Daly Street Developments Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2010] VCAT 1705

1. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. 0132/10 is set aside.
2. A permit is granted in relation to land at 4-10 Daly Street, South Yarra. The permit will allow:
   • the use of the land for dwellings, licensed function centre and licensed restaurant
   • construction of a 20 storey building
   • public art
   • reduction in the provision of car parking

generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions shown in Appendix A.

• Mr M Sheppard, urban designer, David Lock Associates
• Mr S Hunt, transport engineer, Cardno Grogan Richards
• Mr R Kelderman, town planner, Contour Consulting Pty Ltd.

Mr A Chiappi, barrister, instructed by Rigby Cooke laywers, acting for The Capitol (Vic) Pty Ltd.

To add 16 metres, or six storeys to an approved multi use building to a height of 20 storeys or 61 metres (excluding lift overruns). It is proposed to use the building for 420 dwellings, 16 hotel rooms, a licensed function centre for 150 patrons and a restaurant for 190 patrons. It is also proposed to display public art on the east façade. This would be 28.85 metres high, 14.05 metres in width, and would not be illuminated. It is proposed to provide 208 car parking spaces, being less than the statutory requirement. The development would provide 16 bicycle parking spaces.

Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

34.02-1 (Use of land for dwelling residential hotel, function centre and restaurant in B2Z)

Clauses 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21.01, 21.01, 22.02, 21.03, 21.04, 22.02, 22.03, 22.04, 22.17, 45.03, 52.06, 52.34, 52.35, 52.36 and 65

The review site is located on the north side of Daly Street approximately 65 metres west of Chapel Street. The site comprises seven titles, is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 67 metres and an area of 3,036 square metres.

The site has been cleared and part of a basement has been constructed.

Melbourne High School (MHS) playing fields abut the north boundary of the site. A 14 storey residential hotel and six storey office building are to the east of the land. A nine storey car park, and single and double storey commercial buildings are located on the south side of Daly Street. A ten storey building is under construction to the west of the land. A pedestrian link is to be provided connecting Daly Street to Claremont Street, Yarra Street and the South Yarra train station to the west.

The land forms part of the Forrest Hill Precinct. The precinct contains hotels, dwellings, retail, professional services and entertainment facilities. It has extensive public transport facilities, and traffic and onstreet car parking are near saturation levels. The area is undergoing considerable redevelopment.

We undertook inspections of the site and its environs on 26 September 2010. The parties did not accompany the inspection.

The Capitol (Vic) Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC & Ors [2009] VCAT 1227

1. Planning permit 0687/07 was issued in April 2008 for a residential hotel, licensed function room and a restaurant. Theses uses were to be accommodated in a building 14 storeys and 46.6 metres in height. The development was to provide 416 residential hotel rooms and 176 car parking spaces.
2. In February 2010 an application was lodged for a new planning permit to use the land for residential hotel suites, apartments, a licensed function room and a licensed restaurant. The proposed uses include 410 dwellings (373 one bedroom and 37 two bedroom dwellings), 16 hotel suites, and a larger function room and larger restaurant than approved under the previous permit. The application included provision for 208 car parking spaces and 16 bicycle parking spaces.
3. The proposed development would be 20 storeys and up to 60.7 metres in height to Daly Street (not including lift overruns). The centre part of the building would be 49.6 metres in height and two wings would be 59.2 metres (not including the lift overruns).
4. The applicant has sought a review by the Tribunal of council's failure to determine the planning application within the statutory time period. Council has resolved that it would have refused the application if it had been able to decide the matter.
5. Council considers the height of the proposed building would be excessive and inconsistent with planning policies for the precinct. Council also has concerns with the building's effects on Daly Street, the size of the proposed sign, the layout of the car parking and the provision of bicycle parking.
6. Council's concerns are supported by two parties. They are concerned that the development makes inadequate provision for car and bicycle parking, that it would add to the traffic problems in the area and that it would have adverse impacts on Daly Street and the Melbourne High School playing fields.
7. The proponent says that the development's height and built form are consistent with the planning policy framework and that its high quality design would be a positive addition to the area. They say that the very limited parking provided would contribute minimal additional traffic onto the road network. They also suggest that the large sign is a form of public art rather than business signage.

8. The matters that we must determine are:
   • Would the development be consistent with the entirety of the planning policy framework?
   • Would the built form have adverse impacts on adjoining and nearby places?
   • Would the public art be appropriate?
   • Would sufficient car and bicycle parking be provided?
9. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, we have decided to grant a permit. Our reasons follow.

Would the development be consistent with the entirety of the planning policy framework?

1. The review site forms part of the Chapel Street Prahran - South Yarra Principal Activity Centre (PAC). Principal activity centres are second to Melbourne's central activities district and are to be focal places and preferred locations for intensive residential development, retail, professional services, entertainment and cultural activities. Planning policies encourage development in and around PACs to better use the infrastructure and public transport invested in these centres. Development should be intensive and high quality. The community benefits of concentrating a wide range of uses into PACs are to:
   • reduce the number of motorised trips, and increasing trips by public transport, walking and cycling
   • encourage business synergies, economic activity and employment opportunities
   • provide focal points for the community
   • broaden the mix of activities and makes the centres more vibrant and interesting
   • support the more intensive use of the public transport network.
2. With respect to land uses, the local planning policy framework complements these strategic planning directions. Forrest Hill is identified as a preferred location for substantial change, given its convenient proximity to services and public transport. Substantial change in Forrest Hill would lessen infill development pressures on other parts of Stonnington[2]. Local policy encourages intensive development to contribute to urban consolidation objectives. It is to make a significant contribution towards providing housing and employment opportunities, although the uses should not compete or displace the primary retail uses elsewhere in Prahran and South Yarra. Intensive development is to be particularly encouraged on large sites including site amalgamation.
3. The parties agreed that this mixed use building comprising dwellings, hotel suites, a function room and restaurant is highly consistent with the strategic directions of planning policies. The review site is strategically well located to enable residents, guests and visitors to enjoy convenient access to the vast array of facilities and infrastructure in the activity centre and the inner region and Melbourne's CBD. The site offers convenient access to:
   • South Yarra train station
   • tram services on Chapel Street and Toorak Road
   • bus services on Alexandra Parade
   • a regional bicycle trail on the Yarra River and extensive regional parklands and sporting venues
   • health and education facilities
   • shops, markets and professional services
   • entertainment facilities including restaurants, cafes, nightclubs, cinemas
   • a wide array of housing choices.
4. The use of much of the building for dwellings rather than hotel suites is also consistent with planning policies. Melbourne@5 million proposes that approximately half of Melbourne's forecast growth of 600,000 additional households should be located in and around activity centres, along tram and primary bus routes and on strategic sites[3]. Residential developments in PACs should be encouraged, provided that they do not 'conflict with surrounding land uses'[4]. The policy approach leads to the view that the opportunity provided by well located sites should be optimised[5].
5. Locating in the order of 400 additional dwellings close to public transport, employment and education facilities is preferable to locating many of these households on the edges to Melbourne's suburbs where they would have less convenient access to these facilities. It also reduces development pressures on non urban areas at Melbourne's fringes that have food production, landscape and/or ecological values.
6. The function centre and the restaurant are located in a precinct that is highly accessible by public transport. Patrons of these venues may also choose to combine a visit to with other entertainment or sporting venues in South Yarra, Prahran or central Melbourne.
7. We think that the mix of land uses to be highly satisfactory and consistent with planning policies. We think that a greater mix of dwelling sizes would be beneficial, with more two and some three bedroom dwellings to cater for a wider range of households. However we do not wish to direct the reconfiguration of the mix of dwellings on an (arbitrarily) prescriptive basis and think that the best mix will emerge through the marketing of the development and in response to consumer demand.

1. Mr Clarke and Mr Chiappi put that the height of the building would be excessive and greater than envisaged in planning policies. The height would have adverse impacts on Melbourne High School, Daly Street, the heritage buildings and be inconsistent with planning policies that guide built form.
2. The Forrest Hill Structure Plan (2005) was prepared to guide the preferred built form in the Forrest Hill precinct. In 2006 the Minister for Planning approved Amendment C55 to introduce interim planning controls to guide development in this area. The preferred height controls for the Daly Street precinct was 30.5 metres. Mr Clarke said that the approved development (at 46.6 metres) was supported by council as being generally consistent with this preferred height (albeit with a variance of 16 metres, as is this proposal).
3. Amendment C58 proposed to introduce clause 22.17 and design and development overlay schedule 8 and an updated edition of the structure plan. This amendment did not propose an alternate preferred height. The panel review of amendment C58 recommended that the preferred height controls for Daly Street be increased to 50 metres and this preferred height was adopted in June 2009.
4. Relevant to this proposal the planning panel that considered the planning framework for the Forrest Hill precinct found the following:
   • There was little correlation between the preferred heights recommended by council and the approvals that had been issued by council (and the tribunal).
   • There did not appear to be a clear strategic base for the preferred heights, particularly for Daly Street, which it thought has substantial development opportunities.
   • The preferred height of 30 metres proposed for Daly Street would encourage underdevelopment.
   • Taller buildings that are well articulated could be respectful to Melbourne High School, particularly if they have an active interface and taller and slender built form.
   • The MHS playing fields provide a design opportunity that can enable the new built form and the school to benefit from well designed interfaces.
   • A height in the order of 50 metres in Daly Street would be unlikely to dilute the visual prominence of development on the Fun Factory site.
   • It was desirable to have a hard edge of about 12 metres height to street edges.
   • Preferred heights should be regarded as a guide to development that must be considered together with, and not in isolation from design objectives. (The panel's preference seems to have been to have no height limits and to rely on design objectives to drive design outcomes and assessment).
5. We agree with Mr Kelderman and Mr Pitt (in light of the planning panel's comments above) that the DDO8 and clause 22.17 should be read together to capture the entirety of the approach to preferred built form and heights. We think that the correct approach to the assessment of built form is to place emphasis on excellent architectural design, built form articulation and sensitive treatment of interfaces. Rigid application of preferred heights without consideration of design attributes would be an incorrect application of policy.
6. We think that the policy framework sees Daly Street as a precinct that has few special features or constraints on intensive development. The relevant general design objectives and precinct character area design objectives and design standards are:
   • Encourage precincts to develop with a variety of building heights to respond to urban context and to create distinctive built form character in each area.
   • Retain and protect landmarks and views.
   • Design well articulated buildings and achieve excellence in architecture and urban design.
   • Support intensive development on larger sites, including amalgamated sites.
   • Minimise visual bulk through (a mix of) slender building forms articulation, setbacks and building to the widths of the land.
   • Pedestrian friendly scale at ground level (between 7.5 metres and 12 metres), preferred height of 50 metres and upper level setbacks where necessary to off set amenity impacts.
   • Design the street frontages to activate the east-west pedestrian link between Chapel Street and Yarra Street.
   • Do not dominate Melbourne High School or the adjoining heritage buildings.
7. Planning permit 0687/07 approved a building of 14 storeys with a height of 46.6 metres. This application proposes a building of 20 storeys with a height of 60.7 metres (excluding lift overruns)[6]. The central part of the proposed building would be 50 metres in height consistent with the preferred height for the precinct, whilst two wings would be 12 metres above the preferred height for the Daly Street precinct. The proposed building is 6 storeys or 20 metres higher than the approved development.
8. The building has a height to the frontage to Daly Street of approximately 7.5 metres at the podium level and approximately 61 metres at the wings. The two taller wings above the fifteenth floor have frontages to Daly Street of 15 metres and 22 metres, and frontages to Melbourne High School of 14 and 15 metres. The sides (east and west) are approximately 21 metres in length.
9. Mr Sheppard thought the building to be highly articulated, comprising three or four elements as follows:
   • street wall element or podium to Daly Street with a height of 10.2 metres
   • a central bridging element and eastern cantilevered wing with a height of 49.78 metres above Daly Street
   • two tower elements on the west and east sides with penthouses and parapet height of 60.7 metres
   • lift overruns with a height of 66 metres.
10. We have little difficulty with the design of the proposed building and think that it complies with planning policy. It is a large building because it capitalises on the policy of the consolidation of sites in order to increase density. Because it is large, the challenge for the designer is to avoid excessive bulk, to articulate skilfully and to achieve tall and slender outcomes, all consistent with planning policies. Such policies can compete. In this instance, the breadth resulting from consolidation, when considered with the preferred 50 metre height, does not readily enable tall and slender forms, further reinforcing the need for a skilful design solution.
11. Leaving the lift overruns aside, the proposed building consists of four main elements; the podium, the principal façade or bridging element up to 50 metres high, and the two, higher, tower elements. We are particularly conscious that the principal façade has been designed at a similar height to its immediate neighbour, the Olsen building. It is the tower elements that create the articulation and introduce tall and slender forms. We think this is a skilful method of integration with the building's immediate environment which enables the tower elements to go the additional height to deal with the competing policies without compromise to the urban landscape or indeed Daly Street. Had less attention been paid to the way these elements relate to each other, our decision may have been different.
12. The cantilevered sections of the lower levels of this element create further interest and articulation that enhance the podium by their inherent separation.
13. We think that the articulation of the building makes it interesting and well considered. The articulation and separation, together with variations in materials, colours, windows and façade treatments contribute to its positive built form and as a result, we do not consider that it will be viewed as a large, monolithic, bulky building.
14. The building's bulk is primarily presented to Daly Street. The east and west elements are set forward to the Daly Street frontage and the middle bridging part is set back 4.9 metres. On the north façade, the east and west elements present to the boundary with Melbourne High School. However, the central 'bridging' component is set back in the order of 42 metres.
15. We accept that the building will be large and visible. Mr Sheppard said that it would have a strong visual presence from the surrounding areas. However, it will eventually be one of many similar sized buildings in this area. The adjacent Olsen Hotel is 50 metres high, and other redevelopments in the Forrest Hill precinct will have similar or greater heights, including:
    • 59 metres at 2-4 Claremont Street (preferred height 50 metres)
    • 63 metres (20 storeys) at 10-14 Claremont Street (preferred height 50 metres) (being advertised)
    • 46 metres (10 storeys) at 16-22 Claremont Street (preferred height 50 metres).
    • 41 metres (12 storeys) at 43-45 Claremont Street (preferred height 50 metres)
    • 60 metres (21 storeys) at 50-58 Claremont Street, (preferred height 50 metres)
    • 76 metres (24 storeys) at the former ANZ site at 227-233 Toorak Road (preferred height 50 metres)
    • 132 metres (38 storeys) at the Fun Factory site 241-257 Toorak Road and 625 Chapel Street (no preferred height).
    • 87 metres (23 storeys) at 2-4 Yarra Street (preferred height 76 metres)
    • 58.9 metres 17 storeys) at 5-9 Yarra Street (preferred height 76 metres)
    • 45 metres (15 storeys) at 12 Yarra Street (preferred height 76 metres)
    • 50.1 metres (14 storeys) at 637-641 Toorak Road (preferred height 50 metres)
    • 49.4 metres (15 storeys) at 681-709 Chapel Street (preferred height 38 metres, recognised as a gateway site).
16. In consideration of the above, we concur with Mr Pitt when he says that in time this building will be only visible from the northwest across Melbourne High School. From the south, east and north, it will be seen only in glimpses and as part of a largely uniform group of buildings of similar size and scale. We think that its interesting built form will distinguish it from other buildings, but its location on a mid-block site will limit its visibility from most directions.
17. Two lift overruns are located above the roof of the east and west wings of the building, 6.8 metres above the parapet of each wing. Mr Pitt advised that lift overruns of this size were integral to enable high speed lifts to be installed, but added that marginally slower lifts could be installed if the overruns are lowered by 2.4 metres to AHD 69.6. He added that this substitution would not compromise the operation of the lifts to unacceptable levels.
18. Mr Sheppard thought that the overruns were minor variances to the built form. Mr Chiappi and Mr Clarke thought they were significant extensions above the preferred height.
19. All parties agreed though, that the lift overruns are high compared to the lift overruns in the precinct and elsewhere and may be more akin to older building stock. For example, Mr Kelderman thought that lift overruns on buildings in St Kilda Road were usually 4 to 5 metres. Mr Clarke thought that few buildings in the precinct had lift overruns that were visible, and none are as prominent as these would be.
20. We think that the lift overruns would be small but discordant elements that detract from the high architectural quality of the building. They would be prominent in any longer distant views of the building, particularly across Melbourne High School. We feel that if they can be easily reduced as advised by Mr Pitt, then they should be reduced. Accordingly we will require that they will be no higher than AHD 69.6 and no higher than 4.4 metres above the tower roof parapets.
21. We see little merit in council's approach of supporting heights greater than the preferred height on the basis of exceptional circumstances. Mr Clarke also referred to an approach of averaging the heights of a building so that some parts are higher and some parts are lower than the preferred height. We see no policy reference to 'exceptional circumstances' or averaging of height, as advocated by Mr Clarke. We think that this approach interprets the preferred height in a manner that was not intended by the planning panel, and dilutes the emphasis on the whole of the architectural merits of the proposed built form.
22. We think that the policy framework for the Daly Street character area contemplates development at heights that exceed the preferred height. We think that this would be a building that has a pleasing appearance, is well resolved and would comfortably fit into the emerging character of the Daly Street precinct. The height over the preferred height is not such that it would be exceptional or substantially inconsistent with approved development in the Forrest Hill precinct.
23. Policy requires us to assess a building as a whole, and in its context. Design, articulation, materials and interfaces to the public realm are the matters given weight in policy. For the reasons given above, we think this building would be a positive element in the precinct, and in Daly Street.

Would the built form have adverse impacts on adjoining and nearby places?

1. Council and the two objecting parties thought the proposed building that would have adverse impacts on the public realm of Daly Street, views of landmark buildings in the Forrest Hill precinct, and on the playing fields of Melbourne High School.

1. Mr Clarke submitted that the building would overshadow the street and prevent access to daylight at street level. He also put that the building's height and bulk would 'overwhelm' Daly Street.
2. We think that the additional height would have little adverse impact on ground level amenity in Daly Street. At 46.6 metres, the building will overshadow Daly Street, and the additional height would make no difference to the shadows cast over the street. We concur with Mr Sheppard that the 'additional height will not materially change the sense of visual bulk experienced in the street'. The steep angle of view from the ground to the top of the building will mean that the extra floors will add only a relatively small section of built form to the entirety of the building seen from the street. Mr Sheppard thought that people at street level are generally aware of building height that is twice the width of the street. For many people, built form above that height becomes indistinguishable. In this case, an additional six storeys would matter little to people walking past the site. The things that will be important at the street interface will be the activities and appearance of the podium interface and the crossovers and pedestrian arrangements.
3. Mr Clarke submitted that the additional building height would have an adverse impact on daylight to street level. He put that light in Daly Street will be poorer quality and darker due to the additional height of this building.
4. Local policy includes design objectives to ensure reasonable sunlight penetration to footpaths and to maintain sky views. It does not refer to the quality of daylight as being a reasonable test or design aspiration. We think that as both the approved building and this building will overshadow the street level, the effect will be the same.
5. We note that as no major development can be contemplated at 2 Daly Street to the east, the street level will enjoy sunlight under both development scenarios, and we think that this proposal will not change the quality of the light in Daly Street.

1. The design objectives in the policy framework place considerable weight to maintaining important viewlines including views to landmarks. The key landmark sites are at the corner of Chapel Street and Alexandra Parade and the Fun Factory at 241-257 Toorak Road and 625 Chapel Street. Planning approval has been gained for a podium and tower up to 130 metres height at the Fun Factory, and for a building of 49.4 metres at the northern gateway.
2. Important viewlines within or towards the Forrest Hill precinct are views along Chapel Street, views along Toorak Road, and views from Alexandra Parade and from the Richmond-Caulfield rail line/cycle route.
3. We think that the proposed building would be barely visible from Chapel Street. Development on the west side of Chapel Street will be in the order of 38 metres (Chapel Street north precinct) and 50 metres (Chapel Street south precinct). Such development would completely screen the proposed building from views from Chapel Street, apart from brief glimpses along Daly Street as one moves past the intersection.
4. Mr Chiappi put that the proposal would diminish views of development at the Fun Factory, contrary to policy. Mr Sheppard disagreed and put that at 130 metres, the tower of the Fun Factory will continue to be visually dominant from the north and west as it will be taller than this building. We agree.
5. We think that the tower on the Fun Factory site is not located adjacent to the corner of Toorak Road and Chapel Street, but is located some metres north of the corner. We think that from Alexandra Avenue, most of the Fun Factory tower will be seen to be directly behind the heritage places at 2 Daly Street and highly visible. It will be partly screened from views from the railway bridge by the proposed building, but it would protrude over this building.
6. We think that this proposed building will be barely visible in views northward along Chapel Street, or westward along Toorak Road. It will be screened by the recently approved development of a 76 metre building on the former ANZ site at 209-233 Toorak Road[7], and by the existing 50 metre Olsen Hotel at 637 Chapel Street. As Mr Pitt commented, the proposed building will be 'buried' within the new substantial built form that has been approved in Forrest Hill. We think that it would have no adverse effects on landmarks and viewlines.

1. The proposed building interfaces directly with the MHS playing fields. Its built form abutting the playing fields is a three storey podium at the ends of the two wings. The central bridging element has a considerable setback to the playing fields, so whilst it will be visible, we think it will be more of a recessed backdrop to the podium and wings. It does not present a blank façade or a sheer façade to the school. It does not turn its back to the school and orientate itself only to Daly Street. On the contrary, it actively engages with the school, and places its main building bulk to Daly Street. The edges of the sun deck and many terraces and windows directly overlook the school playing fields. Residents of these apartments will enjoy northerly views and sunlight. They may also be able to enjoy some views of the school's sporting events. We think this could be a positive interaction.
2. We expect that this building will be one of a number of buildings of similar heights around the edges of the sporting fields. The Olsen Hotel is at 50 metres, no. 16 Clarendon Street would be at 46 metres, and much of this building would be at 50 metres. We think that rather than hemming in the school, the buildings will provide a clear and obvious border to the school. There will be breaks between the buildings, and they will vary somewhat in their heights and built form. These variations will create an interface that is not a uniform and impenetrable 'wall', but an interesting, modulated and variable interface between the school and an intense urban area. As mentioned above, with good design it can be an interface that encourages observation, casual surveillance and social interaction to the benefit of the school children and the residents.
3. As the subject land is to the south of the school, there are no problems with overshadowing. We are satisfied that the interface to MHS has been well handled.

Impacts on adjoining heritage places at 2 Daly Street

1. Two buildings with heritage values are located on the adjoining land to the east. Planning policies require that development should protect and preserve the heritage places. Development on land adjacent to heritage places should be of a form or scale that is respectful of the heritage places.
2. No party contested that the scale and built form would be disrespectful or an inappropriate response to the single and two storey heritage places. Given that the preferred building height for the precinct is 50 metres, planning policies contemplate buildings of significant height next to the heritage places. The street level podium extends to within eight metres of the building adjacent to Daly Street. The podium is set at the same height as the heritage building and would be perceived as a natural extension of that built form.
3. The taller element of the east façade is set back approximately 15 metres from the heritage place, so there will be a generous visual separation between the buildings. This separation is greater than the seven metre setback between the heritage building and the Olsen Hotel to its east. As no substantial built form will be developed to the north of the heritage buildings, they will be separated and distinguished by open sky and light from the new buildings. We think that given the planning policies for this precinct, the heritage places have been treated with respect and care.

1. We provide below a summary of our assessment of the development with regard to the entirety of planning policy[8]:
   • The development locates over 400 dwellings in a principal activity centre and in a precinct designated for intensive development. The site has strategic advantages given its proximity to infrastructure and facilities.
   • Development in PACs are limited only by their impacts on surrounding land uses, and this has few impacts.
   • It will contribute to a vibrant and mixed use precinct.
   • It avoids underdevelopment, and provides intensive development of consolidated sites.
   • It provides a safe and active street frontage as the arrival area, reception areas and restaurant have direct interfaces with Daly Street.
   • It has a podium form that creates a hard street edge or street wall with a height between 7.5 metres and 12 metres.
   • It does not impose or overwhelm the two adjoining heritage buildings.
   • It has competent architecture through its articulation, modulation, and variety of colours and materials.
   • It provides public art.
   • It has substantial setbacks to Melbourne High School and provides an active interface that will enable interaction and casual surveillance.
   • The upper levels are set back.
   • It is largely consistent with the preferred built form, with two elements in excess of that height by 12 metres, which we do not regard as excessive.
   • It balances the policy directions for a podium/tower built form with those seeking to build to the boundary, with a form that has bulk that is moderated by two slender forms.
   • Its principal height is consistent with the adjacent Olsen Hotel and approved buildings in the precinct generally.
   • Its wings provide articulation and the introduction of tall and slender forms which enable it to exceed the preferred maximum height and maintain an appropriate relationship to these buildings.
   • Introduces pedestrian activity in and adjacent to Daly Street, and has entries on Daly Street to enhance activity and public safety.
   • Minimises service areas on the street frontage.
   • Will not undermine or prevent views of landmark buildings or prominent view lines.
   • It will not worsen overshadowing or solar access to Daly Street or to the MHS.
2. We think that the proposed development responds positively and complies with much of the planning policy framework.

1. It is proposed to a large image on the eastern façade of the building. It would be 14.04 metres wide, 28.85 metres high with an area of 404 square metres. It would be located between the fifth and fifteenth levels, the height of a ten storey building, towards the Daly Street frontage and would not be illuminated. It would display the signature of the late artist 'Brett Whiteley' and two matchsticks; being a direct reference to one of his sculptures.
2. It is consistent in location, format and message with a smaller image of 13.4 metres by 16.85 metres with an area of 225 square metres already approved as a part of the current permit for the site.
3. The Forrest Hill Structure Plan states that the use of public art and a consistent design approach in streetscapes and public places will improve the overall sense of place.
4. Mr Kelderman submitted that this image should be considered as public art rather than an advertising sign; public art being encouraged by the Forrest Hill Structure Plan. Mr Pitt says that this public art is one of several intended to be a recognised theme. (We note though, that those referred to by Mr Pitt are significantly smaller than what is proposed for this building as the buildings on which they are located are much smaller).
5. Council says that the proposed image is a business identification sign and is contrary to policy, excessive and significantly larger than any other sign or image in the activity centre. It would be one of the tallest images in Melbourne, and would overwhelm the adjoining heritage building.
6. We think that this image is public art rather than a business identification sign. Nowhere within the 'Brett Whiteley' images is there a reference to the use of the building or what one may find there. It does not portray the name or address of the building, or details of a particular commercial company, or logos or details of any commercially available services or products.
7. Branding the building (and we think the precinct) in this manner has merit. It adds vitality and interest. It challenges the senses and intellect, as its messages are open to many interpretations. It reminds us all of the importance of art. We support this proposal as public art that will enliven the urban environment.
8. Located on the eastern face we think it would be visible from Melbourne High School, and from Chapel Street along Daly Street, and will be a prominent feature in the precinct. Indeed, we think that it would become somewhat iconic and well known throughout Melbourne.
9. Despite our support for this image in principle, we think that a ten storey high image is too large. It will be a dominant feature in the precinct. We think that it dominates the east façade of the building and detracts from its modulation and distinctive elements. We think that the sign should be contained within one section of the façade between the sixth and thirteenth levels. It should not extend into sections of the façade that have a different character and presentation as the modulation of the building is one of its strengths. Hence we propose to limit the size of the public art to a height of 21 metres.
10. We are cautious about approving this large image on a building with an uncertain future. We know that the land is available for sale and we know that owners of commercial buildings like to re-brand their buildings from time to time. We support this public art only on the basis that it is an integral part of the building and that it is not a form of outdoor advertising or any other advertising signage. We would not support this proposal if it were an advertising sign for a commercial product, service or company. We think that any proposal to change the details of the public art should require further planning consent.

Would sufficient car and bicycle parking be provided?

1. The proposed building would have 208 car parking spaces located in three basements. Six of the spaces would be designated for people with disabilities. The table below summarises the provision of car parking for the various uses.

1. The Forrest Hill Structure Plan recognised that the application of statutory car parking rates to the quantum of development envisaged would be counter productive as it would add considerable traffic to a road network near saturation. Considerable emphasis is placed in the structure plan on improving pedestrian access to public transport and pedestrian and cycling through the precinct. Connecting cyclists to the regional cycle routes is also encouraged. The structure plan supports reducing car parking ratios for residential and commercial developments (objective 18.2). Supporting alternatives to private vehicle use is a general planning principle at section 2.1 of the plan. We also note that local policy contemplates reduced provision of car parking if public transport is available and will be used, and if public car parking is available in the area[9].
2. Mr Hunt said that a survey of the Botanical Hotel in Domain Road on Friday and Saturday nights demonstrated that a car parking rate of 0.22 spaces per seat would meet the likely demand for the restaurant. We note that the proposed parking for the function centre is consistent with the required provision. Mr Hunt was unable to cite any surveys that suggest that this very low provision of car parking has been implemented in other residential or mixed use developments though we note that the review site is better served by public transport than the Botanical Hotel.
3. Mr Clarke supported the amount of car parking to be provided. He opined, and Mr Hunt agreed, that providing additional car parking encourages more car use. This would add to the prevailing traffic congestion and adversely impact on the amenity of the area.
4. The provision of 0.25 spaces per dwelling was contested by Mr Chiappi. He submitted that the car parking to be provided was inadequate and significantly less than provided in similar developments. He thought that the considerable waiver of car parking did not meet the decision guideline set out in clause 52.06. In particular, he asserted that there is no evidence to justify the low rate proposed in this development.
5. Mr Hunt acknowledged he had no evidence to demonstrate that such a rate would be achieved or would reflect the actual car ownership rates of the households. He agreed that parking on local streets or in public car parks would not be available. In his view, if the car parking is not available, the households would tend to self select. Households that need or want a car on the premises would be likely to reside elsewhere. The households that would be attracted to this development would be able to live without a car.
6. Mr Hunt also noted that providing car parking at a rate that is more consistent with the statutory planning rates would realise the concerns expressed in the Forrest Hill Structure Plan. At the proposed rate, the Daly Street and Chapel Street intersection continues to operate well. Increasing the car parking rate by another 50 percent would create longer queues. Whilst the Daly Street and Chapel Street intersection would continue to operate at a satisfactory level, the additional traffic would have an adverse impact on the operation of the nearby regional intersections of Toorak Road/Chapel Street and Chapel Street/Alexandra Avenue.
7. We think that the proposal illustrates a significant paradigm shift that should be supported. Planning policy encourages a change in transport modes in areas such as this. In our minds, it is a logical and sensible application of the strategic principles that underpin Melbourne 2030, Melbourne@5 million and clause 11. These planning policies aim to make our cities increasingly 'failsafe' and less car dependent by concentrating development close to public transport infrastructure. Concentrating a range of uses together is meant to encourage people to do more things in their local area and to reduce motorised trips, or replace private vehicle trips with other modes.
8. We are not surprised that there is little evidence of households with very low rates of vehicle ownership and use. Only student accommodation has rates in the order of 0.1 and 0.2 vehicles per dwelling. We think that there is likely to be more households that are prepared to live without a car in locations such as South Yarra. We think that this is supported by planning policy and now should be enacted. We will see if the market is willing to take up the opportunity.
9. We think that there is little risk if households try to live in the locality and bring their cars with them. As Mr Hunt said, where will they park? Parking restrictions on local streets are well enforced. Parking in the large car parks is expensive. We do not think that if the market indicates that many households want to retain their cars, this decision would lead to a massive overflow of car parking onto the local road network. If the market is not ready and households want their cars readily available in a basement, either the development would need to be redesigned to accommodate more cars, or the apartments do not sell and the project does not proceed. A future proposal to increase the provision of car parking would then need to be carefully assessed for its impacts on the road network, given the agreement of the parties that the area is close to traffic saturation.
10. We emphasise that our approach reflects the context and location of this site. A relatively low provision of car parking, particularly for dwellings, is based on this site's location in the PAC and its access to regional cycling trails and public transport. People will have have real choice to use alternate travel modes. In locations where these choices are not readily available, we would expect car parking to be provided at rates typically shown in household surveys.
11. The application plans included storage for 16 bicycles, which would be considerably less than the 129 bicycle parking spaces required under clause 52.34. Mr Hunt recommended that bicycle parking should be provided in accordance with the planning scheme, particularly given the lesser provision of car parking. His recommendation was accepted by all parties and will be addressed in permit conditions.
12. Similarly Mr Clarke and Mr Hunt sought minor changes to the layout of the car parking areas and the location of spaces for drivers with disabilities. The changes were not contested. We address these matters through permit conditions.

DO ANY OTHER MATTERS WARRANT REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL?

1. None of the parties raised concerns with the amenity or quality of the dwellings. We concur with their assessment and note that the dwellings have generous private open space, complemented by the large sundeck on the second floor. Most dwellings would enjoy a north orientation. Most bedrooms have direct access to daylight. We think that the dwellings are a reasonable size. We think that the dwellings would provide reasonable accommodation for one or two persons.
2. Mr Clarke and Mr Chiappi said that approval of this proposal would create uncertainty when council has invested considerable resources in creating a strategic planning framework to guide development. We think that council has been proactive and has a comprehensive policy framework for the Forrest Hill precinct. We have sought to apply that policy framework in this decision. A discussed above, we think that the correct policy approach is to assess the entirety of a building(s) design and to investigate the project's contribution to sustainable development and net community benefit. In this case, a project taller than envisaged by policy can be supported. In the Forrest Hill precinct, other buildings taller than the preferred heights have also been supported by council, the tribunal and the Minister. In each case, the particular features and merits of the buildings have been assessed. We expect that future projects will need to demonstrate their own merits and compliance with policy and would not rely on this and other decisions to gain support of council or this tribunal.
3. We note that the building has a mix of uses, including a function room and restaurant. We think that these activities would mainly be used by people visiting the building rather than by its residents. These venues could be a source of disruption to residents. However, we think that as they are on different floors of the building than most of the apartments, and events would finish at relatively early times, these activities would not cause amenity problems for the residents of the apartments.
4. We think that these matters did not provide the basis for rejecting the permit application or requiring additional conditions.

1. It follows from the above reasons that we conclude that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit granted.
2. The permit will include conditions that have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties, and the matters that arise from our reasons.

Use and development of the site for dwellings, a residential hotel, licensed function centre and licensed restaurant, reduction of the car parking and bicycle parking requirements and public art in a Business 2 Zone, Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 8), Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and an Environmental Audit Overlay in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans stamped 'advertised material' on the council files (drawing dates and revision numbers all vary), prepared by Rothe Lowman, but modified to show:

1. a schedule of building materials, finishes and colours for all external parts of the building including the provision of a coloured sample board with reflectivity of glass and finishes used in the building to be no greater than 20% 2. spaces 52 and 53 on basement 1 and basement 2 and spaces 54 and 55 on basement 3 to be designated for disabled parking

1. all disabled parking spaces to be provided in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.6:2009

1. the provision of bicycle parking in basement level 1 as per the plan at annexure 2 of the Stephen Hunt evidence 2. the provision of bicycle spaces at ground level in a location easily recognisable and accessible to visitors to the satisfaction of the responsible authority 3. installation of protective bollards around pedestrian entranceways and lift access points 4. the dimensions and layout of car parking bays, tandem spaces, accessways, access gradients, turning arcs, sightlines and structural columns such that they are in accordance with the planning scheme or otherwise to the satisfaction of the responsible authority 5. increased provision for residential storage areas 6. details of how all storages areas within the basement will be allocated to the various proposed land uses 7. the levels of the penthouse plan shown to AHD on the floor plans, elevations and sectional drawings 8. the height of both the lift overruns reduced to AHD 63.6 metres and no more than 4.4 metres above the parapet heights of the wings

1. all plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the nearby footpaths and from overhead

1. location of all mechanical plant and equipment including, but not limited to, lift overruns, flues, exhausts and air-conditioning units 2. annotations confirming the ground floor levels are not being raised above existing footpath levels along the entire Daly Street frontage of the site 3. provision of a 600mm wide by 600mm deep trench grate across the full width of all driveways 4. a red line outline indicating the area proposed to be licensed for the restaurant and function centre uses 5. details of any rain water detention tanks, solar panels and any water cooling pool areas as a result of condition 5 6. any consequential changes required as a result of submitting documents to satisfy conditions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10

all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The development and signage must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority.
2. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a report detailing how disabled access will be provided to the restaurant and function centre uses in a manner that achieves full compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act with any subsequent alterations to the layout (internal and external) appropriately annotated submitted for endorsement to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

1. dimensions of waste areas 2. the number of bins to be provided

1. hours of waste and recyclables collection 2. method of presentation of bins for waste collection 3. strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised 4. if waste is to arrive in the ground level refuse room via a chute system details as to how waste will be sorted into hard, recycling and green waste to ensure minimal landfill results.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit and must be complied with at all times. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority

1. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, an Environmentally Sustainable Development Management Plan (ESD Management Plan) must be prepared by a suitably qualified person who is to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The ESD Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the material submitted with the planning permit application and must address the following:

1. energy management 2. water conservation and re-use

1. relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards 2. document the means by which the appropriate target or performance will be achieved 3. responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring 4. demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the ESD management plan can be maintained over time.
2. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a suitably qualified person must undertake a comprehensive wind tunnel test of the entire development and a Wind Climate Assessment Report must be provided for the written endorsement of the responsible authority. Any modifications required to the development in order to ensure acceptable wind conditions must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority as part of the plans for endorsement. The design details of any wind mitigation works must receive the endorsement of the owner's wind climate experts, preferencing the use of architectural features and planting to resolve any issue identified.
3. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the TMP will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the TMP. The TMP must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the trees along the western boundary of 2 Daly Street. Without limiting the generality of the plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

1. pre-construction - details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed over the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone 2. during-construction - details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots

1. post-construction - details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease

The following additional information is also required:

1. basement excavation to be carried out in such a way so as to ensure there is no battering of this excavation along the interface with 2 Daly Street
2. ground between the basement and the boundary with 2 Daly Street to be kept at the existing level
3. the existing concrete pavement is to remain in place between the basement and the boundary with 2 Daly Street for as long as possible
4. no services or drainage to be installed between the basement and the boundary with 2 Daly Street.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the responsible authority. Removal of protection work and cessation of the TMP must be authorised by the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any use, a Car Park Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Car Park Management Plan must include, but not be limited to:

1. designating parking spaces to the categories of tenancies (ie Residential Hotel, Restaurant and Function Centre) generally in accordance with the allocations nominated at table 1 of the Stephen Hunt witness statement (page 10) 2. allocation of storage areas to the various uses and dwellings

1. details of signing and line marking of parking spaces in the porte-cochere

1. how parking spaces are to be secured for the intended use.

The Car Park Management Plan may be amended from time to time with the approval of the responsible authority.

1. Within twelve months of the date of this permit, the owner of the land must enter into an agreement or amend the existing agreement with the responsible authority pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (prepared and executed at the owner/developer's cost) in which it shall be agreed that:
   1. the owner/developer must make to council a developer contribution for the approved development in accordance with the Developer Contributions Plan - Forrest Hill and Environs, prepared by SGS Economics and Planning March 2006, adopted by council 3 April 2006; or
   2. the owner/developer must enter into discussions with council to reach agreement on a plan for the treatment of the public area within Daly Street west of Almeida Crescent. Once the plan has been agreed to the satisfaction of both parties, this plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must provide comprehensive details of the public realm works and the works must be constructed at the cost of the owner/developer and under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Any payment must be made in full to the responsible authority prior to the commencement of works or under other arrangements agreed to by the responsible authority. A capped charge of 2.5% (plus GST) of the cost of the works will apply for any supervision of works by the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any further works on the land as per the existing site conditions on the date of this permit, either:
   1. a certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with section 57AA of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or
   2. an environment auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with section 57AA(5)(b) of the Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for residential use

Four copies of the Certificate of Environmental Audit and/or Statement, complete audit report and audit area plan must be submitted to the responsible authority prior to the commencement of the use or development of the land.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use of the land in accordance with this permit, a letter must be submitted to the responsible authority prepared by the EPA appointed Environmental Auditor to verify that the conditions of the certificate or statement of environmental audit issued for the land have been satisfied.
2. Before the use allowed by this permit starts, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
3. Prior to occupation of any use, the applicant must construct a trench grate (minimum 600mm wide x 600mm deep) across the full width of the driveway within the frontage of the property and for a 225mm diameter pipe to be run to the north to transfer the flooding through to the rear property clear of the subject property to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The outfall drain transferring this flooding from the subject property must be discharged at ground level and not at an elevated level, onto the neighbouring playing field. The grate and associated piping must be maintained and serviced to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer's design.
5. All redundant vehicle crossings in Daly Street must be removed. The footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel in Daly Street must be reconstructed at the owner's cost to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
6. All walls on or facing the boundaries of the site must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
7. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding footpaths and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Ventilation systems must be designed and installed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.
8. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land appearance of any building, works or materials.
9. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must at all times be conducted entirely within the designated loading bay or from nearby publicly designated loading bays in a manner that limits interference with other vehicular traffic to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must only occur between the hours of 7.00am and 10.00pm Mondays to Saturdays and between 9.00am and 10.00pm on Sundays or public holidays to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
10. Bottles and rubbish must not be removed from the hereby approved commercial uses between the hours of 11.00pm and 7.00am the following day.
11. Noise from plant emanating from the subject land must not exceed the permissible noise levels when determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from plant and equipment areas are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or within three months of the occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
12. The provision of music and entertainment on the premises must be in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2.
13. Equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind, including telecommunication facilities, other than those shown on the endorsed plans or installed pursuant to Commonwealth legislation must not be located above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the responsible authority
14. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority's consent.
15. All services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
16. The public art on the eastern façade shall not exceed a height of 21 metres and a width of 14.04 metres to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
17. The public art on the eastern facade must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
18. Prior to occupation, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

1. constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority 2. properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans

1. surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat or surfaced with crushed rock or gravel to the satisfaction of the responsible authority

1. drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority 2. line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

All parking areas and access lanes must be kept available exclusively for these purposes at all times

1. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way to allow access to the site unless to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. The vehicle crossings must be constructed to Council's standard vehicle crossing specifications.
3. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.
4. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.
5. A total of no more than 190 seats may be made available for the accommodation of patrons within the restaurant.
6. A total of no more than 150 patrons may be accommodated within the Function Centre use at any one time.
7. The restaurant hereby approved may operate only between the hours of 7.00am and 11.00pm.
8. The Function Centre hereby approved may operate only between the hours of 7.00am and 11.00pm and may only be used for bona fide pre-booked functions where guests are subject to prior invitation.
9. The sale and consumption of liquor shall only occur within the licensed area for the restaurant and function centre use between 7.00am and 11.00pm on any day.
10. The sign must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
11. The sign must not be illuminated by external or internal light.

1. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.
2. The building (except for the basement car park) must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 600mm above the applicable flood level.
3. All doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park must be a minimum of 600mm above the applicable flood level.
4. Any drainage system to the basement must be designed such that stormwater is unable to penetrate the basement.
5. The entry/exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a floodproof apex of a minimum of 600mm above the applicable flood level.

1. Before the use of the land commences, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority following consultation with the Department of Transport (Public Transport Division). The plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must encourage the use of non-private vehicle transport modes by the occupiers of the land. The plan must include, but limited to the following:

1. a description of the location in the context of alternate modes of transport and objectives for the Green Travel Plan 2. outline Green Travel Plan measures for the development including, but not limited to: 1. household welcome packs - tram, train and bus timetables relevant to the local area must be included in the pack of information provided to purchasers upon a purchaser's occupation of an apartment 2. include a minimum of 10 by 2 hour Metcard (zone one) within the household welcome pack or a Myki rail pass (of equivalent value) and registration information 3. bcycle parking and facilities available on the land 4. monitoring and review; and

1. a plan showing: 1. the bicycle parking area s to be provided for use by residents;
2. The Green Travel Plan must not be amended without written consent of the responsible authority following consultation with the Department of Transport (Public Transport Division).
3. Once approved the Green Travel Plan must form part of the planning permit and any ongoing Management Plan for the land to ensure the Green Travel Plan continues to be implemented by residents/owners to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

1. the development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit 2. the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

1. the sign is not erected within five years of the date of this permit

1. all the uses are not commenced within five years of the date of this permit 2. the signage component of this permit expires in 15 years at which point the sign must be removed.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

[1] We have considered all submissions presented by the parties although we do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[3] Melbourne@5 million is a reference document in the SPPF modified by amendment VC71

[5] Golden Ridge v Whitehorse CC (Mitcham Towers case)

[6] The building's height is a further 2.4 metres higher when viewed from Melbourne High School due to the fall of the land.

[7] Appeal between The Capitol Vic Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC was called in by the Minister for Planning who approved the development on 28 September 2010.

[8] We note that Mr Kelderman provided a similar assessment. We think that given his longstanding involvement in this project, he is more of an advocate and we give his evidence limited weight.