1. The potential for more traffic and increased vehicle movement along Singers Lane because of waste collection via the lane were issues identified in some statements of grounds.
2. Vehicles will use the lane for waste collection and loading. Laneways are intended to service these functions even if there are other uses as well. Traffic may be associated with visitors but there is no on-site parking and thus the proposal's contribution to traffic in Singers Lane will not be substantial. On-street parking is a public resource to be shared by visitors.

1. The Parking Overlay applies in this location and no planning permit is required to reduce car parking to zero. Multiple bicycle spaces and motorbike spaces are included as alternatives to vehicles. The required amount of bicycle parking is provided in accordance with the Scheme. It is also relevant that the review site has excellent access to train and tram services.

1. This case has raised important questions about acceptable levels of amenity impacts when a new residential tower is sought to be inserted into a closely settled, fine grained, central city location. The lack of numerical or specific qualitative standards on matters such as daylight gives significant scope for debate about what acceptable levels of impact might be. There are also valid differences in opinions as to what level devices such as screening should be required in a context such as this. We have set out our findings on these matters above in the context of the circumstances in this proceeding and would encourage more specific guidance to be available through, for example, the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development and/or within the Scheme. Such guidance would assist what we expect will be an increasing number of debates on these matters. That is also the case with respect to internal amenity, such as borrowed light, which is another matter upon which there are divergent views and only general policy guidance.
2. This case has also been the subject of debate with respect to the architectural response and composition. Despite submissions and opinions expressed on behalf of the Respondent Objectors that the proposed design is unsuitable, we must be guided by the directions of the Scheme that do not direct a specific approach to a design composition in this location. We have given significant weight to the Council's position to support the proposal as an acceptable architectural response and insertion into the cityscape. We have also found that the relationship with the retained former Victorian Printer is acceptable mindful that the host building has a low heritage grading as a representative building, it is not in a highly prominent location, and is in a setting with other heritage buildings that also have quite prominent modern insertions and additions as part of their adaptation. Our conclusion is, however, subject to further modifications to rationalise, where possible, openings in the southern elevation in association with refinements to the internal layout of the commercial tenancies.
3. For these and other reasons set out in this decision, we find that the proposal is acceptable subject to revisions. These revisions are reflected in the conditions we will require on the permit, set out in Appendix A.

• Partial demolition.
• Development of the land for a multi-storey building.

1. Prior to the commencement of any demolition, bulk excavation, construction or carrying out of works on the land, the applicant must submit to the Responsible Authority three copies of plans drawn to scale generally in accordance with the plans comprised in Drawings TP 00 to TP 25 dated 25 September 2013 prepared by Kavellaris Urban Design, but amended to show:
   • (a) Any changes required by Condition 7 (Conservation Management Plan).
   • (b) Any changes required by Condition 8 (Waste Management Plan).
   • (c) Any changes required by Condition 14 (Noise Attenuation).
   • (d) Any changes required by Condition 40 (Wind Report).
   • (e) Redesign of the fire hydrant booster so that it does not intrude above the band of brickwork below the ground floor windows and replacement of the proposed door swinging out over the footpath with a high quality tilt or roller door, colour matched to the restored brickwork of the façade unless an alternative is approved by the Responsible Authority.
   • (f) Renaming 'commercial tenancies' to terminology defined within the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Selected terminology must be Section 1 Uses within Capital City Zone - Outside Retail Core.
   • (g) Redesign of the front façade generally in accordance with the plans titled "Proposed plans" and "Proposed Section and 3D montage" dated 23 October 2013 prepared by Kavellaris Urban Design.
   • (h) Deletion of the red design feature surrounding the main entrance.
   • (i) Replace the glazed wall associated with the eastern face of the light court on the northern side of Level 1 with a solid wall, in light grey concrete, to a height of at least 1.7 metres above finished floor level.
   • (j) Materials and finishes consistent with the materials board tendered to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Application for Review P527/2013 (Exhibit A23) except for the following:
     • (i) A lighter shade of grey concrete.
     • (ii) A dark colour must be used for the visible columns above the retained heritage building.
     • (iii) The face brick plinth around the retained building must be exposed as required by Condition 7.
     • (iv) The render for the retained building must be off-white unless an alternative is approved by the Responsible Authority.
     • (v) Materials around the roof top plant room enclosure must be confirmed as being dark aluminium cladding consistent with the cladding to be used in the south elevation.
   • (k) Revise the internal layout of commercial tenancies to reduce the number of columns and reduce the number of openings in the southern elevation of the retained building.
   • (l) Improve access for motorcycles through the addition of double-sided lift doors so as to avoid access being required via the foyer.
   • (m) Delete landscaping overhanging the parapet of the retained building and remove trees shown in front of the columns along the southern and eastern elevations. A lower landscape treatment must be adopted.

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 development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development excluding any demolition, bulk excavation, construction or carrying out of works, a detailed landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. This plan must include:
   • (a) A schedule of all soft and hard landscaping and treatments.
   • (b) How the project responds to water sensitive urban design principles, including how storm water will be mitigated, captured, cleaned and stored for on-site use and the location and type of irrigation systems to be used including the location of any rainwater tanks to be used for irrigation.
   • (c) Position, type and spread of any proposed trees on the site and a schedule detailing the size and physical condition of each tree and, where appropriate, the steps to be taken to maintain the trees in a satisfactory condition (particularly having regard to wind conditions).
   • (d) Planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.
   • (e) Details of surface finishes.

This landscape plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall form a part of the endorsed plans of this permit.

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 demonstrate that the building has the preliminary design potential to achieve the following:
   • (a) 1 point for Wat-1 credit under a current version of the Green Building Council of Australia's Green Star - Multi Unit Residential rating tool or equivalent.
   • (b) A 5 star rating under a current version of Green Star - Multi Unit Residential rating tool or equivalent.
2. The performance outcomes specified in the Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Statement 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 assessed by an accredited professional. The revised statement must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of construction.
3. A schedule and samples of all external materials, colours and finishes must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The schedule must show the materials, colours and finishes of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames, glazing types, doors, balustrades, fences and paving, (including car park surfacing), fire hydrant booster and structures.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition, a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the heritage building must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the CMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The CMP must include (but is not limited to the following):
   • (a) A detailed fabric survey, including a comprehensive colour photographic record of the exterior of the building must be undertaken by a recognised heritage architect and a plan for conservation works detailing the works required to restore the existing building fabric be completed.
   • (b) Repair to sections of rusted, steel-framed windows at the south-east corner.
   • (c) Relocation or redesign of the fire hydrant cabinets so the original windows, including sills are retained intact.
   • (d) Retention and restoration of the existing recessed entry to the southern end of the east elevation (Wills Street) including the steps.
   • (e) Rationalisation of window and door openings in the southern elevation consistent with Condition 1.
   • (f) Retention of the flagpole above the front (Wills Street) entry.
   • (g) Details of individual glazing panels to be removed and samples of replacement glass.
   • (h) All new or altered window/door openings to the south elevation (Singers Lane) must be steel-framed not aluminium-framed.
   • (i) The glazing bars of all new window/door framing must accurately reflect the particular mullion pattern of the adjacent windows.
   • (j) Removal of the paint from the face brick plinth (all elevations) by an approved chemical process.

Works to the heritage building approved under this permit must be undertaken in accordance with the CMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use and/or 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.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or bulk excavation, a detailed construction and demolition management plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. This construction management plan is to be prepared in accordance with the City of Melbourne - Construction Management Plan Guidelines and is to consider the following:
   • (a) Public safety, amenity and site security;
   • (b) Operating hours, noise and vibration controls;
   • (c) Air and dust management;
   • (d) Stormwater and sediment control;
   • (e) Waste and materials reuse; and
   • (f) Traffic management.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition, a report prepared by a suitably qualified Structural Engineer, or equivalent, must be submitted, 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 Council and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the demolition hereby permitted, the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that substantial progress has been made towards obtaining the necessary building permits for the development of the land generally in accordance with the development of the land proposed under this permit and that the permit holder has entered into a bona fide contract for the construction of the development.
5. Prior to the commencement of any demolition works, a bank guarantee or bond, to the value of $1,000,000.00 must be deposited with the Responsible Authority to ensure that the works will be completed in accordance with the endorsed plan(s) and specifications. The bank guarantee or bond shall be returned when the structural works to the existing building to provide it with structural support are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development (excluding demolition), the applicant must carry out a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) of the site to determine if it is suitable for the intended use(s). This PEA must be submitted to, and be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the development (excluding demolition). The PEA should include:
   • (a) Details of the nature of the land uses previously occupying the site and the activities associated with these land uses. This should include details of how long the uses occupied the site.
   • (b) A review of any previous assessments of the site and surrounding sites including details of the anticipated sources of any contaminated materials.

Should the PEA reveal that further investigative or remedial work is required to accommodate the intended use(s), then prior to the commencement of the development (excluding demolition), the applicant must carry out a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment (CEA) of the site to determine if it is suitable for the intended use(s).

This CEA must be carried out by a suitably qualified environmental professional who is a member of the Australian Contaminated Land Consultants Association or a person who is acceptable to the Responsible Authority. This CEA must be submitted to, and be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the development (excluding demolition). The CEA should include:

(c) Details of the nature of the land uses previously occupying the site and the activities associated with these land uses. This includes details of how long the uses occupied the site.

(d) A review of any previous assessments of the site and surrounding sites, including details of any on-site or off-site sources of contaminated materials. This includes a review of any previous Environmental Audits of the site and surrounding sites.

(e) Intrusive soil sampling in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard (AS) 44582.1. This includes minimum sampling densities to ensure the condition of the site is accurately characterised.

(f) An appraisal of the data obtained following soil sampling in accordance with ecological, health-based and waste disposal guidelines.

(g) Recommendations regarding what further investigate and remediation work, if any, may be necessary to ensure the site is suitable for the intended use(s).

Prior to the occupation of the building, the applicant must submit to the Responsible Authority a letter confirming compliance with any findings, requirements, recommendations and conditions of the CEA.

(h) Should the CEA recommend that an Environmental Audit of the site is necessary then prior to the occupation of the building the applicant must provide either:

(i) A Certificate of Environmental Audit in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or

(j) A Statement of Environmental Audit in accordance with Section 53Z of the Environment Protection Act 1970. This Statement must confirm that the site is suitable for the intended use(s).

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is provided, all the conditions of this Statement must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and prior to the occupation of the building. Written confirmation of compliance must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental professional who is a member of the Australian Contaminated Land Consultants Association or other person acceptable to the Responsible Authority. In addition, the signing off of the Statement must be in accordance with any requirements in it regarding the verification of works.

If there are conditions on the Statement that the Responsible Authority consider requires significant ongoing maintenance and/or monitoring, the applicant must enter into a legal agreement in accordance with Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authority. This Agreement must be executed on title prior to the occupation of the building. The owner of the site must meet all costs associated with the drafting and execution of this agreement including those incurred by the Responsible Authority

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, plans/details showing treatment to the habitable room(s) windows/openings to limit internal noise to a maximum of 45dB(A) in accordance with relevant Australian Standards must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, acoustic testing must be conducted by a qualified acoustic consultant. The test must verify that the maximum noise level specified in Condition 14 above is achieved, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. A report containing the results of the testing must be submitted to the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the dwellings.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a stormwater drainage system incorporating integrated water management design principles must be submitted to, and approved, by the Responsible Authority. This system must be constructed prior to the occupation of the development and provision made to connect this system to the City of Melbourne's stormwater drainage system.
4. Any requirement to temporarily relocate street lighting must be done in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority.
5. All street lighting must be reinstated prior to occupation of the development in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of the occupation of the development hereby permitted, all necessary vehicle crossings must be constructed and all unnecessary vehicle crossings must be demolished and the footpath, kerb and channel reconstructed, in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority.
7. The footpaths in Wills Street must be upgraded and constructed in sawn bluestone together with associated works and the relocation of all service pits and covers as necessary at the cost of the owner/developer in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority.
8. The owner of the subject land must provide pedestrian access along the portion of Singers Lane adjacent to the south boundary of the property at No. 17 - 23 Wills Street, Melbourne, in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority.

The owner of the subject land must reinstate and make good any damage to Singers Lane arising as a result of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. Vehicular ingress and egress must not be modified from that shown on the endorsed plans without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Existing street levels in Wills Street and Singers Lane must not be altered for the purpose of constructing new vehicle crossings or pedestrian entrances without first obtaining approval from the Responsible Authority.
3. The title boundaries for the property may not exactly agree with the road alignments of the abutting Council public lane(s). The approved works must not result in structures that encroach onto any Council lane.
4. The loading and unloading of vehicles and delivery of goods to and from the premises must at all times take place within the boundaries of the site.
5. All necessary approvals and permits are to be first obtained from the City of Melbourne and the works performed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. The area shown on the endorsed plan for loading and off-loading of vehicles, must be provided and this area must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and reserved for this purpose at all times.
7. No advertising signs shall be erected, painted or displayed on the land without the permission of the Responsible Authority unless in accordance with the exemption provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
8. No architectural features and services other than those shown on the endorsed plans shall be permitted above the roof level unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
9. 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.
10. Prior to the commencement of the use, street numbering of the units must be displayed on the units to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11. No more than one telecommunications receiver/television aerial is to be erected per building without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
12. All service pipes, apart from roof down pipes, must be concealed from the view of a person at ground level within common areas, public thoroughfares and adjoining properties.
13. Satellite dishes must not be erected without the prior permission of the Responsible Authority.
14. No street tree adjacent to the site may be removed, lopped, pruned or root-pruned without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
15. All garbage and other waste material must be stored in an area set aside for such purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16. No garbage bin or waste materials shall be deposited or stored outside the site and bins must be returned to the garbage storage area as soon as practicable after garbage collection, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17. The area shown on the endorsed plan(s) as garbage storage area must contain a floor waste tap and the area must only be used for garbage storage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18. Prior to the commencement of the development the registered proprietor of the land (the Grantor) shall grant an easement of light and air over the area marked E-1 (the easement area) (this would be the entire setback of the proposed development from the common boundary with No. 25 Wills Street) in favour of the registered proprietors for the time being of those apartments at Levels 1-18 on the adjoining land at 25 Wills Street (for units whose sole access to daylight is from the light court) which abut the common boundary with the Grantor's land ("the Grantee") and/or for the benefit of the Owners Corporation of which those apartment owners are a member of (also referred to as "the Grantee"). The Grantor grants to the Grantee the full and free right at all times to construct and maintain openings (including windows) into the easement area. The Grantor shall grant or consent to the Grantee, its servants or agents, the full and free right to occupy the easement area for the purpose of carrying out the construction of the openings (including windows), the subject of this condition for so long as is reasonably necessary to carry out their construction. The cost of the preparation and registration of such an easement shall be borne by the Grantor.
19. Prior to the commencement of the development wind tests carried out by a suitably qualified consultant, must be carried out on a model of the approved building. A report detailing the outcome of the testing must be submitted to and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must also recommend any modifications which must be made to the design of the building to reduce any adverse wind conditions in areas used by pedestrians and occupants of the building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The recommendations of the report must be implemented at no cost to the Responsible Authority and must not include reliance on street trees.
20. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
    • (a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
    • (b) 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.

[2] As the land is off-set from north, we have simplified directional references.

[3] We have considered all grounds, written and oral submissions, and evidence, although we do not recite all of the material in full.

[4] We understand from Dr Greenup's evidence that deletion of the heliostats was recommended by him after his assessment.

[5] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 determined by SM Liston and M Sibonis.

[6] Sprut Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1675.

[7] Benc v City of Doncaster and Templestowe 1996/38819 unreported_. Sprut_ refers to other decisions where this unreported decision is cited with approval.

[8] The Tribunal's decision refers to a 12 storey permit at paragraph 12.

[10] We say this based on our reading of the Tribunal's decision that did not identify the specific matters we deal with.

[11] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraph 2.

[16] Ms Sharp clarified her position on this matter during the hearing (her written submission had referred to substantial MSS changes). We understand her final position was the Scheme changes are not substantive with respect to this application.

[17] It was affected by a Design and Development Overlay but that has expired. That Overlay has not been replaced.

[18] Such as Clauses 21.07-1 and 21.12.

[19] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraphs 8 to 12 and Figure 1 (except differences we identify).

[21] Further, the proposed easement, discussed in these reasons, is intended to allow the opportunity for windows.

[22] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraph 18.

[23] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraphs 30 and 35 (footnotes included as per original decision but the numbering follows that in this decision).

[24] "We agree with Mr Raworth's evidence in this regard."

[25] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraphs 35 and 36 (footnotes included as per original decision but the numbering follows that in this decision).

[27] We note this landscaping was not the subject of Tribunal criticism previously.

[28] The Council originally referred to errors in these diagrams but later corrected this submission.

[30] It was given a comic reference by Mr Sheppard too.

[31] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraph 36.

[34] To the extent that it is achieved on an extremely limited number of occasions based on Dr Greenup's oral evidence as discussed later in these reasons.

[37] Mr Soussan stated that there is an inaccuracy at 9am but that submission was corrected later in the hearing by Ms Bayly.

[38] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraph 45i.

[39] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraph 37iii.

[40] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraph 18 and paragraphs 26 to 29 (footnotes included as per original decision but the numbering follows the footnote numbering in this decision).

[41] It is true that this approach does not seek to estimate daylighting within each of the apartments, but, the light available to the exterior of each apartments window provides a good basis for understanding the likely interior impacts.

[42] Mr Richardson proposed a painted surface. We question the maintainability of such a surface on such a tall facade. It may be the case that there are more easily maintained, highly reflective, finishes available. We do not think that the normal concerns about highly reflective high-rise buildings are relevant to this circumstance, particularly below level 21 of the Wills Court building

[45] While the evidence would be that this would be most pronounced at the 9am and 3pm periods modelled by Mr McCabe, these buildings would have varying degrees of influence even at midday due to contributions of reflected and sky light.

[46] As set out in his closing submission Exhibit O30.

[47] "Daylight factor" being defined as the ratio of daylight available at the point of assessment compared to the overall daylight that is available in an unobstructed location.

[48] Such as those shown in photographs tendered through Mr Crowder's evidence Exhibit A15.

[49] Highbury Focus Pty Ltd v Melbourne [2012] VCAT 841 at paragraph 25.

[50] Mr Crowder's working drawings were tendered as Exhibit A18.

[51] SMA Projects Australia v Yarra CC [2007] VCAT 1570, Baracon Equity Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2008] VCAT 926, PDG Corporation Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2009] VCAT 737, PDG Corporation Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2007] VCAT 1168.

[52] Melbourne Domain Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2013] VCAT 1832 at paragraphs 42 - 45.

[53] We are aware of an example HWD Racecourse Road Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC & Ors [2013 VCAT 590, Queensberry Street Carlton Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2013] VCAT 1896.

[54] Relying on a similar consideration in Melbourne CC v Minister For Planning [2013] VCAT 1277.