1 The Permit Applicant is to advise the Registrar and the other parties to this Application within 14 days of the date of this order whether:

(a)

it wishes to pursue the grant of a permit for serviced apartments only; and if so,

(b)

the length of time required to prepare amended plans incorporating the changes to the plans set out in Paragraph 75 of the reasons.

Mr John Cicero, solicitor of Best Hooper. He called the following witnesses to give evidence:

• Mr Stuart McGurn, town planner

• Mr Andrew Hutson, architectural designer

• Mr Jim Higgs, traffic engineer

• Mr Alan Wyatt, landscape architect

Mr Graeme Peake of counsel, instructed by Maddocks lawyers. He was assisted by Brian Goyen, co-ordinator strategic planning. Mr Peake called the following witness:

1 This is an application brought by Hallmarc Developments to review a decision by Monash City Council ("the Council") to refuse a permit for the construction of 48 dwellings and/or serviced apartments at 2 Brandon Park Drive, Wheelers Hill ("the review site"). The proposal would be contained in a 3-storey building arranged around a central common courtyard space above a basement carpark.

2 In November 2004, we upheld Council's refusal of a previous application also for 48 dwellings and/or serviced apartments but in 3 separate 3-storey buildings arranged around an at-grade carpark (Adamco Developments v Monash CC [2004] VCAT 2359). Unlike the earlier proposal, the present proposal is confined to the southern portion of the site so that it no longer has a direct interface with Ferntree Gully Road.

3 Council required notice of this application to be given to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and surrounding properties and 7 objections were received.

4 The grounds of refusal are:

1. The proposed development is out of character with the existing residential development in the area, in particular with regard to excessive mass, bulk and scale.

2. The architectural style of the buildings is "box-like" in character with regard to its lack of articulation with a result that the built form is unsympathetic to the character of the adjacent residential area.

3. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site, in particular insufficient setbacks to Brandon Park Drive and Collegium Avenue and the ability to landscape the site to reduce the visual impact of the proposed buildings.

4. Lack of adequate private and communal open space areas for use of future residents.

5. The proposed development does not provide an appropriate level of internal and on site amenity for future residents.

6. The proposed development does not provide for an appropriate number of on site car parking to serve the apartments.

5 During the hearing Mr Peake advised that he would not pursue the Council's last ground of refusal.

6 Mr Cicero advised that the shadow diagrams forming part of the application plans contain a minor error in that they were prepared on the basis of the site being oriented true north when in fact the site is oriented 6 degrees east of true north. Revised plans were tabled which corrected this error.

7 It was common ground that the existing conditions insofar as the site and surrounds are concerned have not changed in any substantial way since the earlier appeal. As such, we rely on the description of the site and surrounds as set out at paragraphs 7 to 16 of our 2004 decision; save that we acknowledge that the part of the site affected by this proposal has an area of approximately 3017sq.m. and excludes the area to the east of the multi-storey office building on the corner of Ferntree Gully Road and Brandon Park Drive.

8 We understand however, that a separate permit application for an office development has been lodged with the Council in relation to the northern portion of the site. That building would have a 4-storey form adjacent to Ferntree-Gully Road reducing in height to 2-storeys at its southern end at its interface with the proposed building in the present case. At the time of the hearing, a decision on that application had not been made with Mr Peake advising that Council had requested further information from the applicant. In any event, we do not understand there to be any significant link between that proposal and what is before us and they can be considered independently.

9 The proposal involves the development of the southern portion of the site for 48 dwellings in a 3-storey building situated above a basement carpark. Like the previous application, it is proposed that some or all of the dwellings may be used as serviced apartments. In the event that some or all of the dwellings are used for serviced apartments we understand that one dwelling may be converted to a reception area at ground level.

10 In broad terms, the building generally follows the site's perimeter, designed around a central rectangular courtyard. The two upper levels of the building follow the footprint of the ground level.

11 The building has setbacks that are typically 6m from Brandon Park Drive and 5m to Collegium Avenue increasing to 6m at its eastern and western ends.

12 Setbacks from the northern boundary are proposed at 2.5m adjacent to the existing office building and 1.5m from the notional northern boundary in common with that part of the site upon which the 4 storey office building is proposed.

13 On its eastern side, adjacent to the pre-school site, building setbacks range from 5.475m at the northern end to 7.5m further south. The basement ramp which has a width of 5m is sited within the larger setback area.

14 We understand that access to the north and east setback areas from the apartments is not proposed - these areas will be included as common property.

15 Building heights generally range from approximately 9.5m to 10.5m.

16 The building comprises 6 one-bedroom dwellings; 39 two-bedroom dwellings and 3 three-bedroom dwellings. Of the 16 ground level dwellings, 12 have their primary areas of private open space oriented to face the central courtyard. The corresponding dwellings on the levels above contain balconies that are similarly configured.

17 Landscaping is proposed around the site's perimeter and within the central courtyard. Two sets of stairs that open out to the courtyard provide access to the basement carpark. Internal lobby areas and additional stairs allow access to pairs of dwellings through each level of the building.

18 The basement contains 58 parking spaces together with storage areas, bicycle racks and service areas.

19 Proposed external finishes comprise a combination of face brick and render.

20 Another element of this proposal involves the alteration of the median in front of the site in Ferntree Gully Road. These works (which are not contested) will ensure that the northern part of the land does not become land locked.

21 The review site is included in a Business 1 zone and the adjoining pre-school is within a Public Use Zone.

22 We affirm that the planning controls and policies that are relevant to this application have not changed in any significant way since the 2004 appeal although we note that Clause 12 has since been introduced as State policy in the Planning Scheme giving effect to Melbourne 2030.

23 At the hearing the parties relied on both written and oral submissions. We were also given a number of photographs, plans and other documents. We set out our findings in relation to the key issues in this Application, having regard to the submissions, the material presented at the hearing and the policies, objectives and decision guidelines of the Scheme.

24 In our earlier decision, we made various findings that we do not intend to revisit in any detail as they did not give rise to any debate insofar as the present application is concerned. The principles arising from these findings are that:

i

The physical attributes of the land lend support for a residential use either as dwellings or serviced apartments (Para. 32);

ii

There is strong policy support for either of the proposed uses (para. 37);

iii

State and local policies support a higher density development on this site (para. 40);

iv

Different standards for "liveability" or internal amenity can be applied to dwellings occupied by residents on a more permanent basis compared to more temporary accommodation in the form of serviced apartments (para. 49);

v

The site can sustain a robust form of development with a 3-storey scale (para. 69);

vi

One car space per dwelling (1 or 2 bedrooms) is an appropriate rate that would meet resident parking demand (para. 84);

vii

Vehicle access from Collegium Avenue is appropriate (para. 94);

viii

Traffic volumes generated by 48 dwellings or serviced apartments would be capable of being absorbed into the surrounding road network without an appreciable difference to existing traffic conditions (para. 93);

ix

Refusal of the application on the basis of some potential for an undesirable person to reside in one of the units is not warranted (para. 103).

25 We note that the current proposal involves the provision of a basement carpark whereas an at-grade carpark formed part of the earlier scheme. We found that the design of the at-grade carpark was a major flaw and the source of many concerns we identified in relation to internal amenity. We acknowledge that the amenity impacts arising from the carpark design are of course no longer relevant in the present case. Other internal amenity concerns with the previous proposal centred around our findings that the:

•

number of units (30 out of 48) whose living areas did not face north was excessive,

•

amenity of balconies in terms of their size, orientation and extent of connectivity with internal living areas was unacceptable,

•

orientation of dwellings facing the super structure of the shopping centre car park was problematic.

26 Like the 2004 appeal, it is apparent that internal amenity considerations remain as the key issues in this case. We regard the extent to which the present application has responded to these issues and gives rise to new impacts is of primary relevance to our consideration of the proposal.

27 A secondary issue concerns the architectural handling of the Collegium Drive elevation and eastern elevation facing to the pre-school.

28 We now discuss each of these matters in turn.

Will the development offer appropriate levels of internal amenity to future residents?

29 While Mr Peake and his witness Mr McGauran conceded that the proposal would offer future residents acceptable levels of internal amenity as serviced apartments, it was argued that this could not be said if they were more permanently occupied as dwellings.

30 Mr McGauran expressed concerns with the building's setback from the northern boundary which he regarded as insufficient to achieve reasonable daylight access for some apartments. Where located opposite the office building to the north, at a setback of 2.5m from the boundary, a number of units with a northern orientation would be overshadowed. Two apartments (No.'s 43 and 44) would be in shadow all day while on the level above, apartments 3, 45 and 46 would be in shadow until approximately 12 noon.

31 The number of apartments on the northern wing with south facing balconies (12) representing 25% of apartments was also criticised by Mr McGauran. He also questioned the amenity and privacy of Apartment 31's ground level balcony adjacent to the central courtyard pathway. This apartment's lack of access to northern sunlight, a situation that is repeated with the two apartments above (ie. 33 and 35) was also identified as a concern.

32 Overlooking between apartments, particularly at each of the internal corners was also raised by Mr McGauran as a concern. Direct views between balconies and bedrooms, from public areas at ground level into bedrooms and private open space and overlooking between balconies beside and opposite other apartments led Mr McGauran to the conclusion that a significant number of the units have unacceptable degrees of acoustic and visual privacy such that a considerable rethink of the underlying concept is necessary. Amongst other things, he suggested that re-configuration of the building's footprint to achieve a "U-shaped" design might achieve a more acceptable outcome.

33 On the other hand, Mr Cicero and Mr McGurn argued that our consideration of amenity impacts should be tempered by a consideration of the site's constraints, principally the proximity of the office building to the north. Mr McGurn emphasised the intent of the design response which through its northern wing seeks to shield the visual impact of the neighbouring office building, while orienting apartments towards the central internal courtyard would expose them to a better level of amenity.

34 When balanced against the various constraints of this site and its context, together with the Business 1 zoning of the land, it was Mr McGurn's opinion that the apartments would offer appropriate levels of internal amenity. He relied upon the proposition that in a development of this type, one might reasonably expect some overshadowing of apartments - particularly given the overriding objective of mediating the amenity impacts arising from the size and location of the neighbouring office development.

35 It was also Mr McGurn's opinion that a shared level of amenity, including a sharing of views between balconies and ground level areas of private open space is not an unreasonable response - particularly where that experience is primarily shared by a limited number of people who are also residents of the same development. Notwithstanding, he agreed that in relation to ground level private open space some screening measures could be introduced through the judicious placement and design of landscaping and fencing, the latter which need only be to a height of about 1m to 1.5m with some transparency. He argued that these measures (at ground level) would clearly delineate public and private areas and achieve a suitable level of privacy. Responding to the Council's criticisms in relation to overlooking between balconies and windows, he also suggested that screening measures such as protruding fins could be implemented if necessary.

36 Other modifications recommended by Mr McGurn include an increased southern setback of the 3rd level apartments (No.'s 41, 42, 47 and 48) on the northern bank to limit the extent of internal overshadowing - a recommendation that was universally supported. We consider that this is an appropriate modification irrespective of whether the proposal is for dwellings or serviced apartments.

37 In forming our view about these matters, we think it is helpful to restate our previous findings in relation to the influence of the surrounding site conditions and the question of internal amenity.

38 Firstly, we found that the site's proximity to the office development to the north, the shopping centre to the west and its commercial zoning pose design challenges leading us to the conclusion that:

[44] ... there will inevitably be a trade-off between the benefits derived by residents living close to an activity centre and the impact that the proximity to more intense development and non-residential uses brings.

[45] ... the design response must still seek to respond positively to such constraints with a view toward enhancing the amenity of future residents.

40 In doing so, we also formed the view that proposals should be designed and sited in an integrated fashion:

[46] ... with the objective of maximising liveability so as to respond positively to amenity impacts arising from off-site sources instead of giving in to such impacts.

41 We rejected the argument that future residents in choosing to live close to activity centres "know what they're getting" as justification for compromised levels of amenity arising from the proposal itself finding that in any context such an outcome:

[47] ... does not justify a departure from the principle that an acceptable bottom line standard of amenity must always be achieved. We say this having regard to the emphasis on planning objectives which encourage development outcomes that enhance liveability and promote high standards of urban design - themes which permeate Melbourne 2030, the State Planning Policy Framework including Clause 16.02. [Emphasis added]

42 The arguments arising from a consideration of internal amenity really distil down to a question of whether this proposal achieves an acceptable bottom line standard of internal amenity

43 We affirm the approach we adopted previously in relation to the two possible uses proposed by assessing the proposal on the basis that all of the units could be used for dwellings. That is, we expect amenity standards to be higher for dwellings than for serviced apartments. This is not to say that amenity considerations for serviced apartment developments are not relevant; rather, the bar is set higher for "dwellings" which provide permanent as opposed to temporary accommodation.

44 In forming our view we agree with the evidence of Mr Hutson and Mr McGurn that the design of the central courtyard is pivotal to the success of this proposal. It is clear to us that there is considerable reliance upon the amenity of the central courtyard as justification for the perimeter-block configuration of the apartments. This is evidenced by the placement of private open space within the internal environs of the courtyard and orientation of apartments facing into this space.

45 We have not been persuaded however that the courtyard will offer an appropriate level of amenity that might be said to outweigh the internal amenity shortcomings identified by Mr McGauran in relation to the lack of daylight to some units, southerly orientation of balconies and overlooking between apartments and from the public environs of the courtyard.

46 We consider that the width of the courtyard of just over 9m is not adequate given its other functional elements that have the effect of fragmenting and reducing its amenity. We note that it is the main thoroughfare for residents and their visitors, with stair access at either end from the basement carpark and pathways to the main common entries of apartments. Private open space areas serving the southern bank of apartments (No.'s 13, 14, 19 and 20) are further incursions into the space. While it is clear from Mr Wyatt's landscape proposals that planting opportunities are available within this space, we agree with Mr Peake's submission that the central courtyard is more properly characterised and indeed will function only as a landscaped thoroughfare rather than a useable area of communal open space capable of supplementing private open space appurtenant to individual dwelling units in any meaningful way.

47 This is to be contrasted with the design of the central common courtyards of two other completed developments Mr Wyatt suggested we inspect- the "Old Swallows" factory redevelopment at the corner of Princes Street and Beach Street Port Melbourne and Central Equity apartments on the corner of Wells and Dodds Street, South Melbourne. During our inspection of these sites, we noted the design and landscape treatment of the central communal open space areas and techniques to attain privacy at their interface with private courtyards appurtenant to dwellings.

48 From visiting these other examples, we found that the central communal courtyards were generous in terms of both their overall size and proportions. While these other examples provided pedestrian access through the development, the design and proportions of these courtyards reinforced their principle role as communal open space areas that provide high amenity. They offered an inviting choice of useable spaces for passive recreation with good access to sunlight that provide a real supplement to smaller areas of private open space directly appurtenant to dwellings.

49 However, we do not think the central courtyard in this proposal will function as an area of useable communal open space once the space required for private courtyards and pathways are taken into account. Unlike the central courtyards appurtenant to the development proposals that we viewed, the central courtyard in this case would not provide high quality communal open space of any substance that could be reasonably said to supplement private open space areas.

50 The issue would be less critical were it not for the compromised levels of amenity that which we find characterises the amenity of private open space of a number of apartments. In this context, we consider that the number of apartments with overshadowed private open space is excessive. These comprise 12 apartments on the north bank that are fully shaded and enclosed on three sides and that are small in size with an area of just 5.8sq.m. Apartment 31and to a slightly lesser extent, the apartment above (No. 33) is also unacceptably overshadowed for most of the day. Upon our review of the plans, it is also clear that apartments 8, 10, 12, 25, 26, 27 and 29 on the southern bank have south facing balconies that will receive negligible access to direct sunlight. We also note that apartments 28 and 30 located above Apartment 26 will only receive minimal sunlight access during the morning period.

51 We estimate that 23 or nearly half of all apartments would have their private open space either in shadow all day or experience a high degree of overshadowing for the majority of the day at the equinox. We think this proportion is too high in a development providing for permanent dwellings.

52 We are also not persuaded that the ground level areas of private open space will be capable of enjoying reasonable privacy in relation to apartments 13, 14, 19, 20 and 31. We think good levels of privacy for these spaces is essential given the minimal size of these areas, their proximity to communal pathways and the deficiencies we see with the central courtyard in amenity terms. In this regard we note from our inspection of the two other examples referred to that ground level private open space areas were fenced to create high levels of privacy rather than merely a perception of privacy.

53 While Mr Wyatt and Mr McGurn suggested various techniques to create a suitable perception of privacy such as landscaping within raised planters and permeable fencing, we think these measures will further compromise the amenity of these spaces through overshadowing given their limited width.

54 We have particular concerns with the design of Apartment 31 whose private open space is directly abutted by a common walkway on its long side. We think this apartment's private open space would have been better provided on its east side within a 5.48m setback area enjoying an easterly orientation and higher levels of privacy. We also consider that the internal layout of this unit would have been better served by orienting it to the east for similar reasons. The permit applicant's experts were not however supportive of this approach, preferring the aspect offered by the internal courtyard. We think this is in fact a lost opportunity, a view we also hold in relation to the lack of access between indoor and outdoor areas at ground level on the north side of apartments 37, 38, 43 and 44.

55 In relation to overlooking between balconies, we generally accept the proposition that in apartment style developments, some shared views is not an unreasonable expectation particularly when those views are internal. However, we have reservations about this situation given the high number of balconies within 8m of each other (affecting 24 apartments reducing to 20 if we adopt the improvements proposed by Mr McGurn to apartments 41, 42, 47 and 48). We do not regard this situation as acceptable. Again, while some screening techniques could be implemented - logically to north facing balconies (i.e. Apartments 13, 14, 19 and 20 and those on the level above) on their north side and on one side to minimise lateral overlooking, we think such measures would further comprise the amenity of balconies by reducing the outlook from these areas and causing unreasonable overshadowing impacts.

56 We agree with Mr McGauran that there is the potential for unreasonable levels of overlooking between bedroom windows, particularly within the internal corners of the development and at pedestrian level from common pathways at ground level (i.e. Apartments 2 and 44). We also agree that some form of screening would be necessary to secure reasonable levels of privacy for these amenity sensitive rooms.

57 Like the private open space, we accept that screening techniques could be adopted. Again we have reservations about the impact of screening on internal amenity in terms of outlook. We note that relocation of windows is another alternative in some instances - such as Mr McGauran's suggestion of re-orienting the bedroom 2 windows of Apartments 10 and 12 to the north. This would however result in such windows being located opposite a wall, 1.5m away which again we regard as poor in terms of the outlook from these rooms.

58 We have therefore come to the conclusion that the very real need for such techniques suggests that there are some fundamental difficulties with the design concept. It seems to us that the design provides 'very little room to move', so that the application of one technique as a means of overcoming an identified problem gives rise to other amenity impacts.

59 Had we found that the central courtyard provided meaningful opportunities for communal open space with good amenity, we would have accepted the shortcomings of the private open space areas. We would have done so not simply because we recognise the challenges presented by the site given its relationship with development on adjoining properties, but because the amenity offered by the communal open space would offset the difficulties that we have found with the private open space appurtenant to many of the dwellings.

60 However as it stands, we find that the development does not provide an acceptable bottom-line standard of internal amenity for use as dwellings. Further, we do not think that the changes that have been recommended would overcome our concerns. Even if the changes were put in place, we are of the view that the internal amenity of too many dwellings would be poor.

61 We would, however, form a different view if the dwellings were to be used on a more temporary basis as serviced apartments. For reasons explained n our previous decision, we accept that the considerations for serviced apartments are different. To this extent, we note that even the council and its expert agree that the internal amenity of the proposed dwellings would be suitable if used as serviced apartments. Subject to what we would describe as some "fine tuning" to implement the suggestions made by the various experts, we find the use of the dwelling units for serviced apartments as being acceptable.

Does the design provide an appropriate streetscape response?

62 It was common ground the building's west elevation facing Brandon Park Drive would provide an acceptable streetscape outcome. Proposed setbacks to this street were also not disputed. The key issues concerned the appropriateness of the south elevation facing Collegium Avenue and the east elevation.

63 Mr McGauran was critical of the façade treatment along Collegium Avenue arguing that it adopts the commercial design cues from its western interface and inappropriately carries them around the corner into Collegium Avenue where a finer grain scale of development is present. He also raised concerns with the repetitive and symmetrical nature of the design response which he argued relies upon balconies and materials to express articulation. He suggested that the upper level of the building could have been recessed from the level below to minimise what he regarded as an unnecessarily bulky and institutional design.

64 He also expressed concerns with the treatment of the east elevation (southern portion) only adjacent to the driveway suggesting that the upper level in the south-east corner of the building should be removed. Under cross-examination however, Mr McGauran accepted that this corner of the building could be appropriately articulated using techniques such as wrapping balconies around the east side and through varied materials and finishes rather than deleting floor space.

65 It was both Mr Hutson and Mr McGurn's evidence that the Collegium Avenue elevation expressed an appropriate degree of articulation given the varied setbacks and application of varying materials and finishes to this façade. While Mr Hutson supported Mr McGauran's revised modifications to the building's east side, Mr McGurn did not, contending that this element of the building was satisfactory. Mr McGurn relied upon the proposition that the building itself did not need to provide a transition to the domestic scale of residential development further west. Rather he argued that this site itself serves as the transition between the residential uses further west given the intervening presence of neighbouring non-residential uses comprising the pre-school (in a Public Use zone) and dental clinic.

66 In our previous decision, we raised concerns with the repetitive treatment of the Collegium Avenue façade and lack of articulation to the eastern building elevation. We said that:

[75] In any redesign, we think that in this instance, these elevations would benefit from further articulation through the recessing of walls rather than through the addition of extra windows or other architectural add-ons. Further consideration could also be given to creating a higher degree of visual interest and less repetitive treatment of Building 3's south elevation.

67 We observe that the architectural treatment of the Collegium Avenue façade is quite similar to the earlier proposal although greater and more uniform street setbacks are now proposed. It is clear that our comments regarding further articulation have not been taken up in this redesigned proposal. However we note that the architectural presentation of the development was not fatal in the previous case and we again affirm that view given the prevailing style of development in the area. Relevantly, we said:

[72] We observed that the design style of dwellings in the surrounding area which could be described as unpretentious and with many displaying the simple forms typical of suburban development from around the 1970's period. Similarly, from our reading of the plans, the architectural style proposed is fairly unpretentious. Although somewhat repetitive, techniques such as recessed balconies, protruding canopies and the varying use of render and brick does serve to delineate entries and assist in creating some visual interest without being overly 'fussy'. However, we are not surprised that Mr Milner recommended that alignment of Building 3 be modified to present a staggered series of setbacks to Collegium Avenue rather than the continuous form originally proposed.

68 Whilst we think that a less repetitive design approach would be beneficial, we do not think that in the circumstances the proposal is unacceptable in this regard.

69 However, in relation to the building's east elevation (adjacent to the driveway) we agree with Mr McGauran that improved articulation is necessary given the streetscape views towards the site from the east. This could be achieved by stepping back the upper level or by using balconies to wrap around the southeast corner of the building adjacent to the basement ramp. We would not oppose the wrapping of balconies around the east side on the basis of overlooking concerns into the front yard of the pre-school.

70 We are also satisfied that the landscaping arrangements proposed on the east side would assist in integrating the building into its surrounds.

71 As we have stated at the outset, we are generally satisfied with the proposed carparking arrangements.

72 However, having regard to Mr Higgs' evidence that two vehicles would be unable to pass at the basement entry, we think that the driveway should be widened to 5.5m and a 4m radius provided as recommended by Council's engineers. We regard these modifications as appropriate given the number of car spaces proposed and the desirability of achieving safe, efficient and convenient entry and egress. We note that we would require a reduction in the internal floor space of the apartments to achieve the necessary driveway width rather than reducing the space provided for landscaping.

73 Mr McGauran raised concerns with the absence of a lift which he contended would be desirable for serviced apartments within a 3 storey building. We accept that at 3 storeys over basement the proposal would be close to the threshold as to when a lift is required. However, the configuration of this proposal does not lend itself to providing 1 or 2 lifts. We consider that although desirable, the absence of a lift within the building ought not be fatal to the application.

74 Like the previous application, we have found that this proposal would offer satisfactory levels of on-site amenity if used as serviced apartments but not for permanent occupation as dwellings.

75 Whilst we would not be prepared to grant a permit for dwellings, we would be inclined to grant a permit for serviced apartments subject to satisfactory modifications to the building. These modifications would be aimed at improving sunlight access to the central courtyard and level of privacy; greater articulation to the east elevation and improved driveway access. Specifically we would require :

•

The changes recommended by Mr McGurn to Apartments 41, 42, 47 and 48 by increasing their southern setback;

•

Modifications to the east elevation adjacent to Apartments 26, 28 and 30 to provide greater articulation through the use of balconies and/or increased setbacks;

•

Widening of the driveway ramp to 5.5m to allow two-way vehicle flow and the provision of a 4m internal radius at changes of direction;

•

Wherever possible, implementation of techniques for improved privacy to bedrooms where potential exists for overlooking from other apartments or communal areas, and

•

The location and layout of any unit to be used for reception/administration purposes.

76 We are mindful that the applicant does not seek a permit for serviced apartments only. We enquired as to whether the applicant would be willing to accept a permit for serviced apartments only; however, Mr Cicero made it clear that the applicant wishes to have the flexibility to use all or some of the proposed units as dwellings.

77 Given that we would be prepared to direct the grant of a permit for serviced apartments only, it would seem somewhat futile for us to do so if the applicant does not intend to proceed with the use and development under such a permit.

78 In the circumstances we will therefore provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to our preparedness to issue a permit for serviced apartments only before we finalise our decision.

79 In the event the applicant indicates that it desires to proceed with an amended proposal for serviced apartments only, we will provide further directions as to how this proceeding is finalised. At this stage, we would envisage the circulation of amended plans to the parties appearing at the hearing and opportunity for further written submissions.

80 If the applicant advises that it does not wish to pursue an application for serviced apartments only, we will proceed to finalise our decision on that basis.