1. the potential combined negative effects of multiple developments on the urban structure and form, particularly as viewed from the public realm.
2. The Tribunal has recently had to deal with the consequences of constructed developments where equitable development rights were not properly considered at an early stage.[2] This has resulted in a need to balance the development potential of adjacent land against the amenity impacts on recently constructed apartments. To avoid further examples of such difficulties, it is important to approach each proposal with a degree of foresight. This is particularly the case with the first development proposal in an urban renewal precinct, as we have here.
3. For these reasons it is important that new development not unfairly limit the development potential of adjacent land. That can occur by proposing development on or near a boundary that demands a setback to maintain a certain level of amenity for constructed apartments. Such an approach is not in our view equitable.
4. This position however does not mean that developments must provide for their own amenity within the boundaries of their own sites. Instead it is perfectly reasonable for new development to rely on the public realm, and equitable setbacks on adjoining properties, to provide an ultimate acceptable amenity outcome. This issue was explored in the decision of 52 Park Street Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC where the Tribunal remarked:[3]

Thirdly, while I acknowledge that the development at 52 Park Street does not provide for its own amenity within its boundaries, that is a relatively common approach in such strategic locations identified for higher density housing. During the course of the hearing, I was referred to standards which apply in other areas seeking appropriate setbacks between tower elements, ranging from 9.0 to 20 metres. In those areas, such setbacks are not sought to be provided entirely on the one site, but rather are sought to be provided equally on adjoining sites, thus providing, on completion, an appropriate setback. Such setbacks are often sought for urban design reasons, as well as on privacy and amenity grounds. However they are sought on the expectation that a setback within one development site alone will not secure its full amenity, but rather that developments will benefit from setbacks on their own sites, and likewise on adjoining properties. I note that the proposed development on the review site has taken a similar approach, with very small light courts proposed along its eastern boundary, which it is hoped the adjoining property to the east will match to achieve an appropriate level of daylight penetration.

The fact that this proposal does not provide for its own amenity within its own boundaries therefore is not an unreasonable outcome of itself. Rather the issue is the extent to which it relies on a sympathetic design on the review site.

1. The second principle we adopt is that the concept of equitable development does not mean that every site should expect an equal level of development. Again this concept was explored in the 52 Park Street decision:[4]

There are a number of other submissions and matters that I also need to address. Ms Brennan made submissions as to what constitutes equitable development rights, and questioned whether the development at 52 Park Street allowed an equitable development to occur on the review site. I agree with the starting point expressed by Ms Brennan that each site in a development precinct with identical planning controls should have an equitable opportunity to realise its development potential. However I do not agree that this will result in equality across all sites. That is because very few sites have an equal development potential to begin with. In the case of the review site, its narrow width of 7.3 metres, combined with a need to provide for equitable development of adjoining sites, is a very real factor limiting its potential for development. At the very least it limits the potential for the review site to be developed to an equal height, or an equal density, of those adjoining properties which are much larger in land area. I am not persuaded that even if this site was the first developed in this precinct, that it could be developed to 12 storeys in height in a manner that proves equitable for the adjoining properties.

1. A related third principle is that in a precinct with sites of different sizes, that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to expect larger sites to contribute more significantly to a shared separation distance. Often such uneven distribution of separation distances can be avoided by expecting that smaller sites will be consolidated to create larger sites that can accommodate appropriate setbacks. However occasionally smaller sites in urban renewal areas cannot be consolidated. That is the case here, where the review site is surrounded on three sides by laneways, with the fourth interface to a relatively recent townhouse development with a tight ownership structure by five separate entities. At the same time the review site is adjacent to a very large development site to the west (at around 4000 square metres) and a comparatively larger and somewhat unusually shaped parcel to the north, with the unusual shape contributing to the potential for a larger setback along its southern interface to the review site.
2. In this context we adopt the evidence of Mr Sheppard and Mr Bastone, that it is reasonable that the site be developed in the manner proposed, creating an expectation that a larger share of the separation space to future development be provided on the adjacent land to the north and west. The site benefits from an immediate abuttal to 3.2 metre wide laneways to the north, west and east. Along the eastern boundary of the review site this is proposed to be supplemented by a setback of 5 metres from the centre of the laneway to the proposed tower element, to ensure that a separation of 10 metres can be achieved to any future building of a similar height on land east of the review site.
3. To the north and west, the proposal is for the tower element to directly abut the laneway for its full height. This would place a requirement for a substantial setback on adjoining properties to the north and west, should they be developed with tall buildings, in order to achieve an overall separation of 9-10 metres. To be clear we consider land to the north and west to both be strong candidates for future development, albeit each with their own constraints.
4. The Council argued that this was not an equitable arrangement. In fact it is not an equal arrangement, but it is one that we find equitable. The review site has an area of 242 square metres. The setback to the eastern boundary makes each tower floorplate around 210 square metres in size. To apply setbacks of the ilk sought by Council to the northern and western boundaries would further reduce this floorplate to around 120 square metres.[5] At such a floorplate size, the Applicant submitted that the developability of the site is brought into question. In contrast, the very large development site to the west could provide a 6 metre setback without significantly reducing the proportion of developable land available to it. Also the land to the north, containing the Turf Club Hotel, could site a tower form away from its southern boundary by a similar distance. Such an approach will allow each of these sites to be developed in a manner consistent with the CNSP. In our view, that is an equitable outcome, far more equitable than burdening the review site with setbacks that would potentially render it unable to be developed to the height intended in the CNSP.
5. For these reasons we find that the proposal as before us achieves an equitable form of development, having regard to the principles we have identified.
6. The second concern raised by Council is the form of development along the eastern boundary of the site, where it abuts Bedford Place. The proposed Schedule 61 to the DDO as part of Amendment C196 seeks:

On the street edge of laneway frontages, any part of the building above 10.5 metres should be setback 4 metres.

1. We accept that there are very good urban design reasons why one would not want development to 'overwhelm' the pedestrian experience within a narrow laneway. We also accept that the consistent adoption of such a form of development will achieve a good level of articulation to laneways within this precinct. However, we don't accept that it is a necessary built form outcome for the review site in order to achieve a proposal that is acceptable and reasonable. That is because of the specifics of the context to the review site, which we set out below.
2. The laneway in question, being Bedford Place, is not a friendly or well used pedestrian environment, and nor is it ever likely to be in the future. A number of physical attributes result in this observation. Firstly, the review site is the one site that has its only frontage to the laneway. Therefore, aside from the two dwellings that have been constructed to the rear of 39-43 Bedford Street, the review site is likely to be the only property that ever provides a primary pedestrian entrance to the laneway, and thus generates some pedestrian activity. Secondly, the laneway has a right angle bend in it, and thus is not a public realm where views can be gained to another destination, such as another street. In the long term, views south down the laneway from Flemington Road will end in a large building. Thirdly, the laneway does not provide a convenient pedestrian path. In fact it provides a longer route from Flemington Road to Bedford Road, and a far less pleasant one, than is gained by walking along these two roads and their sizeable corner splay to the Haymarket Roundabout.
3. For these reasons, there is not the same demand for a particular urban design outcome along this laneway that is more of a 'human scale.' Furthermore, we have some doubts as to whether this type of setback tower treatment will be encouraged by the DDO Schedule to any other site along this laneway, as no other properties have a frontage to this laneway. While Council flagged during its submission its intention that the tower setback be required along all properties along a laneway, we consider the use of the term 'laneway frontage' may mean that properties with a sideage or rear boundary to the laneway may not find this part of the DDO applying to them. For these reasons we do not support the Council's view that the building should adopt a podium and tower form to the Bedford Place interface.
4. The proposed development seeks to address the laneway with a glazed ground floor presentation, which will extend to also cover the floor above, which has been called a mezzanine. Above the glazing will sit a canopy, dependant upon the consent of the road management authority, which we understand to be Council. We consider this glazed presentation coupled with the canopy will present an appropriately inviting entrance and façade treatment to the laneway, which will assist to draw the eye away from the overall height in short range views. However we consider this positive element of the façade treatment can be improved by extending the glazing around the north-west corner of the building at both ground and mezzanine floors. We raised this potential change during the course of the hearing, and will implement it in conditions.
5. We also consider that the canopy treatment above the mezzanine floor should be reduced in length along the northern elevation, so that it runs from the north-western corner to the closest edge of the entrance to the car stackers. This will ensure that the canopy construction does not have an impact on the canopy of the tree that currently grows in the beer garden of the Turf Club Hotel.
6. Subject to these two changes we are satisfied that the built form outcome is an appropriate one for the review site.

WILL THERE BE ANY UNREASONABLE OFF-SITE IMPACTS?

1. Council identified overlooking and wind conditions as external off site impacts. Mr Bastone also addressed the issue of overshadowing. In relation to wind, Council refused the proposal on the ground that 'The proposal failed to demonstrate how the proposal will result n appropriate wind conditions within the public realm without the need for canopy additions into the laneway'. At the commencement of the hearing, the Permit Applicant clarified that Professor Melbourne's wind analysis and evidence is based on the following:
   • The assessment was undertaken without the proposed canopies. Subsequent testing with the canopy was shown to not significantly adversely change wind conditions and were still within walking comfort criterion along Bedford Place. Therefore the issue of canopies is an urban design one.
   • The original testing focussed on the public access-ways along Bedford Place and immediately north of the development. Subsequent testing also included the open space to the south-west of the Turf Club. No tests were carried out in the private open space areas to the north-east of 1 Bedford Street.
2. In summary, Professor Melbourne's wind analysis concluded that:

The wind conditions along Bedford Place, from Flemington Road through to Bedford Street, and also in the laneway around the north and east of the development, have been shown to be either within or on the criterion for walking comfort for the Basic Configuration for all wind directions.

1. Council submitted that they would not pursue the issue of wind impacts based on the evidence submitted by Professor Melbourne. The fact that none of the parties sought to cross examine Professor Melbourne means that we must give his evidence significant weight.
2. We adopt the evidence of Professor Melbourne and accept that the wind conditions of the laneway and surrounding environment will be acceptable and within the criterion for walking comfort.
3. Mr Bastone addressed the issue of overshadowing concluding that there will be additional shadow but in this context, the proposal will not unreasonably increase overshadowing to adjoining sites and the surrounding area. Mr Fink the adjoining resident to the south acknowledged that in this context there will be overshadowing in the afternoon to his private open space and north facing windows, but access to daylight is maintained. We agree with Mr Fink's observation noting that his ground level private open space is removed from his apartment and accessible via a walkway behind the garages and also that he has a balcony extending from his living room which appears to accommodate a bbq and table and chair. As we stated earlier, in this context where the strategic intent is for taller redevelopment of the precinct, short term amenity impacts will occur but are considered reasonable.
4. As to overlooking between the proposed building and Mr Fink's property, this is easily resolved with screening using opaque glass and a condition requiring glazing to the south facing bathroom window of studio five on level three is included. To the extent that the operator of the Turf Club Hotel identified a concern regarding the apartments overlooking the beer garden, we do not consider this beer garden to be a sensitive land use. As such the proximity of the beer garden does not demand the placement of screening devices on the windows of the proposed apartments. The final concern raised by this third party is the potential impact of the development on the condition of the large tree that exists in the rear of the beer garden. The Tribunal is not assisted when parties raise such concerns, unsupported by the opinion of an arborist. On our inspection, we note that the proposed development is to mirror the placement of the existing building on the land, which we anticipate to have footings and the like. We therefore consider that the erection of a new building with footings on the review site is unlikely to have a significant impact on the said tree.
5. The owner of 243 Peel Street raised two amenity concerns. The first relates to overshadowing by the proposed development of their rear yard. The shadow diagrams depict that shadows from the proposed development affect this area from 2.00pm onwards at the equinox. We consider this extent of overshadowing to be relatively minor in the context of a designated urban renewal area. The second concern is the potential shadowing of future solar panels. The Tribunal cannot possibly assess the shadowing impacts on solar panels which are under consideration, but not installed. In any case, we anticipate the roof of the existing building to not experience shadows until after 3.00pm at the equinox, which will allow for solar panels to be considered by this neighbour.
6. For these reasons we find that the proposed development will not cause any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts.

IS AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF INTERNAL AMENITY ACHIEVED?

1. The expected level of internal amenity to be enjoyed by new apartment buildings in urban renewal areas is an interesting issue. On the one hand apartment occupiers enjoy a high level of amenity due to their close proximity to a range of services and facilities, and urban spaces. They also purchase an apartment in areas with other apartment buildings knowing that future development may limit access to daylight and sunlight, and affect their outlook. This is particularly the case for apartments at the lower levels of taller buildings.
2. On the other hand, there is a need to maintain a certain level of internal amenity for apartments, so that people at the lower end of the housing affordability range do not feel like their only option is housing that is deficient in its amenity offerings. In an ideal world, where all housing accords with certain standards, even 'affordable housing' will provide high levels of internal amenity. While that may be idealistic, it is an approach that we aspire to.

1. It is in this context that two concerns were raised with this proposed development in terms of internal amenity. The first is the complete absence within the development of any communal open space, or private open space in the form of balconies. While we accept that prevailing weather conditions in very high rise buildings might make balconies relatively unusuable, we do not understand that to necessarily be the case for an 18 storey building. We therefore have an expectation, as set out in the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development[6] (GHDRD), and reinforced by the CNSP[7], that private or communal open space will be provided in a development of this typology.
2. We are aware of instances where some or most apartments in a development may have smaller than usual or no private open space, but only where a large and usable area of communal open space is provided in lieu. This approach is supported by the GHDRD where they note that open space can be provided as private, communal or public open space. We are likewise familiar with some instances where developments may provide less private and/or communal open space where a large amount of public open space is at the doorstep. One such example may be a development site directly opposite one of the city's grand gardens, such as Flagstaff Gardens or the Royal Botanic Gardens. But that is not the context here.
3. Here we have a development of 53 apartments where absolutely no private or communal open space is provided, and the nearest public open space we were referred to is some 650 metres away, albeit it is Royal Park with its wide range of facilities. The justification for this approach appears to be a combination of factors. Firstly we were referred to the range of facilities and services available in this precinct, which we accept are plentiful, but do not serve the same role as private or communal open space. Secondly we were referred to the intention to provide some different choice to the market, and specifically to a market that was aimed at the more affordable end of the spectrum. While we applaud housing choice, or diversity, we do not accept that housing choice should extend to deliberately providing options that are deficient in their amenity standards. Further, for the reasons set out above we do not accept that housing at the more affordable end of the market should have a lower level of amenity.
4. We were also referred to the general absence of balconies in some developments, and the movement away from open balconies to more flexible spaces that are part indoor and part outdoor. We consider that these issues and anecdotes simply highlight the need to provide well designed spaces, rather than encourage the avoidance of providing private or communal open space at all.
5. We are firmly of the view that for this development to achieve an appropriate level of internal amenity, all apartments must have access to either private or communal open space, or a combination of both. We will set a condition requiring that one or both is provided. If the developer chooses to provide private open space for each apartment, we consider that the usual standards of 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 1.6 metres should apply. We also accept however that an alternative to providing individual areas of private open space would be to provide one excellent high quality area of communal open space. We agree with the Applicant that in this case that should not be on the roof. Instead we consider that it should be located at floors 5-10, and that at least half a floor (that is at least 100 square metres) should be dedicated to an indoor/outdoor area in which occupants can enjoy some passive recreation space, and have a barbeque with friends if they choose. We have confidence in the Applicant design team and the Melbourne City Council that between them they can resolve an adequate design.

1. The second internal amenity issue that arose is that relating to the existing noise from the beer garden of the Turf Club Hotel. The operator of the Hotel lodged a statement of grounds objecting to the establishment of a residential land use in close proximity to the Hotel, which may have the effect of restraining its activities. That statement of grounds was made on some bases, two of which we are not persuaded. The first basis of the statement of grounds is that the Hotel presently complies with SEPP N-2. Evidence circulated by Mr Delaire demonstrated that in fact the noise currently generated by the beer garden at the Turf Club Hotel does not comply with the existing noise limitations, relating to an residential land use at 1 Bedford Place. We were then informed that there is a much closer residential land use, albeit in the form of student accommodation, at 5-17 Flemington Road (RMIT Village). There is therefore at best some doubt as to whether the Hotel currently complies with the relevant noise requirements. Even if it does, it must do so in relation to a residential land use that is as close as that proposed in this proceeding.
2. The second basis of the statement of grounds is that the Turf Club Hotel is a live music venue, and as such Clause 52.43 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme protects the venue from new residential development. However the statement of grounds did not establish on what basis the Hotel is a live music venue, and anecdotal evidence provided by the Applicant and Mr Fink suggested that live music is not regularly nor semi-regularly offered at the Hotel. As such, we have not been persuaded that Clause 52.43 applies to this proposed development. Our deliberations on these matters were not assisted by the decision of the Turf Club Hotel to not appear or be represented at the hearing.
3. The Applicant has proposed a condition be included on any permit issued that requires the apartments to be designed in a manner that achieves the relevant Australian standard in relation to limiting the impact of traffic noise. We consider that is an appropriate outcome. It is up to the venue operator of the Turf Club Hotel to ensure that they comply with the current noise limits, and if they do so in respect of the adjacent student accommodation, then we are also persuaded that they will likely comply in relation to the proposed development on the review site.
4. In other respects we are satisfied that an appropriate level of internal amenity is achieved, having regard to the orientation of the apartments, the amount of daylight into each of the rooms, the availability of bicycle storage on site and the likely future outlook from each apartment.

DOES THE PROPOSAL APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE FOR CAR PARKING AND TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS?

1. Traffic and parking implications from the proposed development was not a ground of refusal. The owner of 243 Peel Street raised a concern regarding the potential for overflow car parking from the proposed development affecting surrounding streets.
2. The Permit Applicant relied on the evidence of Ms Dunstan who concluded:
   • The proposed car park layout is acceptable subject to a 1.4m by 1.4m splay being provided in the north-west corner of the building adjacent to the car stacker systems. This has been included as a condition.
   • The level of additional traffic generated as a result of this proposal will be low, residential in nature and will not have a detrimental impact on the right of way or surrounding road network.
   • The provision of 12 car spaces is appropriate for the development of this type and consistent with the objectives of clause 45.09 [Parking Overlay, PO12] which seeks to limit car parking.
   • Waste collection can occur from within Bedford Place and will be formalised under a Waste Management Plan. A condition requiring this plan will be included.
3. We accept the evidence of Ms Dunstan and have no concerns regarding the traffic and parking implications of the proposed development. The planning permit contains conditions requiring the splay, a waste management report and that the mechanical car stackers are maintained.

1. At the end of the hearing, the Permit Applicant presented an amended version of Council's draft conditions. Council and Mr Fink raised no concern with these conditions. We have adopted the version presented at the hearing, subject to the addition of conditions identified within this decision.

1. For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.

• Development of two or more dwellings on a lot in the Mixed Use Zone;
• Construction of buildings and works on land within the Design and Development Overlay.

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of 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 form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with plans TP000 - TP001, TP100-TP119, TP200-TP203, TP300-TP301, TP990 - TP992, all Revision 02 dated 15/09/2014, as prepared by Alfano Architects but modified to show:

1. A 1.4 metre by 1.4 metre splay on the north-west corner of the building adjacent to the car stacker systems. 2. The reconfiguration of the bicycle storage area generally in accordance with the configuration shown in Figure 20 of the witness statement prepared by Ms Dunstan in Proceeding P754/2014 and dated 27 October 2014.

1. The provision of private open space of a minimum of 8 square metres in size and 1.6 metres in width to all apartments on levels 4-16 inclusive, or the provision of one area of communal open space on levels 5-10 that has a minimum area of 100 square metres and provides indoor and outdoor spaces for passive recreation.

1. The provision of additional glazing to the ground and mezzanine levels in the north-western corner of the building, so as to provide a more glazed and transparent appearance to people walking south down Bedford Place. 2. A resolved design for the art wall. 3. Reduction in the length of canopy along the northern elevation of the building, so that it runs from the north-western corner of the building and ends at the entrance to the first car stacker. 4. Provision of obscured glazing to the south facing bathroom window of studio five on level three. 5. The provision of 40 bicycle storage spaces by using the Secura Bike double height storage system within the current storage room area, as per the recommendations of Ms Dunstan's evidence dated 27 October 2014.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. All projections over the street alignment must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to a legal point of discharge in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a stormwater drainage system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, incorporating integrated water management design principles, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This system must be constructed prior to the occupation of the development and, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, provision must be made to connect this system to the City of Melbourne's underground stormwater drainage system.
3. The footpath adjoining the site along Bedford Place must be reconstructed together with associated works including the reconstruction or relocation of kerb and channel and/or services as necessary at the cost of the developer, in accordance with plans approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Existing street levels in Bedford Place must not be altered for the purpose of constructing new vehicle crossings or pedestrian entrances without first obtaining the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Section 173 Agreement

1. Prior to the commencement of development, the owner of the property must enter into a Section 173 Agreement under the Planning & Environment Act 1987 requiring, in the event that development occurs on the abutting site to the south that encroaches on the southern windows, that owners of affected properties close off the windows to comply with the Building Code of Australia.

1. Prior to the commencement of development, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority shall be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The WMP should detail waste storage and collection arrangements and comply with the City of Melbourne Guidelines for Preparing a Waste Management Plan 2014. Waste storage and collection arrangements must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. The performance outcomes specified in the Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Statement for the development prepared by APEC Global Consulting, dated 12 July 2013, must be implemented prior to occupancy at no cost to the City of Melbourne and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, any material change during detailed design, which affects the approach of the endorsed ESD Statement, must be assessed by a suitably qualified professional. The revised statement must be approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of construction.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or bulk excavation, a detailed construction and demolition management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. This construction management plan is to be prepared in accordance with the City of Melbourne - Construction Management Plan Guidelines and is to consider the following:

1. public safety, amenity and site security; 2. operating hours, noise and vibration controls;

1. stormwater and sediment control; 2. waste and materials reuse; and 3. traffic management.

1. Prior to the commencement of construction, an acoustic report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer and submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must identify acoustic treatments that will ensure compliance, in respect of traffic noise intrusion, with applicable indoor sound levels specified in Australian Standards AS 3671-1989 and AS2107-2000. All acoustic treatments specified in the acoustic report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (other than any preparatory earthworks or demolition) a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment must be submitted to the Responsible Authority indicating the extent and nature of any contaminated materials on site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Environmental Assessment of the site must be carried out by a suitably qualified environmental professional. The phase 1 assessment should include details of:

1. The nature of all previous land uses/activities on site. 2. How long these uses existed.

1. What is known about any contamination of the sites.

1. How much contaminated materials are present. 2. How contaminated materials are distributed across the sites.

1. Should the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment conclude that the land is contaminated and that an Environmental Audit is necessary, prior to the commencement of the buildings/works hereby approved the applicant must provide:
   1. A certificate of Environmental Audit in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or
   2. A Statement of Environmental Audit under Section 53Z of the Environmental Protection Act 1970. This Statement must state that the site is suitable for the use and development allowed by this permit.

1. Should a Statement of Environmental Audit be required, any conditions of the Statement must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved. Written confirmation of compliance must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental professional or other suitable person acceptable to the Responsible Authority.
2. If there are conditions on a Statement of Environmental Audit that the Responsible Authority consider require significant ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring, the applicant must enter into a Section 173 Agreement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Agreement must be executed on title prior to the commencement of the use and prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1987. The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority.

[](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/1034.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=/#disp6 "")[](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/1034.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=/#disp8 "")Others

1. A schedule and samples of all external materials, colours and finishes must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The schedule must show the materials, colours and finishes of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames, glazing types, doors, balustrades, fences and paving, (including car park surfacing), outbuildings and structures.
2. Glazing materials used on all external walls must be of a type that does not reflect more than 15% of visible light, when measured at an angle of 90 degrees to the glass surface, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. All building plant and equipment on the roof must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The installation of any additional plant including but not limited to air-conditioning equipment and ducts must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Any satellite dishes, antennae or similar structures must be designed and located at a single point to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.
5. The mechanical car stackers must be routinely serviced and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure satisfactory access to all car spaces and to prevent any unreasonable adverse effect on adjoining land by the emission of noise.
6. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within two years of the issued date of this permit.
   2. The development is not completed within four years of the issued date 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] We have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[2] In the decisions of Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 and 52 Park Street Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2013] VCAT 2199.

[5] These are our figures from rough calculations given the irregular shape of the review site and thus the floorplate involved, and we accept they have a margin of error.

[6] Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004, page 50.