E. The Tribunal does not need to formally finalise the conditions at this stage, but for convenience I have set out the draft conditions that I propose will attach to the permit, provided I am satisfied with the modified plans (taking into account any final submissions). I have track-changed my amendments to Council's draft submissions, to highlight the amendments I have made to same. If any party from a drafting point of view wishes to make submissions on the draft conditions, any such submissions will also be taken into account, having regard to the timeframe set out above for submissions.

1 Before the commencement of the development, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must generally accord with the plans No. # dated # drawn by Design Vision Network but modified to show:

(a)

A distance of 5.5 metres is to be provided between the site boundary and the gate to the basement. Details of visitor vehicle access to the basement car park to be provided and approved by Councils' Traffic Engineers, including the provision of intercom communication between visitors and occupants of the new units.

(b)

The curved ramp is to have a minimum clearance of 300mm on the inside curve and 500mm on the outside curve.

(c)

The minimum inside radius for the curved ramp is to be 4 metres.

(d)

The 5.5 metre pavement width for the ramp is to be provided at the top of the ramp and a minimum pavement width of 3.9 metres for the bottom section of the ramp. The placement of a convex mirror at the corner of the curve is to be provided to assist in sight distance.

(e)

The start and end of the 1:30 ramp on the south side of the basement to be clearly labelled on the plans.

(f)

Details of the car stackers (including specifications) to be provided and to be to the satisfaction of Council's Traffic Engineers.

(g)

A 22 metre head clearance excluding pipes and fixtures is to be provided to the basement.. No change to the height of the building is permissible.

(h)

The car space labelled "Vl" to be deleted from the basement.

(i)

A guard rail or other barrier is to be placed at the end of parking spaces "1 and 2" to ensure that vehicles do not drive over the edge of the parking spaces and to be to the satisfaction of Council's Traffic Engineers.

(j)

The street sign pole near the proposed extended crossover is to be relocated 2 metres to the west.

(k)

(by consent of the Applicant) the removale of the existing street trees on the Stanley Street side of the development and planting of a maximum of five (5) street trees that are 2m height at planting and are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(l)

A new suitable notation on the relevant application plans confirming that the lift equipment will be built into the basement of the building, rather than an having a lift overrun located on the roof.

(m)

A further appropriate notation added to those application plan dealing with the basement car parking, providing that no car stackers are to be used in those car spaces allocated for visitor car parking;

(n)

An addition suitable notation added to the relevant application plans confirming that the top level north-facing terrace will have a balustrade height of 1.7 metres.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.

2 The layout of the site and size, design and location of buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Note: This does not obviate the need for a permit where one is required.

3 No new buildings or works shall be constructed/erected and no existing buildings enlarged, rebuilt or extended without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4 This Permit will expire if:

•

The development does not start within two (2) years from the date of this Permit; or

•

The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.

5 The development must not commence until a Development Contribution Fee has been paid to the Responsible Authority. The fee payable must be calculated in accordance with the Schedule to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

Note: A $40.00 administration fee will also be charged.

6 Prior to the commencement of the development, a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.

7 All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden fiom view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8 No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

9 Provision must be made on the site for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10 Before the commencement of buildings and works, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will become an endorsed plan forming part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must incorporate:

(a)

A survey, including botanical names, of all existing vegetation to be retained.

(b)

Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within 3 metres of the boundary.

(c)

A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation including botanical names; common names; pot sizes; sizes at maturity; quantities of each plant; and details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.

(d)

Landscaping and planting within all open space areas of the site.

All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11 The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the occupation of the development and/or the commencement of the use or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

12 Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:

(a)

constructed;

(b)

properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

(c)

surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;

(d)

drained;

(e)

line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.

13 Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any existing crossing or crossing opening must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Mr M. Glasman appeared on behalf of Mr Abraham Magen.

Mr Kim Barnard appeared in person, speaking on behalf of himself and his wife Mary Ann.

Mr Brett Fleming (planning consultant) appeared on behalf of the following persons:

Ms Nicole Saade, Ms Freda Saade, Mr Alex Saade, Mr John Papadopoulos, Ms Michelle Saade, Ms Edith Saade, Mr Louie Coorey, Dowering Pty Ltd and H & S Pipito.

1 This matter involves a site located close to the heart of the Elsternwick Village strip shopping centre running along Glen Huntly Road in Elsternwick. There are already two four-storey buildings lying between the site and Glen Huntly Road to the north. There are also two other two/three storey buildings located close by, either on or near the intersection of Carre Street and Stanley Street which the site faces on to. The site currently has a rather tired looking single storey dwelling located on it.

2 The proposal here is a new four storey building providing for fourteen units and a basement car park. Council issued a Notice of Refusal in relation to the original application plans but in fact supported at the hearing the revised plans on which the Applicant relied. In relation to the objections from the relevant neighbours, in summary, it was put to me that the proposal is an over-development of the site in being too high and/or out of character with the locality, or alternatively that the proposal will have unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring occupants. The critical issue in this opposition was clearly the acceptability of having a four level building compared to a three level one. I conducted a view of the site and locality after the hearing.

3 In summary, subject to a proviso listed below, I am satisfied that the proposed four storey building can comfortably sit on the site. I rely here on the strong policy support for the higher density residential use of the site, the context of other 2/3 storey existing buildings nearby, the quality of the design, and my view that any amenity impacts on the neighbours is within acceptable parameters. While I can see his arguments, I am not convinced that it would be a good planning outcome to shave one storey off the proposal as put to me by Mr Fleming.

4 The proviso is that the Applicant should be required to provide cross-section plans (which will make it easier for others that follow to read the plans) and also to provide me with modified plans which show more efficient use of the common areas on the north side of the middle two levels of the proposed building. I consider that the existing layout for these common areas and associated access to the relevant units is clumsy and inefficient and could be significantly improved. Hence at this stage I have only issued Interim Orders which provide for the provision of these further plans and which give the other parties a chance to comment of these further plans. At the risk of stating the obvious, the intention here is not to allow the other parties a "final bite of the cherry" to object to the proposal per se, but simply to concentrate on the particular matters being dealt with in the modified plans.

5 This matter involves an appeal under s.77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("Act") against Council's Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit. The land in question is 5 Carre Street, Elsternwick ("subject land") and the proposal is the construction of 14 apartments and basement car parking.

6 At the hearing of this matter on 5 December 2005 I heard submissions from Council, from the Applicant, from Mr Fleming on behalf of numerous neighbours, and from several other neighbours in person.

7 I note that pursuant to Deputy President Gibson's order of 25 August 2005, the May 2005 plans have already been substituted as the new application plans prior to my hearing of this matter on 5 December 2005.

8 I also note that although there were some procedural issues prior to the hearing about whether some of the objectors have been properly notified of the hearing, happily we were able to proceed in the ordinary way at the hearing.

9 To avoid confusion, it should be acknowledged that although Council opposed the original application, Council in fact supported the revised May 2005 proposal at the hearing. As a matter of interest, Council (which is piloting the use of shorter form submissions) also used the hearing as an opportunity to use one of these more short-form written submissions in presentation to me. As I indicated during the hearing, while streamlining the Council submission at hearings has merit, the practical reality is that the Tribunal (given its work pressures) is reliant on Council providing photos and a range of background materials and information to assist the Tribunal "get up to speed" on the site and locality. Hence my suggestion is that the steamlining process in this hearing (while well intended) went too far, and it was fortunate that other parties provided me with the relevant materials and information otherwise missing.

10 After the hearing of this matter, I conducted a view of the site and locality.

11 The subject land currently contains a single storey residential dwelling set back about 1.3 metres from the northern boundary. The dwelling is oriented to primarily face towards Carre Street to the west. There is vehicle access via a single crossover on the south-eastern corner of the site.

12 To the east of the subject land there is a large Council carpark which continues significantly further to the east. To the north at 1-3 Carre Street is a new mixed use building which accommodates three retail/restaurant tenancies at the ground level and 34 apartments at the three levels above. This building progressively "steps down" from the north to the south.

13 On the other side of Carre Street to the west, on the corner of Carre and Stanley Streets, is a double storey period residential dwelling (noting however that the high pitch of the roof of this dwelling makes the top of the roof more like about 2½ modern storeys high). To the south of the subject land, on the other side of Stanley Street, is a series of conventional single storey residential dwellings. Diagonally on the opposite side of the intersection and slightly further south, there is a circa 1960's "6 pack" building which is initially two storeys then become three storeys over the majority of its length.

14 Further north from the 1-3 Carre Street recent development is the Renown Apartments, which is the equivalent of somewhere between four to five modern storeys high.

15 Carre Street runs south from Glenhuntly Road. This section of Glenhuntly Road is in the heart of the Elsternwick Village. Elsternwick Village is a lively shopping centre which was very busy during my inspection and appears to be doing good trade if judged by:

•

the "spot the European car and/or convertible" test (there were heaps); and

•

using the "how much does a large take away cappuccino cost" test (I purchased one for $3.80 - ouch!).

16 It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey building and erect a new four storey residential building on the subject land, including a basement carpark. There would be 14 new apartments provided. The new building would use a combination of materials, including wooden slats, concrete, steel and aluminium, resulting in an overall very modern/contemporary appearance.

17 I refer to the useful summary of the features of the 14 apartments set out at page 4 of the written submission of Mr Fleming on behalf of the relevant residents. In terms of car parking, the proposed development will utilise the existing crossover in the north-eastern corner of the site, which will be widened to 5.5 metres to better facilitate vehicle movement. Eighteen car parking spaces (including three visitor spaces) are proposed. Ten of the proposed resident spaces are to be accommodated using car stackers. There will also be 14 bike hooks provided.

18 With respect to the proposed building setbacks, the new building will be constructed on the eastern boundary as closest point, within 920mm from the southern boundary with Stanley Street as its closest point, set back 2.06 metres from the western boundary with Carre Street, and constructed on the northern boundary at the ground, first floor and second floor levels, but with the third level being set back 1.5 metres from the boundary. The lift shaft and stairwell are to be built on the boundary and will extend from the basement to the roof.

19 An important feature of the design which is more apparent from the computer graphics of the proposed building provided to me is that the southern elevation of the new building facing Stanley Street will involve wall sections and balconies which are diagonally offset from Stanley Street. In addition:

•

in relation to the eastern boundary, the eastern wall of the building will also be marginally diagonally offset from the boundary at the first three levels;

•

with respect to the western boundary, the western end of the lower three levels of the new building have a major diagonally offset from this western boundary, with a practical result that it is only the corner section of this end of the building that extends closest to the western boundary; and

•

in relation to the top (fourth) level of the proposed building, the top level has substantial additional setbacks relative to the lower levels at both the western and eastern sides and also to some extent in relation to the lower three levels on the south side of the building.

20 In relation to the northern side of the proposed building, although the built form here will sit fairly close to the northern boundary, there is an unusual arrangement involving the middle two levels whereby there shall be a balcony type area on the northern side of these two levels, to enable occupants to come out of the stairs/lift and then work either east or west to the entrance of the respective apartments at these levels. Mr Fleming complained during the hearing that the application plans were difficult to follow in terms of this northern treatment of the middle levels and this point was conceded by Ms Brennan. Clearly some "cross-section plans" would have been helpful in this regard.

21 The subject land is zoned Residential 1 and there is also a Development Contributions Plan Overlay (this Overlay has played no real role in my decision here).

22 In the usual way, I have had regard to the ResCode clause55 criteria and the clause 65 general decision making criteria.

23 With respect to the State Planning Policy Framework, Council relied on clause 12, clause 14.01 (Planning for Urban Settlement), clause 14.02 (Metropolitan Development), clause 15.12 (Energy Efficiency), clause 16.02 (Medium Density Housing) and clause 19.03 (Design and Built Form).

24 In relation to the Local Planning Policy Framework, Council referred me to clause 21.04 from the Municipal Strategic Statement, clause 22.07 (Housing Diversity Area) and clause 22.05 (Urban Villages Policy).

25 There was general discussion of the "Design vision for Elsternwick" draft document which has been released for public comments. However, in the usual way I can only give limited weight to this document, given that it is still in draft and does not form part of the Planning Scheme.

26 The most critical policy here is clause 22.05 dealing with "Urban villages policy". It is worth setting out below the relevant text on clause 22.05-1 (with my emphasis).

Urban villages are local centres with a mix of work places, housing, shops and accessible public transport. The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) Framework Plan pinpoints a number of areas where the fundamental principles of the urban village concept can be found. They are identified as preferred locations for the municipality's highest densities of residential development.

In particular, this policy implements the following objective and strategies of the MSS:

•

Enhance and further develop urban villages as the focus for community life.

•

Encourage competitive retail outlets in viable, lively and interesting strip shopping centres.

•

Encourage highest residential densities and preferred strategic locations such as urban villages.

•

Promote the urban village concept in locations identified on the Framework Plan.

•

Encourage densities of development which increase as proximity to the preferred strategic location increases in which decline as proximity declines (ie. a higher density would be encouraged for shop top housing within a commercial centre than would be encouraged in a conventional residential street immediately surrounding the centre).

Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick contain these urban village characteristics. Structure plans have been developed to consolidate them as locations for convenient retailing, community, entertainment, tourist, educational and cultural facilities and appropriate mixed use development.

27 I note that at page 12 of this policy, there is a "Map 3 Elsternwick", which shows the particular area of which the subject land forms part as being a "Community Centre".

28 The subject land forms part of "Precinct 8 Community" under this Map 3. Although there are various permit criteria set out for this precinct date at page 14 of this policy, these decision criteria are of no particular relevance to the proposal here. However, I do note that the subject land lies immediately to the east of Precinct 6 commercial (Stanley Street north). One of the relevant decision criteria in this Precinct 6 is that "Sites north of Stanley Street may accommodate increased densities at heights compatible with adjacent buildings".

29 In relation to the draft "Design Vision for Elsternwick" document which I alluded to above, the second page of this document after the cover page has a map of the Elsternwick Village dealing with "Activities". The subject land forms part of "Area 2" in this plan, which is referred to as the "Carpark and Mixed Use Precinct". The relevant commentary for this Precinct is as follows:

Concentrate mixed uses including supermarkets, a community centre and library and high-density housing with a compact area that is closely interlinked with the Glenhuntly Road retail strip. Redevelop existing ground level carpark into new housing and other uses wrapped around parking stations.

30 Continuing one further page into the document there is another plan of the Elsternwick Village labelled "Buildings". In relation to this precinct 2, it is stated that "New buildings limited to three storeys at the frontage to the street. Any additional height, to a maximum of four storeys, should be set back as to be hidden from the opposite footpath". In addition, where Stanley Street runs east-west adjacent to the subject land, this "buildings" plan marks up Stanley Street so as to show Stanley Street as being a "Interface with residential areas".

31 I shall not repeat the submissions of the parties in any detail, but more concentrate on what I see as being the key issues. I note that in this regard that a copy to the relevant written submissions are retained on the Tribunal file along with the relevant plans, photographs and other tendered materials.

32 In relation to the concerns of the various objectors, suffice to say that the general impression that I got was that these criticisms would be much more muted if the new building here was three storeys rather than four storeys high. In particular, Mr Fleming's submissions included the suggestion that I delete one of the two middle levels, so as to modify the proposal to become two ordinary levels plus a setback third level.

33 I note that particular concerns were raised about the interface between the proposed new dwelling on the subject land and the recently completed building at 1-3 Carre Street. In general terms, it was put to me that the new building would be overly dominant and/or unacceptably detract from the residential amenity of the relevant occupants of the 1-3 Carre Street building, in terms of the proposed new building extending close to the 1-3 Carre Street building and the proposed new building extending up to four storeys.

34 The main issues which I will concentrate on over the balance of my decision are as follows:

•

The strong level of policy support for a medium to high density residential development on the subject land.

•

The interface between the proposal and the existing building at 1-3 Carre Street.

•

Other straight forward planning issues.

•

The merits of Mr Fleming's proposal that the new building be reduced from four to three storeys.

•

Should the treatment of the northern side of the middle levels be revised?

The strong level of policy support for a medium to high density residential development on the subject land.

35 It is clear to me that Elsternwick Village is one of a relatively few places in the Glen Eira municipality where the Planning Scheme is actively encouraging a bolder approach to new residential development. That is, in light of the reality that the Planning Scheme classifies much of Glen Eira as areas where minimal or possibly moderate residential change is encouraged, it is very significant that Elsternwick Village is one of relatively few locations where the Planning Scheme sends a very different message. It follows that if Glen Eira is to play a legitimate role in accommodating the population growth of Melbourne as per Melbourne 2030 in the face of these constraints on residential development in much of the Glen Eira "residential hinterland", this arrangement only makes planning sense if urban village locations in the municipality such as Elsternwick make a major contribution to urban consolidation.

36 In this important overall policy context, I have highlighted above those sections of clause 22.05 (Urban Villages Policy) and the draft "Design Vision for Elsternwick" document which seem most applicable here. The key text from these documents send a clear message that higher density residential development is being encouraged in Elsternwick Village. In particular, the latter document for the particular section of the Village in question expressly anticipates three storey development or four stories if the top storey is "set back as to be hidden from the opposite footpath".

37 In summary, there is strong policy support for robust residential development in this part of Elsternwick Village, rather than an inappropriately timid approach. This policy situation reinforces the general "rule of thumb" that residents who live in or near an activity centre such as this cannot just expect the built form character in this locality to remain static, and also cannot expect the same levels of residential amenity as persons living in the "residential hinterland".

The interface between the proposal and the existing building at 1-3 Carre Street.

38 A key part of Mr Fleming's submissions was that the proposal does not show adequate respect for the amenity of the occupants of the 1-3 Carre Street building immediately to the north. Having done an inspection of the subject land and the 1-3 Carre Street building, I do not accept Mr Fleming's submission in this regard, and see no reason to reject the proposal in terms of the interface with the 1-3 Carre Street building. In particular:

•

the 1-3 Carre Street "steps down" from north to south, and hence extends to its southern boundary at a lower level. This in itself creates some degree of buffer in terms of how the 1-3 Carre Street built form will interact with the new building;

•

from my inspection, my impression is that the relatively restrained window treatment of the south-side of the 1-3 Carre Street building suggests that the designer of the 1-3 Carre Street building anticipated and took into account the possibility of a large building on the subject land;

•

the middle section of the south side of the 1-3 Carre Street building has a "light well" feature, which again provides a form of buffer to the new building on the subject land; and

•

while it is true that the new building is sited relatively close to the north boundary, one also has to take into account the "recessing effect" of the various common areas and balcony areas on the upper levels of the new building. It is not as if the proposal involves a straight blank wall rising up four stories on the northern boundary of the subject land.

39 I can briefly deal with some other fairly straight forward planning issues as follows, leaving aside for the moment the "three stories versus four stories" debate.

40 Firstly, I am satisfied that the proposal is generally consistent with the various applicable planning policies and controls, is suitably respectful of the local neighbourhood character (noting the number of other existing 3 or 4 storey buildings in the locality) and will be a beneficial addition to a healthy activity centre such as Elsternwick Village.

41 Secondly, I see no traffic engineering reasons to refuse the proposal. While the use of "car stackers" is sometimes criticised, I accept that the use of stackers is easier to justify in an "Activity Centre" context where space is more at a premium and where some occupants may not automatically own a car. In addition, the Applicant conceded that the permit conditions could be altered to make it clear that no stackers can be used on visitor car parking spaces (see my draft conditions). Otherwise, the car park layout and features seem in order and I see no undue problems with the additional traffic generated, although I have also modified the draft conditions to expressly require intercom arrangements for visitors wishing to use the downstairs car park.

42 Thirdly, I see no unacceptable external amenity impacts arising from the proposal. As mentioned, there needs to be allowance here for the fact that residents who choose to live in or near a bustling activity centre such as this have to expect higher intensity development and a greater possibility of some degree of impact on their views/privacy/residential amenity. Given that the proposal involves a southern façade with recessive features and a top level that will be essentially screened when viewed from the opposing footpath, I consider the proposal to be a reasonable design response in terms of visual bulk and respecting the interests of neighbours.

43 In relation to the concerns of Mr Abraham Magen about losing his views as an upper level resident in the 1-3 Carre Street building, while I could see he is stressed by the situation, equally I agree with Ms Brennan that his concerns seem exaggerated and that the impacts on his southerly and south-easterly views should be within acceptable limits. I also note here the general planning principle that there is "no right to preservation of a view" and that the Planning Scheme here says nothing about view sharing.

44 Subject to my comments further below about the common areas on the two middle levels, I regard the internal amenity for future occupants of the new building to be acceptable. It is true that some windows and balconies may have better light penetration/views that others, but as a "complete package" in an urban village location, the overall outcome here seems acceptable.

The merits of Mr Fleming's proposal that the new building be reduced from four to three storeys.

45 I now come to the most complex aspect of the proposal, being whether the better planning outcome would be (assuming I was minded per se to issue a permit) to modify the design from four stories down to three. In particular, Mr Fleming provided me with side profiles of the 1-3 Carre Street building and the proposed new building, and submitted that the better transition from the former to the latter would be to keep the new building down to three stories (ie two ordinary stories plus a recessed top storey). To achieve this, Mr Fleming urged me to simply delete one of the two proposed middle levels.

46 While I accept there are legitimate arguments both ways on this issue, having inspected the site and locality and considered the submissions and relevant planning controls and policies, my finding is that the subject land can reasonably accommodate a recessed fourth level as proposed here. While an unrecessed fourth level would be out of the question and even a conventional bland third level facing Stanley Street would have its issues, I see the key positive features of the proposal here to be:

•

the recessing of the top level so as to be barely visible from the opposing footpath. I accept that there will be greater viewlines from diagonal positions, but this is counter-balanced by the fact that there are already other 2/3 storey buildings on or near the Carre Street/Stanley Street intersection;

•

the interesting balcony treatment of the southern façade of the new building, which presents a series of diagonal extensions of the relevant balconies towards Stanley Street. I consider that this will have a very recessing/softening effect in terms of the views of this southern elevation from the other side of Stanley Street or from the intersection, compared to a situation where the upper level verandas facing Stanley Street extend out towards Stanley Street in a conventional parallel manner;

•

the fact that the 1-3 Carre Street building is quite imposing at four stories at its highest level, plus the Renown Apartments further north again are more like 4-5 modern stories high. This creates a situation where the new building will effectively "book end" this run of high buildings, with Stanley Street becoming a natural dividing point;

•

the policy support in the draft "Design Vision for Elsternwick" document for development in this part of the Village being capable of going up to four stories, subject to appropriate recessing of the top level. Granted this is only a draft document and not part of the Planning Scheme, but it does provide some further weight for the planning view that a three storey building in this important strategic location for redevelopment would be an overly timid outcome.

Should the treatment of the northern side of the middle levels be revised?

47 During the course of the hearing, I raised with Ms Brennan some concerns I had about the interaction between the middle levels northern common area and access from that common area to the relevant dwellings. The project architect was in the hearing room and was involved in this discussion. Given that the project architect was present and took notes and made some initial informal sketches, I consider I do not need to say too much more here, other than to confirm that I consider the current common area layout of the northern side of the two middle levels to be inefficient and clumsy and in need of improvement. My overall aim here is to make best use of the northern light coming in to the relevant units across the common space, and to avoid a situation where the common space becomes "dead space" despite its prime northern aspect.

48 In conclusion, I see some outstanding issues to still be resolved, in terms of improving the operation of the common areas on the north side of the middle levels of the new building, and also the Applicant providing cross-section plans. Hence I have only granted an interim decision at this stage. However subject to these points being adequately resolved, my intent is to grant a permit for the proposal, as I consider the proposal to otherwise be a good design response and a sensible use of a strategically important site near the heart of Elsternwick Activity Centre (being one of the main areas in the Planning Scheme where higher density residential development is actively encouraged.