER	9 November 2022	
CITATION	Brien v Hobsons Bay CC [2022] VCAT 1273	
Order
Amend permit application
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:
Kerry Brien and Deborah Frizza 
Amend application for review
2	Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the application is amended by changing the name of the applicant for review to:
Kerry Brien and Deborah Frizza 
No permit granted
3	In application P542/2022, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
4	In planning permit application PA210088, no permit is granted.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member	

Appearances
For applicants	Mr M Dunn, Metropol Planning Solutions Pty Ltd.  He called the following person to give expert evidence:
•	Mr M Taylor, architect and heritage consultant.	
For responsible authority	Ms L Lunn, Louise Lunn Planning Pty Ltd.	
Information
Description of proposal	Partial demolition and the construction of two storey additions to the rear of the retained building.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme (scheme).	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 4 (NRZ4).  Heritage Overlay – Schedule 27 Private Survey Precinct (HO27).  	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-5 – Extension of a dwelling on a lot of less than 500m2.  Clause 43.01-1 – Demolition, buildings and works.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 02.03-1, 02.03-5, 02.03-6, 11.02-1S, 15.01-1R, 15.01-1L-01, 15.01-2L-02, 15.01-5L, 15.02-1L, 15.03, 15.03-1S, 15.03-1L-01, 16.01-1L, 32.09, 43.01, 54, 65, 71, 72.04 and 72.08.   	
Subject land	The land is on the south side of Wilkins Street, mid-block between Douglas Parade and Oakbank Street.  It has an angled alignment to the street.  The land is 434m2 and contains a single storey Bungalow style dwelling (image below).  A lane abuts the eastern site boundary.  Vehicle access is available from Wilkins Street.  
	
Tribunal inspection	24 October 2022 (unaccompanied).  	
Reasons
Introduction
1	Permit application PA210088 has been made by the applicants seeking approval to modify the existing dwelling on the subject land through partial demolition and the construction of two storey rear additions.

2	The Council refused a planning permit on four grounds.  
3	The applicants seek review of this decision, challenging all four grounds.
OVERVIEW OF Parties’ positions
4	The Council’s grounds of refusal relate to two matters:
•	The proposal’s heritage response, including the extent of demolition and the siting, scale and form of the proposed additions.  The Council regards the extension as highly visible from the street; the development is visual bulky, imposing and dominating above the existing dwelling.  The proposal fails to meet clause 43.01, relevant policies, and the Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006.
•	The proposal’s response to clause 54 of the scheme with respect to objectives 54.02-1 and 54.04-1 that respectively address neighbourhood character, and side and rear setbacks.
5	The Council’s decision is informed by the advice of its heritage advisor during the processing of the permit application.  No expert evidence has been called by the Council in this proceeding.  The Council opposes the encroachment of the additions into the existing building envelope, the lack of a linking section between the existing and proposed buildings forms, the roof form, the extent of demolition, the side additions, and oblique views of the proposal.
6	The applicants submit the proposal is consistent with the outcomes provided for in the scheme for the subject land.   As set out in Mr Dunn’s written submission, the applicants submit the proposed development is an appropriate design response for the subject site and represents an acceptable planning outcome.  Reasons given include:
•	The immediate context of the site is not reflective of the predominantly single storey character of the heritage precinct.
•	The proposal allows for substantial retention of the existing dwelling, especially the front section and thus the presentation of the dwelling to the front street boundary will not be impacted upon.  The proposed upper level additions are substantially set back from the existing front façade of the dwelling (approximately 7.5 metres behind the front of the porch and approximately 5.9 metres behind the balance of the front façade) and from the front boundary of the subject site (between approximately 9.5 metres and approximately 16 metres). 
•	The proposed additions will appear highly recessive from the street and will appear as a minor second storey element within a section of the Wilkins Street streetscape.
•	The additions will only add marginally to the overall height of the building (approximately 1.6 metres above the ridge height of the existing dwelling at their highest point with an average additional height of only approximately 1.2 metres as the additions present to the front boundary). 
•	While oblique views to the additions will be possible from Wilkins Street from the north-east (across the front yard of No. 1 Wilkins Street) this is the case with other second storey elements on adjoining properties and does not detract from the heritage values of the streetscape with dwellings primarily viewed from the front of each property and not the side. 
•	There will be no unreasonable off-site amenity impacts resulting from the proposed alterations and additions. 
7	The applicants rely on the expert evidence of Mr Taylor, which has been tested through cross-examination.
8	Mr Taylor summarises his advice and recommendations as follows:
The proposed two-level rear development at 3 Wilkins Street, Newport is a reasonable proposal for this site as it strikes a balance between the setting, the existing dwelling and an architectural addition. The proposed addition respects local planning polices and is compliant with local policies and guidelines which broadly aim to retain noted buildings in a suitable setting: and to sympathetically develop these places to accommodate ongoing use and occupation to contemporary standards and amenity.
The proposal is ameliorated by the relatively low significance of the site within the HO27 which is large and resilient and does not include this south section of Wilkins Street as a premium or notable area.
The works are ameliorated by controlled nature of the contemporary architectural addition which adopts limited number of external cladding materials, nor is it derivative of the original building in a faux- heritage style.
Findings
Decision-making context
9	My role is to consider this permit application afresh and assess it on its merits.  I must decide whether the permit application achieves an acceptable outcome, assessed against the relevant provisions and policies in the scheme.  
10	Integrated decision-making is required by clause 71.02-3.  The Planning Policy Framework operates together with the remainder of the scheme to deliver integrated decision-making.  Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
Heritage
Clause 43.01, Heritage Overlay Schedule 27 and policy
11	The purpose of clause 43.01 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.
12	Decision guidelines in clause 43.01-8 include:
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.
13	Relevant policies include clauses 15.03-1S and 15.03-1L-01.  The Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006 is an incorporated document and is to be considered as relevant in addition to other cited policy documents.  The Private Survey Heritage Precinct Heritage Design Guidelines, September 2021 is also an incorporated document in the schedule to clause 72.04.
14	I have considered policies fully as relevant to the application and the facts.  I do not recite them all.  I highlight the following local policies.
15	Conservation strategies in clause 15.03-1L-01 include:
Support the retention of Victorian, Edwardian and Inter-war era buildings wherever possible.
Support the continued original use of the building by enabling it to be upgraded to meet present day occupancy requirements and standards. 
Encourage the conservation of elements that contribute to the significance of a heritage place. 
Ensure places of cultural heritage are conserved and, where appropriate, interpreted. 
Support the repair, restoration, stabilisation or reconstruction of fabric where possible.
16	Demolition strategies in clause 15.03-1L-01 include:
Avoid the demolition of heritage places unless one of the following applies: 
•	The fabric to be removed is not of primary significance and its removal will not adversely affect the significance of the place.
•	The demolition will assist in the long-term conservation of the place….
Encourage the removal of alterations and additions except where they contribute to the significance of the heritage place.
17	Development strategies in clause 15.01-1L-01 include:
Design development (including infill, alterations and additions) to not visually dominate a heritage place and complement or enhance its aesthetic qualities in terms of scale, siting, design, form and materiality. 
Support development that creatively interprets and complements the historic context of a heritage place. 
Distinguish new development from original building stock through the use of innovative and contemporary design that respects heritage character.
Statement of significance - Private Survey Heritage Precinct
18	HO27 is a large heritage precinct covering an extensive area of Williamstown and Newport north of Ferguson Street.   
What is Significant? 
The Private Survey Heritage Precinct, which comprises all land within HO27 and is generally bounded by North Road, The Strand, Ferguson Street, Power Street and Melbourne Road in Williamstown and Newport. 
How is it Significant? 
The Private Survey Heritage Precinct is of local historic, social and aesthetic significance to the City of Hobsons Bay. 
Why is it Significant? 
Historically, the Private Survey precinct is significant for its ability to illustrate the early private subdivision that began to the north of Ferguson Street soon after the formal surveying of the Government Town to the south of Ferguson Street. It demonstrates the influence of the two main development phases of the city during the Victorian (port rise and decline) and Edwardian to Interwar periods (railway and manufacturing industry), which have created a distinctive historic development pattern that is different from the Government Survey precinct to the south of Ferguson Street. (AHC criteria A4 and D2). 
Socially, the Private Survey precinct is significant for its ability to demonstrate how distinctive and often self-contained communities developed in Williamstown during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (AHC criteria G1) 
Aesthetically, the Private Survey is significant for the groups of predominantly late nineteenth and early twentieth century houses that, although stylistically different, share common elements of scale, siting, materials and roof forms, which create cohesive groups of distinctive character. Some streets retain early street detailing such as basalt kerb and channel and mature street trees, which enhance and reinforce the historic character.  In addition: 
•	Alma Terrace is notable for its intact groups of Victorian double fronted villas. 
•	Chandler Street is notable as a nearly intact street with an almost homogeneous Interwar character. 
•	Douglas Parade, Melbourne Road and Stevedore Streets are notable for the commercial buildings on prominent corner sites that set these streets apart from the predominantly residential streets in the area. 
•	The east side of Eliza Street is notable for its intact group of Victorian single fronted villas and one double fronted brick villa. 
•	Federal Street is notable as a nearly intact street with an almost homogeneous Interwar character. 
•	The north side of Wilkins Street is notable for its groups of single and double fronted Victorian villas. 
(Tribunal emphasis)
19	Noted places in the statement of significance are shown below.

20	The  Hobsons Bay Heritage Study Amended 2017 (Study) is a policy document to be considered as relevant.  It is a background document in the schedule to clause 72.08.  It includes the following with respect to Wilkins Street in the Private Survey Precinct HO27: 
Wilkins Street predominantly comprises single-storey, detached, single and double-fronted timber Victorian villas. Most are sited parallel to the street boundary, except on the south side, where a group of predominantly inter-war bungalows are sited diagonally to the street boundary. Cohesion is good and integrity is moderate as there are few post-war houses. Front fences are varied in style but generally sympathetic and predominantly low. The street is wide and has concrete kerbing, nature strips in parts and street trees.
21	Under the heading of ‘Conservation’, the Private Survey Heritage Precinct Heritage Design Guidelines, September 2021 state:
Retain the distinctive cultural heritage significance of this precinct that is derived from: 
•	The extent of speculative subdivision within Williamstown during the nineteenth century, which created a less regular street pattern compared to other parts of Williamstown and Newport. 
•	The ability to illustrate, often within the same street, two key periods in the development of Williamstown from maritime to railway and other industries, through varying road widths, central planting strips, absence of nature strips and non-alignment of cross streets. 
•	The commercial development scattered throughout the precinct that illustrates how self- contained communities developed in the era before the use of cars became widespread. 
•	The pre-1860 buildings, that demonstrate the early origins of parts of this precinct closer to Ferguson Street. The contrast between streets that are relatively homogeneous in character with streets that are more heterogeneous in character. 
•	The architectural diversity of the residential buildings comprising villas and bungalows from the Victorian to Interwar periods of generally uniform scale (predominantly single storey), siting (detached), construction (predominantly horizontal weatherboard with pitched hip or gable roof), and a regular subdivision pattern (single dwellings on regular allotments), providing a unifying element throughout the precinct. Typically, car parking was not provided on site until later in the Interwar period. 
•	Regular shaped lots with wide frontages predominantly between 10-15 metres, creating a distinctive pattern of development. 
•	Landmark hotels and commercial buildings that are typically sited on prominent street corners. 
22	Under the heading of ‘Built form and appearance’, the Private Survey Heritage Precinct Heritage Design Guidelines, September 2021 state (among others, with my emphasis on some):
Buildings and works including alterations and additions to existing dwellings should: 
•	Be single storey scale when viewed from the street (not including a right-of-way). 
•	Be sited to the rear of the existing building. 
•	Include side setbacks that reflect the existing street pattern. 
•	Be the same, or a contemporary interpretation of the wall cladding of the existing dwelling for walls visible from the street. 
•	Be compatible with the roof form and material of the heritage place when visible from the street. 
•	Not significantly alter the fabric of the facade or profile of the main roofline as viewed from the street. 
•	Retain contributory features such as chimneys and bluestone foundations. 
•	Avoid windows in upper floor elevations facing the street. 
•	Have ground floor windows that are rectangular, timber-framed and vertically orientated if single, or in a horizontal bank if grouped, when visible from the street. 
23	Based on the Council’s submission and the Study:
•	The buildings at Nos. 1 and 3 Wilkins Street are identified as contributory as are Nos. 23, 25, 27, 41, 43 and 83.  Nos. 5 and 7 Wilkins Street are non-contributory.  
•	On the north side, the buildings at Nos.  10-18, 20, 22-26, 34-46, 52, 54, 56, 70, 72, 78-86 and 92 Wilkins Street are contributory.
Existing building on the subject land
24	I accept the description contained in the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by Mr Taylor that the extant building is sited ‘garden-suburb style in the centre of the site and with land all around’.  
25	Consistent with the description in the Study, the lot is one of multiple lots on the south side whose frontage is skewed aligning with Wilkins Street.  The house is sited at-square to the side boundaries.
26	The HIA refers to alterations to the current building, as does the Council’s submission.  Among the matters referred to are the following:
•	The Council files show the dwelling had a small flat roofed rear addition in 1978.  
•	The applicants’ town planning report states the earliest available permit drawings from the Council show a hipped roof to the existing house even though Council does not appear to hold permits for a roof replacement.  The report suggests the roof was either draw incorrectly or was replaced without Council consent.  A building permit was issued in 1978 for an enclosed rear porch.
•	P00.803 22 December 2000 and a building permit in February 2001 allowed an addition to the rear of the dwelling and a new front fence.  The plans reference a gable roof at No. 3 Wilkins Street.  That rear extension appears to be the building’s current rear form.  The architectural plans differ from the structural engineering plan set which show the current rear bay window and jutted rear area.  The current fence also appears to have dated from that 2001 period as the fences guide is included in the town planning set.  The terracotta tile roof was also removed and replaced with the current ‘Heritage Red roofing corrugated’.
•	A plumbing certificate issued on 8 May 2001 noted that the following works were undertaken on the property: 
o	removal and replacement of terracotta roof tiles with ‘heritage red’ corrugated roofing to the main house with new chimney flashing, gutters and ridges; 
o	two bay windows; 
o	downpipes. 
•	A further building permit was issued on 18 October 2003 for an upper level addition.  This is also noted on the Hobsons Bay City Council property enquiry certificate dated 14 October 2004.  It is not known if a planning permit was issued for this unbuilt scheme.  The addition sat atop the ridge.  There is only record of a building permit even though it appears that the land was in Heritage Overlay Schedule 22 at that time.
27	The applicants’ town planning report states the existing building, including the main roof, has been substantially modified, compromising its heritage significance.  Whilst some demolition is proposed to the main roof, it will be unsighted from Wilkins Street.  The report also questions how much of the main roof is original, which according to the planning permit documents in 1978, show a hipped roof. 
28	The Council disagrees with any suggestion that the primary roof form is not original.  It disputes the extent to which the applicants seek to rely on an argument that the main roof has been substantially modified.   It submits:
•	The property was assessed as being of ‘contributory’ status in early 2000s.  It is unlikely that it would have been awarded that status if the roof profile had been altered to provide for a hipped roof. 
•	The hipped roof profile would appear to be an error and the existing gable roof form is original. 
•	Council’s heritage advisor is satisfied that the primary roof profile has not been altered to the extent that it undermines its contribution to the building and its contributory status within HO27.
29	The Council acknowledges the red steel/painted roofing is a more recent alteration to the dwelling but says this cladding does not undermine the dwelling’s contributory status.  The gable roof profile, a recognisable element when categorizing the Bungalow dwelling, is retained.
30	Appendix B of Mr Taylor’s evidence refers to ‘what is thought to be the original gable roof” and states:
The proposed development maintains the original roof gable roof form to front and sides, and with margins to the rea (sic). The strongly expressed jutted gable ends with timber bargeboards are retained and will remain visually prominent.  (Emphasis added)
31	In response to my questions, Mr Taylor gave the following opinions:
•	The building is from the early 1920s for which HO27 is significant.
•	It is appropriate to proceed on the basis that the gable is the original form but not with its original fabric.
•	The existing roof material is contemporaneous with Bungalow development between wars.
32	The building is evidently contributory.  I therefore disagree with the following statements in the town planning report that:
In summary, the existing building, including the main roof, has been substantially modified, compromising its heritage significance. Whilst there is some demolition proposed to the main roof, it will be unsighted from Wilkins Street.
33	The last sentence is inconsistent with the evidence and facts (to which I refer again including at my paragraph 57).
34	The south side of this section of Wilkins Street is not intact, consistent or cohesive.  There are two storey additions to No. 1 Wilkins Street and a two storey form as part of No. 277 Douglas Parade, below.  

35	This pocket of buildings on the south side of Wilkins Street, with additions, is more substantial in scale than the predominant single storey period buildings in the environs.  In this way, I agree with Ms Lunn and Mr Taylor that it is demonstrably mixed.
36	The building on the subject land has a transverse gable form with the gabled front porch, contrasting with varied roof forms and additions on the south side of Wilkins Street between Douglas Parade and Oakbank Street.  Roof forms are relevant in considering the type and form of an addition.  The subject land is the only lot in this group to not contain a double storey form.  

37	An infill dwelling is at No. 2 Wilkins Street, adjacent to No. 4 Wilkins Street opposite the subject land.  Overall, the north side of the street, extending west is more intact with a higher level of integrity than the south.  

38	More specifically with respect to existing development:
•	The rear of the dwelling at No. 277 Douglas Parade faces Wilkins Street.  The upper storey with a hipped roof appears as part of this group of buildings on the south side of the street between Douglas Parade and Oakbank Street.  The Council estimates the maximum building height is 7.27 metres.
•	No. 1 Wilkins Street has a strong gable form to the street with a relatively shallow upper level set back from the front of the building, approximately 2.4 metres.  From the east, the upper storey has a strong streetscape presence.  The gable form reaches a maximum building height of 7.49 metres.
•	No. 5 Wilkins Street has a hipped roof with the upper floor setback around 5 metres from the north-east building line.  It has a shallow eastern upper level side setback compared with the ground level below.  It closely intersects with the roof ridgeline.  The building height ranges from 7.5 to 8.3 metres.
•	Two double-storey modern dwellings on the corner lot at Nos. 70 and 70A Oakbank Street have a steeper gabled roof form.
•	Roof forms on the opposite side of Wilkins Street vary again, as do the widths of dwellings, their alignment to the street and their front setback dimensions.  The contemporary infill dwelling at No. 2 Wilkins Street has a prominent two storey presentation.
39	The existing additions in this group have upper floor windows, in varying formats, facing the street.
Proposal
40	The proposal seeks approval for the following: 
•	Demolish the previous addition to the rear of the dwelling including part of the main roof form, one metre behind (south) the roof ridgeline, and relocate an evaporative cooling unit.
•	Extend the living room to the south.
•	Construct a single level side extension to the eastern boundary for a new laundry, and part of a proposed rear deck.
•	Construct a first floor addition setback one metre south of the main roof ridgeline.
•	Provide a north-facing first floor high level window to service the proposed study and ensuite.
•	Provide east-facing first floor windows to the addition. 
41	The maximum height of the proposed addition is 7.8 metres, at the north-east corner of the structure.
Acceptability of Demolition
42	Mr Taylor describes most of the building fabric to be demolished being from more recent additions in 1978 and 2001, with only a rear section of roof being removed.  The side eaves and barges are retained. The balance of the building including the front section, verandah, driveway, garage, street setting and fence are to remain intact and undergo maintenance works as part of the project. 
43	The only point of dispute with respect to the permit required to demolish or remove parts of the building under clause 43.01 is the roof.  The extent of roof demolition is shown in plan TP04, extracted in part below.

44	Removal of a portion of the rear roof profile does not affect:
•	the front of the dwelling or roof; or
•	the only chimney.
45	The whole of the gable roof eave/edge on side elevations will be retained and the evaporative unit will be relocated. 
46	However, I agree with the Council that proposed extent of loss of the original profile of the roof is not an outcome sought by the Private Survey Heritage Precinct Heritage Design Guidelines.  It also does not accord with local policy where the fabric to be removed should not be of primary significance and should not adversely affect the significance of the place.
47	The alignment of the dwelling on the subject land means that the side of the building, with its gable roof and roof profile, is an evident element in the Wilkins Street streetscape.  This is notably from the east in Wilkins Street over the property at No. 1 Wilkins Street.  Having said that, I note a street tree and a tree on the No. 1 Wilkins Street together filter side views when trees are in leaf.  
48	The building sits in a context where views to the sides of other dwellings on this south side of Wilkins Street are prominent, such as Nos. 1 and 5 Wilkins Street, and the dwellings at the Oakbank Street corner.  While not given weight by the Private Survey Heritage Precinct Heritage Design Guidelines, the lane abutting the eastern boundary of the subject land further opens the view further on the oblique.  
49	When seen from directly in front of the dwelling, the front section of the roof form would be unaffected, which the applicants emphasise is the primary consideration.  While I understand that is an important view, it is not the only streetscape view (as also occurs with corner lots, as Mr Taylor observes in his evidence).
50	Given the land’s circumstances, much more of the original roof profile would be expected to be retained as a policy response.  I have concerns about the extent of loss of the rear roof form given it is currently appreciated and read as part of the streetscape.  It assists to understand the building’s contributory role.  This is the case notwithstanding it is the side of the dwelling and the building sits in a modified and mixed part of the streetscape.  As already stated, buildings in this group of lots on the south side of Wilkins Street have greater visibility because of their alignment, compared with, for example, those on the north side of Wilkins Street.  The loss may be reduced potentially to an acceptable level by keeping substantially more of the original profile.  I have considered this in relation to the proposed addition, below.
Acceptability of the proposed development
51	The addition sits above the gable roof form, behind the main ridgeline and has some boundary development at ground floor level.
52	I accept Mr Taylor’s description of the addition being contemporary, architecturally designed, cranked box with skewed side walls and a “V” shaped ridge and his description of the cladding, windows and finishes.  The roof line has been described by the Council as ‘butterfly’.  
53	The addition would be seen from the opposite side of Wilkins Street, as also demonstrated in Mr Taylor’s evidence.  

54	An extract of plan TP09, east elevation, is below.  

55	The east elevation is the more prominent of the two side elevations in the streetscape, as demonstrated in Ms Lunn’s photograph, Mr Taylor’s analysis in his evidence (Figure 2) and seen on inspection.
 
56	The addition would maintain the staggered pattern of development and additions in this group of buildings.  
57	The applicant’s written submission acknowledges that the proposed side additions are discouraged in the Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay 2006, but states that the additions will be similar to the side additions to the dwelling at No. 1 Wilkins Street immediately east across the right of way laneway.
58	The upper level is close to the ridgeline and eastern wall/gable, with a new roof profile and materials.  I find that these elements contribute to a level of prominence, notwithstanding the presence of several neighbouring buildings.  
59	In my view, there are two primary issues that I address next.  One is the streetscape response and the other is the relationship with the host building.
60	I am less concerned about the proposal’s streetscape impacts and impacts on HO27 overall because of the mixed two storey setting on this side of Wilkins Street.  
61	The proposed development adopts a similar scale and rhythm to the existing dwellings to the east and west, notwithstanding the varied roofs, styles and finishes of the additions.  The proposed materials are not seen in the immediate area but assist to distinguish old and new.  As already indicated, the existing additions in this group have upper floor windows, in varying formats, facing the street.  These factors are all relevant in assessing the proposal’s response to the multiple guidelines documents and policy.  
62	The Council submits the addition has many flaws and should be set back behind the original roof, using a link to separate old and new.  While I understand that this would reduce the visibility of an extension, I observe that the Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings in Heritage Areas in Hobsons Bay refer to this approach, creating a separate visual entity when ‘Major additions of a size comparable to, or greater than, the existing building…’ are proposed.  This does not appear to be the case here in terms of floor area.  The applicants and Mr Taylor relevantly refer to the problems with such an approach in this case given the lot depth and the need to take account of amenity impacts and garden contexts.  A two storey extension associated with the extant building on the subject land is likely to be visible from the street, on the oblique, even if set back further while retaining more of the original roof form, eg. by one metre or so.  
63	I have a particular concern with the relationship between the proposed development and host building.  I agree with the Council that the current design would diminish the contributory values of the host building; it dilutes the understanding of the contributory dwelling because of the degree to which the development sits within the rear of the roof and appears above the ridgeline and chimney.  It is not acceptable.
64	Although an issue for the Council, I am not persuaded that the section of boundary wall, on the lane, is unacceptable.  This part of the development occurs deep into the site.  In addition, other boundary development deep into lots can be seen, such as associated with No. 1 Wilkins Street.  
65	Another concern raised by the Council is the side boundary wall of the laundry, which overlaps with the lower end of the side gabled eave.  I accept that this can be readily modified through permit conditions, if necessary, as discussed at the hearing.  
66	In response to my questions at the hearing about potential changes to the proposed upper level addition with respect to materials, heights and setbacks, the Council says the current design cannot be remedied to achieve an acceptable outcome.  A ‘complete re-design’ is required.
67	Mr Dunn said a change in the roof pitch to three degrees, shown in a sketch he tendered (extract below), could be achieved.  It would lower the eastern section of the development, which is the highest point.  It would reduce the height by 400mm and change the roof profile which the Council also opposes.   Mr Taylor also commented on potential changes.  While referring to impacts in internal amenity, he indicated that an increased setback from the ridgeline of 0.5 – 1 metre could likely be accommodated. 

68	I find the changes canvassed at the hearing are not sufficient to achieve an acceptable heritage response.  This is the case even when giving weight to the fact that the dwelling and addition would not sit within a cohesive group, the form of additions associated with nearby buildings, and the greater visibility of the additions to the side of the host building.  The concerns stem from the extent of roof demolition, and the extent to which the addition sits into the roof profile at the height and setbacks proposed. 
Clause 54
NRZ, clause 54 and policy
69	The purpose of clause 32.09 includes:
To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
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.
70	For the construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot, the decision guidelines in clause 32.09-13 include the objectives, standards and decision guidelines of clause 54.
71	NRZ4 applies to ‘Heritage Areas, Altona and Williamstown’.  The neighbourhood character objective is ‘To support development that contributes to the heritage place’.  There are no additional decision guidelines.
72	NRZ4 varies the following clause 54 standards: 
•	A17 private open space requiring an area of 80 square metres. 
•	A20 front fence height – should not exceed 1.2 metres in streets other than in a Transport Zone 2.
Character and setbacks
73	While the Council’s grounds express concerns with respect to the proposal’s response to clause 54.02-1, the grounds are similar as addressed under clause 43.01.  
74	The Council submits that the proposed works fail to adequately respond to the contributory dwelling and its contribution to the heritage place.  The Council also draws attention to a numerical non-compliance with clause 54.04-1 side and rear setbacks.  The numerical non-compliance is in the order of 200mm with respect to the eastern boundary measured from the lane boundary.  The Council’s concern is not with respect to adverse amenity outcomes but the visibility of the proposed addition as viewed from oblique angles in Wilkins Street.
75	Having regard to the relevant decision guidelines in clauses 54.02-1 and 54.04-1, it is relevant that the development abuts a lane, near to a wall on the opposite boundary, and is not suggested by the Council to have any amenity impacts.  The applicant agrees.
76	As I have indicated earlier, the extent of loss associated with the roof and the position of the addition, do not result in an acceptable outcome in heritage terms and I reach the same conclusion with respect to NRZ4’s neighbourhood character objective.  Modifying the development to meet standard A10 is not required for amenity impact purposes and would not resolve other concerns already identified.
CONCLUSION
77	For the above reasons, the responsible authority’s decision is affirmed. 

Margaret Baird
Senior Member