1. The Applicant was offered the opportunity to lodge amended plans. Council was invited to respond and to prepare amended draft conditions in response to the amended plans. Both parties responded, the Applicant with amended plans to which Council gave further consideration.
2. The amended plans compromise plans TP000(B), TP102(A), TP103(A), TP105(B), TP106(B), TP107(B), TP108(B), TP109(B), TP110(B), TP111(B) and TP112(B). In summary, they proposed the following changes:
   • on levels 3 and 4, an increase in the setback of the glazing from the rear of the brick parapet from 1500 to 1950mm;
   • on levels 5 and 6, a setback to the mesh façade of 800mm from the back of the brick parapet, and that of the glazing behind it to 1500mm; and
   • a reduction in the height of the mesh screen by 1600mm and a reconfiguration of the mezzanine/plant level such that it now projects above the top of the mesh façade, set back 3785mm from the rear of the north parapet and between 3785 and 4300mm from the rear of the west parapet. Materials comprise glazing to the mezzanine office area and metal cladding to the stair/plant area.
3. This final hearing heard submissions about the merits of the revised proposal. The responsible authority submitted that although the amended plans were an improvement on those originally presented, the following issues remained unresolved:
   • the proposed setbacks are insufficient to be clearly perceived from Flinders Lane and thus the primacy of the host building and separation between new and old is not affirmed. The setback to Flinders Lane should be increased from 800mm to 1.2 metres;
   • the proportional relationship between the host building and the proposed additions above is not clear;
   • whilst not altering the vertical dimension of the mesh screen, it should be raised by 850mm. This would reinforce the separation between the bottom of the screen and the top of the parapet and compensate for the apparent reduction resulting from the increased setback; and
   • the longitudinal dimension of the screen facing Russell Street should be reduced by increasing the setback from the south boundary to 1200mm.
4. The responsible authority argued that we should take a cautious approach, in compliance with the Burra Charter. It is up to the architect to demonstrate that the proposal is a "considered, thoughtful and careful response" to its built form heritage context. Mr Briggs said that when viewed from Flinders Lane, the steep angle of view makes it difficult to distinguish old from new. A cautious approach would suggest that a deeper setback is required to create a perception of separation between the old and the new.
5. On the Russell Street elevation, Mr Briggs accepted that the reduced height of the mesh façade is a notable improvement as it increases the likelihood that the new box would be perceived as secondary to the existing building.
6. Mr McBride supported the proposed changes, reiterating his opinion that[2]:
   • I would consider it essential that the Architects continue through all the continuing stages of the project in the conventional manner to ensure the quality of result required by this proposal.
   • A further final mock-up should also be considered as a mechanism by which the relevant authority could ensure the quality of the detailing in the project. This is accepted practice in significant government projects and would not be an unreasonable proposition on such a prominent and significant heritage site. The City of Melbourne Urban Design department would have the expertise to assess this mock-up.
7. We have carefully considered Mr McBride's recommended changes and we respond to these below. With regard to a further mock up, we consider that this proposal has been the subject of extensive expert evidence, submissions, cross examination and site inspections. We are satisfied that it is acceptable. We think that we have settled most of the key design issues. We are now dealing with very fine detail. We appreciate that it is important to get the fine detail right, but we are not persuaded that a further mock up is necessary to achieve this. We think that the experts available to both the Council and the Applicant are sufficiently skilled to utilise the usual plans, schematics and material boards that can be produced to resolve the remaining fine grain considerations that are important but not determinative in this case.
8. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted some further plans (Revision D) which sought to respond to Council's concerns by:
   • increasing the height of the mesh screen to match the dimension between the cornice and entablature on the host building and a reconfiguration of level 6 and the roof; and
   • increasing the gap between the top of the parapet and the screen by 210mm to 2410mm.
9. Mr McBride suggested at the hearing that the amended plans should be further modified by increasing the height of the mesh screen by 1100mm to mask the Revision 'D' roof form. This was acceptable to the Applicant.
10. The matters in dispute are of fine detail. They are probably imperceptible to the lay observer walking along the two adjoining streets. We consider, however, that in this case the fine detail is important, as the building is significant in the streetscape and as a heritage place. None of the participants in this review would be satisfied with an outcome whereby the original fabric was diminished by additions that could and should have been better.
11. In light of the submissions, we think the key issues before us are whether the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the matters outlined in the interim decision; namely:
    • Is the setback of the mesh screen from the parapet such that it can be clearly perceived from both streets?
    • Is there a clear horizontal separation between new and old?
    • Has a proportional relationship between the two volumes been maintained?
12. We must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered the submissions, we have decided to set aside the decision of the responsible authority and grant a permit subject to conditions. Our reasons follow.

1. Mr Briggs says that an 800mm setback from the back of the parapet would be acceptable when viewed from Russell Street, but is adamant that it should be 1200mm along Flinders Lane. He thought a slightly larger separation along Flinders Lane is necessary to enable the separation to be read, given the narrowness of the street and the generally oblique views of the review site. This is strongly opposed by the applicant who says that, at a minimum, the proposed 800mm setback would create a clear shadow line would be apparent between the new and the old, and this would be appropriate in Flinders Lane.
2. We observe there are only limited views of the Flinders Lane façade. The view of the building from the east along Flinders Lane is largely obscured by the outline of the adjoining building at No.141-143 Flinders Lane. From the west along Flinders Lane the view of the building is restricted, due to the street trees.
3. The Russell Street façade is more than twice the length of Flinders Lane and it is the dominant façade. Passersby are more likely to observe the two elevations together particularly when travelling east along Flinders Lane or north or south along Russell Street. We consider that the critical viewpoints are along Russell Street as these enable the building as a whole to be appreciated. We are more concerned to get the views along Russell Street correct. We think that the views along Flinders Lane are less visible or important.
4. We think that it is important that the setbacks to both facades are symmetrical to reinforce a consistent and integrated separation of the old from the new. We are satisfied that an 800mm setback to both facades is sufficient to achieve a perceived separation. It may not be the optimum one, but we find it acceptable as it will make the separation clear in the primary view from Russell Street and at the street corner. We also think that distinct differences in the materiality of the old and the new will provide strong differentiation that will distinguish the screen from the host building.

Is there a clear horizontal separation between old and new?

1. Both Mr Briggs and the Applicant (on the further plans) proposed to increase the distance between the top of the parapet and the bottom of the mesh screen, albeit by different amounts. We agree that increasing this aperture will more clearly define the new volume.
2. With regard to a specific dimension, we have decided to take a middle course. We think that the mesh screen should overhang the level 5 slab soffit by 450mm which reflects the distance of the screen from the glazed wall to the office behind it. By our reckoning (using drawing TP111.1), this will result in a gap of 2860mm, between the top of the parapet and the bottom of the screen. We consider that this separation would visually ensure that a gap between the old and new is readily perceived in nearby views from the streets below and in longer distance views.

Has a proportional relationship between the two volumes been maintained?

1. There was much discussion about proportion, both what was proportional to what and how things could be improved. We find the proportions shown on the amended plans (Revision B) acceptable, particularly given an additional 600mm-odd vertical separation we will require as discussed above. One result of 'lifting' the mesh screen is that it will further mask the glazed wall to the level 6 mezzanine and metal clad wall to the plant area, thereby diminishing their visual presence. We think that the glazing projection above the mesh covered box that is 1600mm less in vertical dimension than the original is a good response and should be retained, rather than the further iteration presented at the hearing. As an aside, we consider it important that the glazing type to this section matches that to levels 4 and 5, and that the metal cladding has a similar tone, and we support Council's draft permit conditions to achieve that outcome.
2. We are less concerned about the precise proportional relationship between old and new, as the reduction in height of the mesh box clearly diminishes its impact whilst still relating it to the rectangular "above plinth" portion of the host.
3. We acknowledge Mr Briggs' suggestion that setting back the mesh screen to the southern boundary would further enhance the box-like quality of the addition. However, we observe that the building to the immediate south has various setbacks to the upper levels starting around the base of the screen. We think that the increased setback from the facades will be sufficient to increase the perception that the new box is clearly separated from the host building below and to retain the integrity of the host building. It will read as a separate element from all vantage points in Russell Street and an additional setback from the south boundary is not required.

1. Council raised an additional matter in its response to the amended plans - the treatment of the edge of the existing level 2 slab which, as a result of previous renovation, can be seen cutting across the giant arched windows of the host.
2. Mr Briggs suggested either raising the entire slab or cutting it back where it crosses the window. The applicant offered as an alternative, to undertake works to diminish its impact by undertaking minor works and/or applying a finish to make it less apparent from the street. We consider there are multiple ways within the scope of minor works and possible finishes to achieve an acceptable outcome. We consider this general approach to be reasonable and major works to lift a whole floor to be unnecessary. We will make this approach a condition of permit, with the final works and finishes to be to the satisfaction of Council.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is our conclusion that the amended plans address the issues raised in the interim decision. Subject to some further revisions as discussed in our reasons and expressed in the conditions we are satisfied that the development would be acceptable.
2. It follows from the above reasons that it is our conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit be granted.

• Carry out development including part demolition, alterations and rooftop addition in the Capital City Zone and in a Heritage Overlay

1. Prior to the commencement of the development on the land, two copies of plans, drawn to scale must be submitted to the Responsible Authority generally in accordance with the plans TP 102(A), TP103(A), TP104(B) -TP112(B) inclusive, all dated 29 November 2013, prepared by Robert Simeoni P/L but amended to show:

1. The overall height of the building to not exceed RL 48.620; 2. the mesh screen setback at least 800mm from the rear face of the existing parapet facing Flinders Lane and Russell Street;

1. the height of the mesh screen to be 10 metres, overhanging the fifth level soffit by 450mm and finishing not closer than 2800mm above the top of the existing parapet;

1. the metal finish to the plant area to have a tone which gives it a similar appearance to the adjacent glazing; 2. the edges of the level three floor slab to be treated (without major structural works or removal of large sections of flooring) to have minimal visibility from the adjoining streets to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; 3. any modification required for waste collection and storage in accordance with the Waste Management Plan required by condition 5; 4. south facing windows at level 6 which are within 9 metres of habitable room windows at 30 Russell Street treated so as to limit views into those windows; 5. detailed documentation of conservation works, alterations and insertions to the external building fabric; 6. demolition plans clearly showing the extent of demolition and those parts of the building to be retained; 7. updated version of façade detail drawing TP 401, dated August 2012; and 8. the upstand behind the mesh above roof level not to cause inconsistency in the appearance of the mesh.

These amended plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall be the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The owner of the subject land must construct a drainage system incorporating water sensitive urban design within the development and make provision to connect this system to the City of Melbourne's stormwater drainage system in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority - Manager Engineering Services.
2. The performance outcomes specified in the Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Statement prepared in response to condition 4 for the development must be implemented prior to occupancy at no cost to the City of Melbourne and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Any change during detailed design, which affects the approach of the endorsed ESD Statement, must be addressed by an accredited professional. The revised statement must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of construction.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Statement shall be prepared by a suitably qualified professional and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The ESD Statement must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by GIW Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd dated 27 July 2012, and must demonstrate that the building has the preliminary design potential to achieve the following:
   1. compliance with the energy efficiency requirements of the Sustainable Design Scorecard or equivalent; and
   2. 3 points for Wat-1 credit under a current version of the Green Building Council of Australia's Green Star - Office rating tool or equivalent.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Melbourne -Engineering Services. The WMP should detail waste storage and collection arrangements and be prepared with reference to the City of Melbourne Guidelines for Preparing a Waste Management Plan. Waste storage and collection arrangements must not be altered without prior consent of the City of Melbourne - Engineering Services.
3. Prior to commencement of development a Tree Protection Plan is to be developed in accordance with AS-4970-2009 and must be reviewed and approved by the City of Melbourne's arborist prior to the commencement of development. The removal of any trees is not supported. During all phases of work City of Melbourne trees must be protected in accordance with the Australian Standard for Protecting Trees on Development Sites (AS-4970-2009) and the City of Melbourne's Tree Protection Fact Sheet. A bond for the protection of any street trees potentially impacted by the development will be held by the City of Melbourne. The bond will be equal to the replacement value for a mature tree species and will be held for the duration of the development.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed construction and demolition management plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority - Construction Management Group. This construction management plan must be prepared in accordance with the City of Melbourne plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority Construction Management Plan Guidelines and is to consider the following:

1. public safety, amenity and site security; 2. operating hours, noise and vibration controls;

1. stormwater and sediment control; 2. waste and materials reuse; and 3. traffic management.
2. Glazing materials used on all external walls must be of a type that does not reflect more than 15% of visible light, when measured at an angle of 90 degrees to the glass surface, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development a schedule and samples of all external materials, colours and finishes including colour rendered and notated elevations must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. This must include a matt finish to the mesh.
4. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit; or
   2. the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months afterwards. The Responsible Authority may extend the time for completion of the development if a request is made in writing within 12 months after the permit expires and the development started lawfully before the permit expired.

1. Except with the consent of the Responsible Authority, Robert Simeoni P/L Architect must be retained to complete and provide architectural oversight during construction of the detailed design as shown in the endorsed plans and endorsed schedule of materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition:
   1. a report prepared by a suitably qualified Structural Engineer, or equivalent, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority, demonstrating the means by which the retained portions of building will be supported during demolition and construction works to ensure their retention, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The recommendations contained within this report must be implemented at no cost to City of Melbourne and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and
   2. a further report addressing the detailed design of the mesh façade must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must provide details to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority as to the nature of the materials proposed, any means by which it will be treated, how it will be affixed to the building including details of framing (if any), how the mesh façade will be joined together, and the nature, extent and effect of any lighting.