1. In response, Ms Bisucci submitted that there is no justification in planning terms to reverse the staging proposed by the applicant. She observed Ms Heggen's evidence that either staging scenario is acceptable. Commencing from the south would assist to limit impacts on existing residents in Rodda Street as well as to the Park. It ensures car parking is provided to match the needs and demands associated with each stage. Further, Ms Bisucci commented on MPS/2009/73 that has two stages with Stage 1 being to the south. Moreover, and importantly, Ms Bisucci stressed the importance of staging from the perspective of project finance. She tendered a copy of a letter from a bank addressing financing and its view that "From a finance and risk management perspective we would recommend that the development program is completed in the order of Stage A, B then C...".
2. There are no specific decision guidelines in the Scheme to assist my consideration of this matter. The general decision guidelines in Clause 65 address orderly planning. The situation is not akin to a greenfield or growth area location where staging may be important to address, for example, the orderly development of infrastructure.

1. It is self-evident that there is a desire to avoid vacant land remaining idle and unattractive. Condition 32 seeks to deal with this.
2. There are advantages and disadvantages in either staging scenario. I have not been persuaded that the proposed staging is flawed or has such disbenefits from a planning perspective that reversing the staging must occur.
3. I accept the applicant's submissions in relation to this matter as summarised above. I further emphasise that:
   • Each "tower" element is designed to be read in the round, as Ms Heggen observed, rather than presenting blank walls to the public realm.
   • The completion time limit on the Permit, comprising all stages, is a relevant consideration.
   • Condition 32 deals with temporary use and the presentation of the car park podium - elements that are relevant no matter in which order staging occurs.
4. I will therefore delete Condition 1(g) and amend Condition 32 as requested by the applicant. The question of vehicle access to Rodda Street (which I address next) is linked to this too, suffice to say at this point that there is no need to modify vehicle access to coincide with a revised staging plan.

Should vehicle access to Rodda Street be required to be relocated further to the north along this street?

1. Ms Porritt submitted that if the Tribunal found in favour of the Council with respect to staging, this condition may no longer be in issue as a vehicle crossover would be required to provide access to Bell Street. Placing a crossover closer to Bell Street would limit the impacts on existing residents of Rodda Street. Moreover, providing the access further south may encourage more traffic through the dog-leg to Budds Street whereas locating the crossover further north may encourage more cars to use Bell Street instead thereby reducing traffic through the residential area.
2. In response, Ms Bisucci contended that there is no traffic engineering or planning basis to justify this condition, a submission that I accept.
3. It is relevant to my conclusion that:
   • The current 2010 Permit provides vehicle access further to the south than the proposal before me and would, based on Mr Kiriakidis' evidence, have higher traffic volumes and more on-site car parking spaces than the 2013 Permit.
   • The adopted Schedule 1 to the ACZ includes a vehicle access closer to the proposed location than the Council's condition.
   • Mr Kiriakidis' evidence was that the change in location of the access would have negligible difference, in terms of a handful of peak vehicle movements in an hour.

• The Council's traffic engineers had no issue with the access as proposed, based on the internal referrals.
• Rodda Street is at the edge of this Principal Activity Centre where there can reasonably be expected to be changes in traffic associated with the development of land and particularly this major development site.

1. I will therefore delete Conditions 1(x) and (y).

1. For the above reasons, I will vary the Responsible Authority's decision.

The reduction of the building in Stage C to a maximum overall height of 28.8 metres (excluding service equipment, plant rooms, lift overruns, solar collectors and structures associated with the green roof areas).

The building in Stage A to be modified to comply with setbacks of Standard B17 of Clause 55.04-1 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Stage A to be labelled as Stage C and Stage C to be labelled as Stage A.

The Rodda Street vehicle entry relocated to the approximate location of apartment 128, with the car parking layout adjusted accordingly.

As a consequence of Condition 1(x), a new town house style apartment to replace the area formerly proposed as the Rodda Street vehicle entry.

Prior to the commencement of the development, an interim development and use plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must show, amongst other things:

1. An architectural treatment to the southern parts of Stage A and B to conceal the car park.
2. A temporary use of Stages B and C.

1. The location and method of storage of building materials.

When approved, such plan will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.

[1] Lyndale & Black Pty Ltd & I O Black v MMBW 1 PABR 207.

[2] By order dated 10 August 2015 Mr P Robertson was struck out as a party to this proceeding based on non-attendance at a compulsory conference. On Day 2 of the hearing, Mr Robertson appeared in the hearing room toward the conclusion of the hearing. I referred to the order upon which I understood he had been struck out and why I would not be seeking further resident submissions or resident involvement in my site inspection.

[3] I have considered the submissions of all parties who appeared, all written and oral evidence, and all exhibits tendered by the parties. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of all of the documents in these reasons.

[4] This is the reference included in the Moreland Planning Scheme and proposed Amendment C123 even though Clause 12 no longer uses the same descriptor or classification.

[5] An amended Permit was issued on 10 August 2015. Appendix A includes the full text of the contested conditions.

[6] In these circumstances, I have not addressed this matter.

[9] From the Executive Summary, page 45 and page 46

1. [10] For example the recommendation on page 5 differs from page 46 and page 54. The Panel envisaged a potential role for the Central Coburg Design Review Panel in "advising if a proposal is worthy of this additional height in return for the community benefit offered" [page 54].

[11] None of these relate to the subject land in this Tribunal proceeding.

[13] Lyndale & Black Pty Ltd & I O Black v MMBW 1 PABR 207.

[14] Using the word in the Minister's letter cited at paragraph 21 above.

[15] Double LZ Development Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2014] VCAT 613.

[16] Page 3 of the statement of evidence of Ms C Heggen dated September 2015.