1. Ultimately, we have determined that the proposed buildings are appropriate having regard to the context and character of the site. The most difficult aspect of this proposal is the rather unique housing arrangement being offered, which has a strong emphasis on housing affordability (which is not just a 'glib' line in this case). A significant reduction in car parking is sought as part of this housing arrangement and we are not persuaded this is appropriate. Firstly, we are not persuaded by the expert evidence and, secondly, we find the lack of commitment by the applicant to the specific and unique housing arrangement proposed (through permit restrictions) creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty about whether the car parking provision is adequate. The justification for the car parking reduction is partly dependent upon the affordable housing component of the proposal. Any permit for a scheme such as this needs to have sufficient control in place to ensure appropriate car parking is provided for a site that needs to provide its own car parking.
2. We will now explain in full the reasons for our decision having regard to each of the key issues identified above.

1. Resident objectors to the south and west of this site lodged statements of grounds with the Tribunal. The majority of the objectors reside in Waterford Green Estate, which is located on the opposite (west) side of Wests Road.

1. We were shown a promotional video prepared when Waterford Green Estate was being marketed that described it as having a traditional community and secluded village lifestyle. Mr Cook described the neighbourhood character as generally low scale, with landscaping and bushland qualities along the streets and in the ribbon parks. The Estate has a vision, a set of development guidelines, and covenants governing development within it.
2. We acknowledge the pride the residents have in their Estate, which we have inspected. We agree many of the streets have landscape qualities, and we noted there are a variety of dwelling types from detached dwellings, to attached dwellings and multi-storey residential apartment buildings. As such, there is also a variety of building heights, from single storey houses to a six storey apartment building. Moreover, the higher buildings are found within, rather than at the perimeter, of the Estate.
3. This site does not form part of the Waterford Green Estate; and it is therefore not affected by the Estate's vision, development guidelines or covenants. Further, this site, the land to the south and Waterford Green Estate are not zoned residential. Instead, they are all contained in a Comprehensive Development Zone and are not affected by any overlay controls[5]. Hence, we find the character of this site is not determined by the established character of the Waterford Green Estate.

1. Wests Road between Raleigh Road and Williamson Road has generally being redeveloped in recent years (except for this site); and the predominant use of the land along both sides of Wests Road is residential. There are a range of building heights up to 4 storeys in height, including 3 and 4 storeys on the land immediately to the south (rear) of this site. The site is separated from Waterford Green Estate by Wests Road and it is separated from commercial/industrial uses to the east by a tram line. It is also separated from land to the north by another major road, Raleigh Road.

1. CDZ2 is the Waterford Green Estate Mixed Use Area which is described as applying to the land north of Wests Road, adjacent to the Maribyrnong River and covered by the Riverside Physical Framework Plan No. 2. We note this site, the land to the south along Wests Road and the majority of the Waterford Green Estate's frontage to Wests Road are zoned CDZ2, but the balance of Waterford Green Estate is largely zoned CDZ1[6]. The purpose of CDZ2 includes implementing the State and local planning policies; encouraging a mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses and employment opportunities; as well as ensuring the combination of uses, their density, scale and character are compatible with (amongst others) the amenity of the surrounding area and enhance the character of the locality. The use of this site for dwellings requires planning permission under CDZ2 because the frontage at ground level exceeds 2 metres, and the development (i.e. the proposed buildings) also requires planning permission[7]. As the site is not identified in the Riverside Framework Plan, there is little in CDZ2 that provides much assistance about what form of development is appropriate for this site other than the decision guidelines, particularly:
   • The impact of the proposed development when viewed from the Maribyrnong River and its immediate environs.
   • The design of the proposed buildings, their relationship to the streetscape and surrounding development and uses.
   • If the site is used for a flat or residential building, the provision of adequate daylight and privacy for each habitable room and sufficient open area for the amenity and recreation needs of the occupants.
   • The provision for vehicular and pedestrian access to the land.
2. Having regard to the relevant State and local planning policies in the Planning Scheme, we find the development is supported by the following:
   • The site is close to a principal activity centre (Highpoint) where State policy encourages higher density housing; and
   • The Comprehensive Development Zone local policy at clause 22.04 identifies Wests Road as a commercial/mixed use area allowing high density residential development if it is an outstanding design that adds colour to the precinct; is not severely out of context or scale; and has a demonstrated positive benefit.
3. Although we have given this document very limited weight, we are also cognisant that the development is in keeping with the Council's adopted Structure Plan for Highpoint principal activity centre[8]. The site is within the activity centre area; and the structure plan is supportive of development at its edges, including Wests Road, as well as higher density development throughout the activity centre, with buildings built to the Wests Road frontage.

1. What we have concluded about the context and character of this site is that:
   • There is clear State and local policy support for higher density development in proximity to activity centres;
   • CDZ2 encourages residential land uses and seeks to ensure the density, scale and character of such developments are compatible with the amenity of the surrounding area and enhance the character of the locality;
   • There exists in the immediate surrounds on either side of Wests Road residential buildings, including apartment buildings, that range in height from 2 to 6 storeys;
   • Along Wests Road, buildings are generally oriented to front the streetscape (except for residential dwellings in Waterford Green Estate near the corner of Raleigh and Wests Roads) with some landscaping in reasonably small front setbacks; and
   • The site is bounded on three sides by two major roads and a tram line.

The Appropriateness Of The Form And Height Of The Proposed Buildings

1. Having inspected the site and surrounds, including nearby residential estates to the west and north and areas adjacent to the Maribyrnong River, we are satisfied the decision guidelines of CDZ2 are met as:
   1. The proposed buildings will not have a detrimental impact upon views from the Maribyrnong River or its immediate environs;
   2. The L-shape design of the each of the three buildings provides for secluded open space with an easterly orientation that is well separated from the major road network. Each of the buildings are designed to front and offer surveillance of Raleigh and Wests Roads, which provides a good integration with the streetscapes; and
   3. The L-shape design of each building creates a good level of internal amenity for the proposed dwellings and the large communal areas of secluded open space for the residents is more than sufficient for their amenity and recreation needs.

1. It was submitted during the hearing that the setbacks of the buildings from Wests Road were insufficient. The Council and residents suggested the L-shape buildings should be 'flipped' so the open space areas front Wests Road. We are not persuaded this is an appropriate design outcome and agree with Mr Linke and Mr Morris that the buildings should front Wests Road. As already explained, the majority of the existing residential buildings on both sides of Wests Road are oriented to front the street; and the continuation of this outcome is reiterated in the Council's recently adopted structure plan.
2. The proposed design incorporates 5 metre setbacks at various points with landscaping that could include small canopy vegetation. We note there are balconies staggered within this setback, but we are satisfied there remains sufficient room to plant new vegetation. As such, we find the orientation of the buildings to front the streets combined with opportunities for new landscaping are good planning outcomes.

1. The residents to the south and west expressed concern about the visual bulk impact of the proposed buildings. At the southern interface, we agree with Mr Linke and Mr Morris that a one level difference in building height between this proposal and the existing apartment buildings to the south is acceptable. There is a combined setback between the existing and proposed buildings of approximately 9.5 metres, which means there are no unreasonable amenity impacts. The stepping of the proposed building away from the southern boundary creates visual interest and relief; and hence the overall interface between the two properties is appropriate.
2. To the west, the site and opposite properties are separated by the four lanes of Wests Road, footpaths on either side and landscaped areas. The houses closest to the site (near the Wests/Raleigh Roads intersection) face inwards to Waterford Green Estate, and away from the site. We agree the proposed buildings will be visible from various streets within the Waterford Green Estate when looking east, but the fact that they are taller and visible does not mean the design is unacceptable. There are no unreasonable amenity impacts and we agree with Mr Linke the buildings are articulated, contemporary, of high architectural quality and visual interest. Hence, we find the form and height of the proposed buildings are appropriate.

The Adequacy Of A Significantly Reduced Car Parking Provision

1. Planning permission is sought to reduce the car parking provision in this development to a total of 160 car spaces, with 155 spaces for the residential apartments[9]. In our view, this aspect of the proposal is the determinative issue in this case.

1. The standard car parking requirement for a dwelling in Planning Scheme is 2 car spaces per dwelling, which equates to 544 car spaces for the proposed 272 apartments. Clause 55 (commonly known as ResCode) does not apply to this proposal because of the height of the buildings, but using its car parking rates as a guide would necessitate the provision of a total of 332 car spaces comprising:
   • 17 spaces for the 11 three bedroom apartments;
   • 90 spaces for the 90 two bedroom apartments;
   • 171 spaces for the 171 one bedroom apartments; and
   • 54 visitor spaces.
2. This proposal provides a total of 155 residential car spaces, which is approximately a third of the standard requirement and less than half of the cl 55 standard. In other words, it is a very significant reduction in car parking.

1. The residents of Waterford Green Estate expressed concern any overflow car parking will occur in their Estate as there is no opportunity for parking along Raleigh[10] or Wests[11] Roads. This is of concern to them given the narrow street network within the Estate and their view that a high level of on-street parking already occurs in the Estate due to the number of residents. Mr Turnbull, who gave traffic engineering evidence for the applicant, agreed long term (i.e. resident) parking is not available nearby and the site needs to provide its own car parking.

1. Mr Turnbull gave evidence the 272 apartments may generate a demand for 13-14 visitor spaces based on surveys of visitor parking demands within public housing sites (a rate of not more than 0.05 visitor cars per dwelling). We are not persuaded it is appropriate to apply this rate given the proposal is not public housing, and it includes a proportion of private/standard housing.
2. In addition to our concerns about the quantum of visitor parking, we are of the view short term (i.e. visitor parking) also needs to be provided on the site. The closest short term parking is the opposite side of Wests Road, but this would involve visitors crossing 4 lanes of traffic or walking down to the Raleigh Road roundabout intersection to access the site. In our view, this is not convenient or sufficient in terms of capacity or hours of availability, hence visitor parking should be provided on the site.

The Applicant's Case - 2/3 Affordable Housing & 1/3 Private Housing

1. The applicant's case in support of such a significant reduction in car parking is that this proposal provides primarily a new type of housing - as two thirds of the apartments will be affordable housing and one third will be private/standard housing. We will deal with each of these separately.

1. Mr Turnbull stated the car parking for the private/standard housing will be provided at an average rate of 0.75 spaces per dwelling. For one third of the apartments (approximately 91 dwellings), this equates to a provision of 68 spaces. We are of the view his calculation is incorrect and the average rate is 0.77 spaces per dwelling, which equates to a provision of 70 spaces (refer to paragraph 43 ahead). In our opinion, 68 or 70 spaces is an extremely low provision, and we are not persuaded it is appropriate for this proposal in this location.
2. For apartment buildings that are four storeys or higher, it is quite common for the cl 55 rates of car parking to be considered as a guide in determining what the level of car parking should be provided (despite it technically not applying) together with the decision guidelines in cl 52.06 (car parking) for reducing or waiving car parking. Mr Turnbull gave evidence about each of the relevant decision guidelines and, whilst we have had regard to all of his analysis, we find the key guidelines in this case are the availability of public transport and car parking and empirical data. Overall, we are not persuaded Mr Turnbull's analysis of the decision guidelines justify such a low provision of car parking for either the private housing or affordable housing components of this proposal.

1. Councils and the Tribunal are often presented with arguments to waive or reduce resident parking based upon proximity of a site to activity centres and public transport. Whilst this site is close to a principal activity centre, we find it is not well served by public transport for the following reasons:
   • The majority of the buses leave from Highpoint shopping centre, which means residents need to walk at least a kilometre from the site along the street network to reach them;
   • There are two buses that travel along Raleigh Road with bus stops located approximately 200-300 metres away, but the stop on the north side of Raleigh Road is potentially unsafe[12] to access as there is no nearby designated pedestrian crossing across Raleigh Road;
   • A tram line connecting between Footscray and Moonee Ponds activity centres runs along Raleigh Road and down the east side of this site. The northbound line is accessible as there is tram stop adjacent to the northeast corner of the site. However, the southbound line is more difficult to access and potentially unsafe[13] as it is located approximately 400 metres away on the opposite side of Raleigh Road where it intersects with Rosamond Road.
2. As such, we are not persuaded the availability of public transport is sufficient to warrant such a significant reduction in parking.

1. Mr Turnbull gave evidence a car share scheme could be introduced to help reduce the overall parking demands of residents[14]. We acknowledge such schemes exist, but we were provided with no evidence or other documentation about the rate of take-up of such schemes and whether low income households who would presumably live in the affordable housing component of this proposal could afford to participate in such a scheme. Hence, this suggestion does not persuade us it is appropriate to significantly reduce the car parking provision on this site.

1. Mr Turnbull recommended the following to assist in reducing the impact of the development on the surrounding road network:
   • Improving the existing tram stops north/east bound and south/west bound with shelters;
   • Providing sufficient bicycle parking facilities; and
   • Providing information about the public transport services, car share schemes, maps of bicycle paths, etc in public places throughout the development.
2. Overall, we find these initiatives are relatively minor and not sufficient to persuade us that such a significant reduction in on-site car parking is justified.

1. Mr Turnbull referred to car parking rates set out in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002) that are based upon surveys undertaken by the Road Traffic Authority of New South Wales. He stated these rates equate to an average of 0.75 spaces per dwelling. We have given limited weight to this information as we are not persuaded it is appropriate to compare broad NSW survey results to a specific Melbourne location. In any event, we note this average rate is similar to that outlined in the next paragraph.
2. Mr Turnbull presented a table of empirical parking demands based on ABS census data for postcode 3032[15] to support the reduction in the car parking to 0.75 spaces per dwelling:

1. We note the 3 bedroom unit parking demand in the table is incorrect and should read 18 (17.6) spaces. This means the total parking demand is 210 spaces, and the average demand is 0.77 spaces per dwelling.
2. It is not common practice to apply an average car parking rate to a dwelling regardless of the number of bedrooms. Rather, it is common practice to apply the approach taken in cl 55 of providing a variety of car parking rates that reflect the variations in the size of dwellings (i.e. the number of bedrooms and hence the potential number of occupants of a dwelling). What the empirical data for postcode 3032 (above) shows is the car parking rates for 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings are on par with the cl 55 rates[16], and the empirical car parking rate for 1 bedroom dwellings is a little less. Hence, we are not persuaded 0.77 spaces per dwelling is an appropriate level of car parking provision for the private housing in this proposal. The provision of car parking ought to be provided on the basis of the dwelling size (the number of bedrooms) in line with the empirical data and the planning scheme.
3. Further, this proposal does not specify which apartments will be private housing[17], therefore the worst case scenario is that all the private housing are 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, which would equate to a parking provision of 96-97 spaces[18], greater than the 68 spaces proposed to be provided. We were not presented with any evidence which would persuade us that a reduction of car parking of this magnitude on this site is appropriate. Hence, this aspect of the proposal fails and warrants refusal.

1. There are two aspects to this issue. Firstly, the specific concept being put about the affordable housing in this case and, secondly, the empirical evidence in support of the car parking provision. We find both aspects are equally important in terms of the merits of the proposal, and are both unsatisfactory.

1. Mr Turnbull stated the affordable housing car parking will be provided at an average rate of 0.37 spaces per dwelling. For two thirds of the apartments (approximately 181 dwellings), this equates to a provision of 67 car spaces.
2. Our earlier findings at paragraph 43 equally apply here. Even if we were to accept Mr Turnbull's car parking rates in Table 4 of his evidence statement, they show there are differing empirical car parking rates dependent upon the number of bedrooms. We are not persuaded it is appropriate to provide an average car parking rate to all of the 'affordable housing' dwellings. The provision of car parking ought to be provided on the basis of the dwelling size (the number of bedrooms) in line with the planning scheme.
3. Mr Turnbull's car parking rates in Table 4 of his evidence statement are based upon a survey undertaken by another traffic engineering firm of nine high-rise public housing sites in inner suburban locations, including Carlton. He stated this survey provides a guide as to the likely parking generation for low income households. However, Mr Cook and Mr Ross questioned the appropriateness of comparing inner suburban locations such as Carlton with Maribyrnong. Mr Cook submitted the ABS data for the inner city suggests 12% of the population uses trams and 15% use cars whereas in Maribyrnong 1% uses trams and 58% use cars. Mr Turnbull acknowledged these figures show there is room for improvement in Maribyrnong to reduce car usage and improve public transport usage. He suggested these figures would improve through the Council's Integrated Transport Study, which has commenced in preparation and is focussed upon achieving such improvements. Some of the high rise public housing locations in inner suburban locations that we can think of include Carlton, Fitzroy, South Melbourne and Richmond. We agree with the residents concerns about comparing inner suburban locations with Maribyrnong. The examples of inner suburban locations we have listed above have different, and arguably better, public transport options than this site. Hence, we are not persuaded the rates relied upon by Mr Turnbull are comparable to this site.
4. Further, footnote 1 on page 17 of Mr Turnbull's evidence states the ABS data for flats, units and apartments in postcode 3032 reveals 70% of bedsits, 37% of one bedroom units, 25% of two bedroom units and 8% of three bedroom units do not own a car. We acknowledge these figures do not distinguish the income of the household, but they do suggest the rate of car ownership in Maribyrnong could be higher than the surveyed inner suburban locations. Again, we are not persuaded the rates relied upon by Mr Turnbull are comparable to this site. We find this evidence is insufficient to persuade us that a reduction of car parking of this magnitude for the affordable housing component on this site is appropriate. Hence, this aspect of the proposal fails and warrants refusal.

1. We think an affordable housing concept such as this is worthy of praise. We agree with Mr Morris there is evidence of rental stress in this municipality and that the north west metro region (which includes Maribyrnong) has the highest rental stress in Victoria[19]. The State planning policies contain an objective to deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services with a strategy that such housing should be affordable to households on low to moderate incomes. The financial detail contained in this proposal clearly shows an intent to contribute to this policy outcome.
2. However, this concept is new and, as yet, the applicant does not have any live (up and running) examples. Further, the applicant is not prepared to commit (through permit conditions) to the detail in this proposal, namely restricting it to 2/3 affordable housing or to the financial scheme outlined in paragraph 9. Mr Morris explained the proportions (2/3 and 1/3) may need to change as the viability of the project will depend upon what rental subsidies can be obtained. The Council and the residents submitted there is insufficient justification to reduce the car parking to the proposed provision as there is no guarantee the apartments will be used as affordable housing. We agree.
3. We appreciate the level of available funding may change over time, but this is of concern to us as the proportion of private housing, and hence the desire for car parking, could increase. Further, it is unknown what will happen to the development and the demand for car parking at the end of the 10 years of NRAS funding - it could revert to all private housing. At the end of the day, the permit application form and the description of what the permit allows that was discussed during the hearing both refer to 272 dwellings, with no distinction that they (or a proportion of them) are a particularly type of housing.
4. In response to our concerns, Mr Morris made submissions similar to that outlined in paragraph 6 about apartment size and lack of car parking influencing the market price of the apartments (i.e. making them more affordable). But he also acknowledged the site is on land that is expensive. He argued a purchaser will trade off car parking for a small unit in a good location. Whilst this may be the case for some purchasers, we do not think this argument can be sustained in this case because of the magnitude of car spaces not being provided, combined with the uncertainty as to which apartments (size) and what proportion of apartments will be privately occupied.
5. During the hearing, we raised with Mr Morris that it is common for permits for particular types of housing such as retirement villages and student housing to give permission for significant car parking reductions, but with permit descriptions and/or permit conditions that limit the type of accommodation to that proposed (e.g. a retirement village for over 55s or student housing for full time tertiary or secondary students). We asked why this proposal should be treated differently? Mr Morris appreciated there is a relationship between the type of housing and its car parking provision, but submitted it is unwise to tie this proposal to any particular program or proportions. The Council and the residents requested a section 173 agreement, but Mr Morris suggested a flexible condition that leaves the door open:

All dwellings must be available as affordable housing (subsidised or unsubsidised) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. We have already found the empirical evidence for the car parking provision for both the private and affordable housing components is not persuasive. In the event that these aspects of the proposal could be addressed and overcome in a subsequent proposal, we are of the opinion the permit should limit the type of accommodation to that proposed (predominantly affordable housing) and permit conditions could include a section 173 agreement and/or that the permit has no force or effect until the funding is obtained.

1. This proposal for a significant proportion of affordable housing with a detailed scheme as presented is worthy of praise. The proposed buildings are articulated, contemporary, of high architectural quality and visual interest. Hence, we find the form and height of the proposed buildings are appropriate. The car parking provision is the determinative factor in this case and we are not persuaded such a significant reduction in car parking is justified. We are not persuaded by the evidence that the car parking provision for the private or affordable housing components of this proposal is appropriate. We are concerned about the flexibility sought by the applicant to change the proportions of affordable and private housing, and the lack of certainty as to which apartments will be private housing. Any permit for a scheme such as this needs to have sufficient control in place to ensure appropriate car parking is provided for a site that needs to provide its own car parking.

[2] Based on the substituted amended plans before us for consideration

[3] The number of apartments later changed to 272

[4] Mr Morris advised housing associations include Yarra Affordable Housing, Port Phillip Housing, YMCA and Mission Australia

[5] Such as a Heritage Overlay, Design and Development Overlay or Neighbourhood Character Overlay that might provide further guidance as to what an appropriate form and height of development may be on a site.

[6] We note the purpose of CDZ1 has a residential and neighbourhood character emphasis rather than the mixed use emphasis of CDZ2.

[7] We agree with Mr Morris that the Framework Plan does not actually include this site, hence the trigger in CDZ2 for a development plan does not apply and there is no impediment in CDZ2 to the grant of a permit in this case. We note planning permission is also required in CDZ2 for a plot ratio exceeding 1.5 and buildings exceeding 3 storeys above ground level.

[8] Council adopted the structure plan dated November 2008 in November 2009

[9] 5 car spaces are proposed for the café and this was not a matter of concern to any of the parties

[10] Clearway and No Stopping restrictions operate along the site's frontage to Raleigh Road and beyond.

[11] Clearway restrictions apply on both sides of Wests Road between 6.30-9.30am and 4.00-6.30pm Monday to Friday. No Stopping restrictions apply along the site's frontage to Wests Road at all times and, opposite the site, parking is permitted for 1 hour between 9.30am-4.00pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am-12.00pm Saturday.

[12] For similar reasons to those mentioned in footnote 11

[13] Under cross-examination, Mr Turnbull was unsure how you would best get to the tram stop in Raleigh Road. He stated access is an issue given the roundabout at Wests Road, therefore it may need a pedestrian crossing. He said this development does not create the need for a pedestrian crossing but it highlights that it needs to be done.

[14] His written evidence mentions a car share scheme with 2 cars and he orally suggested 1-2 pool/share cars would be provided amongst the 15 car spaces for visitors.

[15] Postcode 3032 includes Maribyrnong, Ascot Vale, Travancore and Highpoint City

[16] 1.0 space/unit for 2 bedroom units and 1.5 spaces/unit for 3 bedroom units

[17] The applicant wishes to have flexibility as to which apartments will be private housing and so provided no commitment as to the mix of private housing apartments (1, 2 or 3 bedrooms)

[18] 1.5 spaces/3 bedroom units (11) and 1.0 spaces/2 bedroom units (80) equates to 96.5 spaces

[19] Based upon the 2007 statistics in Attachment 1 of the Victorian Guidelines for Preparing Applications under the National Rental Affordability Scheme tabled by Mr Morris.