Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2012-06-01

Courtney Property & Investment Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 739 (1 June 2012)

Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Melbourne Planning Scheme; Development of a five storey building, with basement parking, accommodating 44 apartments; Mixed Use Zone; Design and Development Overlay; State and Local Policy; Building height; Streetscape; Off-site amenity impacts; Internal Amenity; Car parking.

D Jones, J Schwarz, A Schiavello, J Scales, P Pascoe, L Mosso, M Duckworth, N Yelland, P Fielding & S Leung, A Williams, D Ironmonger, K Green, J Puchlenko, R Dagastine, D & M McCrae, D Davine, C & R Hagan, P MacKinnon, S Branca, H Wang, J Baker and J McLennan

Courtney Property & Investment Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 739

Leave is given to the Applicant to substitute for the permit application plans, the amended plans filed with the Tribunal, being-
- Drawing Nos. PD 03 B, PD 04 C, PD 05 C, PD 06 B, PD 07 B,

PD 08 B, PD 09 B, PD 10 C, PD 11 C, PD 12 B, PD 13 B, PD 14 C, PD 14 C (pt2) and PD 15 A, all dated 16 March 2012, prepared by Nicholas Day Architects. 2. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application No. TP-2011-289 is affirmed. No permit is granted.

Mr Chris Townshend SC and Ms Jane Sharp, of counsel, instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers

Mr Mark Sheppard, architect and urban designer, of David Locke & Associates
Mr Peter Doyle, town planner, of SJB Planning
Mr Christopher Goss, architect, of Orbit Solutions
Mr Jason Walsh, traffic engineer, of Traffix Group

Mr Russell Hocking, town planning consultant, of City Shire Planning, appeared on behalf of H Wang, K Green, A Schiavello, J & D Scales, L Mosso, M Duckworth, D & M McCrae, J Puchlenko, R Dagastine, P Pascoe & T Ryan, J Schwarz, N Yelland, J & B Baker, S Branca, P Fielding & S Leung, J McLennan, C & R Hagan, D Ironmonger

The development of a five storey building, accommodating 44 apartments, with a basement providing 24 car spaces

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 32 (North Melbourne Peripheral) (DDO32)

Clause 32.04-5: To construct two or more dwellings on a lot in MUZ

Clause 43.02-2: To construct a building or construct or carry out works in DDO32

Clause 52.06-1: To reduce the number of car spaces required by the table at Clause 52.06-5

The subject land is located on the northern side[1] of Courtney Street, between Wreckyn Street (to the east) and Villiers Street (to the west). It has a frontage of 25.14m and a depth of 40.23m, yielding a site area of 955m2. The land falls around 1.2m from the east to the west and around 1m from the rear to the frontage.

The land has been vacant for at least 30 years. It is used as a private car park. A portion of the eastern boundary abuts the end of Kennedy's Lane, which provides vehicular access.

The land to the east, west and south (on the opposite side of Courtney Street) is developed for residential uses. Some of those are warehouses converted to three level townhouses. There is a warehouse on the land abutting to the north. The broader area has a mix of uses, including the Lort Smith Animal Hospital and a number of multi level residential and commercial buildings close to Flemington Road.

On 28 April 2011 Nicholas Day Architects applied to the Melbourne City Council to construct a five storey building comprising 55 dwellings, with a basement accommodating 17 cars, at 68-74 Courtney Street, North Melbourne. Permission was also sought for a partial waiver of the associated car parking requirements.
The Council received amended plans on 22 August 2011 and 7 November 2011.
In response to the giving of notice of the application,[2] the Council received 48 objections.
On 2 December 2011 the Council affirmed the planning officer's recommendation that the application be refused and a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit was issued.
The permit applicant seeks a review of the Council's decision and a large number of the objectors are parties to the proceeding.
Since the lodgement of the application for review, the applicant has circulated amended plans. They were substituted at the commencement of the hearing. Amongst other things, they show a total of 44 dwellings, no reliance on borrowed light to habitable rooms, a central lift/foyer, a change to the architectural style of the façade, increased setbacks above the ground floor level and 24 car spaces in the basement.
In the light of the submissions and expert evidence at the hearing, and our inspection, we consider that the key issues to be determined are:
- What built form outcome does the planning scheme promote for this site?
- Is the presentation of the building to the street acceptable?
- Is the proposed built form appropriate in its physical context?
- Would the proposal result in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
- Would the development provide an acceptable level of amenity for future residents?
Overall, we are not persuaded the design has appropriately responded to the streetscape and the interfaces with the adjoining properties. Accordingly, we have decided to affirm the Council's decision and order that no permit be granted.
Our reasons are set out below after descriptions of the key features of the proposal and the site context.

It is proposed to construct a five storey apartment building above a basement car park. Key features include:
- A total of 44 apartments - 27 one-bedroom apartments and 17 two-bedroom apartments.
- Each of the 10 ground floor apartments have a courtyard facing out to a side or rear boundary. Balconies are provided for the apartments on the floors above.
- Pedestrian entry to the lift and stair lobby located centrally along the frontage.
- The ground and first floors abutting the Courtney Street frontage, the second floor setback 4m (with balconies projecting 3m), the third floor setback 5.3m (with balconies projecting 1.3m) and the fourth floor set back 8m (with balconies projecting 4m).
- Construction to three sections of the side boundaries, but otherwise progressive setbacks from those boundaries.
- A rear setback from the title boundary of 3m at the ground level and 4m at the levels above.
- A maximum building height of 13.95m, with rooftop plant extending marginally higher.
- The first four levels of the façade with pre-cast concrete walls and columns, solid balustrades with wrought iron rails and an arch over the entry, with cherub statuary.
- The first four levels of the side and rear elevations with walls of pre-cast concrete, obscure glass balustrades and bronze coloured window frames.
- The fourth floor with walls of bronzed aluminium cladding and a flat roof.
- A split-level basement, accessed via a new crossover to Courtney Street in the southwest corner of the land, providing parking for 24 cars (including 12 in 6 independent stackers) and 46 bicycles, 43 storage areas/cages, a bin storage area and water collection tanks.
- A stained wood picket fence along sections of the frontage, with a maximum height of 1.7m (at the west end).
A further set of plans was tendered at the hearing. They include plans (dated 10 April 2012) prepared following a mediation that preceded the hearing. The plans incorporate various corrections, although Ms Williams pointed to outstanding errors.[3] There is a Planting Plan (dated 5 August 2011) and additional sections and explanatory diagrams relating to shadows and relative building mass. The plans show many of the changes recommended by the expert witnesses called on behalf of the applicant. Most significantly, in response to advice by Mr Sheppard on an acceptable level of visibility of the upper level, the plans show a metal screening device that extends 1m out from the balustrade of the fourth floor that limits the upper level visibility.

The subject land has direct interfaces with nine properties. An assessment of many of the key issues in this proceeding relies on a detailed appreciation of the nature of development on those properties, particularly the eight that are developed for residential purposes. Regrettably, many of the nuances of adjoining development are not included on the Urban Context, Site Analysis and Design Response plans. However, we had the benefit of an inspection of the properties at 10 Villiers Street, 9 Hotham Place and 76 & 66 Courtney Street. We were able to observe other properties from the subject land, from the properties we inspected and from public vantage points. The written submissions of Mr Hocking and Mr Livingston were also helpful in clarifying the site context.
Along Courtney Street to the west is 76 Courtney Street. It is described on the plans as a 'three storey apartment block', but it is actually a warehouse conversion resulting in a single three-level dwelling. There is an existing brick wall along the full extent of its eastern boundary (shared with the subject land). The wall has a height of between 5.5m (at the frontage) and 4.85m. At the middle level of the dwelling, which is the primary living area, there are terraces facing Courtney Street and the rear (north). At the second floor the main bedroom has a recessed balcony facing the street. There is also a ground level courtyard on the northern side of the dwelling. The rear boundary has a wall with a height of approximately 9.78m. A light court, adjacent to the boundary with the subject land, is not shown on the plans.
Further to the west along Courtney Street is 2 Villiers Street. It is one of a series of four townhouses, each with three levels, that face Villiers Street. They have no direct abuttal to the subject land but some do have windows that look out over 76 Courtney Street toward the subject land.
To the northwest are 10 & 12 Villiers Street, which are deeper lots that abut the subject land. Although 10 Villiers Street is shown on the plans as a 'three storey apartment block', it is actually a warehouse conversion creating a single, three-level dwelling that is set back approximately 7.2m from the shared boundary with the subject land. At the boundary there is a wall with a height varying between approximately 3.5m and 3.8m. Within the wall there is a ground level courtyard, part of which is excavated. Adjacent to the courtyard there is a rumpus room. The first floor is the main living area. It has a balcony (not shown on the plans) facing the subject land. There is also a terrace on the western side, behind the street parapet. At the second floor, there is a small balcony facing the street and bedroom windows on the second floor face the subject land.
Our inspection did not include 12 Villiers Street, but photographs and external views indicate that it is developed with a three-level townhouse that is also a warehouse conversion. At the first floor there is a covered terrace (not shown on the plans) that extends from the northern part of the building to the wall along the boundary with the subject land. The terrace has a retractable clothesline. It is unclear how the southern section of the rear of the land is developed or used. Facing west, there is a terrace behind the street parapet and a balcony at the second floor.
To the north is 14-22 Villiers Street. It is described on the plans as developed with a 'single level brick warehouse'. While that is its presentation to the street, adjacent to the subject land it presents a high brick wall. Mr Livingston estimated its average height as around 6.2m. There is a lower (3m) section at its eastern end. It is relevant to note that the wall is located between 710mm (western end) and approximately 500mm to the north of the actual boundary between the subject land and 14-22 Villiers Street. Presumably, that irregularity has existed for many years. A separate process has been instigated by the owner of the subject land to gain possession of this strip of land abutting the existing wall.
To the northeast there is a row of 9 three storey townhouses with an overall height of around 9m. The townhouses that directly abut the subject land (from the north to the south) are 7, 5, 3 and 1E Hotham Place. The latter is adjacent to Kennedy's Lane. There is a further row of townhouses to the north. We inspected the southernmost of them (9 Hotham Place), which is diagonally opposite the northeast corner of the subject land. Each of the townhouses has its main living area at the first floor, with a balcony projecting towards the subject land. There is a progressive set back to the second floor, where there are also west-facing balconies. The balconies at 1E, 3 & 5 Hotham Place have handrails at a height of either 1m or 1.2m. The balconies at 7 Hotham Place have a 1.7m-high opaque glass privacy screens. The townhouses also have small balconies facing Hotham Place at the first and second floors. Adjacent to the subject land, the townhouses sit behind a 2.1m-high metal fence. The ground level setback of 3m is used as a courtyard for each townhouse. The first floor balconies overhang the courtyard by around 1m. There is also a boundary alignment irregularity in this area. The metal fence along the rear of the properties at 1E-7 Hotham Place is erected up to 1.04m (at the south) to the east of the actual boundary between those properties and the subject land. There is less discrepancy near the northwest corner of the subject land.
To the south of Kennedy's Lane, and to the east of the subject land, is 66A Courtney Street, then 66 Courtney Street.[4] Those properties are developed with a pair of contemporary, three storey townhouses. When viewed from the street, their upper floors are contained with a sloping roofline. Each property has a roller door to Kennedy's Lane, but our inspection highlighted the limited space for cars to manoeuvre. The rear of 66 Courtney Street is fitted out for use as an area of secluded private open space. We assume it is the same at 66A Courtney Street. Each of the townhouses has a small, screened terrace at the rear of the second floor. They also have a balcony facing the street at the first floor, off the main bedroom. Adjacent to the subject land, the balcony at 66A Courtney Street has an opaque glass screen at its western edge. The property at 66A Courtney Street has a high wall along most of its shared boundary with the subject land. The wall is faceted. It has a maximum height of 9.3m, with lower sections below the balconies to the front and rear, and a standard-height metal fence adjacent to the rear courtyard.
Further to east are 64 & 60 Courtney Street,[5] which are developed with single storey period dwellings. To the east of Hotham Place, there is the Castle Hotel on the northwest side of the Wreckyn Street/Arden Street roundabout. The hotel is a double storey period building, which is incorrectly described on the plans as a 'single level garage'. Heritage Overlay HO291 covers 66A, 66, 64 Courtney Street and the Castle Hotel, although it is obviously a remnant control with respect to 66A and 66 Courtney Street.
This section of Courtney Street has a wide road reserve, with a grassed and treed median. It is cut off at the eastern end. The land on the south side of the street is zoned Residential 1 and covered by Heritage Overlay HO3 (North and West Melbourne Precinct). It is developed with two rows of single storey attached cottages, separated by a bluestone laneway running to the south.

What built form outcome does the planning scheme promote for this site?

The parties agreed that the subject land offers an excellent opportunity for development. It is one of only a few major infill development sites in the area. It has been vacant for more than 30 years.
The proposed residential use is not controversial. The development of one and two bedroom apartments would clearly be consistent with State policies that encourage urban consolidation in established areas and new development that improves housing choice and accommodates future housing needs. The Mixed Use Zone [MUZ] is within the suite of residential zones in all planning schemes. Its purpose includes 'To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.'
Like all zones and overlays, the MUZ has as its first purpose the implementation of State and local planning policies. That is also the first decision guideline under the permit requirement, at clause 32.04-5, to construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the MUZ.
A relevant local policy is clause 21.05, which relates to City Structure and Built Form. Clause 21.05-2 recognises that there are opportunities in some areas to develop a new built form character. However, where a new character has not been expressly identified, 'the height, scale, mass and bulk of new development needs to preserve the existing character of areas.' The policy identifies the subject land as within an area 'where the existing built from character is to be preserved'.[6] The Built Form Amenity Principles relevant to such areas include:
- Ensure that the height and bulk of new buildings, as well as new structures,....respond to the site context including the prevailing neighbourhood and heritage character.
- Ensure that neighbouring properties are not adversely affected by the scale and bulk of development.
- Ensure buildings are designed and located so that the levels of sunlight and daylight available to neighbouring properties are not unreasonably reduced.
- Ensure buildings are designed to minimise overlooking of adjoining residential properties.
- Ensure a high level of on-site amenity for future occupants of new residential developments.[7]
Clause 22.05 refers to the detailed Implementation Strategies set out in clause 21.08 (Local Areas). In clause 21.08-9, North and West Melbourne is described as 'one of the City's dynamic and complex mixed use areas.' The subject land is within Area 2, one of the areas where the strategy is:

Support residential development with some retail, small scale business and light industrial uses. Maintain the lower scale built form[8]

In parts of North Melbourne that are identified as Area 2, it is policy to 'Maintain lower scale streetscapes' and 'Ensure that development is sympathetic to the architecture, scale and heritage character of the lower scale areas.'[9]
Clause 21.08-9 provides a non-exhaustive list of 'key land use and built form directions in the Planning Scheme'. They include the MUZ, which 'will facilitate a wide range of residential and commercial uses', Design and Development Overlays that will 'provide design objectives on building heights and in some cases setbacks and other built form outcomes' and the Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone Policy.
The last mentioned policy, which is at clause 22.17, has limited relevance in relation to building height, as it defers to the relevant Design and Development Overlay controls. We have already referred to the provisions of the MUZ. The other key direction relevant to the subject land is the Design and Development Overlay, and the decision guidelines include:
- The design objectives of the relevant schedule to this overlay.
- Whether the bulk, location and appearance of any proposed buildings and works will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
The relevant schedule in this case is Schedule 32, North Melbourne Peripheral [DDO32]. Its Design Objectives are:
- To maintain the predominant low scale nature of the area.
- To ensure that development retains views to significant landmarks.[10]
- To ensure development supports high levels of pedestrian amenity related to access to sunlight and sky views and a pedestrian friendly scale
The Table to Schedule 32 provides for a maximum building height of 14 metres with four Built Form Outcomes including:

New development respects existing built form especially low scale of the existing older building stock in the street.

Development in streets with higher typical built form provides a transition in scale to the lower building forms.

Although they do not change the application of DDO32, we should mention proposed changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS]. Amendment C162 proposes to insert a revised MSS. Amongst other things, the exhibited amendment proposed to identify three types of areas 'in terms of capacity for growth and intensity' - 'stable' areas, 'on going change' areas and 'urban renewal' areas. The subject land and the surrounding area was identified as an 'on going change' area. However, the Panel considering Amendment C162 commented that 'there is not a clear logic to the designation of "stable" or "on going change" areas in the proposed MSS'.[11] The Panel's recommendations included that those designations be deleted on the Growth Framework Plan and 'the existing directions' of the local plan for North and West Melbourne be retained.[12] Mr Livingston advised that the Council has adopted the recommendations of the Panel and is working on a final version of the amendment.
We should also mention that on 7 February 2012 the Council adopted the 'City North Structure Plan 2012' and has sought permission to exhibit it as part of Amendment C196. In the Structure Plan the subject land is within Precinct 5 (Courtney Street), the description of which includes the following:

Courtney Street has a low-scale character and features a number of heritage buildings such as the Meat Market and, on the west side, rows of Victorian housing. This street is at the boundary of the low-scale residential areas in North Melbourne and the Flemington Road health precinct. For most of the street length there are compatible controls on either side of the street, with a 9m height control on the west, and 14m mandatory control on the east. This has created a generally cohesive streetscape character which should be retained.[13]

The Structure Plan's 'proposed built form controls' retain the status quo with respect to the subject land and surrounds.[14] That is, it identifies a 14m height for the land covered by DDO32. The Structure Plan also identifies a 9m height[15] for the land on the southern side of Courtney Street, but that is outside the Structure Plan area.
So, what does all of the above mean in relation to an acceptable built form outcome on the subject land?
The purpose of the MUZ encourages residential development that 'respects the neighbourhood character.' That is also in the statement of the purpose of the Residential l Zone. However, we agree with Mr Townshend that in a MUZ the neighbourhood character that must be respected will inevitable be different to that in a residential zone. It will be a mixed built form character and the purpose of respecting neighbourhood character will be achieved in a different way.
Local policy identifies the subject land as within an area 'where the existing built form character is to be preserved'. The existing built form character along the northern side of this section of Courtney Street comprises buildings with one, two and three levels. The local area plan for North and West Melbourne seeks to maintain 'the lower scale built form' and 'lower scale streetscapes'. Nevertheless, that is to be implemented by DDO32. While it has the objective of maintaining 'the predominant low scale nature of the area', it allows a maximum height of 14m. The proposed amendment to the MSS does not affect DDO32 and the Structure Plan endorses its 14m height limit.
DDO32 is the primary determinative of an acceptable building height. In Forty Ninth Macorp Nominees v Melbourne CC & Ors, the Tribunal considered a proposed 14m high building at 130-140 Errol Street, North Melbourne. That land is also covered by DDO32. Although the building would be taller than buildings in its immediate surrounds, the Tribunal commented 'It must not be forgotten, that the DDO clearly contemplates a height of 14 metres in this location.'[16]
We note Ms Williams' observation that DDO32 covers areas with varied building grain and height. A Heritage Overlay also applies to some areas. Accordingly, there cannot be an expectation of 14m on all sites covered by DDO32. Nevertheless, we agree with Mr Sheppard that DDO32 implies a change to this section of Courtney Street. The 'predominant low scale nature', identified as a Design Objective in DDO32, will include buildings up to 14m high. Put another way by Mr Townshend, it is implicit in DDO32 that a height of 14m can respect neighbourhood character and 'maintain the predominant low scale nature of the area.' It must be assumed that a building with a height of 14m can achieve the Built Form Outcomes and Design Objectives of DDO32. However, a particular proposal needs to demonstrate that that is the case.
The maximum height of the proposed development is 13.95m, which is marginally within the mandatory height limit of DDO32. However, as illustrated on the roof plan and the model prepared by Ms Williams,[17] the proposal includes a substantial extent of built form at that maximum height. While DDO32 allows development up to 14m, it does not necessarily promote development at that level across the whole of the land. The extent of development at around the mandatory height, and the overall form of development, is highly dependant on, or tempered by, various factors. They include streetscape considerations, the clear direction in local policy that new development not adversely affect neighbouring properties, and the quality of internal amenity afforded to future residents. Those considerations are addressed under the following headings.

Is the presentation of the building to the street acceptable?

Despite the 14m maximum height in DDO32, existing development on the north side of the street has a predominant scale of three storeys. Furthermore, upper levels are mostly recessed or concealed. On the south side of the street, there is a uniform single storey scale. That context is unlikely to change, given the heritage controls, or because properties have been redeveloped relatively recently. The closure of Courtney Street to the east also means that it is a confined streetscape.
Mr Hocking was critical of the proposed development abutting the frontage, describing it as a 'very imposing podium form', with 'blunt vertical detail' that will dominate the pedestrian scale. However, Mr Livingston submitted that the Council is not concerned about the presentation of the first two levels, apart from issues related to design detail.
We consider that the proposed two-level street wall is an acceptable design response. Although the first floor walls of both abutting buildings are set back from the street,[18] they have high elements at the frontage. Despite the misrepresentation of the height of 66A Courtney Street on the elevations, and the sloping land, we consider that the transition between buildings at the frontage would be acceptable. The proposed central entry, courtyards (albeit below the footpath level) and first floor balconies would provide a reasonably active interface with the street. It would be a 'pedestrian friendly scale', as sought by the objectives of DDO32 and clause 22.17. Ms Williams highlighted that the plans fail to show fire services. We agree with her that if they were exposed to the street, such services could be unattractive, so this is a design detail that should and can be resolved.
In terms of scale, the critical issue is whether the second, third and fourth floors are acceptable given the predominant lower scale of buildings in the street.
On that matter, Mr Livingston highlighted that the second and third floors will sit forward of, and above, the neighbouring buildings. They would reach a height of just under 12m, at a setback of only 4m. He also argued that there is a need to be mindful of the single storey scale on the other side of the street, which is not covered by DDO32. Ms Williams was firmly of the view that the second and third floors will not be recessive. She argued that they adopt the same architectural language as the lower floors and the whole building will 'read as a block' of four and a half storeys. Ms Williams drew our attention to the fact that the elevations forming part of the substituted plans misrepresent the extent of development at the southwest corner of the building. Accordingly, the second floor will be more prominent in oblique views than is depicted. Ms Williams submitted that despite the trees in the foreground, from various vantage points - particularly from the southwest - the view would be of a substantial building.
On the other hand, Mr Townshend submitted that the design adopts 'a stepping of scale at the street edge', with the higher portions of the building set back 'so as to be clearly recessive' in views from the street. It was Mr Sheppard's view that the middle section of the building, with a 4m setback, will have 'a similar visual presence' to the hotel to the east (which has two storeys but a height comparable to three storeys) and the three storey development on the corner of Villiers Street. He argued that those developments are effectively three storey 'bookends' to this section of the street and the proposed building will sit comfortably within that context. Mr Sheppard also considered that is acceptable for the proposed development to appear 'a little bit different', given DDO32.
The proposed building at the southwest corner of the building is corrected on the additional plans tendered at the hearing. Ultimately, we accept that the building mass and siting at the second and third floors is acceptable. We agree with Mr Sheppard that the width of the road reserve, and the substantial trees in the median, will largely ameliorate the difference in built form on each side of the street. Although the northern side of the street has a predominantly scale of three storeys, DDO32 promotes a higher built form. There is also a backdrop of even higher buildings to the north.
A Design Objective of DDO32 is to 'support high levels of pedestrian amenity related to access to sunlight'. The proposed building would cast shadows over the Courtney Street roadway, the footpath and the median. However, given the orientation of the land, any building would cast shadow over the footpath on the northern side of the street.
Our concerns primarily relate to the proposed fourth floor. As depicted on the substituted plans, the fourth floor would be clearly visible from various vantage points, notwithstanding the street trees. In response to Mr Sheppard's initial advice that the front of third floor should screen views of the fourth floor from the other side of the street, the project architects introduced a screening device. It is depicted on the additional plans tendered at the hearing. It is also included on the photomontages that were the basis of Mr Goss' evidence. It comprises a horizontal metal element commencing 200mm above the third floor balustrade and projecting 1m towards the street. It was referred to in the hearing as 'the blade'.
Mr Livingston did not accept that the blade would actually conceal the building on the fourth floor, or anyone on the fourth floor balcony. He described it as 'clumsy and ineffective', noting that even if it does conceal views from selective vantage points, it is an element projecting 1m closer to the street that will itself be prominent. Ms Williams also questioned whether the blade would conceal the fourth floor. She highlighted that the sight line on one of the additional sections[19] appears to shows the blade resulting in no visibility from the footpath on the other side of the street, but on the photomontage from View 2[20] there is a glimpse of the fourth floor wall and a clear view of the edge of the roof. Ms Williams, who is an architect, submitted that the blade sits too high to be considered as a canopy for the windows below, and will be a dominating element.
Mr Sheppard submitted that the substantial street setback and side setbacks would mean that the fourth floor is 'largely, almost entirely, screened from the street'. However, under cross-examination, he conceded that the blade would not make the fourth floor invisible from the street. He suggested that there would be a view of the top of the balustrade, the underside of the blade and the edge of the roof. However, he argued that the blade would read as an architectural element. He ventured that it is 'an interpretation of a cornice' that will 'cap the presentation to the street'. Mr Sheppard concluded that the building will present as four levels - or even 3 ½ to 4 levels, given the ground floor level is below the footpath level - with a 'feature' above.
Ultimately, we consider that any fourth floor should be wholly, or very substantially, screened from direct and oblique street views so it is barely visible. The front and side setbacks of the proposed fourth floor do not result in that outcome. The inclusion of a blade, as a screening device, also fails in that regard. Furthermore, the blade itself adds to the building form close to the street. It is at odds with the overall building style and is not in our opinion an integrated architectural feature.
Mr Townshend suggested that, if we found the blade to be discordant, there are other options to screen the fourth floor. A greater fourth floor setback and a higher balustrade were mooted. Those measures, or other options, need to be explored.
The proposed style and detailing of the façade is a further controversial issue. The plans considered by the Council had a contemporary style for the facade. However, the substituted plans depict a style that was commonly referred to during the hearing as 'neo-classical'.
It is arguable whether 'neo-classical' accurately describes the proposed architectural style. There are certainly neo-classical references in the arched entry, with its cherub statues. The use of pre-cast rendered concrete in a monolithic and generally monochromatic[21] fashion is suggestive of the style, although it is questionable whether the facade adopts particular proportions. For instance, Ms Williams observed that the low clearance height in the entry means it is certainly not 'grand'. Mr Livingston submitted that the height and minimal setbacks 'call for a mixed palette where the upper levels should be less dominating.' Mr Hocking was particularly critical, arguing that the ground and first floor 'podium' is:

....an awkward mismatch of modern materials, quaint picket fences, balconies sitting right to the front boundary line and odd design details such as the "angels' atop of the "mock Georgian" pedestrian entry.

A 'neo-classical' style has found favour in particular parts of Melbourne, especially in the City of Stonnington, but is not common in North Melbourne. It is not to everyone's taste. Indeed, it was not embraced by any of the parties or witnesses in the hearing. Nevertheless, Mr Townshend submitted that the architectural style 'is not open to a planning judgment in this case', as the MUZ and the terms of the DDO 'do not support planning interference'. He noted, however, that there is the capacity to change elements of the design.
Although the zone and overlay controls do not refer to building style, it is addressed by local policy. An objective of the urban design policy at clause 22.17 is:

To ensure that development uses design and detail to ensure all visible façades (including the rear and sides of buildings) provide a rich and positive contribution to the public realm.

Building style is also relevant with respect to whether it means a new, larger building sits comfortably in a streetscape. An appropriate style can break up the mass of a building. In those terms we consider that the proposed form and detailing are unacceptable. The façade does not include enough vertical elements, resulting in a solidity that emphasises the height and mass. It would be discordant in this streetscape. We agree with Ms Williams that a contemporary treatment of the façade would be better, breaking it down into 'terrace-sized widths'. That is the approach encouraged in the Structure Plan, which refers to buildings on wide street frontages 'broken into smaller vertical sections of 4m to 10m in width' to 'deliver a fine grain urban form'.[22]

Would the proposal result in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?

All of the abutting properties have been redeveloped while the subject land has been vacant. They have had the benefit of the absence of any buildings and an uninterrupted outlook, although the appearance of the land is unsightly - with weeds, and used for rubbish dumping and car parking during the day.
We consider that the impact on 76 Courtney Street would not be unreasonable. It is sensible to build up to the existing high wall on the common boundary. The first floor terraces to the north and south are not oriented to face the subject land. The proposed development will affect the morning sunlight received at the northern terrace, but the high wall of 10 Villiers Street already compromises its amenity. Any loss of views to the city skyline, to the southeast, is not a matter we can give any weight to as there is no legal right to a view. Adjacent to the light court, part of the proposed building is to be set back 4.1m from the common boundary, and this is sufficient to maintain an acceptable level of daylight into the light court.
The impact on 10 Villiers Street would be greater, given that it has a rear courtyard, first floor terrace and bedroom windows oriented to the east. The proposal's first and second floors introduce a new wall on the boundary, or set back 835mm, which is 4.1m higher than the existing wall. At the third floor there would be a setback of 3.035m. While most of the fourth floor would be set back 5.035m, a section of building (Unit 44) would be only 700mm (the screened balcony) and 1.8m (the wall) from the rear boundary of 10 Villiers Street. Development is also proposed immediately to the southern side of the rear of 10 Villiers Street, with the balconies of units at the second and third floors abutting the common boundary. The screened terrace of Unit 38 would be 5.9m above the existing brick wall.
High walls now surround the rear of 10 Villiers Street and its first floor terrace is set back from the rear boundary. The ground level courtyard and the terrace can probably be categorised as secondary spaces, given the better access to light at the street-side terraces. It is also reasonable to expect development at or near the boundary, given the Mixed Use zoning.
Nevertheless, in the light of our inspection, and assisted by Ms Williams' model, we consider that the visual bulk presented to 10 Villiers Street is unreasonable. In effect, it would fill in the entire southeast outlook from the first floor terrace. The terrace may be a secondary space, but is still an integral part of the first floor living space. There was a concern about the outlook from the top floor bedroom windows of 10 Villiers Street, but we think a change to this outlook is reasonable given DDO32 applies to this area. Mr Doyle suggested modifications to reduce the extent of building proximate to 10 Villiers Street. They included cutting back, or removing, part of the balcony of Units 29 & 38. We do not consider that such modifications go far enough to reduce the visual bulk.
The owner of 12 Villiers Street was an objector to the initial application, but is not a party to this proceeding. The potential impact on that land is still relevant, although we did not inspect the property. As the proposal includes a 4m setback from the rear boundary, the outlook directly to the east from 12 Villiers Street would not be affected in the same way as the outlook from 10 Villiers. In effect, there would be a narrow corridor to the east from the northern half of the rear of 12 Villiers Street. That is where the covered terrace is located. However, the terrace extends to the rear boundary and there would obviously be oblique views to the proposed development. There are additional terraces on the street side of 12 Villiers that would have better access to light. Nevertheless, we consider that the proposed 4.1m extension of the wall on the boundary would also be overbearing from 12 Villiers Street. That is especially so given that the rear terrace extends to the common boundary. We consider the setback of the proposed building from the rear boundary should be increased. However, that is primarily based on our findings (later in these reasons) about the internal amenity of the proposed apartments that would face the rear wall.
There is screening on the edge of the balcony of the closest apartment (Unit 28), but the potential for overlooking of 12 Villiers Street has not been fully resolved. This is a matter that requires further consideration.
In relation to the land to the north (14-22 Villiers Street), we agree with Mr Sheppard that the issues relate to equitable development, rather than amenity. We agree with Mr Sheppard that there should be a 4.5m set back to the rear title boundary. Anticipating future development to the north, a permit condition could address the need for a marginally greater setback of the first four levels, if the adverse possession claim is not finalised.
The potential impacts on the townhouses at 1E-7 Hotham Place relate to overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk. It is a particularly sensitive interface because the townhouses are sited close to the common boundary and have ground level courtyards, habitable room windows and balconies facing west.
The issue of possible overlooking can be simply addressed. Screening is necessary to prevent direct overlooking of the townhouses from the second bedroom of proposed apartments in the northeast corner, on the first, second and third floors.
The additional shadow diagrams and sections indicate that from around 1pm the proposed development would generally cast shadow over the rear courtyards. By 2pm, the rear rooms at the ground floor and the balconies and rear rooms at the first floor would be affected. By 3pm the second floor would be affected by shadows. There is a minor variation in the impact on the townhouses as more sunlight would be received at the southern townhouses.
ResCode is not strictly relevant to an assessment of the proposal. We agree with Mr Doyle that if Standard B21 (Overshadowing Open Space) was applied, there would be very little scope for urban consolidation in this area. However, Objective 2.6 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development[23] is 'To ensure areas can develop with an equitable access to outlook and sunlight'. Design Suggestion 2.6.2 is 'To maintain sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of dwellings in accordance with clause 55 of planning schemes'.
Due to the orientation of the townhouses, the courtyards do not currently receive direct sunlight until around 10am. While the proposal would result in a limited period of sunlight receipt, the courtyards are not the primary areas of private open space in our opinion. The key issue is whether it is reasonable that the main living spaces at the first floor only have access to sunlight between 11am and 2pm. The townhouses also have balconies facing Hotham Place, but we were not provided with information about their access to sunlight. Ultimately, we consider the proximity of the proposal and the fourth floor creates an unreasonable impact on the access to sunlight to the primary west-facing balconies. This issue goes hand in hand with the visual bulk of the development and the size of the fourth (top) floor. As such, we think this interface can and should be improved.
The proposal involves a one storey wall on part of the common boundary with 1E-7 Hotham Place. There is then a longer section of wall set back 1m at the first floor, a setback of 2m at the second floor, a setback of 3m at the third floor and a setback of 5m at the fourth floor. Mr Hocking highlighted that just 2m off the common boundary, the wall of Unit 26 would extend more than 7.2m above the level of the courtyards. He described the wall as 'looming over' the courtyards.
When the Hotham Place townhouses were planned, more thought could have been given to how they would be better protected from the impact of eventual development on the subject land. Nevertheless, we need to assess the impact of the proposal on what exists now. The proposed development has greater setbacks than the townhouses themselves, but the separation would be 5m at the first floor, 6m at the second floor and 7m at the third floor. The balconies of the townhouses would be closer. We consider that there would not be an adequate separation, or sense of space, between the townhouses and the proposed building. Incidentally, the applicant is not relying on any adverse possession of the strip of land outside the northeast corner. Development is only proposed to the title boundary, at ground level. That could eventually lead to a situation where the fence of the townhouses was removed and their courtyards enlarged. We think the issue of equitable access to outlook and sunlight requires further consideration in relation to this interface.
Lastly, we turn to the potential impacts on the townhouses at 66A & 66 Courtney Street. We are satisfied that the proposed development would not lead to any excessive visual bulk. The proposed building would be visible, in oblique views, but the open spaces and windows are oriented to the street and the rear (north), rather than directly facing the subject land. There is the potential for overlooking of the front balcony at 66A Courtney Street from the proposed balcony to the west (Unit 23). That could be addressed by requiring the end of the proposed balcony to be set back and the intervening area to be non-trafficable.
The main potential impact relates to overshadowing of the rear courtyards. The additional shadow diagrams indicate that the proposal would not cause overshadowing of the courtyards in the morning. From noon there would be some shadow cast over the rear courtyard of 66A Courtney Street, and it would be completely shaded by 1pm. From 1pm the proposed development would shade the courtyard of 66 Courtney Street, which would completely shaded by 2pm.
Mr Sheppard argued that while there would be less than five hours of sunlight, three hours at the equinox is acceptable in this environment. He also noted that the townhouses have alternative elevated terraces, even if they are not the primary areas of private open space.
Unfortunately, we were not provided with diagrams showing the amount of sunlight the courtyards currently receive or what areas within the courtyards receive the sunlight. It is evident that in the morning the three storey wall at the southern end of 1E Hotham Place would shade them. The external and internal walls of the courtyards would also interrupt the receipt of sunlight, as would a Silver Birch tree at the rear of 66A Courtney Street and the existing hedge/trees between the properties, which have recently been pruned.
We do not have sufficient information to assess the cumulative impact of existing shadows and the additional shadow that would be cast by the proposed development. They are inner city courtyards and there is access to sun at the upper levels. However, we view the courtyards as the primary areas of private open space. If the proposed development resulted in the loss of sunlight to usable area(s) in either of the rear courtyards (as opposed to garden areas for example), then we would not endorse any development that caused that loss.
Lastly, we note that if the use of Kennedy's Lane now causes disturbance to residents of abutting properties, the proposal would at least have a positive effect of making its use redundant.

Would the development provide an acceptable level of amenity for future residents?

Early versions of the plans placed a heavy reliance on borrowed light. That is largely overcome with the substituted plans. Nevertheless, Mr Livingston, Ms Williams and Mr Hocking provided detailed critiques of the quality of daylight, sunlight and outlook that would be afforded by many of the proposed apartments.
The ground level apartments were a particular focus of those submissions. All of them are below natural ground level to some extent, with some significantly excavated.[24] They face an existing high wall, either on the side or rear of the subject land. Furthermore, the minimal depth of the courtyards, and overhanging balconies, compound those aspects. For instance, sections of the balconies above the rear apartments extend to within 2m of the rear wall. There is mostly only a 1m uncovered area along the rear and that area is not useable given the proposed plantings depicted on the Planting Plan.
Unfortunately, the shadow diagrams do not show the shadow cast by the existing walls on the boundaries of the subject land, especially along the north where the existing brick wall rises nearly 7.5m above the designated floor level of the dwellings. However, it is apparent from cross-sections[25] that Units 6, 7 & 8 (at the rear of the ground floor) would receive little, if any, sunlight into the dwellings or their courtyards. Mr Doyle conceded this.
We agree with Mr Livingston that the first floor apartments at the rear (Units 16, 17 & 18) 'will only fair marginally better'. Those dwellings may possibly receive sunlight at the equinox, but their balconies are likely to be in shadow all day.
The ground level apartments on the eastern side of the building would also have restricted access to sunlight. For instance, the courtyard of Unit 5 would be shaded by the Hotham Place townhouses in the morning and the proposed development in the afternoon. Apartments on the first floor (such as Units 14 & 15) would also be affected by shadows.
The courtyards facing the street (Units 1 & 2) would have the benefit of an outlook to Courtney Street, but they have an orientation to the south, need to be screened for privacy, and are below the footpath level.
The windows of the second bedroom of apartments in the southeast corner of the building, facing the side of 66A Courtney Street, set back to allow for an existing 1.0m wide easement, would have a poor outlook to the existing tall side wall of 66A Courtney Street.
Ms Williams highlighted that most apartments have only one aspect, and that is limited. She also observed that some have only a 'slit' between the top of the balcony screen and the underside of the slab above. Ms Williams provided an assessment of each apartment. In many instances, Ms Williams' assessment of the 'compromised amenity' of the apartments was based on what she identified as a need for further privacy screening, that would result in 41% of the apartments being screened. She concluded that 73% of the apartments have 'compromised amenity'. Ms Williams submitted that the 13 units facing Courtney Street are the only ones with reasonable amenity, and two of them are below natural ground level.
Ms Williams also highlighted that the substituted plans do not provide for disabled access, given the steep driveway and steps up to the front entrance. We note, however, that the steps are deleted on the further plans tendered at the hearing.
Mr Doyle provided a detailed response to Ms Williams' assessment. His response highlighted that some of the ground floor apartments are only very marginally below natural ground level; all habitable rooms have access to natural light; the areas and dimensions of open spaces are appropriate for this type of accommodation; the outlook to high boundary walls is not uncommon in this area; screening is common for apartments in inner city locations; and many of Ms Williams' recommendations for further screening are unwarranted.
Mr Doyle conceded that numerous ground level apartments 'do not enjoy significant sunlight access', but argued that for apartments in a mixed use area there is no specific requirement for each dwelling to have direct sunlight. Rather, appropriate daylight is the test and the reasonable expectation.
Mr Townshend described the quality finish envisaged for the ground level courtyards. He alluded to interior parquetry floors and white walls being complemented by an outlook to 'walled gardens' that would be pleasant spaces. However, the modest size of units, and the low (2.55m) floor to ceiling heights, do not persuade us these are grand apartments with a quality finish.
Some additional screening would be necessary, particularly of the balconies or windows close to 66A Courtney Street and the Hotham Place townhouses. We agree with Mr Townshend that screening of windows and balconies is a standard technique to deal with privacy, where buildings are less than 9m apart. Accordingly, Ms Williams perhaps overstated the level of 'compromised amenity'.
In apartment-style developments there are usually 'winners' and 'losers' with respect to access to sunlight and outlook. We appreciate that the focus of Element 5 (Building Layout and Design) of the Higher Density Guidelines is on natural lighting and ventilation to internal building spaces.[26] However, in relation to external spaces, a relevant Design Suggestion is 'Ensure private open spaces are usable and provide reasonable levels of amenity.'[27] We consider that too many of the private open spaces of the apartments would not have a reasonable level of amenity, in that they would not have access to sunlight at the equinox. We are not persuaded that it is an adequate answer that buyers will know what is on offer, or that future residents will have 'amenity' from external facilities, parks and the like. Any new development is expected to provide a reasonable level of internal amenity, even with 'winners' and 'losers', and we find this design has failed to achieve an appropriate balance.
We do not accept Mr Townshend's submission that if amenity is 'compromised', it is consequence of the physical limitations of the site, not poor design. The dimensions and orientation of the land, as well as the high surrounding walls, present obvious challenges, but the design has not effectively responded to them. As noted by Mr Livingston, the design does not adopt any 'tricks' to overcome the inevitable problems of an apartment-style development, such as wraparound balconies, the avoidance of overhanging balconies and generous setbacks.
Further changes could be made to the plans. For instance, Mr Doyle showed how some of the first floor apartments could be reconfigured to improve access to the light for the apartments below. The Planting Plan could be also altered. Such changes would assist but we are of the view the design needs to go back to the basics of understanding and responding to its context to create a reasonable level of on-site amenity.

The design issues are the reasons why we have decided to refuse this proposal. Nevertheless, we wish to briefly mention some other matters that arose during the hearing to provide guidance to the parties in considering any future permit application for the subject land.

Mr Hocking highlighted the very high existing demand for on-street parking in this area. He suggested that at all times parking is 'difficult, bordering on impossible', especially due to demand by residents, nearby commercial uses, the hotel and the animal hospital. Mr Hocking argued that the development should fully accommodate its likely demand, including that of visitors. Mr Hocking submitted that there should be one space per dwelling and visitor parking at the ResCode rate (of one space per 5 dwellings). Mr Hocking also questioned the use of car stackers and their location at the end of an accessway.
The Council's planners are satisfied with the proposed provision of 21 car spaces for the 44 dwellings and parking is not included in the grounds of refusal. Although the substituted plans were not referred back to the Council's engineers, Mr Livingston noted that the rate of parking provision (0.55 spaces per dwelling) is within the range of 0.5-0.6 spaces per dwelling included in the earlier referral advice.
No on-site visitor spaces are proposed. Even when 55 dwellings were proposed, Council officers did not require such spaces.
There are no particular provisions in the planning scheme regarding parking in this area. The Schedule to clause 52.06 includes an Incorporated Parking Precinct Plan that sets out a maximum of one space per dwelling, rather than a minimum rate, irrespective of demand. It aims to diminish reliance of private vehicles and encourage modal shifts. The subject land is not in the area covered by the Precinct Plan, though it is only 50m or so removed and has comparable access to public transport services.
Local policies provide mixed messages regarding parking in the MUZ. The strategies in clause 21.06-4 relating to managing car parking include:
- Manage neighbourhood parking to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for residents in....Mixed Use Zones.[28]
- Require adequate on-site car parking for new uses and development' in Mixed Use Zones.[29]
- Encourage the provision of less on-site parking for occupants from development sites with excellent access to public transport and in proximity to extensive cycle and walking routes.[30]
It is difficult to reconcile those strategies, particularly when there is an unrefuted very high existing demand for on-street spaces. This brings us to the question as to what is an 'adequate' amount of on-site parking in this case?
Mr Townshend submitted that an 'adequate amount' means no more than necessary, or enough. He relied on the evidence of Mr Walsh to justify a substantial reduction to the clause 52.06 requirement for 88 car spaces, to a level that is 'adequate'.
We agree with Mr Walsh's assessment that the area now has good access to bicycle networks and public transport. There is the prospect of a new train station at the corner of Royal Parade and Grattan Street, as part of the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel project.
Mr Walsh did not conduct any surveys of existing parking demand. Instead, he relied on ABS 2006 Census data for postcode 3051 that reveals an average ownership of 0.5 spaces for one-bedroom apartments and 0.7 spaces for two-bedroom apartments. The application of those rates to the proposed development results in a projected resident demand for 25 car spaces, just one car short of what is proposed. Furthermore, Mr Walsh advised that refining the ABS data to developments of four storeys or more reveals car ownership rates of 0.4 for one-bedroom apartments and 0.6 for two bedroom apartments. That would translate to 21 car spaces for the proposal. Mr Walsh noted that the Census data also shows that 44% of one or two-bedroom apartments do not own a vehicle.
Mr Walsh advised that the data he relied on does not include aged care, hotels and student accommodation. However, it is not clear whether it includes Office of Housing accommodation, which would have a lower car ownership rate. If resident car parking was the only determinative issue, we would have sought clarification on the empirical data relied upon by Mr Walsh.
Mr Walsh suggested a peak demand for visitors of 4 during the evening and weekends and 3 during business hours.[31] Based on his observations, there were never less than 25 on-street spaces available, in an area containing around 150 spaces. Mr Walsh conceded that on-street spaces are 'well-utilised' in the daytime. However, he considered that 3-4 visitors could be accommodated. Mr Walsh also noted surveys, conducted by consultants in 2008, which informed the Structure Plan. For the Courtney Street precinct, the surveys revealed that of the 534 spaces, 75% were occupied during the peak and 56% were occupied at weekends, when visitor demand would be highest.
We are not persuaded by Mr Walsh's views regarding visitor parking, or Mr Townshend's submission that 'visitors will work it out for themselves'. Mr Walsh's opinion is based on a limited number of unrecorded observations when he visited the subject land. This needs to be weighed against the overwhelming view of the objectors, including business owners, that there is no scope for additional reliance on on-street spaces. It may well be that it is appropriate to consider waiving visitor parking, but in the absence of any surveys or data to gain an understanding of the availability of on-street parking within a reasonable walking distance of the subject land, we are unable to make any finding on this.
To gain vehicle access to the land, the introduction of a crossing to Courtney Street is inevitable. According to Mr Walsh, that involves the loss of just one on-street car space. We accept this impact.
Although the proposed car stackers are remote from the basement entry, we accept Mr Walsh's evidence that the arrangement is workable and their location would cause least disruption to other users.

We accept Mr Walsh's evidence that the local road network would be able to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposal. Mr Walsh predicted morning and afternoon peaks of 7 vehicle movements (arriving and departing).

Local residents are concerned that the proposal could lead to numerous garbage bins being brought to Courtney Street for collection, as happens with the Hotham Place townhouses. Mr Livingston advised that the Council has exhibited Amendment C187 to introduce requirements that permit applicants need to meet the Guidelines for preparing a Waste Management Plan. The Guidelines state 6-20 storey high developments may use an on-street collection by Council, and more than 20 storey high developments must have an on-site private collection. Clearly this means a development on the subject land is likely to use a Council collection service. Any issues that the residents may have with this is a matter for them to take up with the Council separate to the consideration of any planning application for this land as this is sought to be a policy direction in the future that forms part of the planning scheme.

The plans before us do not result in an acceptable development outcome. Many of the problems with the design seem to have arisen from the fact that, from the beginning, there was an insufficient understanding of the detail of the site context. Some of the problems with the proposal could be readily changed. For instance, the style of the façade could be reworked and there could be a greater setback of the fourth floor, or an alternative measure to make it barely visible. However, more fundamental changes are required. Those changes are not matters that we could impose by means of a permit condition requiring amended plans.
Accordingly, it follows from the above reasons that our conclusion is that the decision of the Council is affirmed and a permit is not granted.

[1] Courtney Street is aligned northwest to southeast, but for simplicity during the hearing the frontage of the subject land was referred to as the south, the rear boundary as the north etc

[3] For instance, an incorrect depiction of the height of the parapet and the side wall of 66A Courtney Street.

[4] Those numbers are transposed on the application plans

[5] The plans refer to 60 Courtney Street as 1A Hotham Place

[6] As shown on Figure 10: Built Form Character, at clause 21.05-2

[9] In clause 21.08-9 under the heading 'Height and scale in North and West Melbourne'

[10] The parties agreed that the proposed development would not affect any such views from the public realm

[11] Melbourne Planning Scheme, Amendment C162, MSS Review, Panel Report, 15 February 2012, page 44

[13] City of Melbourne, City North Structure Plan 2012, page 39

[15] Implicit in the ResCode requirements for land in the Residential 1 Zone

[17] The model is at a scale of 1:200 and is based on the substituted plans

[18] Approximately 4m at 76 Courtney Street and 3m at 66A Courtney Street

[19] Drawing PD 14 C (pt2), dated 16 March 2012

[20] A view from across the street, slightly to the east

[21] There is a subtle change of colour, with the arch and framing elements on the ground and first floors a lighter shade of grey than the rest of the facade

[23] Department of Sustainability and Environment, October 2004

[24] Units 5 & 6, for instance, are around 1.2m below natural ground level

[31] Based on surveys conducted by another traffic engineering firm, Cardno, at a Beacon Cove apartment development

Courtney Property & Investment Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 739

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (64 paragraphs)

Courtney Property & Investment Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 739 (1 June 2012)

Parties