In those circumstances, the permit applicant accepts that ResCode represents a benchmark of reasonableness, which may legitimately be varied having regard to site specific circumstances.

1. Ms Brennan advised that the Applicant is prepared to agree with the suggested changes identified by both the Council and Mr D'Amico. The question is whether these changes either separately or in combination will address the visual bulk impact.
2. Visual bulk is a town planning term used to describe the impression that a building may have on its surrounds. Some other divisions of the Tribunal have made decisions that compliance with standard B17 sufficiently addresses this visual bulk impact, and in some instances it may. However, standard B17 is a generic standard and may not address visual impacts in every case because of the particular circumstances of the site and its surrounds and/or because of the design detail of the particular proposal under consideration.
3. I am not persuaded a 4.1 metre high boundary wall is an acceptable or reasonable design response in this case. I agree with the Applicant that this height is a product of the proposal's desire to incorporate car stackers on the site. I asked Mr Dickins and Mr MacMillan about how best to balance the provision of more car parking on the land against the impact on the amenity of Mr Dickins' property. Their answers suggest that they want the design to achieve both - an acceptable interface to Mr Dickins' property and a sufficient level of car parking. I agree the design should endeavour to achieve both. Given that the car stackers proposed provide greater car parking than what is actually required in the planning scheme, I am not persuaded it is necessary or desirable to put such a high wall on the boundary with Mr Dickins' property.
4. This brings me to the upper levels of the building. Mr D'Amico's suggested changes will result in the upper two levels sitting within the clause 55 building envelope for wall heights and setbacks. However, the addition will remain visible from Mr Dickins' property and the question is whether that visibility creates an unreasonable visual bulk. Whilst there are some buildings built to the rear laneway, they are generally no more than two storeys. Whilst there are some three to four storey buildings toward the south end of the laneway, they generally are set back from the side and rear boundaries, even if the setback area contains paved car parking areas. What is proposed here is reasonably tall and sited on or close to all side and rear boundaries. As such, I find it does create an unacceptable visual bulk impact upon the neighbourhood and the amenity of 24 Docker Street.
5. It is incumbent upon a development site to provide appropriate setbacks, landscaping and articulation in terms of building style, height and size to ensure that it is respectful of the neighbourhood character and the amenity of adjoining properties, particularly their secluded private open space areas. Whilst the heights and setbacks recommended by Mr D'Amico are an improvement, I am not persuaded they are sufficient. The articulation of the north elevation is poor as it is limited to primarily "lambs brain" glass screens. Any landscaping that could be planted in a ground level set back would need to achieve a mature height of at least 6-7 metres in order to achieve a filtering effect of the upper levels from 24 Docker Street.
6. Overall, I find I am unable to impose permit conditions to sufficiently ameliorate the visual bulk impact upon 24 Docker Street. A rethink of the design of any rear addition is required. Perhaps a lesser amount of car parking should be provided so that the built form impact associated with car stackers can be reduced and perhaps a ground floor setback introduced that can incorporate some landscaping. Perhaps a lesser amount of new apartments should be provided with further modifications to the heights, setbacks and articulation of the north elevation. However, I make no findings on what a suitable design would be. Ultimately, it is up to the Applicant and their architect/designer to consider what design response is necessary to respect the character and amenity of this neighbourhood.

1. The potential impact of this proposal upon the availability of car parking along Docker Street was the common concern expressed by the residents in their statements of grounds. This was elaborated upon by all those residents who spoke at the hearing. However, this is not a matter that I can give much weight or consideration to because the planning controls relating to car parking have changed since the planning application was lodged with the Council[8].
2. The Council and the Applicant both say no planning permission is required in this case to reduce the car parking for the following reasons:
   • The apartments in the existing building do not require planning permission in regard to car parking so long as the existing number of car spaces are retained on the site;
   • The proposed three new apartments contain two bedrooms each and are required to have one car space each;
   • The proposal provides car parking on the site for each of the three new apartments (3 car spaces) and a further 7 car spaces for the existing apartments;
   • The new apartments comply with the required car parking requirement in the planning scheme;
   • The Applicant says there are 5 existing car spaces and Mr Dickins suggested on day 2 of the hearing that there are 6 existing car spaces, which was accepted by Mr Fairlie. These existing car spaces are retained and one additional car space is provided for the existing apartments (based on 6 existing car spaces and this proposal for 7 additional car spaces); and
   • There is no visitor car parking requirement for three new apartments.
3. I agree with the Council and the Applicant that there is no planning permission required for car parking for the residential apartments.
4. In regard to the visitor car parking, Ms Brennan said orally at the start of the hearing that there "might be some debate" as to whether the clause 52.06 requirement applies to all of the apartments or just the new apartments. Mr Fairlie expressed the opinion that the requirement only applies to the new apartments and hence no visitor car parking requirement is triggered (because the requirement is for one visitor car space for every five dwellings, not three dwellings). As such, the Applicant sought leave to amend its application to remove permission being sought to reduce the car parking requirement. I reserved my finding on this.
5. I am cognisant that the planning scheme visitor car parking calculations say the 9 existing apartments require one visitor car space, but a new total of 12 apartments would require two visitor car spaces. For this application, this would mean that one visitor car space is required and as no such car space is proposed to be provided on the land, a reduction of one visitor car space may be required. However, the planning scheme also says the car parking requirement only applies to the increase in the apartments provided the existing number of car spaces is not reduced.
6. Toward the end of the hearing, after Mr Fairlie gave his evidence, I asked the Applicant and Council representatives whether this exemption for existing apartments previously existed in clause 55, but neither knew. Having reviewed an earlier version of clause 55 that included the car parking requirements, it appears there was no exemption given for existing apartments.
7. Nevertheless, it is clear that the transfer of the residential car parking requirements from clause 55 into clause 52.06 is, in part, to bring a consistent approach to the consideration of car parking implications. Clause 52.06 has previously included exemptions for existing circumstances, and this appears to now apply to residential developments previously considered under clause 55. So, in light of this, whilst I agree with Ms Brennan there may be some debate about whether visitor car parking relates to the whole of the development or only the new component, I have decided to give effect to the general intent of clause 52.06 to give recognition to existing circumstances. In this case, those existing circumstances are the fact that the 9 existing apartments have 5-6 on-site car spaces. This means no planning permission is required for visitor parking as only three new apartments are proposed. Accordingly, I have granted leave for the application to be amended.
8. If my interpretation of clause 52.06 is wrong, I wish to also make a finding on whether a requirement for one visitor car space should be reduced to zero. Visitor car parking is very heavily controlled in this area because of the extent of restricted car parking and resident permit parking. Hence, I am satisfied that reducing the visitor car parking requirement on this site will have a minimal impact upon the car parking supply due to the extensive restrictions that already exist, particularly in Docker Street. If planning permission were required for this reduction, I would have given approval for this reduction.

1. For the above reasons, I have decided to affirm the Council's decision and order that no permit be issued.

[1] The Applicant referred to a number of decisions including Karmar Investments v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1472; Southey Living Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2011] VCAT 1589; and Palladian Investments & Anor v Port Phillip CC [2011] VCAT 1680.

[3] As explained in Clause 10.04 of the State Planning Policy Framework

[4] Such as a Design and Development Overlay that may specify particular building heights and/or setbacks

[5] including incremental, limited and minimal growth areas

[6] As suggested in the standards of clause 55

[7] For example, Councils can change parking restrictions and therefore the availability of on-street parking, which can in turn impact on enjoyment and pleasantness

[8] When the application was considered by the Council, the car parking provision was a matter to be considered under clause 55, however residential car parking requirements are now all contained in clause 52.06 and planning permission is only required if a proposal is seeking to reduce the specified car parking requirement, including reducing it to zero.