1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the statement of grounds to refer to the following conditions on the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit MPS/2011/319 dated 2 January 2013:

1a), 1b), 1c), 1d), 1e), 1f), 1k), 1l), 1q), 1r), 1x), 1ff), 5 and 9

1. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. MPS/2011/319 is varied.
2. In accordance with section 85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 the Tribunal directs that permit MPS/2011/319 must contain the conditions set out in the notice of decision MPS/2011/319 issued by the responsible authority on 2 January 2013 with the following modifications.
3. What the permit allows is amended to read as follows:

Construction of buildings and works comprising a six (6) storey building containing multiple dwellings above basement car parking and a reduction of the associated car parking requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Delete conditions 1, 3, 5, 9 and 27
2. Insert new conditions 1, 3, 5, 9 and 30
3. Renumber conditions accordingly as per the conditions attached as Appendix A.

• Mr Bryce Raworth, heritage architect, Bryce Raworth and Associates
• Mr Tim Biles, urban designer and planner, Message Consultants

Evidence from Mr Henry Turnbull, traffic engineer, The Traffix Group was accepted as read and he was not required to attend the hearing.

Mr Patrick Cauchi, town planner, M-Plan Planning Consultants

To construct a six storey building over a basement. The building would have a maximum height of 20.3 metres excluding roof plant screening). The building would be located to the rear of the Woodland Hotel. It would accommodate 36 dwellings, comprising 18 dwellings with one bedroom and 18 dwellings with two bedrooms. Two dwellings would be adaptable.

The basement would accommodate 41 car parking spaces in stackers. The spaces would be allocated as follows: 34 spaces to the dwellings, 5 spaces to the Woodland Hotel and 2 spaces to No.92 Sydney Road. A waiver is sought for 2 resident spaces and 7 visitor spaces. 18 bicycle spaces would also be provided.

Access to the basement would be from right-of-way to the rear.

The building would include four render finishes, metal framed glass balustrades and feature metal cladding.

Application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Clause 43.01-1 (buildings and works under HO150 and 172)

Clauses 10.04, 11.02, 11.04, 15.01, 15.02, 15.03, 16.01, 18.02, 21.03, 21.04, 21.05, 22.02, 22.11, 22.13, 52.06, 52.34, 52.35 and 65

The review site is located on the east side of Sydney Road approximately midway between The Avenue and Moore Street. The site is the balance of the land between and behind the Woodlands Hotel and a two storey shop and residence at No.92 Sydney Road. The site has an area of approximately 860 square metres.

The site is presently vacant and used for car parking. The land has a fall of approximately one metre, but is otherwise not constrained by any special features or encumbrances.

Part of the site is occupied by the Woodland Hotel which is a two storey hotel with heritage significance.

Land to the north and south and the west side of Sydney Road are occupied by one/two storey shops. A residential precinct is located to the site's east, comprising one and two storey dwellings.

I inspected the site and its environs on 26 July 2013. The parties did not accompany the inspection.

Auress April Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2004] VCAT 651

1. The permit applicant submitted plans to construct a six storey building. In January 2013, Moreland City Council determined to issue notice of decision to grant a planning permit (NOD) to construct a five storey building on the review site. The NOD includes a condition that requires modifications to the plans prior to their endorsement. Some of the changes that would be required would be the deletion of the top storey, greater setbacks to the north, south and east boundaries. The conditions in the permit require environmental sustainability, accessibility for people with disabilities and other plans to be completed. The conditions also require modifications to the basement layout.
2. The permit applicant seeks a review of thirty of the conditions in the NOD, particularly those that reduce the building's height and increase its setbacks to its boundaries. The permit applicant also opposes the completion of the environmental sustainability and accessibility reports and opposes the changes to the basement sought by Council.
3. A number of objectors to the proposal oppose Council's decision. Adjoining neighbours to the east consider they would be adversely affected through overlooking and overshadowing. The owners and operators of the Woodland Hotel consider that they would be would be adversely affected by the proposed car parking and bin storage arrangements.
4. The objectors concerns were discussed at mediation where the parties agreed that conditions should be added to the permit to address matters of car parking shared with the hotel and overlooking of No.1 Campbell Street.
5. Mr Biles and Mr Turnbull recommended that various conditions under review should be retained or varied. The permit applicant accepted these recommendations and sought leave to amend the conditions under review. During the Hearing the permit applicant accepted that conditions 5, 9 and 10 could also be retained with minor modifications.
6. Condition 27 that refers to the expiry date of the permit. It needs to be amended to accord with recent changes to the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
7. The issues that I must determine in this matter are:
   • Are conditions 1a, b and c necessary to reduce the visual bulk and height of the building?
   • Are conditions 1d, e, q and r necessary to minimise adverse amenity impacts on neighbours?
   • Are conditions 1k, l, ff, 3, 5 and 9 necessary to provide acceptable amenity for its future residents?
8. I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, I have decided to vary the decision of the responsible authority. My reasons follow.

Are conditions 1a, b and c necessary to reduce the visual bulk and height of the building?

1. The determinative issue in this matter is whether a five or six storey building is a comfortable fit into the strategic context, emerging built form and heritage context of Sydney Road, particularly given its interface with the heritage Woodland Hotel. The relevant conditions are 1a), 1b) and 1c).
2. The Woodland Hotel is two storeys in height. It comprises generous floor to ceiling heights and so is the equivalent of three residential storeys. It also has a pitched roof, and in total has a height in the order of four residential storeys. The building to the south also has a height in the order of three to four residential floors, whilst the building abutting to the north has a height to its parapet of two storeys. The prevailing built form along Sydney Road is generally two to four residential storeys. A five storey building has been constructed a short distance to the south of the review site.
3. In the foreseeable future a six storey building on this site would be taller than the prevailing built form along Sydney Road. It would be reasonably visible in oblique views along Sydney Road from the north and south of the review site. Part of the sixth floor (1 to 2 metres) would be visible above the lower parapet when viewed from the west side of Sydney Road directly opposite the site. A five storey building would not be visible in this view.
4. The proposed six storey building would also be visible in views from Campbell Street and The Avenue to the east.
5. The matter before me is whether a six storey building would be so significantly different from the built form preferred in policy that the top floor should be removed. The conditions imposed by Council in the Notice of Decision require the removal of the sixth floor and two dwellings on the fifth floor.

Would be proposal be acceptable having regard to urban design and policy?

1. Turning firstly to the site's strategic context, the State planning policy framework encourages the provision of a more diverse housing stock to meeting changing housing needs. Policy encourages the construction of more dwellings that are suitable for one and two person households who will comprise much of the forecast growth in new households. Planning policy also encourages Melbourne to become a more compact city by accommodating more households within established urban areas to efficiently use established infrastructure and to reduce the area of land required to build new suburbs at the city's fringes.
2. State and local planning policy and the purposes of the Commercial 1 zone identify activity centres as preferred locations for residential development at densities greater than residential neighbourhoods. The purposes of the Commercial 1 zone are to implement policy and to

Provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre[2].

1. Sydney Road identified as a Principal Activity Centre (PAC) which is one of the higher order centres. Tram routes operate along Sydney Road so it is adjacent to the principal public transport network. The site can accommodate more than 10 dwellings and so meets the criteria of a strategic redevelopment site. The site is located within an urban village which is the highest level of activity centre in Council's planning policy framework. There is clear policy support for a development comprising five or six storeys.
2. Council has prepared Amendment C123 to its planning scheme. The amendment seeks to implement Coburg 2020, the strategic vision for the Coburg activity centre along Sydney Road. The amendment includes proposed height limits for various precincts, and these would be mandatory and unable to be exceeded. The height limit on the review site would be a height of 11 metres at the front boundary. The maximum height would increase to 18 metres beyond 7 metres and more from the front boundary.
3. The proposed building would exceed the height proposed in Amendment C123 by approximately 2.3 metres excluding rooftop plant. The height is offset by the substantial setback from Sydney Road which is 2.5 times the distance proposed by the amendment.
4. The west façade facing Sydney Road would be behind the Woodland Hotel, set back 17.9 metres from Sydney Road. The Hotel would comprise a streetwall podium, with the proposed building being the recessed "tower". I think that whilst the sixth floor would be visible, it would not be incongruous in a principal activity centre that is the preferred location for the most intensive development, more than a neighbourhood or major activity centre.
5. I think that whilst a five storey building would be less visible, the additional sixth floor does not make the building unduly overwhelming or imposing to the Sydney Road streetscape. I think it would be a comfortable fit.
6. In my view, the generous setback would make this proposed building more recessive than a building that complies with the building envelope specified by Amendment C123. A building that complies with that amendment would have more height considerably closer to the street. In the proposal before me, the upper levels of the building would be screened by the Woodland Hotel, except in oblique views. In my view, the upper sections are largely screened and recessive in views from the southwest and would not be discordant. The building would be more prominent in views from the northwest.
7. Mr Biles described this building as a "pioneer" in that it would be the first of a number of taller buildings. At both five and six storeys it would be somewhat incongruous and different from the prevailing built form. In time, the built form in this area can be expected to change to become more consistent with this proposal. In time, I consider it highly likely that this building will be one a number of four, five and six storey buildings, and so will appear part of consistent built form.
8. The responsible authority gave weight to the need for the building to comply with the preferred heights set out in Amendment C123. I am not persuaded that I should give weight to Amendment C123. It has been adopted by Council as the planning authority and placed on public exhibition. Submissions closed in January 2013. Council has not yet requested the Minister for Planning to appoint a Planning Panel to review submissions. In my view, the final content of the amendment in terms of the heights and setbacks to be applied to particular areas and whether these would be mandatory is very uncertain. I do not regard it as a seriously entertained proposal.
9. I have regard to the building envelopes proposed in the amendment and consider they provide guidance as to the appropriate heights and setbacks appropriate in this part of Sydney Road. I note the very small difference in height between the amendment and this proposal. It indicates that the proposal has responded to the amendment and structure planning in a positive manner.
10. I am satisfied that the proposed six storey building responds to the strategic context presently in the planning scheme and the preferred built form set out in Amendment C123. Whilst it will be taller and somewhat prominent in the streetscape in the short term,. I consider that it responds to policy and it will in time become a comfortable fit into a streetscape that is likely to comprise buildings of similar height and massing.

Would the development adversely impact the heritage significance of the heritage building or place?

1. The Woodland Hotel is a landmark building and development should be respectful and not detract from its distinctive appearance and significance.
2. The heritage citation for the Hotel on the review site is:

Moreland's oldest hotel, the Palm Avenue Hotel, is of local historical and State architectural significance. It is one of the oldest surviving buildings in the Coburg/Brunswick area, and it has operated as a hotel continuously on the same site for over 140 years. Its architectural significance derives from it being one of the first buildings and few hotels built in this style, and a major landmark on Sydney Road[3].

1. The Moreland Heritage Review (1999) includes a very similar citation.
2. The site is includes in heritage precinct HO172 generally extends north of the land. It includes land at 105-165 and 84-164 Sydney Road and land in The Grove and Nicholson Street The citation for heritage place H)172 is

The Grove/Sydney Road Precinct is of local historical and architectural significance in the City Of Moreland. It is of local historical significance for its association with the spectacular Montague Dare and the prolific 19 Century architect T.J. Crouch.

The Grove/Sydney Road precinct is of local architectural significance as a notable 1880s land boom residential subdivision that contains many individually significant buildings.

1. I note that the buildings identified as notable are located in The Avenue, and no buildings in Sydney Road are listed as notable.
2. Mr Raworth opined that the citation for the Woodland Hotel is incorrect as the original fabric has been removed. The existing building probably dates from the 1890's rather than 1851. Whilst the front façade is distinctive, he opined that the Hotel has a local level of historic and cultural significance and a moderate level of architectural significance.
3. Clause 43.01 provides that heritage places are to be conserved and enhanced. Development should not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
4. Clause 22.13 guides new development within heritage places. The policy encourages the conservation and enhancement of heritage places and the protection of heritage places from inappropriate development. New buildings, alterations and additions are encouraged to:
   • Respect the existing scale, massing, form and siting of contributory of significant elements and not dominate the heritage place.
   • Adopt innovative and contemporary design that makes a positive contribution to the heritage place
   • No replicate historic styles and detailing.
5. Additions to contributory heritage places should be visually recessive and not dominate. Additions to individually significant places should:

as far as possible, be concealed by existing fabric when viewed from the front and be visually recessive when viewed from any other adjoining street.

1. Council's heritage adviser considered that the height of the building would have the potential to diminish the landmark quality of the heritage building. The heritage adviser proposed that height of the new building should be reduced so that it would be entirely screened in views from directly in front of the review site. She thought the building should be less prominent in the oblique views from the north and south along Sydney Road.
2. Mr Raworth opined that removing the sixth floor is unnecessary and would have "negligible" impact on the Woodland Hotel and the larger heritage precinct. He opined that the setback of 17.9 metres for the sixth floor would prevent it from dominating or overwhelming the Hotel. Only the upper part of the sixth floor would be visible above the lower parapet in views directly opposite the Hotel.
3. In oblique views, the setback and physical separation between the old and new buildings would make the new building visually recessive. He considered that the visibility of the new building in the oblique views would not detract from the heritage precinct. He opined that the notable parts of the heritage precinct are located at its northern end, and there is little heritage fabric near the review site. This part of Sydney Road does not comprise a high quality heritage fabric and the building would not be visible from The Avenue that has the higher quality heritage buildings. He thought Sydney Road has capacity to absorb a larger built form without it detracting from the heritage place.
4. I am persuaded that the proposed six storey building would be acceptable from a heritage viewpoint. Firstly, I consider that the proposed new building is not required to be entirely concealed in views from directly opposite in Sydney Road. The requirement to be entirely hidden behind the heritage building is usually applied to heritage places that are identified to be particularly significant and unique. This building does not have that very high level of significance and council has applied an excessively high test.
5. In my view, policy requires a new building to be hidden "as far as possible". Hence, it contemplates a building being visible, provided it is visually recessive. In addition to the front being set back nearly 18 metres from Sydney Road the sixth level is set back at least 3 metres from the north and south boundaries, behind the fifth level. These setbacks will also reduce the visibility of the top level.
6. Thirdly, the building will be physically separate from the Hotel building. Hence, it will be seen to be distinct from and different to the heritage place. Being behind and separate from the heritage place will in my view contribute to it being subordinate.
7. Finally, I think that the front façade of the Woodland Hotel is a particularly visually dominant building. It's height, width, colour and intricate design make it a prominent building in the streetscape. It draws the eye, and a glimpse of several metres of the top floor of a building located nearly 20 metres behind would not detract from or diminish the strength and prominence of the front façade. I consider that seeing only half of an upper storey behind the lower part of the parapet of the Woodland Hotel would comply with policy.
8. I am satisfied that the proposed six storey building would not detract from or diminish the significance of the heritage building or heritage place, and the removal of all of the sixth floor and part of the fifth floor is unnecessary on heritage grounds. I will delete conditions 1a, b and c from the permit. I will also vary condition 1f to refer to only Dwelling 4.2, as the habitable rooms of Dwelling 4.1 would be shaded by the floor above.

Are conditions 1d, e, q and r necessary to minimise adverse amenity impacts on neighbours?

1. The responsible authority has concluded that the building would be likely to adversely impact the dwelling at No.1 Campbell Street on the east side of the right-of-way. The possible impacts include overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk. Conditions have been included in the Notice of Decision to minimise these possible adverse outcomes and some were contested by the permit applicant.
2. Concerns regarding overshadowing of the nearby dwelling were addressed at mediation. A new condition agreed at mediation is to be included that specifies that the extent of any additional shadow is to be no worse that the shadow generated by a previously approved development.
3. An agreement pursuant to s173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 applies to the land and governs the car parking arrangements for the Hotel and for other properties. Condition 3 of the Notice of Decision provides for a new agreement, and that condition was contested by the parties. Agreement was reached at mediation regarding a new Agreement. I shall require a new condition 3 to be included in the permit that accords with the agreement reached at mediation.
4. With regard to overlooking I agree with the permit applicant that screening that comprises louvers to allow horizontal but not downward views would be acceptable on the balconies of the second floor and above. This can be approved within the wording of conditions 1u), 1v) and 1w) and these conditions will remain in the permit.
5. Hence, the conditions before me in this review regarding possible impacts on neighbours are conditions 1d), 1e), 1l) and 1r). These conditions relate to the visual bulk of the east side of the building and would require various parts of the east elevation to be set back further from the east boundary.
6. The most immediately affected neighbour is the dwelling at No.1 Campbell Street. It is built to its boundary and it has three windows on the boundary wall that face the review site. These windows have a high floor to ceiling height but are partly obscured. An area of private open space is located at the rear of the dwelling. It is screened by a solid fence approximately 2.5 metres high with solid timber boards above to a height of approximately 3 metres.
7. I consider that it is unnecessary to increase the setbacks of the east elevation. The sight lines from the secluded open space of No.1 Campbell Street show that the ground and first floors would not be visible from within that space. The third level would be visible, but separated by 6 metres horizontal distance. Some of the fifth floor and only the top of the sixth floor would also be visible but separated by more than 9 metres horizontal distance.
8. I consider that the extent of visibility of the east elevation from No.1 Campbell Street would be acceptable. A person would observe parts of the elevation, but would not see a sheer, unarticulated wall. The east elevation would be highly varied due to the complex interaction of variable set backs, balconies and the dominance in materials and form of the lower three levels. The upper levels would appear to be recessed forms above a dominant lower building. I also consider that increasing the setbacks would increase the proportion of the east elevation that would be visible.
9. With regard to the visibility of the upper levels from points more distant from the immediate neighbour, I consider that it would have limited visibility from within Campbell Street. The properties on the north side of Campbell Street face south, and the building would be visible only from their rear yards. It would be in their peripheral views and be largely screened by the dwelling at No.1 Campbell Street.
10. Several properties on the south side of the Campbell Street have their frontage to Moore Street to the south. Outbuildings face Campbell Street, and these would largely screen views of the building from within those properties. Two dwellings at No.2 Campbell Street face the review site, but their views would be screened by the rear of the Market building, and it would be sufficiently distant to be recessive.
11. The northeast part of the building would be visible from The Avenue across undeveloped land. It would appear as a three level base, with two levels above. The sixth level would be fully recessed behind the lower level. Whilst taller than the prevailing built form seen from The Avenue, it would not be an uncomfortable fit taking into account its strategic context and the built form that is emerging in this part of Sydney Road.
12. I am not persuaded that the proposal would unreasonably impose itself on its neighbours and that additional set backs are required to its eastern boundary. Consequently, I will delete conditions 1d, 1l and 1r.
13. Condition 1e would require the fourth floor bathroom in Dwelling 4.5 to be relocated and this arises from changes required by condition 1d. As I do not support that condition, I consider that the consequential changes required are also not required. I will delete condition 1e).

Are conditions 1k, l, q, ff, 5, 9 and 10 necessary to provide acceptable amenity for its future residents?

1. Conditions 1k, 1l, 1q, 1ff, 5 and 9 relate to the internal amenity of the dwellings. Several relate to the car parking arrangements, and others relate to access to improved access to solar energy, improved weather protection for west facing dwellings, sustainability and access for people with disabilities.
2. I have determined to retain the upper floors and not require additional setbacks. Consequently, the upper levels would provide solar protection for the lower levels, except for the bedroom of Dwelling 3.2 and a bedroom in Dwelling 2.1. I agree with Mr Biles that a canopy to provide solar protection should be provided to these habitable room window. I will modify conditions 1k) and 1q) to ensure this matter is addressed in amended plans.
3. The retention of the top floor creates some concerns for dwellings below, but removes the need to modify other dwellings below. I concur with Mr Biles that conditions 1m, 1n and 1o should be varied to ensure adequate light access to dwellings on the lower levels that abut the north and south boundaries.
4. I also support a condition that requires Dwelling 4.4 to be reconfigured to improve access to natural light from the north elevation.
5. With regard to car parking layout, I accept Mr Turnbull's evidence that the revised basement layout attached to his evidence can comply with conditions 1ee), 1gg) and 1hh) and hence no change is required to those conditions. I also agree that condition 1ff) is unnecessary as the swept path diagrams in his evidence indicate that aisle would be sufficiently wide to enable cars to turn into and out of parking spaces without relying on a 1 metre aisle extension. I will delete condition 1ff).
6. With regard to the review of condition 5 that refers to environmental sustainable development, the permit applicant submitted that this would be acceptable if it referred to achieving the requirements of Section J of the Building Control Act (BCA) rather than achieving a four star rating using the Green Star Multi Residential tool. I consider that compliance with the BCA would provide an acceptable level of environmental sustainability.
7. With regard to the review of conditions 9 and 10 that refer to an accessibility report, the permit applicant submitted the conditions would be acceptable if the requirement is to provide two adaptable dwellings rather than four dwellings, and the further reports be related to work already completed. I consider the provision of two dwellings meets the objectives of policy regarding accessibility and diversity of dwellings. I also consider that it is appropriate that the permit applicant rely on previous reports. I note that the responsible authority had no objection to the reliance on Mr Chun's previous report.
8. I will hence order that conditions 1kk), 1ll) and 10 be retained, condition 1l) and 1ff) be deleted and conditions 1f, 1k), 1q), 5 and 9 be varied.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be varied and a permit be granted.
2. The permit will include conditions that have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties, and the matters that arise from my reasons.

• Construction of buildings and works comprising a six (6) storey building containing multiple dwellings above basement car parking and a reduction of the associated car parking requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans

1. Before the development commences, 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 plans received on 24 February 2012, but modified to show:

1. Dwelling 4.3 reconfigured to be a mirror image to Dwelling 4.4 to place the lounge room along the northern boundary. 2. Provision of a canopy for solar protection to the fourth floor (5th storey) bedroom of Dwelling 4.2.

1. The east-facing canopies to the fourth floor (5th storey) Dwellings 4.5 and 4.6 replaced with visually permeable pergola structures.

1. The fourth floor (5th storey) balcony to Dwelling 4.6 setback from the south boundary by a minimum of 1 metre. 2. Deletion of the fourth floor (5th storey) west-facing window adjacent to the robe in Dwelling 4.1. 3. External materials/finishes to the fourth floor (5th storey) differentiated from the lower levels in design to be visually recessive in oblique views along Sydney Road and in views from the northeast and southeast. 4. Provision of a canopy for solar protection to the third floor (4th storey) bedroom of Dwelling 3.2. 5. A 1.5 metres by 2.5 metres area of the third floor (4th storey) balcony to Dwelling 3.1 removed or deleted and a solartube skylight system (or equivalent technology) noted to be installed in the resultant roof space to the benefit of the bathroom of Dwelling 2.1 below. 6. A 2.5 metre by 2.5 metre area removed from the western most section of the third floor (4th storey) balcony to Dwelling 3.3 and a solatube skylight system (or equivalent technology) noted to be installed in the resultant roof space to benefit the kitchen/dining area of Dwelling 2.4 below. 7. A minimum 2 metre by 1 metres area removed from the western most section of the third floor (4th storey) balcony to Dwelling 3.6 and a solatube skylight system (or equivalent technology) noted to be installed in the resultant roof space to benefit the living area of Dwelling 2.8 below and, as a consequence, show the kitchen window of Dwelling 3.6 screened to address privacy. 8. Deletion of the third floor (4th storey) west-facing window adjacent to the robe in Dwelling 3.1.

1. Provision of a screen for solar protection to the second floor (3rd storey) bedroom window to Dwelling 2.1.

1. Deletion of the first floor (2nd storey) bedroom 1 balcony to Dwelling 1.6. 2. Reconfiguration of the first, second, third and fourth floor (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th storey) Dwellings 1.8, 2.8, 3.6 and 4.6 to address the interface to the Hotel beer garden. Specifically: 1. the west-facing balconies to bedroom 1 of Dwelling s 1.8, 2.8, 3.6 and 4.6 are to be deleted and replaced with internal floor area; 2. east-facing windows are to be provided to the reconfigured bedrooms 1 of Dwellings 1.8, 2.8, 3.6 and 4.6 for the purpose of light and ventilation. These windows are to face a light well to be introduced adjacent to the south boundary which must comply with the relevant minimum dimensions under the National Construction Code (formerly the Building Code of Australia); and 3. the western wall to Dwellings 1.8, 2.8, 3.6 and 4.6 to either contain no windows, or only contain windows which are not required for natural ventilation.

• Provision of 1.7 metre high privacy screening to the first and second floor (2nd and 3rd storey) balconies to Dwellings 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 to include openings (visual permeability) of up to 25 per cent.

1. Provision of 1.7 metre high screening, or other screening devices, to the first and second floor (2nd and 3rd storey) bedroom 1 windows to Dwellings 1.6, 2.5 and 2.6 to prevent views within a 45 degree viewing angle into the rear courtyard to 1 Campbell Street. 2. Provision of 1.7 metre high screening, or other screening devices, to the third and fourth floor (4th and 5th storey) balconies to units 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 4.5 to prevent views within a 45 degree viewing angle into the rear courtyard to 1 Campbell Street. The other screening devices could comprise fixed louvres to a height of 1.7 metres which are designed to allow for outward views while preventing direct views to the rear courtyard to 1 Campbell Street. 3. Deletion (or reduction) of the first and second floor (2nd and 3rd storey) privacy screening to Dwellings 1.4, 1.8, 2.4 and 2.8. 4. Provision of minimum 3-4 cubic metre capacity storage units to each 1 bedroom dwelling. 5. Provision of minimum 4-6 cubic metre capacity storage units to each 2 bedroom unit. 6. Modifications to ensure acceptable access to and circulation around the storage units.

1. Provision of a minimum of 16 bicycle parking spaces for use in association with the residential development.

1. Replacement of the Cora CVR2 bicycle racks with a type that accords with the dimensions in Bicycle Victoria's Parking Handbook or an alternative rack system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The area set aside for wall-mounted bicycle parking dimensioned to accommodate the necessary 1.2 metre projection from the wall and a 1.5 metre wide accessway.

1. Car parking provided (excluding tandem and dependant stackers) to include no less than: 1. 0.8 spaces per 1 bedroom dwelling; 2. 1 space per 2 bedroom dwelling; 3. 5 spaces to the Woodlands Hotel (84-88 Sydney Road, Coburg); 4. 1 space to the commercial premises (92 Sydney Road, Coburg); and 5. 1 space to the shop top premises (1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg). 2. The car stackers designed to be capable of accommodating a vehicle clearance height of at least 1.8 metres to at least 25 per cent of the spaces. 3. The Hotel bin storage area to be provided in accordance with the plan attached to the VCAT "ADR Report" of 31 May 2013 between AGP Property Group Pty Ltd and Merit Super Admin Pty Ltd, Joseph Bacash and Moreland City Council in VCAT Reference No. P213/2013 and condition 3 of this permit. 4. Provision of screened bin storage areas for the commercial premises (92 Sydney Road, Coburg), and the shop top premises (1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg), within the alcove area west of the ground floor bicycle storage room.

1. Any modifications to the plans arising from the recommendations of the Acoustic Report in accordance with condition 4 of this permit.

1. Any modifications to the plans arising from the recommendations of the Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Management Plan in accordance with condition 5 of this permit. 2. Any modifications to the plans arising from the recommendations of the Accessibility Report in accordance with condition 9 of this permit. 3. Any modifications to the plans arising from the recommendations of the amended Waste Management Plan in accordance with condition 11 of this permit. 4. Any modifications to the plans arising from the Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 14 of this permit. 5. A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours, including colour samples (3 copies in a form that can be endorsed and filed).

1. In accordance with the VCAT "ADR Report" of 31 May 2013 between AGP Property Group Pty Ltd and Joanne Cameron and Moreland City Council in VCAT Reference No. P213/2013 the building envelope modified to ensure * the overshadowing impact on 1 Campbell Street is no worse than the impact that would result from conditions 1(a), (d), (g), (l), (r), (u) and (w) of the Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in Application No. MPS/2011/319 issued by the Moreland City Council on 30 November 2012; and * There is no unreasonable overlooking into the property at No.1 Campbell Street to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development:
   1. The existing agreement (reference AF929119E) signed and dated 24 June 2008, and registered on title on 25 June 2008, must be ended under Section 177 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; and concurrently;
   2. A new agreement must be entered into under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 between the owner(s) of the affected land parcels (known as 84-88 Sydney Road, Coburg (Woodlands Hotel site), 90 Sydney Road, Coburg (the subject site), 92 Sydney Road, Coburg (commercial tenancy), and 1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg (shop top residence)), and the Responsible Authority in a form satisfactory to the Responsible Authority to provide for:
      1. The owner of 90 Sydney Road, Coburg (the subject site) ensuring that the occupiers of 84-88 Sydney Road, Coburg, 92 Sydney Road, Coburg and 1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg, and their visitors, (where applicable), have free and unfettered access to the 7 non- mechanical independent car parking spaces set aside for their exclusive use at all times other than during the construction of the development pursuant to Planning Permit MPS/2011/319 ("the permit');
      2. The area at ground level set aside for bin storage and wash down facilities in association with, and for use by the Hotel generally not to be used for any other purpose in accordance with Plan VCAT 31/5/2013;
      3. The owner of 90 Sydney Road, Coburg (the subject site) ensuring that the occupiers of 84-88 Sydney Road, Coburg, have free and unfettered access to the Hotel bin storage and wash down facilities at all times other than during the construction of the development pursuant to the permit;
      4. The area set aside for bin storage in association with, and for use by 92 Sydney Road, Coburg, and 1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg, not to be used for any other purpose;
      5. The owner of 90 Sydney Road, Coburg (the subject site) ensuring that the occupiers of 92 Sydney Road, Coburg, and 1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg, have free and unfettered access to their bin storage at all times other than during the construction of the development pursuant to the permit;
      6. Upon completion of the development pursuant to this permit, the owner of 90 Sydney Road, Coburg (the subject site) must transfer all of the car parking lots to the owners of 84-88 Sydney Road, Coburg, 92 Sydney Road, Coburg, and 1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg.

Prior to the development commencing, application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to Register the Section 173 Agreement on the titles to the land under Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The owner of the land subject of this permit must pay all of Council's legal costs and expenses of this agreement, including preparation, execution and registration on title, and for costs associated with the removal of the existing agreement.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an Acoustic Report must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Report must prescribe specific attenuation measures/treatments, including design details where applicable, to:
   1. Ensure dwelling occupants of the subject site are provided with an acceptable level of internal amenity (while maintaining options for natural ventilation) in respect to the impact of external noise emanating from the adjacent licensed premises, including the beer garden;
   2. Ensure dwelling occupants of the subject site are provided with an acceptable level of internal amenity in respect to external noise emanating from the Sydney Road arterial.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Acoustic Report and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

The recommendations of the report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development. No alterations to the Acoustic Report may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans the Environmentally Sustainable (ESD) Management Plan prepared by Hampton Sustainability dated 30 January 2012 must be amended or a new plan prepared by a suitably qualified environmental engineer or equivalent. The plan must demonstrate compliance with section J of the Building Code of Australia to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority the ESD Management Plan and associated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

1. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the ESD Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, an ESD implementation schedule to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The implementation schedule must identify the different areas of responsibility and provide a schedule for implementation, ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.
3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.
4. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an Accessibility Report must be prepared by a suitably qualified access consultant to assess any plans and provide recommendations on access and mobility issues to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Accessibility Report must be generally in accordance with the accessibility report prepared by Phillip Chun dated 1 August 2011. The report must provide for the following:

1. Provision of at least two adaptable dwellings; 2. Confirmation that the adaptable dwelling layouts comply with AS4299 or any relevant standard that supercedes it;

1. Measure to assist disability access to the building entry and lifts.

1. Provision of Braille indicators for the lifts. 2. The use of contrasting paving or surface materials to assist the vision impaired. 3. Accessible car parking.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority the Accessibility Report and associated notated plans will be endorsed and form part of this permit.

The recommendations of the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development. No alterations to the Accessibility Report may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Accessibility Report, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Accessibility Report have been implemented in accordance with the approved Report.
2. Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 29 February 2011, must be amended to refer to the amended number and breakdown of dwellings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

1. All waste/recycling areas and stores are to be provided with ventilation in accordance with Australian Standard AS1668.
2. The endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan can be implemented by any waste company that complies with the waste management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Waste Management Plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Landscape Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

1. At least two trees with a mature height of approximately 8-10 metres, to be planted from a pot size of at least 20 litres unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority; 2. Advice detailing how the landscaping will be constructed and accommodated, including areas required for tree planting, drainage and irrigation. The drawings or advice must demonstrate that the structure(s) can support the landscaping;

1. A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland City Council landscape Guidelines and Technical Notes, and must respond appropriately to localised site conditions, in particular, areas with access to limited sunlight.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Landscape Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Landscape Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the development, the areas designated for landscaping on the endorsed plan must be planted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Following completion of the development, the area designated for landscaping on the endorsed plan must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
3. With the exception of the car parking spaces allocated for 84-88 Sydney Road, Coburg, 92 Sydney Road, Coburg, and 1/92 Sydney Road, Coburg, (as relevant to the Section 173 Agreement required under condition 3 of this permit), the car parking spaces provided on the land must be:
   1. Solely associated with the development allowed by this permit and must not be subdivided or sold separately from the development for any reason without the written consent of the Responsible Authority; and
   2. marked with the associated apartment number to facilitate management of the car park;

1. Prior to the occupation of the development, the bicycle parking racks must be installed in a secure manner that accords with the specifications in Bicycle Victoria's Bicycle Parking Handbook, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the occupation of the development, bicycle signage at least 300mm wide and 450mm high showing a white bicycle on a blue background must be erected directing cyclists to the location of the bicycle parking as required by Clause 52.34-5 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
3. Prior to the occupation of the development, an automatic system of external light operating between dusk and dawn with no direct light emitted onto adjoining property, must be installed and maintained on the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to illuminate access to the dwellings within the site.
4. The access to the basement car park must be designed to prevent stormwater in the rear right-of-way flowing into the basement car park.
5. Stormwater from the land must not be directed to the surface of the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
7. Prior to the occupation of the development, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. Prior to the occupation of the development, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. Any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater down pipes.
10. Air-conditioning and other plant and generator equipment must be screened from the view of adjoining properties and the street to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11. All telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12. Mailboxes must be provided for each of the premises at the Sydney Road frontage. The dimensions, placement and numbering must comply with the Australia Post - General Post Guide 2004 (Point G4.3) as published on its website to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
    1. The development is not commenced within three (3) years from the date of issue of this permit; or
    2. The development is not completed within five (5) years from the date of issue of this permit.

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.

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