1. The permit is subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.

Mr M Shappard, urban designer, David Lock and Associates.

Mr B Raworth, heritage consultant, Bryce Raworth and Associates.

For H and L Landes Enterprises Pty Ltd, Bridge Road Properties Pty Ltd and Landes Clothing Pty Ltd

Demolition of part of existing buildings and construction of buildings and works to create a multi-storey development (10 storeys) comprising 3 shops, 57 dwellings (apartments), 26 car parking spaces within mechanical stacker units and waiver of loading bay. No visitor parking is provided.

Application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• Clause 31.02; Use of land for dwelling in Commercial 1 Zone
• Clause 34.01-4: Buildings and works within the Commercial 1 Zone
• Clause 43.01-1: Part demolition of a building and construct buildings and works in H0310
• Clause 52.06-1: Reduction in car parking
• Clause 52.07: Waiver of loading bay provision

Policies: Clauses 10.02; 10.04; 11.02; 15.01-1, 15.01-5; 15.02, 15.03; 16.01; 18.01; 21.04; 21.05; 21.06; 21.07' 21.08; 22.02, 22.05 and 22.07.

Provisions: Clauses 52.06; 52.07; 52.34; 55 and 65.

Rectangular site with a frontage of 16.5 metres and an overall area of about 789 square metres. Three shops occupy the land; two of which are double storey and individual heritage significance, the third is single storey of no significance. Shops and a new multi-level apartment building under construction exist on adjoining land while apartment buildings exist to the north. The land is within the Bridge Road retail/commercial strip which is identified as a Major Activity Centre and within a Heritage Overlay.

(Reasons given orally at the hearing but subsequently revised)

1. 207 Bridge Road Pty Ltd (the applicant) lodged an application for planning permit with Yarra City Council seeking a permit for the use and development of land comprising the properties at 203 to 207 Bridge Road Richmond for shops and residential apartments. The applicant has lodged this application with the Tribunal under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the Council's failure to grant a permit within the 60 day prescribed time and requests an order granting the permit.
2. The subject land comprises several adjoining properties fronting the north side of Bridge Road and extending through to the south side of Leggo Place. They create a rectangular site with an area 789 square metres. The land contains three shop buildings, two of which are listed as being of individual significance under the Council's heritage study. The third is not.
3. The property to the east is currently under redevelopment. That development involves the retention of a former bank building and the construction of an eight storey residential tower behind it, setback about 13 metres from Bridge Road. The tower has some apartments with balconies adjacent to the common boundary with the subject land. Various shop buildings exist to the west and south along Bridge Road while 3 and 5 storey apartment buildings exist to the north on the opposite side of Leggo Place. Contextually, the land is within the Bridge Road Major Activity Centre, which has a streetscape identified as being of heritage significance [HO310].
4. The proposal involves the demolition of one shop, the demolition of the rear part of two other shop buildings and the construction of a ten-storey building. The development is to contain 3 shops fronting Bridge Road (two existing shops and one new shop), 57 residential apartments together with associated car parking. The two individually significant shops are to be renovated. The proposed tower building is setback approximately 14.4 metres from Bridge Road and largely constructed to the side boundaries, although there are some light-courts provided adjacent to those of the neighbouring building under construction and the neighbouring site to the west. Twenty-six car parking spaces are provided, all within a mechanical stacker system, accessed from Leggo Place. No visitor spaces are proposed.
5. Under the planning scheme, the land is zoned Commercial 1 and within the Heritage Overlay [HO310]. Permission is required under various provisions of the planning scheme for the use of land as dwellings, demolition of buildings under the Heritage Overlay, construction of the proposed building under the zone and overlay, reduction is car parking and waiver of loading bay. In addition to matters for consideration under the provisions under which permission is required, general decision guidelines are at Clause 65. Amongst other things, these require we give consideration to planning policy the purpose of the zone and overlay, orderly planning and amenity.
6. Although the Council did not make a decision before this application was lodged with the Tribunal, it subsequently did so, under Section 84 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Council decided that it would grant the permit subject to conditions. Amongst other things, the permit conditions require changes to the plans including the deletion of the top two levels of the proposed building and the provision of a 1-metre setback to neighbouring balconies at the northeast corner of the site. The permit conditions also require that 2-on site visitor car parking spaces be provided.
7. In response to notice of the permit application, the Council received 17 objections[2]. In summary, the objections raise concerns about:
   • the height and bulk of the building; adverse impacts on the character and heritage significance of Bridge Road;
   • adverse impacts on the amenity of nearby properties due to matters such as overlooking, reduced daylight, overshadowing, loss of views, traffic and parking; and various other matters including impacts during construction and devaluation of nearby properties.
8. A number of objectors filed statements of grounds maintaining their opposition to the proposal. Three respondents, Mr Scott, Mr Cao and Mr Landes appeared at the hearing. Mr Cao and Mr Scott are the purchasers of apartments within a new building on neighbouring land to the east at 32 Bosisto Street. They are essentially concerned about the impact that the proposed building will have on daylight, sunlight and outlook from balconies to their apartments. Mr Landes is the owner of neighbouring retail premises. He expresses concerns about viability of the shops, parking, waste management and matters such as the provision of toilets.
9. The applicant relies on amended plans in support of its application. The plans show various changes to the proposal. Further, the applicant is also agreeable to the imposition of conditions which implement further changes, providing for increased setbacks to the north and the provision of the 600mm setback to neighbouring balconies to the northeast. The applicant seeks a direction form the Tribunal that the permit be granted and that such permit should be subject to the vast majority of the conditions proposed by the Council. However, the applicant resists the inclusion of conditions to lower the height of the building, require the setback to neighbouring balconies to 1 metre rather than 600mm and the provision of visitor car parking.

1. The key issues in this case are:
   • Is the height of the building acceptable?
   • Will the proposed development result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring apartments to the east?
   • Is visitor parking required?
2. We must decide if a permit should be granted and if so, on what conditions. Having considered the submissions and evidence, the details of the proposal, the various matters required under the planning scheme and legislation, we conclude that a permit should be granted. The site is suitable for a significant form of development having regard to its attributes and context.

1. We find the concept which involves the retention of the front part of the two shop buildings of heritage significance, demolition of the third shop which is not significant to be appropriate as is construction of a residential apartment tower setback approximately 14 metres from Bridge Road. This represents a suitable balance between the strategic support for increased density of development in this location and the need to conserve and protect the significance of the streetscape and the individual buildings of significance on the site itself.
2. For reasons that we set out in more detail later, we find the height of the proposed building should be lowered by one storey to achieve an outcome that balances the urban consolidation against heritage.
3. Subject to some changes to the plans, we are satisfied that the proposed development will not have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the area generally. We find the car parking provision, as proposed by the applicant to be acceptable. The provision of no visitor parking is an acceptable outcome given the nature of the proposal and the context of the land.

1. Before turning to the three key issues raised by the parties at the hearing, it is relevant that we set out our conclusions and findings about matters that are relevant to the consideration of the merits of this proposal as a whole.
2. Firstly, it is clear that the land has attributes that make it suited to being redeveloped in an intensive way. It is a relatively large site. It is regular in shape. All infrastructure services are available. It is near excellent public transport and a wide range of retail services associated with the Bridge Road Major Activity Centre. All these things favour the redevelopment of this site in an intense way. Having said that, this is not to say that this site has the favourable attributes to the same degree as larger sites such as 'The Arc' and 'Richmond Plaza'. This is a much smaller site.
3. The land is, however, subject to heritage constraints. The land is within the Bridge Road Heritage Precinct [HO310]. Two of the three shops on the land are graded as individually significant. Demolition of the individually significant buildings is not appropriate as they appear to be suitable for renovation and continued use for shops. As such, heritage considerations may be seen as a constraint. But while heritage matters may temper expectations as to the intensity of development that may be achieved, nonetheless, they do not make the site unsuited to being redeveloped in a relatively intensive way.
4. Second, there is clear policy support for the redevelopment of suitable sites in an intensive way. The land is within a Major Activity Centre [MAC]. State and local policy clearly identifies MACs, particularly those well served by public transport, as an appropriate location for residential development at higher densities. A proposal to redevelop this site as proposed accords with this aspect of planning policy.
5. However, as previously noted, the land is within a heritage context. The provisions of the Heritage Overlay require that we give consideration to a range of matters including the protection and conservation of heritage buildings to ensure that there is no unreasonable impact on the heritage significance of the area within which the site lies, as set out in the relevant statement of significance.
6. On reviewing the matrix of state and local policies that apply, we are satisfied that subject to an acceptable design response being achieved, policy supports higher density residential development in this location, subject to heritage considerations, namely the response to the individually listed buildings and Bridge Road streetscape, being appropriate.
7. Third, the 'Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development' require that we give consideration to a range of matters relating to internal amenity for future residents. It is true that a number of apartments have bedrooms which rely on borrowed light, bedrooms with windows to light courts and balconies which, in some cases, are less than 8 square metres. We are however, satisfied that the proposed residential apartments provide an acceptable bottom line level of amenity for future residents. Apartments with internal bedrooms, with the light source to such rooms being within 6 metres, are acceptable. Balconies which are less than 8 square metres, such as some of those provided in this case, are acceptable as they have reasonable proportions, are accessible for living areas and are therefore usable. Bedroom windows to light courts are limited and generally provide for a direct source of external daylight through high sill windows. Added to this is the amenity offered by the location of the apartments, with easy access to both shops and public transport.
8. Fourthly, we accept that the partial demolition of the rear of the two individually significant shops is acceptable. The important building fabric, that is the front part of the shops, to a depth exceeding 10 metres, is being retained and incorporated into the new development. We do not accept the assertion of the Council's heritage adviser that this amounts to 'facadism'. Further, we accept that the demolition of the non significant shop is also acceptable given that the design of the replacement shop tenancy, maintains the general form, scale and fine grain pattern of the adjacent shops, albeit in a contemporary design. This is also appropriate as it clearly demarcates the new and old fabric.
9. We now turn to the three key issues in dispute.

1. The Council submits that the height of the proposed development is excessive and will have an adverse impact on the Bridge Road heritage streetscape. Although accepting of the 14.4 metre setback from the frontage, the Council argues that the height of the building is two storeys too high (as it presents to Bridge Road), and it will overwhelm the heritage streetscape. It also submits that the proposed height is inconsistent with the approach taken with respect to other developments which involve the introduction of increased height and towers along this part of Bridge Road, particularly to the east of the subject land. The Council says that the taller 10 storey elements in those projects, particularly 'The ARC' and the 'Richmond Plaza', involve 10 storey buildings setback in excess of the 40 metres, whereas lower built forms, around 6-7 storeys are found at a similar setback to the tower element in this case. The Council submits that the tower element on this site should be lowered to accord with the height of other buildings at this setback to achieve an acceptable outcome that does not overwhelm the heritage streetscape. With the deletion of two levels off the top of the tower element, the Council says an acceptable outcome is achieved. It seeks a condition to this effect.
2. The applicant submits that the height of the tower is acceptable. It argues that in the strategic context demands that opportunities for urban consolidation, particularly the provision of more housing, be supported and that good reason needs to given not to allow development that seeks to take full advantage of the opportunity provided by a particular site. The applicant also submits that the proposed tower responds appropriately to the Bridge Road streetscape, given its setback and design. In particular, both Mr Sheppard and Mr Raworth express the view that the extent to which the tower can be seen over the Bridge Road façade is not overwhelming, given the relative similarity in proportions of street shopfront façade to tower facade visible from the opposite side of Bridge Road. However, Mr Raworth concedes that the height of the tower is at about the maximum that can be achieved, so as to not upset the proportionality.
3. On reviewing the statement of significance, there is no question that the Bridge Road streetscape, comprising the single and two storey period shop buildings and the individually significant shops are the important heritage asset to be protected. On our observation, development that has thus far occurred along this section of Bridge Road which has introduced taller elements (The Arc, 231 Bridge Road and 32 Bosisto Street) has done so successfully and without detracting from the appearance, understanding and heritage significance of Bridge Road HO area. Taller elements can clearly be seen from the street, but they read as distinct and recessive elements, separate from the heritage streetscape, due to the setbacks, height and contrasting design in terms of style and materials.
4. We think that what has been approved is consistent with the intent of strategy 17.2 and the heritage policy at Clause 22.02 of the planning scheme.
5. Mr Sheppard notes that the emerging character of Bridge Road is based on two layers of built form, first the fine grain and low scale of the shops on Bridge Road with the second layer comprising the taller elements which have been added setback between 13 and 40 plus metres. On more detailed examination, we consider that the built form presents three layers, namely the fine grain, a second layer of buildings of about 6-7 storeys as a mid level setback of about 13-15 metres with the tallest elements setback in excess of 40 m on sites that are large and deep.
6. To some extent, this proposal seeks to insert a taller element into the middle layer position and, as conceded by Mr Cicero, represents some departure from what has been built and approved.
7. We accept the analysis of Mr Raworth and Mr Sheppard that, at 10 storeys, the proportions of height of the shop front to perceived height of the tower will be similar when viewed from directly opposite on Bridge Road. However, we do not accept their conclusion that this represents an acceptable outcome with respect to the protection of the heritage streetscape. We are of the view that on such analysis, the perceived height of the tower element, at its setback in this middle layer position, should be, proportionally, less than the shop facade in this view. This ensures that the tower element does not overwhelm the streetscape allowing the heritage shops to maintain their primacy and prominence.
8. In this regard, we consider that a reduction in height is warranted, however, not at two levels as proposed by the Council. We consider that the reduction should be one level. This is because:
   • The tower element is setback about 15 metres, about 2 metres further than 32 Bosisto Street;
   • The topography, which rises to the west along Bridge Road, provides for a natural stepping up of built form as the terrain rises;
   • The change in height, between what exists and approved along this mid level layer on Bridge Road is not significant, and
   • When reduced by one level, the proportion of the tower visible above the street façade will be less than the height of the street façade.
9. We think this represents an acceptable approach which balances the need to protect the Bridge Road streetscape while allowing for the redevelopment of a suitable site in a way envisaged by policies which support more housing within a MAC context. While this is a good site for development, it does not have the same attributes as the larger sites, such as Arc and Richmond Plaza in terms of size and depth, and this has been factored into our analysis.

Will the proposed development result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring apartments to the east?

1. Mr Scott and Mr Cao are the purchasers of two apartments at the northwest corner of the new building under construction at 32 Bosisto Street. They raise concerns about the impact that the proposed development will have on sunlight, daylight, shadows and outlook from balconies and windows located on or near the common boundary with the subject land. They submit that the proposed development is constructed too close to their balconies and windows thus causing detriment. They submit that the proposal should be redesigned to pull the building further back away from the common boundary and pulled back from the north boundary to ensure reasonable access to daylight and sunlight, reduce shadow impacts as well as providing for a more favourable outlook. This is shown on a diagram in Mr Cao's submission.
2. The balconies and windows of the apartments in question are located on or near the common boundary with the subject land. They face out onto what could be described as a small setback to the north.
3. The design response is to provide a setback of similar proportions directly opposite this on the subject land. This results in opposing balconies located about 4 metres of each other. However, to ensure privacy, the balconies to the proposed development on the subject land are screened to a height of 1.7 metres. Hence, the responsibility to maintain privacy between the two developments is accepted by this applicant.
4. The 'Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development' call for equitable access to sunlight and outlook. (see objective 2.6 and relevant design suggestions). This includes consideration being given to the future development of neighbouring sites to allow for, as best as possible, an equitable spread of development potential. This requirement should have formed part of the assessment of the 32 Bosisto Street proposal.
5. In our view, the design response is acceptable with the further 600mm setback to which the applicant accepts as a permit condition. The favourable outlook is to the north. This is where sunlight will be provided to the balconies of both developments and should be the main outlook. While there will be some shadows, the balconies at 32 Bosisto Street will receive access to sunlight for some part of the day as well as an opportunity for outlook. Daylight is also available directly from the north.
6. The imposition of changes, such as those suggested by Mr Cao, essentially seek to swing the balance of equitable development rights in favour of the 32 Bosisto Street site, by seeking to impose a requirement for larger setbacks as part of the proposed development, thus essentially relying on it for amenity. We do not regard this as an equitable outcome, rather, it is an approach which seeks to correct or compensate for what may be described as a deficiency in the design of the 32 Bosisto Street development by requiring the development on the subject land to accept a greater burden in terms of providing separation between the two developments.
7. The reality is that both developments will have an impact on one another.
8. The development at 32 Bosisto provides for balconies on the common boundary. As that building was recently approved, it should have been anticipated that a development on the neighbouring site would respond in the same or similar way to the common interface as both sites appear to be similar in terms of context, size and proportions.
9. We do not regard the Council's position to require a 1-metre setback from the balcony rather than 600mm to be fair or appropriate as it will unreasonably impact on the internal layout of the apartments within the proposed development.
10. We therefore accept the applicant's suggested design as appropriate.

1. The Council seeks a condition requiring the provision of two visitor car parking spaces.
2. We find such a condition both impractical and unnecessary.
3. The Council already accepts that it is appropriate to reduce the parking requirement at Clause 52.06 given the site's context, policy supporting the use of public and alternative forms of transport and the nature of the apartments proposed. Not all apartments will have a car space. This is an acceptable approach given the small size of the apartments, the availability of tram services and shops along Bridge Road. The Council also does not raise concerns about reliance on mechanical car stackers for parking. Car stackers are an accepted way of provided parking; a form of parking recognised in clause 52.06 of the planning scheme.
4. We find the need for the provision of two visitor spaces, totally impractical given that a mechanical stacker arrangement is to be used. As noted by Mr Fairlie, stacker systems are appropriate when there is consistency in user, as such persons will become familiar with how they operate. As such, they are often employed to provide residents spaces or those for offices. They are not typically applied in public or visitor parking situations because of the lack of familiarity of those users with such systems.
5. But, in any event, we do not regard the provision of two visitor spaces necessary given the public transport options available and the nature of the locality, which typically provides for short term parking resources, most suited for visitors in surrounding streets and public car parks.
6. We therefore conclude that it is not necessary to include a condition for on site visitor parking as requested by the Council. We will, however, include a condition that requires that no more than one car parking space be allocated to any one apartment. With the deletion of 6 apartments due to the reduction in height, this raises the potential for car spaces to be possibly allocated to one or more of the shops if considered desirable. We simply propose a form of condition that allows for this to occur, although not mandating it.

1. Various other matters were raised, but we do not think these are of great substance in the consideration of the overall merits of the proposal.
2. Specifically, we find:
   • The disposal of waste generated by both the retail and residential uses on the land can be managed in the usual way, that is, by the implementation of a waste management plan through permit condition. In this case, the provision of communal bins that can be collected by private contractor, as described by Mr Fairlie, is appropriate for small retail tenancies of the type proposed.
   • There is no impediment to the provision of toilets in the retail tenancies. This can be specified by permit condition as proposed by the Responsible Authority
   • In principle, we accept that the inclusion of an awning, as suggested by Mr Sheppard, is appropriate as it provides for weather protection for shoppers. However, as noted by the Council and Mr Landes, no detail as to how this is to be undertaken was presented. If this change is to be pursued it can be via a new permit or an amendment to this one.
   • We agree with Mr Fairlie's evidence that it is acceptable to waive the requirement to provide an on site loading bay given the small size of the shop tenancies and the availability of 'public' on street loading bay areas near the subject land.
   • The retail tenancies proposed are relatively small. However, we do not find them to be unacceptable within a retail strip centre as they provide for the continuity of retail frontages along Bridge Road. There was no evidence presented to demonstrate how three small shops in this location would be economically unviable. Ultimately, part of the problem in strip centres is, in some cases, an unrealistic expectation by landowners as to achieve a high rental return. If rents are set at realistic levels, we do not see why three new, attractive shop tenancies would not be taken up.

1. For these reasons, we set aside the Council's deemed refusal of the permit application. A permit is granted for the use and development proposed, generally subject to the conditions put forward in the Council's draft conditions. However, we will require:
   • Only one storey deleted, not two;
   • Modifications to the substituted plans in accordance with the changes subsequently put forward, including modifications to the rear setback of the building and the provision of a 600mm setback to balconies at 32 Bosisto Street, and
   • The inclusion of a condition that requires not more than one car parking space to able allocated to any one apartment.
2. We do not require the provision of two visitor spaces or changes to the northwest corner of the building as suggested by Mr Cao and Mr Scott.

• Use of land for dwelling in Commercial 1 Zone;
• Clause Buildings and works within the Commercial 1 Zone;
• Part demolition in Heritage; Overlay
• Clause 43.01-1: Buildings and works in Heritage Overlay;
• Clause 52.06-1: Reduction in car parking, and
• Clause 52.07: Waiver of loading bay provision

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the decision plans (TP,005 to TP,022, dated 17/09/13, prepared by David Watson Architect) but modified to show:
   • (a) the deletion of the 8th floor (top level);
   • (b) a minimum 6.52m northern setback at the 6th floor, with modified internal layouts (generally as per sketch plan TP,012, prepared by David Watson Architect and dated 30/09/13);
   • (c) the east boundary wall (northern end) across the ground to 6th floors setback a minimum of 600mm and treated in a light, reflective finish for a minimum length of 2.225m, with associated modifications to the northern living room privacy screens and eastern balcony screens of the affected dwellings (generally as per sketch plan TP,009, prepared by David Watson Architect and dated 30/09/13);
   • (d) confirmation the northern living room privacy screens and the eastern balcony screens to dwellings G.01, 1.01, 2.01, 3.01, 4.01, 5.01 and 6.01 are a:
     • (i) minimum 1.7m high, fixed, maximum 25 per cent transparent screens; or
     • (ii) minimum 1.7m high obscure glazing.
   • (e) the eastern edge of the dwelling 1.07, 2.01, 2.07, 3.07, 4.07, 5.01, 5.07, 6.01 and 6.07 balconies treated with any of the following:
     • (i) minimum 1.7m high, fixed, maximum 25 per cent transparent screens; or
     • (ii) minimum 1.7m high obscure glazing.
   • (f) the ground to 2nd floor north facing balcony screens as downward facing louvers, with cross section(s) demonstrating that views could be provided to Leggo Place and not directed to the adjacent balconies or habitable room windows;
   • (g) windows adjacent to the east and west boundary light courts as operable, except for habitable room windows, which must be constructed of fixed obscure glazing below 1.7m;
   • (h) confirmation the 1.7m high screens between balconies are either:
     • (i) fixed, obscure glazing; or
     • (ii) fixed and a maximum 25 per cent transparent.
   • (i) details of the restoration works to the facades of 203 and 205 Bridge Road;
   • (j) a demolition roof plan, confirming that any works to the roof would not impact adjoining sites (including chimneys);
   • (k) toilets for the shops, with a notation confirming the 2,000L (minimum) rainwater tank will be used for flushing of these toilets;
   • (l) internal residential corridors a minimum width of 1.5m;
   • (m) the location of all ancillaries (including air conditioner units - which must be positioned on balconies), with details of any necessary screening to ensure they are screened from street view;
   • (n) confirmation the lift will be a no-overrun design or alternatively, any projection will be equal to or lower than the parapet;
   • (o) the vehicular access door must not protrude outside the ground floor building line at any time;
   • (p) east-west and north-south cross sections of the vehicular entrance ramp (including the section external to the building), demonstrating the grades transition with Council's existing road infrastructure and the adjoining land to the east and west;
   • (q) a bollard in the shared area adjacent to the disabled parking space as per Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009;
   • (r) the car stacker device can accommodate 85th percentile vehicles;
   • (s) bicycle signage in accordance with clause 52.34-5 of the Yarra Planning Scheme;
   • (t) any changes as a result of the SMP endorsed under condition 7 (where relevant to show on plan);
   • (u) any changes as a result of the acoustic report endorsed under condition 4 (where relevant to show on plan);
   • (v) any changes as a result of the endorsed waste management plan (where relevant to show on plan);
   • (w) any changes as a result of the endorsed wind report (where relevant to show on plan); and
   • (x) provision for charging points at car and bicycle spaces to support electric vehicles and power assisted bicycles.

1. All development and use must accord with the endorsed plans. Any alterations must be approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
2. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified. Any alterations must be approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the plans are endorsed, an acoustic report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the acoustic report will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer and address:
   • (a) (a) on-site amenity in terms of:
     • (i) any ancillaries (including air conditioner units), the lift, light well, vehicular access door, traffic and tram noise, addressing relevant EPA and sleep disturbance criteria; and
     • (ii) commercial noise along Bridge Road, addressing SEPP N-1 and N-2.
   • (b) off-site amenity in terms of:
     • (i) car park vehicular access door;
     • (ii) car stackers;
     • (iii) the light wells;
     • (iv) any ancillaries (including air conditioner units)

addressing relevant EPA and sleep disturbance criteria.

1. On the completion of any works required by the endorsed Acoustic report and before the residential use commences, an updated acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority demonstrating that the required level of noise attenuation has been achieved. The report must confirm compliance with condition 4 of the permit.
2. The recommendations and any works contained in the approved acoustic reports pursuant to conditions 4 and 5 must be implemented and completed and where they are recommendations of an ongoing nature must be maintained all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the plans are endorsed, an amended Sustainable Management Plan [SMP] to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the report will then be endorsed to form part of this permit. The Report must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Ark Resources but modified to address the following:
   • (a) relate to the decision plans;
   • (b) confirm that the cooling loads for south facing dwellings above 20mj/ m2 are correct (e.g. dwelling 3.06) as they seem high for an apartment of this type);
   • (c) confirm which type of solar system will be implemented; and
   • (d) size/capacity of the solar PV system.

1. On the completion of any works required by the endorsed SMP and before the residential use commences, an updated SMP prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority demonstrating that the required level of energy efficiency has been achieved. The report must confirm compliance with condition 7 of the permit.
2. The recommendations and any works contained in the approved SMPs pursuant to conditions 7 and 8 must be implemented and completed and where they are recommendations of an ongoing nature must be maintained all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the plans are endorsed, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Waste Management Plan will then be endorsed to form part of this permit. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design, dated 25 September 2013.
2. The collection of all waste must be in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan. Rubbish, including bottles and packaging material, must at all times be stored within the building and screened from external view and be managed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan.

1. Before the plans are endorsed, a desktop wind assessment report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the report will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.

The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must confirm that the proposed balconies and surrounding public spaces will be within the criterion for walking comfort.

1. In the event the wind assessment report required under condition 10 recommends measures to moderate wind impacts, those recommendation must be incorporated into the design and once constructed thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority, not more than one car parking space may be allocated to any dwelling, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles, together with the associated access lanes as delineated on the endorsed plan must:
   • (a) be provided and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted;
   • (b) thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (c) be made available for such use at all times and not used for any other purpose;
   • (d) be properly formed to such levels that it can be used in accordance with the endorsed plan; and
   • (e) be drained and sealed with an all weather seal coat

all to the satisfaction on the Responsible Authority.

1. The car stacker must be installed and maintained as per manufacturer requirements to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Any damaged road(s) and footpath(s) adjacent to the development site as a result of the development must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at the expense of the Permit Holder.
3. Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority, all existing kerb and channel, and road pavement surface levels (including Leggo Place) must not be altered.
4. Once the development is complete (including connections for underground utility services), the developer must reconstruct the section of Leggo Place (matching existing levels and materials) commencing from the western boundary of the site to Bosisto Street (full width, full depth pavement) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at the expense of the Permit Holder.
5. Once the development is complete (including connections for underground utility services), the footpath along the development's Bridge Road frontage must be re-sheeted (matching existing levels and materials) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at the expense of the Permit Holder.

1. All buildings must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Noise emanating from the development, including plant and other equipment, must comply with the State Environment Protection Policy N-1 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each car parking spaces, storage, rubbish bin, recycling bin, pedestrian walkways, stairwells, lift, dwelling entrances and entry foyer. Lighting must be located, directed, shielded and of limited intensity so that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Privacy screens as required in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed prior to occupation of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter.
2. All new on boundary walls must be cleaned and finished in graffiti resistant surfaces to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. All piping and ducting, other than for drainage above the ground floor storey of the building must be concealed.

1. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, demolition or construction works must only be carried out between: 7.00 am - 6.00 pm, Monday-Friday (excluding public holidays) and 9.00 am - 3.00 pm, Saturday and public holidays. No work is to be carried out on Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day or Good Friday without a specific permit. All site operations must comply with the relevant Environmental Protection Authority's Guidelines on Construction and Demolition Noise.
2. During the construction, the following must occur:
   • (a) any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system to comply with EPA guidelines;
   • (b) stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the premises enters the stormwater drainage system;
   • (c) vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the site;
   • (d) the cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on site and not on adjacent footpaths or roads;
   • (e) all litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be disposed of responsibly; and
   • (f) all site operations must comply with the EPA Publication TG302/92.

1. The development once commenced, must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Before any development commences, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval. The plan must provide for or include the following:
   • (a) a pre-conditions survey (dilapidation report) of the subject site and all adjacent Council roads frontages and nearby road infrastructure;
   • (b) protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
   • (c) remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
   • (d) containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of clean up procedures in the event of build up of matter outside the site;
   • (e) on site facilities for vehicle washing;
   • (f) the location of loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes and crane/hoisting zones, gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street;
   • (g) site security;
   • (h) management of any environmental hazards that the activities on-site pose including but not limited to: contaminated soil, materials and waste, dust, stormwater contamination from run-off and wash-waters, sediment from the site on roads, washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery, spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery;
   • (i) construction program;
   • (j) preferred arrangements for trucks delivering to the site including delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
   • (k) parking facilities for construction workers;
   • (l) measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operate in accordance with the Construction Management Plan;
   • (m) an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services;
   • (n) an emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;
   • (o) the provision of a traffic management plan to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads;
   • (p) a noise and vibration management plan showing methods to minimise noise and vibration impacts on nearby properties and to demonstrate compliance with Noise Control Guideline 12 for Construction (Publication 1254) as issued by the Environment Protection Authority in October 2008, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In this regard, consideration (amongst other matters) may be given to:
     • (i) using lower noise work practice and equipment;
     • (ii) the suitability of the site for the use of an electric crane;
     • (iii) silencing all mechanical plant by the best practical means using current technology; and
     • (iv) fitting all pneumatic tools operated near a residential area with an effective silencer on their air exhaust port.
3. The Permit Holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to tram operation along Bridge Road is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to tram operations during construction and mitigation measures must be communicated to Yarra Trams and Public Transport Victoria fourteen days (15) prior.
4. The permit holder must ensure that all track, tram and overhead infrastructure is not damaged. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full cost of the Permit Holder.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit;
   • (b) the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit;
   • (c) the use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months after the expiry date for commencement, or within twelve months after the expiry date for completion.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] The grounds of objection are summarised in the Council Officer's report.