Aivatoglou v Stonnington CC & Ors [2009] VCAT 1903

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
2. In permit application 0532/08 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 100-102 High Street, Windsor in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
   • Development of a five storey building containing up to 19 apartments;
   • Reduction in car parking pursuant to clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme; and
   • Alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1.

Mr Chris Canavan QC appearing with Ms Emily Porter of Counsel, instructed by Deacons Lawyers

Mr Canavan and Ms Porter called the following expert witnesses:

• Ms Sophie Jordan, Town Planner, Urbis
• Mr Stephen Hunt, Traffic Engineer, Cardno Grogan Richards

Mr Peter English, Town Planner, Peter English & Associates

Mr Geoffrey Waters in person and on behalf of Kerryn Anderson

Development of nineteen units within a part five storey building

Section 77, Planning and Environment Act 1987

Clause 32.01-4 construction of two or more dwellings on a lot

Clause 52.27 alteration of access to Road Zone Category 1 (removal of crossover to High Street)

Clause 52.06 reduction in provision of on-site car parking

The subject land is located on the south east corner of High Street and John Street, Windsor. It has a frontage of approximately 21 square metres and a sideage of 32 square metres, giving a total site area of approximately 585 square metres.

Land to the east contains a number of older, single storey dwellings. These properties ajoin a substantial redevelopment site on the south east corner of High Street and Thomas Street. A new five storey residential hotel, convenience shop and licensed premises has been approved on this corner. Land further east contains Swinburne TAFE, leading into the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre and surrounds.

The subject land is approximately 300 metres from the Chapel Street intersection.

Land over High Street to the north is used and developed for a mix of uses, most commonly offices, service and commercial uses. Built form contains a mix of one to four storeys, with wide variations in building styles and dates of construction.

Land to the immediate south in John Street (with the exception of the double storey dwelling on the subject land) presents as a consistent streetscape of single storey attached cottages with verandas and compact front setbacks with picket style fencing. These properties are not covered by a Heritage Overlay.

A railway line runs to the east of the subject land, over St John Street, with the Windsor Station approximately 250 metres to the north.

I inspected the subject land and surrounds following the hearing, including within the dwelling and private open space of 106 High Street.

Asian Pacific Building Corporation v Stonnington City Council & Ors [2007] VCAT 1914

High Street Investment Partners Pty Ltd v Stonnington City Council & Ors [2009] VCAT 938

1. Mr Aivatoglou proposes to develop land on a corner block in High Street, Windsor, on the western periphery of the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre. He seeks review of the responsible authority's decision to refuse to grant a planning permit for the use and development of the property for an apartment building with related approvals.
2. The responsible authority refused to grant a permit on the basis that, in summary, the proposed development:
   • would not comply with clause 19.03 and clause 22.02 (Urban Design Policy) as it fails to provide a suitable transition to the single storey residential area to the south and south east of the subject site.
   • would not meet relevant objectives of the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development as it does not respond to the existing urban context; and
   • would not provide sufficient on-site car parking having regard to the proposed use.
3. Mr English's submission on behalf of the responsible authority confirmed that it generally supported the development of the subject land for an apartment building generally of the format and scale proposed, particularly in its presentation to High Street. However, its opposition to the proposal centred on the inadequacy of on-site parking and the alleged deficiencies in the design response to the site's St John Street interface.
4. The grounds of review are that the proposal constitutes an appropriate response to the site's context and interfaces and provides adequate on-site parking.
5. A number of neighbouring and nearby objectors submitted statements of grounds to the Tribunal in this application, raising concerns with traffic and parking impacts, overshadowing, visual bulk and incompatibility with neighbourhood character. They were particularly concerned about what they considered was a lack of transition to adjoining single storey dwellings to the east and south.
6. This application raises a number of key issues for my consideration and determination, including:
   • Whether there is adequate policy support for the proposal;
   • Whether the proposal is sufficiently site responsive, having regard to its presentation and interfaces with High Street and St John Street, respectively;
   • Whether sufficient on-site parking would be provided and the proposal would not result in unreasonable traffic and parking impacts off site; and
   • Whether the proposal would not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

1. I have assessed the advertised application plans. At the same time, I have considered whether the revisions recommended by Ms Jordan on behalf of the permit applicant would be likely to lead to an improved outcome for the site and surrounds.
2. The existing medical centre (operating from a converted dwelling) and double storey dwelling on the subject land are proposed to be demolished. The existing crossover to High Street would be re-instated.
3. The application proposes the development of a mix of mainly studio and two bedroom units, totalling a maximum of 19 units. A balcony will be provided for each unit.
4. A total of 19 car parking spaces are proposed - 14 within a basement car park and 5 spaces within an at-grade parking area within the building footprint. 15 of these spaces would be allocated to residents and 4 would be allocated to visitors (at ground level). Two accessways would be provided off St John Street - one accessing the at-grade parking area, the other accessing the basement car park.
5. The maximum building height is 16.5 metres to parapet.

1. In assessing this application, I have had regard to clauses 11, 12, 14.01, 15.12, 16.02, 17.01, 18.02, 19.03, 21 and 22.02, 22.06, 22.12, 22.13 and 22.15 in addition to relevant particular provisions and clause 65 of the planning scheme. The Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (2004) are also relevant to the application.
2. Clause 22.02 contains Council's Urban Design Policy. It encourages all new development to generally respect the one to two storey built form character of the City in residential areas and directs higher scale development to certain categories of land, including land with frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1). A relevant objective includes:
   • To ensure the design and scale of new development makes a positive contribution to the built form of the area and is respectful to the existing character and streetscape.[1]

It is policy that use and development maintain the character of the area, that development achieves a high standard of urban design and that new buildings not be significantly higher or lower than surrounding buildings.

1. However, clause 22.02-3 provides that if a development is of a height and scale that is inconsistent with its particular setting and location, an applicant should demonstrate that:
   • The building does not abut a heritage place.
   • Portions of the building over two storeys are set back from the frontage to maintain the streetscape.
   • The upper floors of the building will be used for residential purposes.
   • The building has been designed to complement the character of the area.
   • The building will not adversely affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking associated with the use.
2. Clause 22.06 (Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy) provides the following objectives:
   • To maintain and enhance the residential character and amenity of residential areas.
   • To encourage new development that reflects the scale, character and appearance of surrounding residential areas.
   • To minimise any increased traffic and car parking impacts on surrounding residential areas.
   • To encourage a high standard of urban design and construction.
3. Council adopted the Chapel Street Vision Structure Plan on 17 December 2007. I was advised that this Plan has been the subject of widespread public consultation. The Council has sought an amendment to the planning scheme to include this as a reference document. This request is currently with the Minister for Planning and its status is unknown.
4. The subject land is not within the boundaries of the Chapel Street Vision Structure Plan area. However, it is included in the "study area" of this Plan, being within Precinct 1 (Windsor). The relevant area is identified as a "Moderate Change" area. This is defined as:

Moderate change in development is expected to occur in areas in or beside large activity centres and beside public transport routes that are already well developed with medium to higher density housing. In these areas there will be incremental opportunities for infill development consistent with the preferred future character of the area.

1. The block that includes the subject land has a preferred maximum height of 3-5 levels with setbacks, equating to a building height of 11-19 metres.[2]
2. In general, I concur with the comments made by the Tribunal in High Street Investment Partners Pty Ltd v Stonnington City Council & Ors[3] that:

Chapel Vision does not carry the same weight as the Planning Scheme but it is also self evident that the heights referred to in the local policy in the Scheme are outdated and there is no Scheme amendment to which weight can be afforded with respect to revised heights.

Development implications arising from site context and policy

1. From the outset, I accept the evidence of Ms Jordan and the submissions made by Mr Canavan and Ms Porter that there is a changing role for the review site and adjacent land, driven by urban consolidation policy. That is, while the site was once part of the residential hinterland, it is now regarded as forming part of the High Street corridor on the periphery of the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre.
2. In assessing this application, I am keenly influenced by the clear planning policy support for medium density housing on sites such as this. That is, clause 12.01-2 aims to:

Locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport by:

• Increasing the proportion of housing to be developed within the established urban area, particularly at activity centres and other strategic sites, and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield and dispersed development areas.
• Encouraging higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres and public transport.
• Ensuring housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice, particularly in the middle and outer suburbs.

1. While the subject land is relatively compact, it has a number of locational features that I regard as supporting its higher scale development for housing, including:
   • The identification of High Street on the Council's Strategic Framework Plan in clause 21.01 of the Municipal Strategic Statement as a selected arterial road where medium density housing and high scale development may be supported;
   • Its location at the periphery of the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre;
   • Its siting on a main road with direct public transport access, including within close walking distance to a train station;
   • Its corner location beside a railway line;
   • The Business 2 Zoning opposite the site on High Street; and
   • The fact that no proximate buildings are subject to a Heritage Overlay.
2. Other factors that have influenced my view that a notably different, higher scale built form would be appropriate for the subject land is that, in practice, both sides of High Street east of the railway line are highly likely to undergo significant built form change in the short to medium term. This is a likely outcome of the Chapel Vision Structure Plan with its preferred maximum building heights of 11-19 metres for this area (notwithstanding its classification within a 'moderate change area'). It will also increase the attractiveness of the properties on High Street between Thomas and St John Street for more substantial development, particularly if consolidated.

1. Having regard to policy, the opportunity presented by the site's setting and the development plans, I am comfortable with the built form proposed along High Street. It will provide a good fit when viewed against buildings in the Business 2 Zone opposite and is within the range of building height for the approved Larwill Hotel site further east, albeit at a much reduced scale.
2. In this way, I support the findings of council's urban designer, David Morrison, that:

The proposed development should be seen in the context of the previously approved Larwill Hotel, to the East of the subject site. . . This section of High Street is in transition to a more intensive form of development consistent with the balance of the street through to Chapel Street. Subject to some suggested amendments, outlined below, this is an appropriate response to the development of this strategically important site and is consistent with the intent of the Chapel Street Vision Structure Plan. . .

[This] will assist in strengthening and consolidation of this important main road entry into the Principal Activity Centre from the West.

1. I also support the amended plans insofar as they provide increased activation to the street frontage, particularly at ground level. The design response appropriately steps up to the north western corner of the site, at the corner of High Street and the railway line/St. John Street, which is the least sensitive and most 'open' aspect of the site.
2. Examination of the site analysis/design response plans indicates that the three remaining single storey dwellings are the only structures of this scale on High Street within the sub-precinct and surrounds. While the amenity of these properties must be adequately respected and building bulk must be adequately massed and set back, I do not consider that the scale and height of the new building on the subject land should be referable to this existing, anomalous building stock. This would unreasonably hamper the achievement of housing consolidation policy and the efficient use of sites on the arterial road network with ideal public transport accessibility.

Interface with 106 High Street and impacts on amenity

1. My findings above generally support a building of a notably increased height and scale than those currently on the subject land. It is therefore inevitable that the built form relationship with No. 106 High Street will change significantly. However, it is still necessary to ensure that an appropriate level of amenity is preserved for the adjoining residential property to the east, including the need to contain visual bulk.
2. The development will include a three storey wall at the front of the site. This represents a significant change from the status quo. I observed that a small spare bedroom window faces the subject land with a one metre setback from the common boundary. However, having inspected inside and from secluded private open space areas, I consider that the TV/living room window is the most sensitive habitable room window of that property.
3. Overall, I consider that the proposed amended plans represent a satisfactory outcome for the adjoining dwelling to High Street. There are a number of design features incorporated in the development that, in my view, would provide adequate separation and suitably modulated built form. These include:
   • The paring back of upper levels so that their footprint is concentrated towards the High Street/St John Street corner;
   • The replacement of the 3.6 metre wall to the boundary with a 1.7 metre high fence opposite the open outdoor area and TV/lounge room, with an approximate 3.2 metre setback to the building face of the level above;
   • The consistent (increased) setback at levels 2-4 to 4.6 metres to the building face; and
   • The setback of the two uppermost levels away from the north east corner in the order of 5 metres.
4. While I note that this property has secluded private open space adjoining the subject land, the more active and better dimensioned part of this open space is entirely covered by trellis and polycarbonate sheeting. This prevents direct views of the rear of the development site and also greatly limits sky views. In any event, I consider that the proposal (particularly the revised proposal) has reasonably provided its greatest setbacks to the south, east and south east.
5. All east facing balconies will be screened to prevent unreasonable overlooking to this property.
6. Although the ResCode standards are not applicable, this property does not presently receive 5 hours of sunlight on 22 September. I accept that there would be some additional overshadowing to No. 106 High Street from the proposed building. This would occur in the early afternoon at the equinox. However, I agree with Ms Jordan's evidence that this would not detract from the amenity of this dwelling to the extent that its level of amenity would become substandard.
7. Equally, I agree with Ms Jordan that the footprint of the development provides reasonable opportunities for any potential future redevelopment of this property.

Presentation to St John Street and interface with 1 St John Street

1. I have also carefully considered whether the proposed development would provide an appropriate transition in built form to the low rise, generally consistent streetscape of St John Street.
2. A planning and design dilemma will always arise where a building that fronts a higher order street with a more robust streetscape "turns the corner" to a more suburban, low-rise streetscape. Given the limited depth of this site, there are limited options available to transition the development down to the one storey, fine grain development pattern of St John Street. A similar challenge is presented in terms of building style and detailing, since the building must present as an integrated whole, which is unashamedly streamlined and contemporary. The question is whether the proposed development is sufficiently respectful of the St John Streetscape.
3. From my perspective, it is important that the St John Street elevation clearly steps down towards the single dwelling stock. There is a clear stepping down from 4/5 storey development at the corner of High Street, to three storeys within 12 metres of 1 St John Street, to two storeys within some 4 metres of that property (excluding balconies).[4]
4. In reality, there are also limited vantage points for pedestrians and motorists travelling southbound along St John Street, given the relatively narrow carriageway and the lack of a footpath on the western side of the street. In this way, the tall vertical element of the stairwell can be sustained in urban design terms without any unreasonable visual impact to any neighbouring land. The key vantage point will be the corner of High Street and St John Street, which I have earlier found to be the component of the site most capable of sustaining higher rise development without unreasonable character or amenity impacts.
5. I agree with the general comments of the responsible authority's urban designer that:

The design character of the St. John Street frontage is well articulated to acknowledge the smaller scale character of the street.

The proposed development provides vertical breaks to the St John Street elevation, roughly 4.5 metres in width, reflective of the attached dwellings in that street. It also provides a number of balconies fronting St John Street, which provide increased articulation and opportunities for passive surveillance.

1. Two separate access points are provided along St John Street, although they are limited in width to 4 and 4.4 metres, respectively. The revised plans propose a reduction in the second of these to 3.6 metres. These access points are not noticeably different from the siting or configuration of the existing driveways and roller doors on the subject land facing this street. Equally, I do not regard them as excessive or inappropriate, particularly considering that they are directly opposite the train line.
2. At the same time, I agree with Ms Jordan that the interface with 1 St John Street would be improved if the southern accessway was set off the common boundary to provide a landscaped corner. More importantly, I support the modification to the plans that pulls the built form (with a wall height of approximately 8.8 metres) to this elevation more in line with the façade of 1 St John Street. I consider that these changes have fairly responded to the legitimate concerns expressed by council's urban designer about the advertised plans.

1. The advertised proposal would provide 19 car parking spaces - 15 allocated to residents, with 4 on-site visitor spaces.
2. The proposal recommenced by Mr Hunt and supported by Ms Jordan would reconfigure parking areas to provide a two metre landscaped setback from the boundary with 1 St John Street. Amendments were also considered necessary to the layout and design of accessways and parking to achieve satisfactory headroom and manoeuvrability.
3. This has resulted in an alternative (reduced) proposal of 16 spaces, all allocated to residents. Four proposed studio apartments would not be allocated any on-site parking. At the same time, the mix of units has been changed.
4. A relevant objective in clause 52.06 is:

To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.

Under clause 52.06-5, two on site car parking spaces are to be provided for each dwelling, totalling 38 spaces. This amount may be reduced via a permit, having regard to considerations in clause 52.06-1.

1. The responsible authority submitted that the development should provide car parking in line with ResCode rates for development of this type (although ResCode is not strictly applicable to the proposal). This would equate to one space per dwelling plus 4 visitor parking spaces, being 22 spaces in total. If this was unachievable, the responsible authority considered that the number of units within the development should be reduced accordingly.
2. After detailed questioning of Mr Hunt, I am satisfied that the car parking and access layout depicted on the advertised application plans is unsatisfactory. I also accept that the recommended changes would make these areas workable. They also have the added benefit of pulling built form off the common southern boundary with 1 St John Street and providing a compact landscaped corner setback.
3. However, I recognise the concerns of the responsible authority and the objectors that the modified proposal would be deficient in on-site parking. Four studio apartments would not be allocated any on-site parking, and no visitor parking would be provided. The question is whether this is an acceptable arrangement, having regard to available transport options, likely useage patterns and planning controls/policy.[5]
4. In the event that I considered that each unit should be provided with a car space, Mr Canavan offered on behalf of the permit applicant to consolidate a number of apartments, so that there would be a maximum of 16. However, he submitted that this would not be desirable from the perspective of reducing housing choice for smaller units and also may impact on the affordability of the units.
5. There is much to be said for the general rule that each development site to be fully self-sufficient in terms of car parking for residents and visitors. This is the foundation of the standard planning scheme requirements.
6. At the same time, achieving this objective may require extensive excavation for additional basement parking or may, in some circumstances, justify a reduction in the overall development yield of the site. However, site context is crucial to resolving this balance.
7. I consider that the proposal comes "close to the line" in terms of the sufficiency of on-site parking. Notwithstanding, there are a number of factors that have influenced my view that, on balance, the provision of parking for this development is acceptable, including:
   • The site is located on the arterial road network with the provision of regular tram services virtually at the site's doorstep. Alternative tram routes are also accessed along Chapel Street, a short walk from the site.
   • The site is also ideally located to take advantage of train services, with the Windsor Station some 250 metres to the north.
   • A relatively comprehensive range of retail and service opportunities are provided to meet the needs of future residents within the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre, being within walking distance.
   • I accept the evidence given by Mr Hunt that, on the whole, there is an adequate supply of short term parking in the area for visitors. At the same time, he observed a very limited supply of long term parking for residents in the area. On this basis, he supported the allocation of all on-site parking spaces to residents.
8. While the revised proposal would result in four studio apartments having no on-site parking, I consider that there are excellent public transport within a short walking distance and retail/service opportunities are provided within the nearby Principal Activity Centre. In my opinion, these factors combine to make it feasible and realistic that future owners of the studio apartments will not need a car, or will accept the limitation that they would need to give up owning one in order to purchase a unit. This is supported by the census data for Windsor, as summarised by Mr Hunt.[6]
9. This is consistent with the emerging traffic engineering philosophy that developments that are well serviced by public transport can assist in reducing car ownership and usage by providing reduced levels of parking. At the same time, until Victorians' car ownership and usage patterns start to change meaningfully, it might be premature in areas such as Stonnington (without further detailed studies) to authorise wholesale reductions of on-site parking on this basis, particularly for larger apartments. However, for a site in this location, for the reasons above, I consider that it is reasonable for a small number of studio apartments to not be allocated on-site parking.
10. I recognise that it may be possible to modify the building to reduce the number of apartments to ensure that resident parking is self-sufficient. One way of achieving this may be in line with Mr Canavan's alternate submission. Other ways might require substantial amendments to the proposal. I agree that the option suggested by Mr Canavan would reduce housing diversity within this development, particularly when studio apartments are likely to satisfy a particular need close to the Principal Activity Centre and Swinburne TAFE.[7] Studio apartments without a parking space are also likely to be more affordable than a one or two bedroom apartment with a parking space. Having regard to my findings above, I am prepared to approve the balance struck between car parking/housing choice as proposed by the revised plans.
11. In terms of traffic impacts on the surrounding road network, particularly St John Street and Thomas Street, I agree with the evidence of Mr Hunt that the local street network has sufficient capacity and will not be unreasonably affected by traffic generated by the proposed development.[8] In this respect, I tend to agree with the comments in the officer's report to the council that:

. . . it should be noted that St John Street has a fairly narrow carriageway and a threshold treatment with High Street, which tends to affect the operation of the intersection and as such, it is likely that additional traffic generated by this proposal will intensify the existing conditions at this location. This concern, however, already exists and it is not considered appropriate to object to the proposal on these grounds.

1. This site is well placed to contribute to urban consolidation and has a relatively prominent position on the main road entry into the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre from the west. I consider that there is policy support and locational factors that justify a building of the proposed height and scale, particularly in its presentation to High Street.
2. I am of the view that the building has been modulated to avoid unreasonable visual bulk or amenity impacts to the adjoining residential property to the east. At the same time, I do not consider that it would be reasonable to confine the overall maximum height and scale of the new building by reference to the three existing single storey dwellings to the east, since they are anomalous in the broader streetscape and would hamper the achievement of the policy objectives I have addressed above.
3. Similarly, I consider that the design of the proposal would provide a suitable transition to St John Street, particularly in its stepping down of built form so that the southern end of the development presents as a two to three storey form where it is visually connected with the low scale residential area beyond. This would be assisted by a setback of the accessway off the common boundary and the improved alignment of the building with 1 St John Street.
4. Having regard to near ideal public transport opportunities afforded to the site, the small number of studio apartments that would lack an on-site car space, and the potential for on-street visitor parking, I consider that the proposal provides an adequate number of on-site parking spaces, albeit on the lean side. Traffic generation associated with the proposal can be reasonably absorbed by the arterial and local road network.
5. All in all, I support all of the modifications proposed by the revised plans. I consider that they will result in an improved proposal with benefits to all elevations and both residential interfaces. I propose to reflect this in the

permit conditions, so that the revised plans would translate into the plans to be submitted for endorsement with some revisions.

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with plans prepared by Bruce Henderson Architects Nos. TP-101 to 105 (Rev. 2 dated 1 June 2009), TP-201 to206 (Rev. 4, dated 1 June 2009), TP-301 and TP-302 (Rev. 4, dated 1 June 2009) and TP-401 to 403 (Rev. 5 dated 1 June 2009) and TP-501 (Rev. 2 dated 1 June 2009) but modified to show:

1. Alterations to the balconies, 'fins' and balustrade of unit L2.04 to comply with Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks) of ResCode; and 2. The dimensions and layout of parking bays, access gradients, sightlines and location of columns to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Before the development starts, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

• (i) Dimensions of waste areas
  • (ii) The number of bins to be provided
  • (iii) Method of waste and recyclables collection

(iv) The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council collection) must be conducted between the hours of 7am and 4pm, Monday to Friday and between 9am and 1pm on Saturdays and must not occur on a public holiday, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

• (v) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection

(vi) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must accord with the Waste Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the discharge of water from the site must be controlled to prevent any discharge onto any adjacent property or street other than by means of an underground pipe discharged to a point nominated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Before the development starts, a request for a legal point of stormwater discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer's design and certification for the design from the Engineer must be provided to Council at the completion of the works.

Air conditioning and other plant and equipment installed on the subject buildings must be positioned and baffled so that no noise disturbance is caused to occupiers of adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All new crossovers must be constructed to Council's Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

The level of any footpath must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site, except with the consent of the Responsible Authority.

External lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All walls on or facing an exposed boundary of the site must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The redundant vehicle crossover in High Street must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerbing reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(i) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit; or

(ii) The development is not completed within four 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 three months afterwards.

[1] A similar objective is provided in clause 22.06.

[3] [2009]VCAT 938, a decision of Senior Member Baird and Member Chase. In that instance, they were referring to a 12 metre height for land within the Business 1 Zone, but similar comments can be made in respect of the lack of up-to-date maximum heights in the planning scheme for settings such as the subject land, recognising that the Chapel Vision Structure Plan currently sits outside the planning scheme.

[4] I also note that the double storey dwelling on the subject land provides a sheer double storey wall to 1 St John Street, projecting 3 metres forward of the front façade. The new wall would represent an approximate 2 metre increase to this height.

[5] In addition to other relevant matters in clause 52.06-1.

[6] As at 2006, 74% of studio dwellings did not own a car.

[7] In general, the Chapel Vision Structure Plan notes affordable housing for smaller households and young professionals as a key area of housing demand, at page 9.

[8] Relative to a predicted 80 vehicle movements per day with approximately 8 vehicle movements during peak hour (on the advertised proposal).