1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by the replacement of the application plans with plans by B G Architecture (Drawings dated 01.07.14 Issue B).
2. The Tribunal orders that:
   • (a) Within 14 days of the date of this order, the applicant must advise the Tribunal, the responsible authority and the respondent in writing whether it wishes to prepare further amended plans, in accordance with leave granted by the Tribunal to do so in accordance with 2(b) of this order.
   • (b) Within 60 days of the date of this order the applicant must circulate to the Tribunal, the responsible authority and to the respondents, amending plans, modifying the plans referred to in order 1 above, by:
     • (i) implementing the approaches to design illustrated in Appendix A of this decision to;
       • Improve the layout and amenity of the lift lobbies and associated corridors, and to
       • Improve the layout and amenity of ; the space, which exists above ground floor level, between the 4 storey Bridge Road building and the 10 storey tower building;

to remedy the deficiencies identified in the reasons for this decision, and

(ii) a further simplification of the design of the Bridge Road façade.

(c) Within 14 days of the date upon which the amending plans where circulated in accordance with direction 2(b) above, the responsible authority and the respondents may make further written submissions to the Tribunal in respect of the amending plans. Copies of any such written submissions must be provided to the applicant.

(d) Within 7 days of the receipt of any further written submissions referred to in direction 2(c) above, the applicant may make a written submission to the Tribunal in response. Copies of any such response must be provided to the responsible authority and the respondents.

Any party may request a further hearing in respect of the amending plans within the timeframes specified above. The request should be accompanied by statement of the reasons why a further hearing is required, and copies of such request must be provided to the other parties to the Application for Review.

The Tribunal will otherwise decide the application in accordance with the submission made at the hearing and the further submissions referred to in these directions.

The proposal is to demolish all existing buildings and construct a 4 and 10 storey building for, 63 dwellings, a shop and three food and drink premises. The shop and two of the food and drink premises front onto Bridge Road at ground floor level. The third food and drink premises fronts onto Leggo Place at lower ground floor level.

Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.

Clause 43.01-1, demolition, construction and works.

The subject land is a regular lot located on the north side of Bridge Road, between Judd and Bosisto Streets in Richmond. The rear (north) boundary of the land abuts Leggo Place. The land has a frontage to Bridge Road of 20.19 metres, and a site area of approximately 958 square metres. The site is located within the Bridge Road Major Activity Centre.

The Tribunal inspected the site and locality on 5 March 2015

1. This is an application to review the failure of the responsible authority to grant a permit within the prescribed time in respect of a permit application for, the demolition of the existing buildings, the construction of a four and ten storey building for 63 dwellings, 3 food and drinks premises and a shop, at 183-189 Bridge Road, Richmond[1]. The responsible authority ultimately decided that had it not been for the application for review it would have refused permission for the following reasons:
   1. The façade design and fenestration does not respect the streetscape or character of Bridge Road, contrary to Clauses 15.01-2 (Urban design principles), 15.03-1 (Heritage conservation), 21.05-1 (Heritage), 21.05-2 (Urban design) and 22.02 (Development Guidelines for sites subject to Heritage Overlay) of the Yarra Planning Scheme.
   2. The proposal would unreasonably impact the amenity of the dwellings to the east contrary to Clauses 15.01-2 (Urban design principles), 15.02-1 (Energy and resource efficiency), 21.05-2 (Urban design) and 21.07-1 (Ecologically sustainable development) of the Yarra Planning Scheme and the Design V Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.
   3. The proposal would result in a poor environmentally sustainable and internal amenity outcome for the development contrary to Clauses 15.01-2 (Urban design principles), 15.02-1 (Energy and resource efficiency), 21.05-2 (Urban design) and 21.07-1 (Ecologically sustainable development) of the Yarra Planning Scheme and the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.
   4. The proposed 10 storey east and west boundary walls would be unreasonably dominant in the Bridge Road streetscape due to their sheer nature and absence of articulation, contrary to Clauses 15.01-2 (Urban design principles), 15.03-1 (Heritage conservation), 21 .05-1 (Heritage), 21.05-2 (Urban design) and 22.02 (Development Guidelines for sites subject to Heritage Overlay) of the Yarra Planning Scheme and the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.
   5. The proposal does not result in orderly planning, contrary to Clause 65 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.
2. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Pitt applied to amend the permit application by the substitution of amending plans as foreshadowed by notice given in accordance with the Tribunal's practice requirements. No person opposed the amendment of the permit application in this way, and the Tribunal ordered the amendment of the permit application in accordance with Mr Pitt's request.
3. The parties and the witnesses at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. The Tribunal inspected the subject land and its locality.

1. The subject land is a regular lot located on the north side of Bridge Road, between Judd and Bosisto Streets in Richmond. The rear (north) boundary of the land abuts Leggo Place. The land has a frontage to Bridge Road of 20.19 metres**,** and a site area of approximately 958 square metres. The land falls approximately 3 metres from the front to the rear.

1. The site is located within the Bridge Road Major Activity Centre which is a linear commercial strip between Hoddle Street to the west and the Yarra River to the east. The MAC supports a range of retail, entertainment, commercial and residential uses.
2. The land to the north of Bridge Road, between Hoddle and Church streets, within the commercial and mixed use zones in particular, is undergoing intensive redevelopment primarily in the form of residential apartment buildings, while preserving ground level commercial activity on Bridge Road.
3. Land to the west of the subject land has applied for permission for a 4 level redevelopment, land to the east of the subject land has been redeveloped with a 2 and 3 level building. Land to the north of the subject land across Leggo Place is a large lot currently occupied by a single storey industrial building, this land is a significant redevelopment site.
4. Northwest of the land is a large L shaped parcel, the Thomas Street car park, owned by Council. Council has recently commissioned a preliminary review of options for the future use and development of the land.
5. Built form within Bridge Road is varied in style, scale and era. Between Hoddle Street and Burnley Street, Bridge Road is covered by the Bridge Road Heritage Overlay [HO310].
6. Ms Thomas summarised the heritage attributes of the Bridge Road Heritage Precinct as follows:
   • It being a principle thoroughfare that connects Richmond to Hawthorn, retaining many Victorian-era shops.
   • As an important commercial precinct in Richmond, particularly expressive of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
   • For the architectural continuity and high integrity of upper level façades to their construction date.
   • For the rows with no front or side boundary setbacks, typically set out on a 6m wide module.
   • For the good and distinctive examples of Victorian and Edwardian era architectural styles and ornamentation as evocative of the street's premier role in Richmond.
7. Within the heritage precinct the south side of Bridge Road it is more intact with a more uniform streetscape of the Victorian and Edwardian buildings, one and two storey height, with the occasional three storey building.

1. The proposal is to demolish all existing buildings and construct a 4 and 10 storey building for, 63 dwellings, a shop and three food and drink premises. The shop and two of the food and drink premises front onto Bridge Road at ground floor level. The third food and drink premises fronts onto Leggo Place at lower ground floor level.

1. A 3 level street wall to Bridge Road has been created by the setting level 3 back from Bridge Road by 3.1 m. Above the ground floor commercial shopfronts and canopy the facade has been divided into 6 arched openings. The openings are either glazed or are open in response to the pattern of windows and balconies proposed for levels 1 and 2.
2. An unusual feature of the design is a large light court which in these reasons we have called The Gap. The Gap is the space, which exists above ground floor level, between the 4 storey Bridge Road building and the 10 storey tower building. This space is described by the cross-section illustrated in figure 5 below.
3. The 63 dwellings comprise, 12 bedsit dwellings, 5 one-bedroom dwellings and 46 2 bedroom dwellings.
4. Vehicle and bicycle parking is accessed from Leggo Place. There are 54 residential car spaces, 4 staff car spaces (one for each commercial premises) and 63 bicycle spaces. Each dwelling is provided with a 6 cubic metre storage unit.

1. This application is unusual in that, at least in respect of the dispute between council and the applicant. The dispute is solely focused upon the quality of the design. Council accepts that the scale of the 4 and 10 storey buildings proposed, is generally acceptable and that the proposal to set back the 10 storey tower 14.14 m from Bridge Road is sufficient to ensure that the tower is not unduly dominant viewed from within the streetscape.
2. It is acknowledged that planning policies strongly support more intensive developments of sites such as this. Indeed, the operation of the planning policy framework is evident in the rapid pace of change to the north of Bridge Road and the scale of buildings either constructed or under construction.
3. Council however, emphasises, that planning policy support for more intensive development is contingent on a high standard of design.
4. Ultimately, it is the issues raised by Council in respect of the interface of the proposed building to adjoining land and internal amenity which are in our mind the most important issues raised in the context of this application.

1. The subject land has an interface with Bridge Road, Leggo Place and the laneway which separates the land from the Thomson Street car park. Council, and its witnesses, is critical of the proposed interface to each of these roads.

1. Council accepts that the 3 storey street wall proposed for Bridge Road is of the preferable scale. Council's criticism relates to design detail and more particularly its appropriateness in its heritage setting. The primary focus of the criticism relates to the arched openings in the upper facade and the detail of their design resolution.
2. In this respect Council relies on the opinion of Ms Riddett. In this regard Ms Thomas paraphrased Ms Riddett's conclusion as follows:
   • The atypical proportions of the arches will be a discordant element in the streetscape. Traditional arched forms that exist in the streetscape are distinctly smaller and narrower and are typically rich in embellished surrounds.
   • The visible balconies behind the arches emphasise the thin screen life box form to the front facade in contrast with the solid masonry facades of the heritage buildings.
   • The other design elements of mesh balustrades and opaque glass screens between (within) the arch openings are without precedent in the streetscape and will be out of keeping with the aesthetic of the Bridge Road streetscape.
3. Ms Riddett argues that the proposed arch forms are inappropriate because the arch form is not the dominant design motif in the Victorian and Edwardian buildings of importance within the Bridge Road precinct, or because when they are present the most common arched forms are simple arch headed windows of a much smaller scale than the opening is proposed here.
4. We do not agree with this approach. Arches are commonplace in Victorian architecture, they appear enclosing colonnades and verandas and are used to define the shape of windows et cetera. Arches can also be an element of Edwardian architecture.
5. In this case we have an entirely modern facade proposed on the north side of Bridge Road in a somewhat mixed heritage streetscape. In our view the architect has considerable scope to employ a broadly interpretive approach. We do not think that the architect is restricted to a fairly rigid application forms and styles actually present within Bridge Road. The architect is certainly not restricted to adopting the forms and styles that are dominant within the streetscape.
6. In our view, the rhythm of openings across the facade of the building are respectful of the Victorian and Edwardian streetscape. The use of arches has at least the potential of being a successful architectural element.
7. However, it is also the design detail of the proposed arches which is controversial. The proposed building has a simple concrete facade with punched openings. The proposed arched openings have none of the decoration commonplace in Victorian or Edwardian architecture and the concrete panels which define the arches lack the visual presence of masonry openings in architecture of these periods.
8. On balance, we are of the view that the proposed design runs the risk of being interpreted as a poorly executed rendition of Victorian arches, rather than being seen as a loosely interpretive modern facade. We think this potential risk would be avoided if the proposed openings were modified so that they were simple rectangular shapes.
9. More generally, our conclusion that the architect has considerable scope to employ a modern adaptation of Victorian and Edwardian architectural themes in the facade satisfies us that the architect's use of an asymmetric mix of materials and openings within the arches (or rectangular openings) is an acceptable approach.

1. Other new buildings on the south side of Leggo Place, either constructed or permitted, have setback the upper levels of the building, within the Leggo Place streetscape, behind the levels below. In general terms, this setting back occurs either 7 or 8 levels above street level. It is Council's position that this design approach amounts to an emerging character within Leggo Place which should be part of the design of the proposed building.

showing Leggo Place and Thomas Street Car Park facades

1. In the current proposal it is only the uppermost level which is inset in any way from the levels below.
2. We are unconvinced that the Leggo Place streetscape is or will be so uniform that this characteristic must be adopted in in every building to be constructed within the street. Moreover, we are satisfied that the architecture of the proposed building, viewed from within Leggo Place, will be acceptable.

1. The facade of the proposed building as it fronts onto the laneway adjoining the Thomas Street car park is illustrated in figure 3 above. The debate about this facade is primarily about the equitable sharing of development rights, and for this reason Mr McGauran submits that windows in the west facade of the building should be setback 4.5 m from the centreline of the laneway. Mr McGauran was also of the opinion that it would be desirable if the proposed balconies, turn the corner, so that they, in part, faced west, softening the architecture of the building.
2. Ms Thomas in her submission quite fairly summarised a range of Tribunal's decisions[2] in respect of equitable development, i.e.:

Numerous decisions of the Tribunal have considered the notion of what constitutes equitable development rights. The following principles emerge from these decisions in relation to equitable development rights:

• Equitable does not mean equal.
• Development should not be too dependent on borrowing from neighbouring sites for its amenity.
• Development should not unreasonably fetter redevelopment opportunities on adjoining sites.
• In the absence of a specific proposal for an adjoining property, development should not have to satisfy a speculative or hypothetical worst case scenario on an adjoining property.
• The site size, proportion and context will influence how amenity can be equitably shared between adjoining sites.

1. The changes to windows and balconies proposed by Council and Mr McGauran on this part of the west facade of the building would significantly affect the potential layout and size of apartments, facing onto the north facade, because of the narrowness of the subject land. On balance, we do not consider that these changes can be justified either on the basis of equitable development or of architecture quality i.e.:
   • The west facade of the building has a rather narrow intersection with the east boundary of the Thomas Street car park we do not consider that the subject building as proposed would unreasonably fetter development opportunities on this land, a site which is very much larger than the subject land. Indeed, Mr McGauran's preference for balconies which return around to the west facade of the proposed building is itself likely to increase the sensitivity of this facade to any development of the Thomas Street car park.
   • The architectural approach to the west facade, facing onto the car park, and to north-western corner of the building generally, is in our view acceptable.

1. It is council's submission that the proposed building does not reasonably allow for the potential redevelopment of its neighbours, to the east and west, and that it unreasonably compromises the amenity of the three light courts which are part of the existing redevelopment of the land to the east.
2. Putting aside for the moment Mr McGauran's opinion that the two light courts proposed on the east and west sides of the development are too small, we are generally of the opinion that the light courts and The Gap between the Bridge Road and the tower elements of the proposed building provide a sufficient opportunity for the effective use of adjoining sites. We make this comment noting that, the sites are very much smaller than the subject land and are quite unlikely to be developed to a height anything like that of the proposed building.

1. In general we do not consider that the light or ventilation afforded to the three apartments adjoining land to the east is significantly compromised by the proposed development. These light courts only serve the three apartments located in the uppermost level of the building, the proposed building will compromise their access to light from the west but not from the north east and south.

1. In relation to these neighbouring light courts we observe:

• The northernmost light court provides light and ventilation to a bedroom and ensuite bathroom. The bedroom and ensuite bathroom belong to a large apartment with a generous northern outlook. We do not think that the amenity of this light court it is overly sensitive. It is the case that while at present for the occupants of this bedroom there is a relatively open view to the west over the top of their own boundary wall. The proposed development will result in a wall being built to the boundary which projects approximately 6 stories above the boundary wall of the light court. Having regard to the extent of redevelopment which might reasonably be expected in this locality and the strategic context, we consider that this change is acceptable.

• The central light court is the most sensitive, it is the only interface between its associated apartment and the exterior of the building, and it is the sole source of any natural light or ventilation. Opposite this light court the proposed building is set back approximately 1.6 m and The Gap between the Bridge Road and tower elements of the proposed building adjoins this setback south-west of the light court. Again, we are of the opinion that is acceptable having regard to reasonable expectations for development in this locality, and the consequent effects on amenity.

• The southernmost light court also provides light and ventilation to the living space of its associated apartment. However, this apartment also has two bedrooms with windows opening onto Bridge Road, so it is somewhat less sensitive than the central apartment. In this case, the proposed development will result in a wall being built to the boundary which projects approximately 1.5 stories above the boundary wall of the light court. Again, the amenity of the outlook from this light court is compromised, but not to a degree that is unacceptable in its urban context.

1. For other reasons, we have suggested changes to the design, should the permit applicant decide to submit amended plans, that could satisfy Council's and Mr McGauran's reservations These suggestions, that have been made to improved the internal amenity of the proposed development, will most likely improve the outcome for adjacent sites also.

1. It is the debate about various aspects of on-site amenity, which has been decisive in our current consideration of the proposed design.

1. The Gap is the space, which exists above ground floor level, between the 4 storey Bridge Road building and the 10 storey tower building. This space is described by the cross-section illustrated in figure 5 below. There are nine south facing apartments within the tower building whose primary orientation is to The Gap. The eight apartments within the Bridge Road building are accessed from the tower building from open walkways connected to the corridor system of the tower across The Gap.
2. Figure 6 sets out an extract of the level one plan illustrating the relationship of the apartments, in particular the south facing apartments within the tower building, to The Gap. The blue shading on figure 6 approximately illustrates the area, open to the sky, available to the south facing apartments 105, 106 and 107.
3. Dr Greenup advised the Tribunal that there was one apartment with a principal living room which did not satisfy his daylighting criteria. It was apartment 206. At first glance this is a counter intuitive outcome, one would expect that if apartment 206 has unsatisfactory daylighting then apartment 106 would be worse. This is not the case however, and the explanation relates to the impact of the overhanging balcony on the measured daylighting in apartment 206. However, this immediately raises a concern about the level of daylighting available away from the window onto the living space of apartment 107. This living space is very deep.
4. The amenity of all the 9 apartments, principally oriented to The Gap, are to a degree compromised by their orientation and outlook. In our view:
   1. The daylighting to apartments 106 and 206 is inadequate.
   2. The open access to sky from the terraces of apartments 106 and 107, and to a lesser degree apartment 105, is unacceptably affected by the enclosing effect of balconies and walkways above.
   3. The relationship between the proposed terraces and balconies within The Gap to the open walkways and bedroom windows within The Gap is problematic

In our view these design inadequacies must be remedied if there is to be an acceptable development proposed. It is our opinion that, as a minimum, there would need to be a substantial increase in the width of the gap to address the amenity deficiencies we have identified above.

Figure 5 - Cross section through The Gap (north to the right)

Figure 6 - Level 1 Floor plan adjacent to The Gap (north to the right)

1. The corridors on each level of an apartment building are very important to the sense of address enjoyed by each apartment within the building. These corridor spaces will influence each resident's, and their visitors', perception of the external environment of the individual apartment.
2. Mr McGauran has for a long time been an advocate for a high standard of design for corridors within apartment buildings. The design criteria Mr McGauran advocates are:
   • Corridors should have a minimum width of 1.5 m widening to 1.8 m at the entrances to apartments.
   • Lift lobby should have a minimum width of 2.1 m.
   • Corridors should have direct access to natural light and ventilation.

Apartment buildings which achieve these criteria will undoubtedly be well on the way to achieving a very high standard of design in respect of their internal corridors. A lesser standard may be acceptable, an objective assessment which must be made in each case.

1. Our observations in relation to the corridors propose in this case are:
   • With the possible exception of ground floor level, the lift lobby on each level is inadequate. The lift lobbies are narrow cul-de-sacs off the main corridor system and on levels 1 to 7 share this limited space with an entry to an individual apartment[3].
   • Other than for the walkways within the gap, the hallway system generally has no access to natural light or ventilation.
   • The layout of the corridors on each level tend to lack a simple legibility:

1. There are more, changes in direction, within the corridor system than is really desirable. 2. An unduly long stretch of corridor is less than 1.5 m wide.

1. The layout of some corridors is compromised by cupboards and service ducts.
2. It is our opinion that the design of the corridors is another issue in respect of which there would need to be improvements to the design before there is a satisfactory development proposal. In this context it would be highly desirable, for any redesigned corridor system to include direct access to natural light and ventilation.

1. There is a single light court on each of the east and west faces of the proposed tower building. The dimensions of these light courts are 2.4 m wide by 3 m deep. At each level, a light court is contained within a single, two-bedroom apartment. Each of these bedrooms has a single window facing onto the light courts. There are no living spaces, other than bedrooms, solely reliant on these light courts for light and ventilation.
2. Council and Mr McGauran, regard the dimensions of these light courts as being inadequate, affording an unacceptable level amenity to the apartments with bedrooms reliant on the light courts. It is submitted that the proposed light courts do not provide for adequate visual or acoustic privacy between bedrooms from one level to the next. Mr McGauran submits that the dimensions of the light courts should be increased to 6 m wide by 3 m deep.
3. We do not agree that these light courts provide significantly inadequate amenity, i.e.:
   • At each level the only habitable rooms solely reliant on the light courts are bedrooms within a single apartment.
   • It is not fundamentally unreasonable that bedrooms facing onto these light courts should have to rely on blinds for privacy when a significant degree of privacy is required. Particularly when sharply oblique views from apartments above and below constitute the privacy issue between apartments.
   • In environments such as this, noise related amenity issues can be a significant issue even at separation distances significantly greater than 2.4 m. Noise amenity issues in these contexts is fundamentally dependent upon neighbourly behaviour.

1. There are twelve, single bedroom, apartments with internal bedrooms which borrow light and ventilation via the principal living space. The guidelines for Improved Indoor Environmental Quality set out within the document, Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process[4] has a criteria that no more than 10% of apartments within a development should have internal bedrooms.
2. In this proposal this percentage is 19%. Council submits that this is an inappropriate outcome.
3. We do not accept this submission because all of the relevant bedsit apartments have:
   • a good northern orientation;
   • floor areas in the range 46 m² to 48 m² plus a 9 m² balcony;
   • a well-proportioned living spaces which are not unreasonably deep, and
   • only one bedroom[5].
4. In relation to the relevant criteria generally, it must be surmised that the purpose of the criteria is improved indoor environmental quality. In this context the difficulty with the criterion is that, in any particular development, when an apartment with an internal bedroom is regarded as having acceptable amenity, is difficult to see how indoor environmental quality is being improved, on a dwelling by dwelling basis, by a percentage limitation of the type contained in the criteria. The indoor environmental quality issue is more properly assessed by relevant design related purposes and requirements.
5. The issue of the proportion of apartments with an internal bedroom vis-a-vis other dwelling types is more properly a socio economic consideration. And an important consideration should be, who is being excluded from the possibility of living in a potentially highly sought after location, by such a criteria.
6. In our assessment of these internal amenity issues, we note that this is a reasonably large and deep site where its physical characteristics would have presented many options to its designer. These shortcomings are easily rectified and perhaps could have been avoided in the first instance. If not for the agreement by the parties that the scale of the building is acceptable, the option to submit amended plans would not have been forthcoming so we are hopeful that these plans, if submitted, will illustrate some more attention to the fundamentals of internal amenity.
7. In Appendix A below, we illustrate in diagrammatic form where the plans could be amended to satisfy the concerns of Council and the Tribunal. They are to be taken as prompts only and not literally, as we are cognisant that the building design needs to be considered as a whole.

1. Council takes no issue with current proposal in respect of car parking provision or traffic impacts. Council takes this view notwithstanding the fact that, under the provisions of clause 52.06, there is a shortfall of 37 car spaces provided on site.
2. Ms Kearley on the other hand strongly submits that to continue to allow new high-density developments within the Commercial 1 Zone and Mixed-Use Zone, to the north of Bridge Road, can only exacerbate the car parking and traffic difficulties experienced by residents on a day-to-day basis.
3. Ms Kearley is correct in her observation that there is the high level of demand for on street car parking and the existence of congested traffic conditions at particular times of day, in this area of Richmond. There are two reasons why this factor is not a compelling consideration in debates about car parking and traffic impacts in locations such as this.
4. The first reason is the strategic importance attached to a more intensive development in locality such as this. Moreover, strategies directed towards more intensive development in particular localities are even more important when opportunities for new development elsewhere within a locality, in this case Richmond, are strictly limited. These policies tend to outweigh questions related to car parking demand and traffic impacts.
5. The second reason, relates to the way in which behaviour is modified by the presence of high car parking demand and traffic congestion. In a context where on street car parking and local traffic conditions approaches saturation, employees, customers, residents and visitors are obliged to adopt different strategies when coming to or moving about the locality. The actual impact of new development on demand and congestion becomes progressively more limited. An example of this tendency, is the growth in households who do not own a car.
6. In a practical sense it is the high level of accessibility of the strategic places have to a broad range of facilities, employment and public transport which facilitate this changing behaviour.
7. Both these considerations are applicable to the current proposal. and for this reason we accept council's submission is on these issues.
8. In relation bicycle parking, the dispute that existed between Council and the applicant on this issue has been resolved by a proposal to modify the grade of the vehicle access ramp to make access to the bicycle parking area easier.

1. It follows from the above reasons that there are elements of the internal amenity which will be available to future residents, as consequence of the current design, which we believe are unsatisfactory. In particular the important deficiencies relate to:
   1. The layout and design characteristics of the lift lobbies and associated corridors which would compromise the sense of address afforded to apartments within the building and the amenity of future residents and their visitors.
   2. The layout and design characteristics of The Gap which results in, apartments with poor daylighting, balconies and terraces with insufficient open access to the sky, and compromised separation between balconies, terraces, walkways and windows.

Moreover, for the reasons set out above we believe that it would be desirable for there to be a further simplification of the design of the Bridge Road façade, although this is not as important as the deficiencies identified in respect of internal amenity.

1. It is our conclusion that these design inadequacies are sufficient to prevent the grant of a permit for the current design. We also consider that the design solutions which would be necessary to resolve the identified deficiencies are not readily capable of sufficiently detailed specification for reliance on a condition requiring the submission of amending plants. For this reason, we have decided to give the applicant the opportunity of accepting an invitation to submit further amending plans to the Tribunal for our further consideration.
2. We are conscious of the fact that there may be many design solutions to result in a satisfactory outcome for development on the subject land. The order we intend to make foreshadows a particular approach to a narrower range of design solutions. If the applicant decides that they would like to adopt a quite different approach to a new design, then the correct response to our order would be to reject our invitation to submit amending plans. and instead engage in a new permit application process.
3. The Council and the respondent will also be given an opportunity to make a further submission to the Tribunal in respect of any amending plans submitted. The Tribunal will then consider the amending plans, and any further submissions received, to form an opinion as to whether or not the amending plans adequately address the deficiencies we have outlined in these reasons.
4. If it is our opinion that the plans do adequately address the deficiencies we have identified, we would direct the grant of a permit, otherwise no permit will be granted.

[1] Including the partial reduction of car parking requirements and the waiver of the loading bay requirements.

[2] Cremorne Corporation PL v Yarra CC [2008] VCAT 1202. Goal Number 4 PL v Bayside CC [2011] VCAT 2376. Mission Express PL v Mooney Valley CC [2011] VCAT 1443. Maison The Development PL v Moreland CC [2011] VCAT 219.

[3] We also have a reservation in respect of that design decision to rely on a single lift to service up to 63 dwellings in in a 10 story building.

[5] Therefore, conventionally occupied, such an apartment is unlikely to have multiple residents highly dependent on separate spaces within a dwelling. For example, a teenage child who has to spend half, his or her, life in their bedroom.