46 The policy context has not changed since that decision and the subject land is only 40 metres distant from the land in that case. Our conclusions on policy are the same as those of the Tribunal in the earlier Carlos Constructions case. We have independently read the policy provisions in the planning scheme and had regard to the careful analysis by both Mr McGurn, on behalf of the applicant, and Ms Hansen, on behalf of the council, in reaching our conclusion.
47 It is clear that local policies affecting the site envisage quite significant change within this area. It is also clear that 10 and 11 storey buildings are substantially taller than existing buildings. The key issue is therefore the degree to which development should be bound by existing character and the importance that that should be placed on the achievement of higher density development and key policy objectives in a location that we consider is well suited to accommodating change.
48 Whilst Ms Hansen claimed there was little policy support for an 11 storey building, we on the other hand see there is little policy reason for saying there should not be an 11 storey building. Whilst we agree that support for a higher order building should not be made solely on the basis of good public transport access, having regard to the manner in which the area is undergoing change and a higher more intensive built form is replacing lower order commercial and industrial buildings, it would seem that this new form of development produces a superior standard of urban design than the current run down stock.
49 Lygon Street is a long, well established, commercial strip. It has been designated as an urban village in the local planning policy framework of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
50 We were not persuaded that the council's current intent to prepare a structure plan for the Brunswick Major Activity Centre, the study area for which includes Brunswick Road and Lygon Street, should lead us to reject this proposal pending the outcome.
51 Strategic planing is not a static exercise but one that is ongoing in response to changing economic, social and demographic trends. There is no single point that is ever arrived at when it can be said with certainty, "this is our vision for this locality, fixed for all time". Rather, planning is dynamic. The council has identified this area as an urban village and set out its policies and objectives in the planning scheme. They may change in the future, but that is no reason for freezing development in the meantime, especially when the development supports the policies and objectives.
52 Similarly, we were not persuaded by Ms Hansen's focus on the lack of retail facilities and distance from major centres, such as Barkly Square in Brunswick Road, as grounds for saying it is unlikely that Lygon Street will be designated as a Major Activity Centre. We consider it is irrelevant whether Lygon Street is given such a designation. This is not a commercial development, in which case its place would be in a suitable activity centre, but a residential development. Intensive redevelopment for residential purposes throughout Melbourne isn't just restricted to Major Activity Centres. Such a restrictive interpretation of Melbourne 2030 would dramatically curtail the potential to achieve its key objectives, which are aimed at a sustainable future.
53 The strongest policy direction emerging from a consideration of state and local policy is to promote sustainable neighbourhoods. Increasing the intensity of activities and people within an area is central to the idea of creating sustainable neighbourhoods.
54 But whilst policies at a state and local level promote the concept of sustainable neighbourhoods or 'urban villages', people tend to shy away from the translation of this concept into reality when presented with specific projects, such as the one in this case. They baulk at notions of 'intensity' and 'density' fearing that they will lower some ill-defined, established benchmark of what is acceptable. Projects such as the present are different to the status quo. They introduce change and will modify the character of this section of Lygon Street, but is that a bad thing? We think not.
55 If ever there was an area close to the Melbourne CAD able to absorb change, this is it. There are no Heritage Overlays that might define or otherwise constrain built form. There is excellent public transport. There may not be a supermarket within five minutes walk, but as new dwellings proliferate, shops and other facilities to serve the growth in population will establish. Already there is evidence of this and the proposed building design promotes this outcome by providing retail premises at street level. There is a continuous strip of suitably zoned land able to accommodate mixed uses. There are nodes, which include the subject site, where the Lygon Street properties are buffered from immediate abuttal to residential zones/uses by industrial or other non residential zones/uses. This frees up those nodes for more intensive development because the amenity issues often encountered at the interface between residential and business zones are absent. The existence of these nodes create the potential for clusters of higher built form and more intensive development, which results in diversity along the length of the Lygon Street strip. Already there exists an eclectic mix of use and development. It is an area that has undergone many changes throughout its history, each era adding a different layer. The present changes which are occurring are only adding yet another layer, but in the process they are reinvigorating the strip with life and activity as more people return to live in what was a run-down area with a depleted population.
56 Making neighbourhoods sustainable entails achieving a critical mass of population and development to generate the informal vitality of streets, viable businesses and impetus for improvements to public transport and facilities, thus leading to energy efficiency through reduced travel demand and car usage. To achieve this requires maximising opportunities for development in appropriate locations. Nothing, we believe, will be served by requiring this development to be shorn of several stories simply because, at 11 stories, it is perceived to be 'too tall'. Reducing the height would destroy the pleasing proportions and design of the building and reduce the potential population increase for no benefits that we can see. In our view, the policy objectives of promoting sustainable neighbourhoods expressed in state and local planning policies would be undermined by requiring a height reduction resulting in fewer dwellings and hence fewer residents.