A car lift light system as indicated in Grogan Richards memorandum dated 13 February 2006.

(h) The provision of two waiting bays within the ground level carpark located to facilitate convenient access to the car lifts. Such bays are to be appropriately identified with signage.

(i) Each car lift designed to provide access to each carpark level, including any consequential modifications to the layout of any affected apartments.

(j) Bicycle parking facilities within the ground floor carpark, in accordance with Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme. The tandem spaces may be used for this purpose.

3 Deleting Condition 16 and replacing it with the following words:

Prior to the occupation of the permitted development, a Carpark Management Plan (CMP) must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The CMP must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when endorsed will form part of this permit. The CMP must include the following:

(a) car parking spaces provided on the land must be managed to ensure reasonable provision is made for visitor car parking to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) provision and maintenance of a suitable lighting/warning system within the ground level carpark area to advise waiting motorists as to when the car lifts are in use.

(c) provision of a 24 hour valet parking service for occupants of the serviced apartments.

(d) provision of an on-site back-up electricity supply service in the event of power failure.

(e) details of a remote control system available for use by residents capable of operating the door at the ground level carpark entry and the car lifts.

(f) lift program operating details designed to give priority to vehicles waiting at ground level.

Mr. N.J. Tweedie, Barrister instructed by Deacons Lawyers. He called Mr. Jason Walsh, traffic engineer of Grogan Richards, as a witness.

1 This is the review of a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit by Port Phillip City Council for part demolition and alterations and additions to an existing heritage building together with a 19 storey building with basement and above ground car parking serviced by two car lifts. Initially the applicant for review proposed the following grounds:

The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

The proposal conflicts with relevant objectives and strategies contained within the SPPF, MSS and LPPF.

The proposal conflicts with the urban context in terms of built form, height and set backs.

The proposal will compromise the public realm.

The number of car parking spaces provided is inadequate.

The method, supply and access of car parking is inappropriate.

2 On 26 May 2006, a Directions Hearing was held before Mr. Philip Martin, a legal member of the Tribunal, where Deacons Lawyers on behalf of the permit applicant requested further and better particulars to be provided in relation to the grounds for review. The Tribunal directed that these be provided no later than 31 May 2006 and listed the matter for a one day hearing on the date it was heard. On 31 May, Mr. Jewell by facsimile transmission provided the revised grounds as follows:

•

The proposal provides inadequate car parking which is contrary to the provisions of cl.21.05-11 and cl.52.06 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

•

The method of car parking is unsuitable. The use of a car lift mechanism for this number of spaces over this number of levels is inappropriate accordingly the proposal will not satisfy the provisions of cl.52.06.

•

The method of on-site car parking is not consistent with that found in the locality, it will lead to confusion and poor acceptance.

•

The method of car parking supply is inappropriate given the mix of residential accommodation in terms of access, ease of use, knowledge of use, frequency of use etc. These difficulties will limit the take up of the on-site spaces and therefore a spill over of car parking demand will occur on to local streets and nearby properties to an extent that the planning scheme seeks to avoid. The access to the car lifts is inappropriate and will result in vehicles "banking up" within the site and into the adjacent streets causing delay and congestion.

•

The management of the car parking and the method of operation is unclear.

3 At the hearing, as a preliminary issue, Mr. Tweedie confirmed that the only issues were car parking and access. He stated that the applicant already possessed a permit for a sixteen storey building with essentially the same parking arrangements. This application is for three extra levels to be added to the building. He also stated that there was an amendment to that existing permit to provide for the parking regime that is part and parcel of this application. The previous application had been the subject of an application for review relating to conditions and costs before Member Monk. This was under application No. P3279/2003.

4 Mr. Schuster, on behalf of the responsible authority, confirmed Mr. Tweedie's preliminary point and agreed that there were very narrow issues to be dealt with. However, Mr. Jewell stated that, as this is a new application, it needs to be assessed again because of new elements that were in it and therefore those elements should be the subject of further investigations.

5 The site is on the west side of St. Kilda Road on the north-west corner of Beatrice Street. The site has an area of 2,323 square metres. It is bounded to the rear by Queens Lane. The existing building on the site, Warwillah, was developed in the late 19th century. There was also a two storey office commercial building on the site which has been recently demolished. The site is covered by Heritage Overlay HO332 identifying Warwillah as being significant. Abutting the site to the north is an eight storey commercial building with basement car parking access from Queens Lane. The applicant for review owns a property on the south side of Beatrice Street, 575 St. Kilda Road, which is a ten storey office building over basement car parking also accessed from Queens Lane. To the rear of the site across Queens Lane fronting Queens Road is a double storey building with development approval for a multi storey building granted by the Tribunal. It contains a building "Lanark" which is covered by Heritage Overlay HO322.

6 In 2002, planning permit 1351/2001 was approved for a fifteen storey, 45 metre high residential apartment building with basement parking and part demolition of the heritage building. This related to 120 apartments and 148 car parking spaces. In 2004, permit 630/2004 was approved to demolish part of Warwillah and construct a 16 storey building with 73 serviced apartments and 64 residential apartments. The access to the basement and car parking was to be via car lift.

7 The proposal is to develop and use the land for a major 19 storey building having a height of 57.85 metres with an additional four residential apartments over three levels and an additional 20 car parking spaces with a second basement car parking level and a second lift. Lifts would operate so that one lift goes upwards from the ground floor and the other one downwards into the basement. Some car spaces will also be provided at ground level both internally and externally. Warwillah, the historic, building would be converted and upgraded.

8 The land is zoned Business 5. A dwelling is a Section 1 use but accommodation such as serviced apartments requires a permit. A permit is required for building and works. The land is also covered by a Heritage Overlay HO332 under which a permit is required for part demolition and building and works. There is a DDO4 which relates to height and setbacks as well as the Shrine vista. The schedule to the overlay requires setbacks from boundaries other than St. Kilda Road of 4.5 metres.

9 Clause 52.06, Car Parking, provides requirements for such and also provides for a waiving or reduction in car parking numbers.

10 This was advertised resulting in three objections being received but only one of these has lodged an application for review and that is the subject applicant. The grounds included overshadowing, excessive traffic, wind tunnelling, excessive height/overdevelopment, inadequate setbacks and landscaping and inadequate car parking and concern with the car lift.

11 Documents tabled at the hearing including submissions and the witness statement are all retained in the Tribunal file. Because the focus of the hearing was in relation to access and parking we were able to deal with this matter quite expeditiously thanks to the co-operation of the parties to the review. While Mr. Tweedie submitted that, because the site had an existing permit for a 16 storey building that had been amended to allow a similar parking theme to that proposed for this application, we nevertheless agreed with Mr. Jewell that the major aspects of this matter such as the vehicle lifts, their access and efficiency need to be explored.

12 We were asked towards the end of the hearing if we would be prepared to issue an oral decision because Mr. Tweedie's clients had financial undertakings that needed to be formalised before the end of the financial year. After adjourning for a short period we advised the parties that, while we were not prepared to give an oral decision on the day, we were not about to overturn the responsible authority's decision, but rather may be seeking to clarify a number of issues, particularly in relation to permit conditions and perhaps place more conditions on the permit.

13 Following the hearing, we inspected both the site and a recently completed apartment development at 280 Spencer Street where there is a car lift in operation. During our inspection of the apartment building we actually used the lift over six storeys and thus were able to confirm Mr. Walsh's comments that the time taken to traverse between one floor and another is around ten seconds.

14 Mr. Jewell submitted that one of his clients' major concerns in relation to this development is that he does not wish to encounter a spill over of parking into Queens Lane because of access issues and problems with lift movements, maintenance etc. He was also concerned about the size of the spaces provided on the plans and the fact that there is no allowance made for bicycle parking.

15 Because there was no argument about the number of spaces to be provided, the waiver of the number of parking spaces was not an issue explored at the hearing. We note however that the two proposed on-street spaces which are proposed in Queens Lane are unlikely to be viable. We observed during our inspection that only loading may occur on the east side of Queens Lane. These two proposed spaces would block south bound traffic so we have not relied on them in coming to our conclusion about the adequacy of carparking. Suffice to say we are still satisfied that an adequate number of car parking spaces will be available to cater for residents and their visitors. In saying this we agree with Mr Walsh's evidence that the site is extremely well serviced by public transport and that visitor needs will generally not clash with peak demands for on-street parking by other users.

16 Mr. Jewell's clients were also concerned that the proposal is departing from the traditional method of providing parking access such as the use of ramps. However, Mr. Tweedie advised that there are several constraints on this site, particularly in relation to the heritage building, which needed to be considered. He stated it was increasingly common for valuable land to be used to its highest and best use and therefore car lifts, while are not revolutionary, were able to allow an achievement of greater numbers of apartments.

17 Mr. Tweedie also submitted that the car lifts would operate by remote control whereby a user would set the roller door at the entrance opening by use of the remote and this would then send a signal to the lift that would be directed to descend or ascend to the ground floor and then take the relevant vehicle to its own floor. This seems to be quite a sophisticated exercise.

18 Because there was a concern about sufficient storage being provided for waiting vehicles an extra space had been set aside for such just inside the ground floor parking entry, however, Mr. Jewell submitted that this may not be sufficient.

19 Evidence from Mr. Walsh has indicated that there are more than sufficient spaces provided within the development in accordance with the ResCode provisions which had been preferred over the planning scheme provisions at Clause 52.06 in relation to ratios of parking to apartment numbers. Mr. Walsh stated that there is no reason why some of these bays cannot be removed as necessary to allow for more storage or vehicles waiting to access lifts, if needed.

20 It is also relevant to note that there are eight car parking spaces provided at the front of the new apartment building adjacent to the historic building. These are to be set aside for visitors. It was stated that several could be provided for guests of serviced apartments when they will first accessing reception. It is also relevant to note that these guests will be provided with a 24 hour, 7 day a week valet service to both store and retrieve their cars from the carpark. As we have said, we have no problem accepting that there is sufficient parking provided overall and that because there will be only 18 vehicle movements in the peak hours, coming and going, that the lifts will be able to cater for these within a reasonable time frame. However, we were both concerned about lift breakdowns and lift maintenance periods. Therefore we asked why the lifts that had been designed for one to access the upper floors and the other to access the basement floors could not run from top to bottom. We were advised that this was a matter of choice and that lift overruns would not only reduce parking numbers but also perhaps affect the apartment yield. Following our visit to 280 Spencer Street we have come to the conclusion that it would be a far better arrangement if both lifts ran from the second basement to the second car parking floor above the ground floor.

21 There are a number of issues raised by Mr. Jewell such as the size of the lifts to cater for a B99 standard vehicle. Mr. Walsh assured the Tribunal it could. He was also concerned about having warning lights on lifts and in situations where vehicles approaching the lift would be made aware of the fact that there was more than one vehicle waiting. Having the benefit of actually inspecting a lift in operation we really do not see these situations as being a major concern and if they are, they can be easily sorted out by conditions including a requirement for the submission of a carpark management plan.

22 In relation to our questions about the number of other developments that were known to have lifts rather than ramps, we were provided with a decision by the Tribunal in Studio Antonio Calabro Pty Ltd v. Melbourne City Council [2003] VCAT 1484 (21 October 2003), where the Tribunal consisting of Members P. O'Leary and J. Osborn granted a permit for an apartment building of 28 Storeys at 108 - 114 Little Lonsdale Street and 60 Exploration Lane, Melbourne. This building will contain 60 parking spaces with access to the basement being provided by two car lifts. In that decision there was virtually no mention of any grounds that related to the working of the car lifts.

23 While car lifts may not be the best option from a sustainable energy perspective, they nevertheless have their place in an inner city area where it may be economically and physically impossible to gain a reasonable yield and provide sufficient parking and access arrangements. We accept that there is a necessity for lifts in this situation to provide for an adequate yield and also accept Mr. Tweedie's submission that this proposal, based on the evidence of Mr. Walsh, will operate satisfactorily in relation to parking and access, with several additional requirements.

24 Firstly, there is a need to provide an adequate warning system that indicates when lifts are in use. There is certainly a need to provide a 24 hour valet parking service for the occupants of the serviced apartments. We also believe that the permit conditions must include the provision of an emergency power supply for the lifts and for the lifts' operation to take place by remote control. Such things as the efficient signing of the waiting parking bay areas, notated spaces and operation of plans for the lifts being available are also essential and can be part of a parking management plan as discussed with the parties. We will also place a condition requiring the lifts to be able operate between all parking floors. Whether this is needed at all times is a matter for management to determine, however, in the event of the failure of one or other of the lifts, it is essential, from our perspective, that there be the ability to access a lift at all times.

25 Secondly, there is also a need to provide for bicycle parking and this can be easily achieved at ground floor level by the conversion of a proposed parking space or two.

26 We do not believe anything turns on policy in relation to this matter, and we are satisfied that with the modifications we propose, the layout and function of the car parking areas will accord with relevant planning scheme provisions such as those at Clause 52.06-2.

26 We therefore affirm the responsible authority's decision and will issue a permit subject to the conditions of the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit and also in relation to the comments that we have made in these reasons.