1. The three and four-storey flats on this property are set back between 2.6 and 7 metres from the north-west boundary of the review site. Some windows face this boundary, others are oriented south-west across Alfred Square Gardens. Car parking is beneath and around the building.
2. We agree with Mr McGurn that a separation of around 9.0 metres, as has been generally provided between the two buildings along this interface, is acceptable. Thus we also agree with his recommendations that, rather than cover the car park entry ramp, the built form above it should be deleted, primarily to maintain the openness between buildings which characterises this area of St Kilda, and also to improve the amenity outcome for the occupants of 7 Alfred Square. A further consequence of removing the apartment above the car park entry ramp and modifying the balcony atop it is the opportunity to provide a more open aspect to the south-west-facing apartments within the proposal and maintaining a view corridor to the foreshore. We also agree with his suggestion that setbacks from this boundary should be consistent, rather than projecting closer from Level 5 upwards. That suggestion was also supported by Mr Sheppard.

1. In relation to the interface with Bessiere Place, Mr Sheppard's evidence was that the proposed pedestrian entrance to Building 2 would activate the public realm to the rear of the site. However, such an entry is not immediately apparent on the plans. What the plans do show is a series of townhouses occupying the lowest two levels of the proposed development. They face north-east and south-east onto Bessiere Place, and again feature narrow planter boxes between slatted entry gates to the bridges which lead to the dwelling entries. These bridges span voids of between 3.1 metres (facing north-east) and 4.8 metres (facing south-east). At the lower ground level, around half the area of each courtyard is proposed to sustain planting. The existing dwellings in this lane display some landscaping proximate to their entries, and planting associated with No. 43 Acland Street also makes a contribution to the public realm. We consider that the proposed planters do not sufficiently respond to this existing context, nor to the requirements of DDO6-5 which refer to the provision of adequate landscaping. More meaningful landscaping should be provided.
2. Adjacent No. 1-4 Bessiere Place, the built form is set back above level 2 by 5.8 metres and Level 3 by around 17 metres, and complies with the 9.5 metre height control imposed by DDO6-5. We consider the consequential separation to be sufficient to avoid any unacceptable amenity impacts on this neighbouring property. We have concerns about a portion of the terrace to apartment 129, which in its current configuration allows overlooking (or alternatively, increased visual bulk) to the private open space of these townhouses. As noted below, we consider that this terrace should be modified.
3. Two dwellings to the rear of No. 43 Acland Street have their carports and rear yards facing the proposed townhouses across the lane. At second floor level the proposed built form is set back around 8.0 metres from the site boundary, creating a space around 22.0 metres between the windows of these dwellings and the proposed development. As their private open space is to their north-east, this is an acceptable interface.

1. At the interface with No. 39 Acland Street, DDO6-6 sets an expectation of higher built form. At Ground floor level, Level 1 and Level 2, the building is set back 3.6 metres, increasing to around 5.0 metres for the next two levels and 7.8 metres above that. The Ground floor level is set 800 mm lower than the natural ground level at No. 39 Acland Street with planting shown in the setback. Whilst we are not convinced that effective screening of built form can occur in this location, given that No. 39 is set back 12.0 metres from its rear boundary and has its main aspect to the north, we find the setbacks from this interface acceptable. We however agree with Mr McGurn that, as noted above, the portion of the terrace adjacent to the north-east wall of dwelling 129 should be deleted. While this still allows a generous terrace to the dwelling, it would prevent overlooking to both No. 39 Acland Street and No. 1-4 Bessiere Place without the need for screening.

1. Turning to No. 17 The Esplanade, the proposal increases the wall on the north-west boundary of the courtyard areas to around 4.0 metres with intermittent built form along the boundary. The ground floor of Building 2 is to be set back (apart from a staircase) around 5.0 metres, creating an approximately 10.0 metre gap between these two buildings. Mr Sheppard and Mr McGurn both find this acceptable. To the rear of the site, the section provided shows that townhouse T013 is set back around 2.0 metres from the retaining wall which we find acceptable, given that the rear courts of No. 17 have some north-eastern exposure to their own open car park. The terrace of apartment 117 above should be set back to achieve a minimum 9.0 metre separation between this element and the wall of No. 17.
2. In the central portion of the site Mr McGurn points out the mitigating effect of the landscaped space between Buildings 1 and 2. Bearing in mind that the courtyards of the ground floor of No. 17 The Esplanade will have a 4.0 metre high wall on the boundary, we consider that the bank of apartments G01 to G06 should be set back to achieve a minimum 9.0 metre separation from the wall of No. 17 to achieve a reasonable amenity outcome for this neighbouring development.
3. However, in the south corner of Building 1, we find that the built form encroaches onto the adjacent court at No. 17 to an unacceptable extent. The removal of apartment G11 and reconfiguration of apartment G10 would provide a more appropriate spacing between the proposed building and the open space areas of No. 17. In addition, it would allow natural light and ventilation to the central corridor of Building 1, addressing one of the Council's criticisms. This removal of built form should extend the height of the building. Increasing the space between the two buildings will result in a more open outlook for open space and balcony areas of No. 17 which are already overshadowed and face an unavoidable increase in overshadowing.

1. Some concerns were expressed regarding the visibility of the development from Acland Street, to the rear, and the impact such visibility may have on this neighbouring heritage precinct. As detailed earlier in these reasons, part of the review site is within DDO6-5 which applies to the 'Acland Street Residential Areas'. In DDO6-5, a mandatory height of 9.5 metres applies. We think it reasonable to conclude that the application of DDO6-6 in this manner was undertaken with the impact of development on the Acland Street environs in mind. That is, a limitation on the height compared to the remainder of the review site was considered appropriate to reduce the visibility of development. Had it been considered that this limitation would be appropriate across a greater portion of the site, then the opportunity existed to achieve this through the application of DDO6-5.
2. What this means is that the height proposed by this development, and the consequent visual impact on the Acland Street environs is an outcome contemplated by the Planning Scheme. We have no evidence before us that the development will detract from the heritage values of this neighbouring area. During our site visit, we included Acland Street in our inspection and considered both the visibility of the development from this perspective and to the consequential effect on the context of that street. Having regard to the framework established by the Planning Scheme including the expectations of height expressed in DDO6, and the siting and design of the development, we have concluded that, although visible, the building will not be unacceptable in the manner which it presents to the Acland Street properties. It will be read and understood as a backdrop which forms part of The Esplanade context.

WILL THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF AMENITY FOR ITS OCCUPANTS?

1. Mr McGurn identified the amenity of apartments for future residents as warranting further consideration. He listed a range of factors which contribute to the amenity and desirability of an apartment, including locational attributes, layout and size, overall design quality, access to sunlight and daylight, the availability of views and outlook and communal facilities.
2. The locational attributes of the site are manifestly excellent, as is the potential for views and outlook from many apartments. The Applicant provided images to demonstrate the improvement in amenity of 'saddleback' apartments when the walls within the room are curved, and the positive impact of larger terraces where views are available and overhangs provide shade in summer. The Council says that not only are there too many 'saddleback' apartments, but that introducing the splayed walls has not increased the size of the window, which affects daylight penetration. In addition it says many apartments also have a poor relationship between kitchen and living spaces, with kitchens in some locations 15 metres from external windows. We discuss the matter of daylight penetration in some detail below. Relevantly, the Council's grounds of refusal include the following:

Many proposed sunken units are unsatisfactory with regards to access to daylight and sunlight and awkward in layout and design including "saddleback" arrangements and the overall general layout and design results in undesirably long corridors.

1. The issue of daylight access for the proposed dwellings occupied a significant proportion of the hearing time, both in evidence and in submissions. This consideration was not confined to the 'sunken units' referred to in the refusal ground, but more broadly across the entire development.
2. It is useful to commence the assessment by setting out the relevant planning policy context as detailed in the Planning Scheme. The Urban Design Principles at Clause 15.01-2 include a strategy which addresses energy and resource efficiency. That strategy states "All building, subdivision and engineering works should include efficient use of resources and energy efficiency".
3. At Clause 21.03, the MSS details objectives and strategies for ecological sustainability. An objective in respect of environmentally sustainable land use and development is to promote sustainable design and development. Two related strategies are:

1.1 Encourage resource-efficient design, material selection and construction techniques, that minimise negative and maximise positive environmental impacts.

1.2 Promote ecologically sustainable development through the use if industry standards and environmental performance assessment tools.

1. Under the heading 'Implementation' Clause 21.03-1 states that the strategies will be implemented by:

• Assessing all planning permit applications for new development against the objectives and strategies for ecologically sustainable design and development, and encouraging all developments to incorporate best practice sustainable design principles and techniques.
• Applying the Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Policy (Clause 22.13) to ensure that best practice sustainable design is achieved in new development.
• Applying the Urban Design Policy for Non-Residential Development and Multi-Unit Residential Development (Clause 22.06) to ensure that energy and resource efficiency is considered in the design of new non-residential development and residential developments over four storeys.

1. The Environmentally Sustainable Development policy at Clause 22.13 applies to residential and non-residential development that requires a planning permit in accordance with the thresholds in Table 1 of the policy. The proposal falls within the threshold of a development of 10 or more dwellings. The policy basis states that the policy builds on and implements the sustainability objectives and strategies expressed in Clause 21.03 of the MSS relating to sustainable design and development. It also states that the policy does not prescribe performance outcomes. It enables the provision of information and provides decision guidelines which will assist in the assessment of whether development meets environmentally sustainable design principles.
2. The overarching objective of the policy is that development should achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development from the design stage through to construction and operation. In the context of the policy, best practice is defined as "a combination of commercially proven techniques, methodologies and systems, appropriate to the scale of development and site specific opportunities and constraints which are demonstrated and locally available and have already led to optimum ESD outcomes".
3. A series of objectives relating to energy efficiency, water resources, indoor environment quality, stormwater management, transport, waste management and urban ecology are specified. The key objective in respect of daylight considerations is found under 'Indoor Environment Quality'. It aims to achieve a healthy indoor environment quality for the wellbeing of building occupants, including the provision of fresh air intake, cross ventilation and natural daylight.
4. Pursuant to Clause 22.13-3, it is policy that applications for the types of the development listed in Table 1 be accompanied by information which demonstrates how relevant policy objectives will be achieved. However, pursuant to Clause 22.13-7, the ESD Application requirements in Table 1 do not apply to applications received the Responsible Authority before the gazette date of the Clause, which is 19 November 2015. Given the planning application for this proposal was lodged with the Council in 2014, the exemption applies here.
5. This, however, does not mean that the policy is not relevant to our consideration of the proposal. We are still able to have regard to the objectives of the policy, and also to the decision guidelines which include:

The extent to which the development meets the objectives and requirements of this policy from the design stage through to construction and operation.

Whether the proposed environmentally sustainable development performance standards are functional and effective to minimise environmental impact.

Whether the proposed environmentally sustainable development initiatives are reasonable having regard to the type and scale of the development and any site constraints.

Whether an appropriate assessment method has been used.

1. There was no evidence called in respect of daylight considerations. Rather, two 'Daylight Investigation Reports' prepared by Ark Resources, which Mr McGurn had requested as part of the preparation of his evidence, were appended to it. Those reports detailed an assessment of all the proposed townhouses and selected samples of the apartments against best practice benchmark incorporated into the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS). The BESS tool sets the following best practice performance standards for daylight in residential developments:
   • at least 80% of dwellings achieve a daylight factor greater than 1% in 90% of the floor area of each living area, including kitchens
   • at least 80% of dwellings achieve a daylight factor greater than 0.5% to 90% of the floor area in all bedrooms
2. For the townhouses all but two have living areas which would achieve a daylight factor greater than 1% to at least 90% of the floor area. All bedrooms in the 'saddleback' or 'battleaxe' arrangement will not achieve a daylight factor greater than 0.5% to at least 90% of the floor area. All remaining bedrooms, which do not have this layout, achieve compliance. In other words, all townhouses have one bedroom that achieves the best practice standard in BESS.
3. The extent of non-compliance for the apartments is greater. The assessment sample comprised 12 dwellings, with a minimum of one from each level. Two dwellings from each of Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 were included. Out of the 12 dwellings, only two achieved the best practice standard for their living areas. The assessment of the bedrooms revealed a greater level of compliance, with seven out of the 12 achieving a daylight factor of greater than 0.5% to 90% of the floor area.
4. Mr McGurn's evidence is that the numerical assessment of daylight contained in the Ark Resources report is not determinative in the consideration of whether the dwellings will provide an acceptable level of amenity for occupants. He stated that benefits of the proposal such as the 'outstanding views' available to some dwellings; the proximity to the foreshore, activity centres, public transport and public open space; access to a communal pool and gymnasium; the large balcony areas; and the absence of any reliance on borrowed light can be weighed against some non-compliance with best practice in respect of daylight. He stated that the location delivers outstanding amenity. It is his opinion that Clause 22.13 does not apply to this proposal and that there is no statutory basis in the Planning Scheme for requiring best practice. He stated that what is required to be achieved is an acceptable outcome. That said, he went on to state that even if Clause 22.13 does apply, it provides broad objectives in assessing the appropriateness or otherwise of applications.
5. Mr McGurn noted that the apartments do not achieve the best practice standard for daylight due to the overhang of the balconies above. In his view, while the balconies could be reduced in their extent in order to improve daylight access into the dwellings below, such a change may not necessarily represent a better amenity outcome. He acknowledged that, given the proximity to the foreshore and public open space there is scope to reduce the size of the balconies, but went on to observe that there is a benefit in having larger balconies due to the available views and that they provide 'great amenity'. He does not consider it necessary that the balconies be made smaller.
6. In Mr McGurn's opinion, non-compliance with best practice for daylight for a bedroom does not necessarily mean that a room has a poor amenity. An acceptable amenity may still be the outcome. He noted that the master bedroom of each townhouse does not achieve best practice due to the 'saddleback' layout, but considers that, notwithstanding, this bedroom is likely to be preferred over the smaller bedroom (with does achieve compliance) due to its size.
7. The Applicant made extensive and detailed submissions on the issue of daylight. It conceded that the development does not achieve best practice standard for daylight set out in BESS. It was submitted that, in order to comply with BESS, a significant re-design would be required, including the removal/reduction of balconies and the removal of the 'snorkels' to bedrooms (ie no 'saddleback' layouts). The Applicant said that whether compliance or otherwise with BESS should be determinative is arguable, and that the traditional approach to amenity is valid. In specifically addressing the best practice standards, the Applicant submitted that there is no study, or other evidence-based information, that the Applicant has been able to identify which proves that a daylight factor of 1% in living rooms or 0.5% in bedrooms achieves an acceptable indoor environmental quality. As an example, the best practice standard for a kitchen/living area requires a minimum of 100 lux for 90% of the floor area. The Australian Standard for lighting of interior workplaces specifies a minimum 240 lux for a food preparation area, meaning that an electric light would be needed in the kitchen in order for an occupant to work even if the 1% daylight factor (100 lux) was achieved.
8. In respect of the design response, and the inability to meet the best practice standard, the Applicant said that the apartments do not incorporate the conventional 'saddleback' arrangement but rather have 'open-throated' bedrooms with angled walls adjacent to windows which provide a wider aperture, enhancing daylight penetration. It was submitted that, as an example, the depth of the balconies facing the foreshore are particularly useful in summer by creating shade to assist in reducing the heat load experienced by the dwelling from the westerly sun. In the Applicant's opinion the real question is what does a planning decision-maker do with the information in the daylight model that says the criteria in the assessment tool is not met? The submission was that, rather than adopting a strictly quantitative assessment based on the daylight modelling, a judgement about the lux level experienced in a space should be undertaken and internal amenity should be dealt with on a qualitative basis.
9. Detailed submissions were made by the Applicant in support of this position. Amongst these were descriptions of the ability to use rooms for certain activities without the need to utilise artificial lighting. This excluded the use of task lighting for such activities as reading. It was sought to demonstrate that the level of daylight shown on the daylight contour plots contained in the Ark Resources report would not render the rooms unusable or deprive them of reasonable level of amenity. On the final day of the hearing, the Applicant used a light meter to demonstrate the differing light levels within the hearing room to provide a basic qualitative understanding of varying lux measurements.
10. We accept the Applicant's submissions that internal amenity should not be judged solely on the basis of daylight considerations. The amenity a dwelling affords to its occupants is a composite of a number of factors. These include (but are not limited to) the layout, dimensions of the rooms, outlook, orientation, private open space provision, size of windows, ceiling heights and solar access, to name a few. This is consistent with the views expressed by the Tribunal in other cases.
11. In its determination in the matter of G3 Projects Pty v Yarra CC (Red Dot) [2016] VCAT 373 the Tribunal had the following to say:
    1. Some dwellings that did not meet best practice in Mr Richardson's daylight modelling have not been altered in the December plans. These include dwellings 105, 106, 205 and 206 that face Judd Street. These we assume continue to be dwellings that do not meet the BESS standard and therefore reduce the capacity to meet the overall ESD objective.
    2. Mr Richardson's evidence was that because of their orientation to Judd Street, their lower level location and the depth of the living rooms, there is limited daylight penetration from Judd Street into the living rooms. Neither Mr Czarny nor the internal Council ESD referral officer was specifically opposed to the layout of these dwellings. The outcome is a circumstance derived from the street setting and a desire to give bedrooms of these dwellings a good outlook. We consider they are not a poor design response. We do not consider the provision of daylight into these dwellings is inadequate in general amenity terms, simply because they do not meet the best practice standards for ESD. On balance of the advantages of providing a street outlook and active surveillance of the street, we consider these Judd Street fronted dwellings are acceptable in a balanced planning scheme assessment.
    3. With this we note that to 'comply' more fully with the ESD best practice benchmark, these dwellings could be converted to bed sits, or provide bedrooms with 'snorkel' type windows. This would result in the bedrooms having reduced light, but improve the extent of light to the living rooms, potentially to a point they achieve a daylight factor of one across 90% floor their respective floor areas. We highlight this simply to acknowledge that a 'numbers game' can be played in order to meet or improve on a specific ESD benchmark, but not necessarily achieve a better, balanced amenity or design outcome for the project. We think care needs to be taken assessing a single best practice ESD test does not belittle or overtake the many other considerations in assessing if a proposal represents an overall acceptable planning outcome.
    4. On the balance of achieving multiple goals for this confined site, we consider the outcome to be acceptable. This includes a consideration of internal amenity, not just whether ESD best practice objectives are met. We are satisfied the December plans achieve best practice objectives to the extent they can, for what is a confined site that includes an existing large building to its direct north and a narrow street context, while also providing good outlook and general internal amenity.
12. In the case of Lintime Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2016] VCAT 1244, the Tribunal rejected the notion that consideration of apartment amenity ought to be confined to the consideration of single criterion, such as daylight access. The Tribunal observed that daylight access is a component of apartment amenity, but it is not the sole determinant.[2]
13. In Roundbay Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1890 the same division of the Tribunal reiterated the view expressed in Lintime that the acceptability of apartment amenity should not be based on a consideration of a single criterion, and that there needs to be a balanced view of the range of factors that influence the standard of amenity enjoyed by future occupants.[3] With respect to daylight, in assessing the subject development in Roundbay, the Tribunal noted that there was no reliance on borrowed light or internal light courts, the 'saddleback' layout was adopted for 44 out of the 312 bedrooms, and while the depth of some rooms would limit the ability to undertake certain tasks without artificial light at the point furthest from the room, this was not fatal to the proposal. The Tribunal placed some importance on the fact that all living rooms would have direct access to daylight and an outlook. Other matters which the Tribunal turned its mind to in supporting that development included the aspect available, outlook, use of tinted windows for climate control, the provision of winter gardens, the existence of a communal lounge for residents, the functional layout of the dwellings, and the width of hallways. The Tribunal also agreed with the Applicant in that case that there were considerable benefits to future residents arising from the location of the development (proximity to parkland, employment and public transport) and that these legitimately form part of an assessment of amenity.
14. We agree with the Tribunal in these cases that an assessment of internal amenity should not be confined to a single consideration, such as daylight, or that that consideration should be given primacy over others. As a simple example, a dwelling that does not achieve best practice in relation to daylight but is spacious, has a functional layout and a pleasant outlook may provide a greater amenity for occupants than one which achieves best practice for daylight but has an awkward floor plan and is oriented in a manner that deprives occupants of an attractive outlook. We agree that internal amenity is not a numerical assessment but, rather, one which incorporates an inherent qualitative judgement.
15. We consider it desirable that developments aim to achieve best practice in respect of daylight access but care needs to be taken to ensure that this goal does not come at the expense of other features or elements which equally contribute to the level of internal amenity provided.
16. A question which may reasonably be asked is: what is an acceptable level of daylight? The Applicant's submissions addressed the use of BESS as best practice, and questioned the veracity of the assessment which resulted in this tool being included in planning policy. We understand the context within which these submissions were put to us, that being to assist in our consideration of the adequacy or otherwise of the daylight access to dwellings in the development, and the weight we ascribe to BESS in this exercise. However, we also agree with the Council that issue of whether BESS is an appropriate standard of best practice is a matter for a different forum. We are not in a position to reach any conclusions on this discrete issue, nor would any conclusions we reach be of any consequence in the application of planning policy. As it stands, BESS is included as an 'example tool' in Clause 22.13 for the preparation of a Sustainability Management Plan (an Application Requirement) and therefore has recognised legitimacy in the assessment of daylight to dwellings. The Application Requirement does not apply to this proposal by virtue of the operation of Clause 22.13-7. We are not bound to adopt BESS as the applicable standard, nor would we be even if the exemption of Clause 22.13-7 did not apply, given BESS is referred to in policy rather than in a Planning Scheme requirement.
17. For the apartments, we acknowledge that the failure to achieve best practice for daylight access is principally due to the balcony overhang above the windows. We accept that the views toward the foreshore and bay are substantial contributors to the very high level of amenity that would be experienced by occupants of such dwellings. These views will be available to dwellings in the south-west elevations of the building. When this highly favourable aspect/outlook is taken into account, together with:
    • the layout of the dwellings which has sought to minimise the depth of the 'snorkels' leading to the windows;
    • the splayed profile adopted for these 'snorkels' to further enhance daylight penetration;
    • the greater level of useability associated with the larger balconies to maximise the experience of the foreshore views;
    • the role the deeper balconies will play in shielding the dwellings from the westerly sun; and
    • a level of daylight which will allow rooms to be occupied and used without the need for electric lighting (based on the information available to us)

we consider that an acceptable level of internal amenity will be arguably achieved.

1. We are less persuaded in respect of the apartments which have an outlook toward neighbouring properties or views internal to the site. We consider that, in these instances, the aspect available to these dwellings does not make as significant a contribution to the amenity experienced by occupants as those dwellings which have a view of the foreshore. We acknowledge that the locational advantages of the review site are able to be enjoyed by residents. However, we are not convinced that the proximity to the foreshore, public open space, public transport, activity centres and the like outweigh any compromised internal amenity which may arise from not achieving an acceptable level of daylight. Consideration should be given to reducing the depth and size of balconies or increasing the size of windows (or a combination of both) to improve daylight access into these dwellings. Attention should be given to the dimensions and overall size of the balconies to ensure they can be utilised by occupants to meet their reasonable recreation needs.
2. We are even less persuaded in respect of the internal amenity of the townhouses. Their below-ground location constrains the outlook from the bedrooms, further reducing the amenity of these rooms. The bridge which connects the dwellings to the adjoining street/laneway to provide access is positioned above windows, and will impact on the daylight and aspect experienced by the associated rooms. Our assessment of the amenity of these dwellings, again, is multi-faceted and has had regard to matters such as their aspect/outlook, limited private open space (typically 4.0 square metres with a width of 1.0 metre), and the sunken form of the courtyard which is accessed from a bedroom and not the living area, and which is likely to experience limitations on solar access due to its below-ground location. The overshadowing diagrams which form part of the set of plans show that the lower, and some of the upper, levels of the townhouses will be largely overshadowed for more than half the year. In contrast to our conclusions in respect of the apartments facing the foreshore, we have not been persuaded that, in combination, these factors amount to an acceptable level of amenity. A different design response is required to address this. This may involve avoiding the inclusion of below-ground spaces.

1. Mr Sheppard recommends a clearer definition of the entry to Building 2 located in the eastern corner of Alfred Square, suggesting an increase in landscape may assist in identifying it. We go further. Whilst the entry to Building 1 (78 apartments) is a reasonably generous 5.0 metres wide, that to Building 2, from which the vast majority of apartments gain access has a throat as narrow in part as 2.8 metres, and leads to what may be described as an amorphous foyer area comprising an assemblage of partially covered outdoor areas of planting and bike racks and unclear and narrow access to the two lift banks. It does not appear to provide access to Bessiere Place, a convenient and obvious route to Acland Street for residents.
2. This lack of attention to the communal facilities areas is also evident on the lower ground floor, where the pool's access to natural light comes from the level above via a window onto the car park access ramp. This level also contains a large undesignated space providing an exit up a staircase to a narrow path along the south-east boundary of the site to Bessiere Place. We think the communal spaces provide an unacceptable amenity for residents, in that they are confusing and poorly designed, appearing to be an amalgamation of leftover space.

IS THE PROPOSED LOADING AREA ADEQUATE, IS SUFFICIENT CAR PARKING PROVIDED AND WILL THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL BE ACCEPTABLE?

1. The Council submitted that the proposed loading area in the basement will not accommodate removalists' vans. Mr Walsh's evidence is that the loading bay is of sufficient dimension to allow use by a small rigid vehicle, typically used by removalists. These vans have a length of 6.4 metres and operate in a height clearance of 3.5 metres. They will be able to both enter and exit the site in a forward direction. Mr Walsh considers that the majority of the removals and deliveries will be undertaken utilising a small rigid vehicle. He acknowledged that, on occasion, larger vehicles may be used and that in those instances parking will need to occur in the street and furniture transported to/from the building. In Mr Walsh's opinion, this is not an unusual circumstance in either St Kilda or Melbourne and observed that the likely removal of the taxi zone in Alfred Square as a consequence of the hotel's closure provides the opportunity for the creation of a suitable parking area. He also considers that the 30 minute and one hour parking in The Esplanade results in high frequency turnover of vehicles which frees up space for a moving van to park.
2. We consider that the proposed arrangements are acceptable. On the basis of the evidence, we are persuaded that the majority of the furniture deliveries and removals will be undertaken by small rigid vehicles that can utilise the on-site loading bay. Given the convenience of undertaking the loading/ unloading on the site, we consider it likely that, for larger loads, occupants will elect to use two smaller vehicles rather than one larger one, or undertake the process in two stages using the same vehicle. We do not consider the absence of a loading bay of sufficient dimension to accommodate larger vehicles is unacceptable, as such vehicles will be able to use on-street spaces.
3. Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the development attracts a car parking requirement of 369 spaces: 313 for residents and 56 for visitors. The development provides a total of 354 resident spaces (a surplus of 41) with the remaining 28 spaces being allocated for visitors (a shortfall of 28). A reduction of the visitor car parking requirement is therefore being sought. The Council does not oppose the reduction. Concerns regarding the development's car parking impacts were, however, expressed in the statements of grounds.
4. Mr Walsh's evidence is that surveys of apartment developments at Beacon Cove revealed a peak visitor demand of 0.1 space per dwelling during evenings and weekends, and a demand of 0.06 space per dwelling during business hours. The application of these rates to the proposal equates to a projected peak demand of 28 spaces on weekends and evenings, and 17 spaces during business hours. In Mr Walsh's opinion, the on-site parking provision is expected to meet the visitor car parking demands of the development and there will be no reliance on the availability of off-site parking. Nonetheless, his evidence includes details of car parking surveys within 300 metres of the review site which included a weekday evening, and an afternoon and evening on a Saturday. The evidence states that the surveys were undertaken "on VicRoads' approved data collection days and at times when residential visitor demands are expected to peak". The peak time of the survey was at 1.00pm on the Saturday when an occupancy of 89% was recorded (no fewer than 36 spaces). Mr Walsh concluded that the development will meet its visitor demands on-site and, even if there is a small overspill, there is sufficient off-site parking in the vicinity to accommodate a modest demand.
5. We accept the evidence and note the absence of an objection from the Council's Traffic Engineers, who stated the visitor parking is 'generous'. We have no evidence to the contrary and observed the similarities in the context of the review site and Beacon Cove, which support the use of the lower parking rate of 0.1 space per dwelling in the assessment of the visitor car parking demand.
6. The proposal will result in an increase in the volume of traffic in Alfred Square. Mr Walsh stated that there would be a noticeable change to residents of Alfred Square but that there is capacity to accommodate the additional vehicles. He observed that Alfred Square functions as a local street but has a width exceeding the 7.5 metres specified in Clause 56 for this classification. He stated that local streets with a 7.5 metre width have an environmental capacity of 2000 vehicles per day. In his assessment, the proposal will result in 1132 movements per day, but that this will be split evenly between the two entrances. Mr Walsh said that the overall volume at any point will not increase by 1132 movements. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the resultant traffic volume cannot be accommodated in Alfred Square.

1. Our reasons identify a number of shortcomings relating to the appearance of the development, its presentation to the public realm, its impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the amenity it will provide to its occupants. The shortcomings taken cumulatively indicate that this proposal does not represent an acceptable planning outcome. The changes required to address these matters go beyond what could be achieved by permit conditions. We have therefore determined to affirm the Council's decision. No permit is granted.

[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. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.