1. Pursuant to Section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the Tribunal's Order in Application P611/2012 dated 4 January 2013 is corrected as follows:
   • (a) Condition 1(e) where appearing in Appendix A is amended to read as follows:

1(e) Unit 22's setback increased to align with the central recess at a distance of 10.8m from the east boundary. Consequential internal modifications are to be shown. Modifications to affected dwellings must be undertaken so as to meet the following:

(ii) balconies and windows are to be screened in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 of the Planning Scheme,

(iii) private open space is to accord with Standard B11 at Clause 55.03-6 of the Planning Scheme, and

(iv) the standard number of car parking spaces for the resulting dwelling types specified at Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.

1. By order dated 4 January 2013, the Tribunal directed the grant of a permit for multi-dwellings subject to a number of conditions.
2. By letter dated 7 February 2013, Kellock Town Planning on behalf of the Applicant drew the Tribunal's attention to what they suggested was an error within the Tribunal's order, and submitted that the order should be corrected.
3. Section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provides that the Tribunal may correct an order made by it if the order contains:

1. a clerical mistake; 2. an error arising from an accidental slip or omission;

1. a material miscalculation of figures or a material mistake in the description of any person, thing or matter referred to in the order; or

1. a defect of form.
2. I am satisfied that a mistake or error has occurred here, comprising a clerical error. Condition 1(e) in Appendix A makes reference to "Unit 2". It should in fact refer to "Unit 22".
3. In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to authorise a correction of the order.

Stonnington Planning Scheme; Application under Section 77 of Planning and Environment Act 1987 against refusal to grant a permit; Residential 1 Zone; SBO, 25 dwellings in 3-storey apartment building with basement carpark; Neighbourhood Character; Off-site amenity impacts; Parking and Traffic.

P Trueman, J Noble, D Houttoulas, M McConnell, A & K Minchin, A Scalise, L O'Keefe, I Wooldridge, B Smithers, M Georgiou, D Eliopoulos, J Gillies, L Waddell, G Cohen, S Daves, S Cook, B & H Krongold, R & L McBride, S McCausland, A Couper, L Kuc, R Humphries, F Barca, R Gordon, J Luscombe, A & M Bof, G & F Museara, J McKenzie, N J Chiang, D & P Carroll, H & J Mead, D Laleas, M Schultz, J Leishman.

Hogan Carrum Property Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC & Ors [2013] VCAT 16

1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998, the permit application is amended to substitute for the permit application plans the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

TP001, TP101, TP102, TP111, TP121, TP122, TP131, TP211, TP221 to 224 inclusive, TP241, TP 301, TP302, TP401, TP721, TP811, TP814, TP817

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. In permit application 076/2011 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 12-16 Carrum Street, Malvern East. The permit will allow the construction of multi-dwellings in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A.

Mr Ian Pitt, SC and Mr John Cicero (Day 2) of Best Hooper Solicitors. The following witnesses were called to give evidence:

• Ms Leanne Dowey, landscape architect of John Patrick Pty Ltd
• Mr Jason Walsh, traffic engineer of Traffix Group
• Mr Chris Goss, architect of Orbit Architecture
• Ms Catherine Heggen, town planner of Message Consultants.

Mr David Song, town planner of Song Bowden Planning Pty Ltd.

Construction of a 3-storey building with 25 dwellings above a 30 space basement carpark. All dwellings are to have two bedrooms except for Unit 18 which is to have one bedroom and each would have access to one car space. Five car spaces are for visitors and 8 mechanical car stackers (16 spaces in total) are for resident use.

A lift and stairs centrally located allow access through all levels of the building including the basement. The building reaches a maximum height of 10.05m to the top of the third level with the lift overrun rising 1m higher.

The building is to have a skillion roof, and has an overtly contemporary appearance characterised by two wings extending east-west with a central recessed element. External finishes include render to walls, timber lined shade 'hoods' and glass balustrades.

Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• Residential 1 (R1Z).
• Special Building Overlay (SBO) (part only in south-west corner).

• Clause 32.01-4 - Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (R1Z).
• Clause 44.05-1 - Works in an SBO.

• Clauses 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, 21.05, 22.02, 22.06, 22.12 and 22.13.
• Clauses 55 and 65.

Located on the east side of Carrum Road, this 1512sq.m site has an irregular shaped frontage, maximum depth of approximately 49.7m and rear boundary of 33.96m. An easement extends along the southern boundary.

The land is developed with a single storey Victorian style dwelling with a swimming pool at the rear. Established vegetation, mostly with exotic species is scattered throughout the site.

Surrounding land is residential and includes four older style single storey units which have a northern abuttal (No. 18 Carrum Street), and single storey dwellings which abut the south and east boundaries.

An unaccompanied inspection took place on the morning of Thursday 29 November 2012 and also on the morning of Wednesday 2 January 2013.

Common Equity Housing Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCAT 1722.

Potts v Glen Eira CC [2003] VCAT 1129

1. Hogan Carrum Pty Ltd ("the Applicant") sought a planning permit from Stonnington Council for 25 dwellings in a 3-storey building above a basement carpark on a 1512sq.m site in Malvern East. The permit application attracted 60 objections. Despite its planning officers recommending support for the proposal, the Council decided to refuse a permit. The Applicant is now seeking a review of that decision.
2. In doing so, amended plans were prepared which I substituted at the commencement of the hearing. While the number and mix of dwellings proposed remains unchanged, the amended plans show increased side and rear setbacks, reduced front setbacks, reduced basement footprint, a decrease in the number of car spaces from 31 to 30 and various modifications to the overall form and architectural treatment of the building.
3. The Council and a number of third parties maintain their opposition to the proposal.
4. The key issues in this case are as follows:
   1. Is this site a suitable one for this proposal with consideration to the policy and strategic context?
   2. Is the height, design and setbacks of the building acceptable in neighbourhood character terms?
   3. Would the proposal result in any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts in respect of neighbouring residential properties?
   4. Are access, traffic and parking arrangements acceptable?
5. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented at the hearing, the statements of grounds from parties not present at the hearing and with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, I have decided that a permit should be granted. My reasons follow.

1. At the statewide level there are three key objectives that underpin housing policies - diversity, urban consolidation, and affordability. There is a particular emphasis on the provision of increased housing densities in established urban areas utilising existing urban infrastructure and on sites in close proximity to activity centres and public transport.[1]
2. In the present case, the site is located approximately 500m from the edge of the Chadstone Principal Activity Centre.
3. The site's location relative to this large centre generated considerable debate at the hearing. While there was general agreement that the site is suited to some form of medium density housing, the Council and objectors submitted that this proposal is too distant from this centre to warrant a residential development of this intensity, scale and design.
4. Mr Song referred me to the Council's local policy framework in support of these arguments, in particular the Strategic Framework Plan and locational policies which direct higher density development and buildings that are greater than two-storeys to particular areas. These areas shown on the Strategic Framework Plan are identified at Clause 21.02 and comprise sites which are:
   • on a main road (that is, fronting a Road Zone Category 1);
   • in Principal Activity Centres;
   • identified gateway localities and large sites.
5. The review site is not designated on the Strategic Framework Plan as having any of these characteristics.
6. Nor, in the Council's submission, is the site said to be one where housing diversity policies apply under Clause 21.03, as the site is not:
   • in an activity centre as part of new development and shop tops;
   • in a mixed use area;
   • a large redevelopment site where the infrastructure capacity can be optimised;
   • an arterial road where a high proportion of medium density housing already exists.
7. Although this site is not one which is discretely identified for housing development of this scale and intensity under the local planning policy framework, this is not a sufficient reason to reject this proposal. I consider that the site is one that in strategic terms is suitable for this proposal and in so doing is consistent with the broad intent of housing diversity and urban consolidation policies.
8. The applicant's case relied heavily on statewide policies that promote the more efficient use of land in established urban areas and in particular large residential development on strategic redevelopment sites. The attributes of strategic redevelopment sites are described at Clause 16.01-3 and are as follows:
   • In and around Central Activities Districts.
   • In or within easy walking distance of Principal or Major Activity Centres.
   • In or beside Neighbourhood Activity Centres that are served by public transport.
   • On or abutting tram, train, light rail and bus routes that are part of the Principal Public Transport Network and close to employment corridors, Central Activities Districts, Principal or Major Activity Centres.
   • In or near major modal public transport interchanges that are not in Principal or Major Activity Centres.
   • Able to provide 10 or more dwelling units, close to activity centres and well served by public transport.
9. It was Ms Heggen's evidence that the site qualifies as a strategic redevelopment site, being within easy walking distance of a Principal Activity Centre which has a bus interchange servicing approximately ten routes and because of the site's ability to accommodate more than ten dwellings.
10. In terms of walking distance, the site is within about 750m of the bus interchange and is a similar distance from the nearest entry to the centre itself.
11. While greater than the often referred to 400m or 5 minute benchmark for easy walking distance, I regard these distances as being reasonable and achievable for most people within about 8 minutes.
12. I accept that the site has some of the hallmarks of a strategic redevelopment site, given its ability to accommodate 10 or more dwellings and its proximity to a Principal Activity Centre and bus interchange. However, I consider that the magnitude of the distances involved and the limited nature of readily accessible public transport options on foot[2] render this site as one that does not score highly as a strategic redevelopment site. I also observe that the site is visually isolated from buildings in the Chadstone activity centre whose sphere of influence in a built form sense is limited. Moreover, this site is within a mid-block location where single storey development prevails and its overall dimensions, while large at more than 1500sq.m, is comparable to just two typical sized lots[3] in this particular locale.
13. These factors are by no means fatal to this proposal. They simply serve to demonstrate that ultimately, a site by site assessment with reference to the physical and planning context remains an important consideration in determining what is an acceptable outcome. As the Tribunal commented in Common Equity Housing[4] this will result in "different responses in different settings". For example, a 6-storey proposal for 60 dwellings on a 1500sq.m lot in an inner city location within 400m of a tram and train route and major activity centre may be acceptable in that location but in the particular context of Carrum Street and the existing strategic framework it is unlikely to succeed here.
14. It is against this backdrop that I have assessed this proposal. In doing so, I acknowledge that this development will be more intense and overtly different to existing housing forms and styles nearby.
15. Nonetheless, with some minor modifications, I consider that this 3-storey proposal strikes an acceptable balance between its more immediate and broader physical and planning contexts in a way that is respectful of its surrounds while creating limited off-site impacts.
16. I now turn to a detailed assessment of the design response explaining more fully my reasons for these findings.

Is the height, design and setbacks of the building acceptable in neighbourhood character terms?

1. It was the Council's submission that although the building is well designed it is in the wrong physical context and would not achieve an acceptable fit with its neighbours. Concerns were raised in relation to:
   • The three storey scale of the building and the apartment typology which would be the first of this kind in Carrum Street.
   • The front setback which does not fully meet the Clause 55 Standard, particularly in relation to the projecting frame element in the northern arm and its appearance on oblique views from the south-west.
   • The presentation of the large blank wall in the south-west corner.
   • The 'gap' in the middle of the building which on oblique views in the street is lost.
   • Side and rear setbacks that although ResCode compliant would introduce an unacceptable level of visual bulk when viewed from neighbouring backyards and from habitable room windows of the neighbouring dwelling to the south (No. 10 Carrum Street).
   • The volume, breadth and depth said to be greater than any other building, and
   • The visibility of the third level, particularly in street views.
2. Residents opposed to the development generally endorsed these submissions and referred to the visual impact of the development from their backyards and indoors.

1. During my inspection I visited most abutting properties, namely No. 10 Carrum Street to the south, Unit 3/18 to the north and No. 18 and 20 Camira Street to the east. I also visited the front entry area of No. 20B Carrum Street further north.

1. As there is no statement of preferred character expressed for this area, it is the existing character of the area to which this proposal must respond.
2. I agree with Ms Heggen's evidence that the area is characterised by a diverse range of building types and styles, including the highly modified Victorian era dwelling on the review site, some interwar Californian bungalows, post-war dwellings comprising modest single cream brick dwellings from the 1950's, 'six-pack' style flats from the 1960's, villa units from the 1970's and larger two-storey town houses and single dwellings from more recent decades.
3. The quantity and type of vegetation is also variable and includes garden settings with mature trees that screen dwellings from the street (such as No. 10 Carrum Street) to some very open front gardens with large amounts of paving or low level planting.
4. The backyard character is similarly variable, with the size, dimensions, outlook and vegetation cover within and surrounding the properties I visited during my inspection generally differing from site to site. It is apparent however, that neighbouring properties, particular those to the east, derive considerable benefit from the unusually large backyard of the review site with its established gardens and perimeter planting. This creates the impression of a pleasant verdant backdrop devoid of built form. Given the somewhat anomalous nature of the review site, its redevelopment will bring about a noticeable change to the existing backyard character. On one view, the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring properties arising from the review site's atypical characteristics is somewhat fortuitous and not one that can be reasonably maintained in perpetuity. Nonetheless, the key question remains whether the proposal is an acceptable one.
5. Assisted by my inspection, I will refer to each of the building's interfaces in my assessment of this proposal.
6. Before doing so, I find that overall, the design of the building is well resolved and of a high architectural standard. That is consistent with urban design policies in the Stonnington planning scheme.[5] It is also a consideration which weighs heavily in favour of this proposal.

1. I agree with Mr Song that the central break between the northern and southern arm will have a limited effect on oblique views, but nonetheless, the varied setbacks and different architectural handling of these two arms will create a varied an interesting addition to the street.
2. Although the building will, at three storeys, be higher than its immediately abutting neighbours, there are numerous examples of larger scaled buildings in Carrum Street that, while two-storeys are either comparable in overall height to this proposal or which have a very strong visual presence, by virtue of their mass, volume and architectural presentation.
3. These include the single dwellings at No.'s 26 and 27 Carrum Street and the large rectilinear forms of the flats at No.'s 5 and 25 Carrum Street and the recent double storey townhouses at No. 8 Carrum Street.
4. Given this varied built form context, I am satisfied that this 3-storey building can be comfortably absorbed into the streetscape. In saying this, I note that the third level will be visible in Carrum Street, but I consider that it will not present as an unduly dominant element given the setback and design of this level. I have also taken into account the presence of the large street tree in front of the site which will soften and partially screen the development.
5. In relation to front setbacks, to fully comply with the numeric ResCode standard B6, a front setback of 7.45m is required. Proposed setbacks from the irregularly aligned frontage range from 3m to approximately 9.5m at the first two levels with the third level further recessed. The closest element is Unit 10's shade 'hood' which partially overhangs Unit 1's ground level courtyard.
6. Although open to the street, I consider that the 3m setback to this otherwise walled element on the second level would have an unreasonably dominating visual impact in the street. This is particularly so when viewed obliquely from the south.
7. I will require this to be setback a further 1.5m from the street through a reduction in the internal floor area so that it has a minimum setback of 4.5m. In doing so, I consider that it is important to maintain some visual differentiation between the second and first level of the building. I will therefore require Unit 1 to be further setback not less than 0.8m from the street, so as to have a minimum front setback of 5.3m.
8. With these modifications to front setbacks, I find that the building will transition in an acceptable way to its neighbours.
9. I will also require the installation of a tree in the garden bed between the front entry stairs (adjacent to the landing) and the driveway. While Ms Dowey suggested planting a Crepe myrtle in this location, I consider it preferable for a taller growing species with denser foliage, such as the evergreen Magnolia Grandiflora "Exmouth" or a suitable Ornamental pear (Pyrus) species which although deciduous is noted for its longer leaf retention.
10. A further minor modification that I will require involves the provision of a garden bed in place of the paved splay on the south side of the driveway at the front boundary. Low level planting such as ground covers or ornamental grasses should be used in this location so as not to obstruct pedestrian sight lines.
11. I am otherwise satisfied with the development's presentation to the street including landscaping arrangements subject to the modifications I have outlined.

1. A block of single storey units adjoins the site to the north. Further north again are two dual occupancy developments.
2. From the northern boundary, the development is to be setback a minimum of 3.4m to 4.9m at both levels except for Unit 12's balcony on the second level which is to have a setback of approximately 2.5m. The third level has setbacks ranging from 6.5m to 7.3m with balconies extending in part, to within 5.1m.
3. Within the side setback area, a variety of trees are to be planted including four ornamental pears, a red maple crepe myrtle and Bechtal crab.
4. Taking into account the magnitude of the setbacks proposed, opportunities for a reasonable extent of tree planting to soften the appearance of the building and the limited views of the development available from the ground level courtyards, I consider that the building will have an acceptable presentation at the northern interface. From more distant vantage points, that is from Mr Gordon and Ms Luscombe's driveway and front entry, I acknowledge that the development will be visible above the single storey form of the units at No. 18 Carrum Street and because of the limited landscaping between these properties. I find that although visible, the development would not be unreasonably intrusive at this distance.

1. There are two abutting properties to the north - No.'s 18 and 20 Camira Street - whose owners are parties to this proceeding.
2. Both properties and their dwellings are elevated above the review site. In the case of No. 20 Camira Street, the dwelling is situated on an upper terrace, surrounded by shrub and tree planting with a limited outlook to the review site. Existing and proposed vegetation would soften and partially screen views of the north elevation from the lower level area of open space. I find that the proposal would not be unreasonably intrusive from this property.
3. I am however concerned about the visual impact of the development, primarily the third level, when viewed from the rear of No. 18 Camira Street. This neighbouring dwelling is elevated about 1m above ground level and enjoys an expansive outlook towards the review site from the backyard and habitable room windows including the meals and kitchen. I regard this as the most sensitive interface.
4. While ground level setbacks will allow a reasonable degree of tree planting to occur at this interface, I consider that Unit 22 on the third level would be quite exposed and unreasonably intrusive on its east side. I will therefore require the setback of this dwelling to be increased to align with the central recess at a distance of 10.8m. An internal redesign of this unit and those surrounding it will be necessary. This may result in the loss of one unit or alternatively changes in the number of bedrooms, or both. As many suitable options are possible, I will not specify how this is to occur other than to require no reduction in boundary setbacks, the provision of screening techniques described under Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6, private open space that accords with Standard B11 at Clause 55.03-6 and the standard number of car parking spaces for the resulting dwelling types specified at Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.
5. Mr Mead expressed misgivings about the proposed removal of the Giant Bird of Paradise in the north-east corner of the review site. I agree that the removal of this vegetation is unfortunate but I accept Ms Dowey's evidence that a better landscape outcome will be achieved by its removal and replacement with new vegetation which will comprise a Chinese Elm at a height of 2m at the time of planting and which reaches a height of 10m at maturity, two Crepe Myrtles and a Magnolia Grandiflora (Exmouth).

1. The dwelling at No. 10 Carrum Street has its long axis adjacent to the northern boundary with a side setback that varies from 1.2m to 2.1m. Rooms with windows on this side include two bathrooms which also have skylights, a bedroom, study, kitchen and living room.
2. I acknowledge that the development will be partially visible from these windows. However, the proximity of this neighbouring dwelling to the common boundary will limit the degree to which the south elevation is exposed. The well-articulated form of the building and the proposed setbacks which range from 3.1m to 4.8m at ground level and except for two cantilevered balconies progressively increase over the next two levels, lead me to conclude that any visible built form above the new 1.8m boundary fence will not be unreasonably intrusive. New vegetation proposed along this side of the building will also create an improved green edge and assist in softening the building.
3. In relation to the backyard interface, I consider that while the development will be visible from oblique views in a north-westerly direction, I find that such impacts would be acceptable. In addition to the well-mannered side boundary setbacks, degree of building articulation and landscaping opportunities mentioned above, I have also taken into account:
   • the configuration of the dwelling and the lot itself at No. 10 Carrum Street whose orientation does not lend itself to a highly exposed outlook towards the review site;
   • the location of the covered outdoor dining area on the south side of the dwelling removed from the review site;
   • the proposed footprint of the building which extends to approximately the same distance as the rear of the dwelling at No. 10 Carrum Street except for balconies which extend further east.
4. The final issue at this interface concerns the appearance of the two-storey blank wall on the south side of Units 9 and 19. I agree with Mr Song's submission that this element will have a visually bulky presentation.
5. I note that greening of this 2-storey wall is proposed by training Chinese Star Jasmine to a tensile wire trellis. While this has the potential to be an attractive feature, its success, particularly at the more highly exposed second level, is highly dependent upon a good maintenance regime in perpetuity, best managed via the Owner's Corporation. Given that this element is within the secluded private open space of Unit 9, I think the preferable outcome in the circumstances is to provide additional architectural articulation instead of or in addition to a modified green wall treatment. Thus, I will require the installation of an additional window to Unit 19's bedroom 1 with a design and dimensions identical to that used in bedroom 2, including obscure glass to the lower pane. I acknowledge that this may necessitate some internal modifications to this dwelling, or alternatively a 'false' window could be installed and the wardrobe retained in its current location.

Would the proposal result in any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts in respect of neighbouring residential properties?

1. In addition to visual impacts, concerns were raised by Ms Schultz about the possibility of overlooking into windows and bathroom skylights of No. 10 Carrum Street, noise from the use of balconies, overshadowing and loss of daylight.

1. Aside from the need for some screening of Unit 24's deck, I consider that no unreasonable overlooking will arise in respect of neighbouring properties. I have considered the need for screening Unit 9's south facing kitchen/meals window. This ground level window would be opposite a 1.8m high boundary fence and has a floor level which is elevated approximately 0.5m above ground level, thus Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 does not apply.

1. The issue of increased noise arising from the occupation of multi-dwellings is frequently an issue raised before the Tribunal. Aside from the fact that no use permission is required for a dwelling, I adopt what Senior Member Byard said in Potts v Glen Eira CC:

[15] ... It is possible to have neighbours who indulge in frequent loud parties, but that can occur in relation to detached houses, just as well as in relation to medium density townhouses. The prospect of finding oneself in close proximity to neighbours who create noise nuisances of that sort is one of the risks one takes in living in an urban area. Of course, if the noise generation amounts to a nuisance there are other laws appropriate to deal with that sort of problem.

1. The same observations also apply to any other noise generated by residents living in an urban environment.

1. Building setbacks exceed the ResCode Standard B20 at Clause 55.04-4 whose objective seeks to ensure adequate solar access to north facing habitable room windows on neighbouring land. I am therefore unable to conclude that the proposal would result in any unreasonable loss of daylight.
2. I also find that overshadowing is within acceptable limits.

Are there any carparking or traffic related reasons that warrant refusal of this proposal?

1. Although not a reason for refusal by the Council, objectors submitted that the proposed number of parking spaces may not be adequate, mechanical stacker spaces may be inconvenient, thus resulting in kerbside parking that is already highly utilised and causes difficulties for through traffic.
2. As the number of car spaces for both residents and visitors is compliant with the rates set out at Clause 52.06-5, no planning permission is required for this aspect of the development.
3. I accept that mechanical car parking is not as convenient as stand-alone car spaces. This is nonetheless a legitimate form of carparking that is becoming increasingly common. Coupled with the fact that there are parking restrictions in the street limited to residents only and that parking permits will not be made available to residents of this development or their visitors, I am unable to refuse the development on the basis of the proposed parking arrangements.
4. I will however require the preparation of a carparking management plan which will require an induction programme for new residents allocated a mechanical car space and details of an intercom or other such system to facilitate basement access by visitors.

1. Through their submissions, both the Council and residents have expressed concerns about the increase in traffic arising from this development. This is not a view held by Council's traffic engineer or Mr Walsh who gave traffic evidence for the Applicant.
2. I find that the traffic generated by this proposal would not unreasonably impact upon the road carrying capacity or amenity of the local road network. In saying this I also accept Mr Walsh's evidence that traffic movements will be dispersed in a variety of directions throughout the local road network, thus limiting the impacts of increased volumes. I acknowledge that the width of Carrum Street at approximately 6.1m means that any cars parked kerbside will limit traffic flows to one direction only. That however, is a common occurrence in many streets throughout Melbourne, necessitating driver courtesy and vigilance by residents parking kerbside to ensure that a minimum trafficable width of 3m is maintained.
3. I consider that in the circumstances, it is appropriate to require a construction management plan as a permit condition.

Are there any other matters that warrant refusal of this proposal?

1. A tiny triangle of the site's frontage in the south-western corner is subject to flooding from overland flows and is covered by a Special Building Overlay. This overlay affects a number of properties on the east and west sides of Carrum Street, properties in Arcadia Avenue to the west and the southern two-thirds of Carrum Street itself.
2. Residents cited examples of localised flooding during large storm events and submit that this proposal will worsen the situation.
3. With appropriate permit conditions in relation to drainage, I consider that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on local drainage conditions. The development itself also incorporates design measures to ensure that the basement and dwellings are protected from overland flows.[6]

1. A number of other matters about draft permit conditions were raised by the parties. With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I have considered submissions about them in formulating permit conditions.
2. These include a condition requiring full details of external materials and colours, including samples and details of the mechanical car stacker system to be shown on the plans.

1. The site enjoys a reasonably high degree of broader strategic support for this proposal.
2. This 3-storey development will be introduce a different style of architecture to Carrum Street. It is however a high quality design whose form and scale while larger than abutting dwellings, is in a street where large robust building forms exist and have done so for many years. Off-site impacts are limited through the building's design or can be readily managed.
3. For the reasons I have set out, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
4. I will direct the grant of a permit with conditions.

The construction of multi-dwellings, in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the development starts, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Orbit Architecture, Job No. A12006 dated 8 October 2012, Ref: TP001, TP101, TP102, TP111, TP121, TP122, TP131, TP211, TP221 to 224 inclusive, TP241, TP 301, TP302, TP401, TP721, TP811, TP814, TP817 and the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd dated October 2012 but modified to show:
   • (a) Unit 10's shade 'hood' which partially overhangs Unit 1's ground level courtyard setback a further 1.5m from the front boundary so as to have a minimum front setback of 4.5m, through a reduction in the floor area of this dwelling.
   • (b) Unit 1 setback by at least a further 0.8m from the front boundary, so as to have a minimum front setback of 5.3m through a reduction in the floor area of this dwelling.
   • (c) Provision of a tree in the garden bed between the front entry stairs (adjacent to the landing) and the driveway with a semi-advanced species having dense foliage, capable of growing to a minimum height of 8m at maturity such as the evergreen Magnolia Grandiflora "Exmouth" or a suitable ornamental pear (Pyrus) species.
   • (d) Provision of a garden bed in place of the paved splay on the south side of the driveway at the front boundary. Low level planting such as ground covers or ornamental grasses are to be used in this location so as not to obstruct sight lines.
   • (e) Unit 2's setback increased to align with the central recess at a distance of 10.8m from the east boundary. Consequential internal modifications are to be shown. Modifications to affected dwellings must be undertaken so as to meet the following:
     • (i) no reduction in boundary setbacks,
     • (ii) balconies and windows are to be screened in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 of the Planning Scheme,
     • (iii) private open space is to accord with Standard B11 at Clause 55.03-6 of the Planning Scheme, and
     • (iv) the standard number of car parking spaces for the resulting dwelling types specified at Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.
   • (f) The provision of an additional window to the south wall of Unit 19's bedroom 1, identical in design and dimensions to that used in bedroom 2, including obscure glass to the lower pane. Any internal modifications to this dwelling are to be shown, or alternatively a 'false' window could be installed and the wardrobe retained in its current location. The wire tensile lattice and associated creeper may, if desired, be modified or deleted.
   • (g) The make and model of the mechanical car stacker system, with required dimensions and operating system clearly shown on the plans.
   • (h) Dimensions of the vehicle crossover to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (i) The southern perimeter of the deck outside Unit 24 screened in accordance with the screening requirements of Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 of the Planning Scheme.
   • (j) A full schedule of external materials and colours including the provision of samples, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (k) Any changes as required by condition 13.
2. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the drawings and/or schedules endorsed to accompany the permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
4. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) street tree in front of the site. Fencing must be 1.8m high, be of steel mesh construction, run from kerb to footpath, and 2m either side of the tree stem. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
5. During construction any new service to the existing gas meter in front of the property must not be open trenched within the Structural Root Zone of the significant tree and should be bored at a minimum depth of 600 mm below surface to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Prior to the endorsement of plans under Condition 1, a parking management plan must be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for approval. When approved, the parking management plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit. The parking management plan must not be amended without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority and must provide:
   • (a) The allocation of car spaces to each dwelling and for visitors in accordance with the rates set out in Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme;
   • (b) Details of proposed signage to indicate the above allocation of parking spaces;
   • (c) Details of car park control equipment which must show the location of any intercom or other security device at the entry and method of accessing the basement by visitors, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (d) Details of an induction program carried out by suitably trained persons which will be given to each new resident allocated a mechanical car space. Such induction is to demonstrate the features of the system, including method of its safe operation and is to be provided on an on-going basis.

Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to commencement of works, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:
   • (a) Dimensions of waste areas.
   • (b) The number of bins to be provided.
   • (c) Method of waste and recyclables collection.
   • (d) Hours of waste and recyclables collection to correspond with Local laws.
   • (e) Details of bin transfer arrangements to and from the basement to kerbside before and after waste collection.
   • (f) Sufficient turning circles and clearance heights for the waste collection vehicles to access waste collection areas.
   • (g) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised.
2. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer's design.
3. All drainage for the basement must be isolated from the internal drainage system, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Ventilation systems must be designed and installed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.
5. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority's consent.
6. All services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the application requirements of the draft Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.
9. Prior to the commencement of any site works whatsoever (including demolition and excavation), the owner must submit a Construction Management Plan to the Responsible Authority for approval. No works (including demolition and excavation) are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must provide details of the following:
   • (a) hours for construction activity;
   • (b) measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
   • (c) the location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows;
   • (d) measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan;
   • (e) contact details of key construction site staff;
   • (f) the location of any site sheds and the like; and
   • (g) any other relevant matters.
10. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.
11. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must not have more than 25% openings or they must be of solid translucent panels, permanent, fixed and durable and designed and coloured to blend in with the development to the satisfaction of the Reasonable Authority.
12. 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 periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

[1] See for example Clauses 11 and 16 of all Victorian Planning Schemes.

[2] I acknowledge that the site is located about 1.1km from the Oakleigh train station. This distance together with the hostile nature of pedestrian access across Dandenong and Warrigal Roads, would in a practical sense, reduce the likelihood of pedestrians making this journey.

[3] That is, based on the original lot pattern accommodating single detached dwellings rather than more recent multi-dwelling development which occurs on smaller lots.

[4] At paragraph 56, cited with approval in Le Build Abbotsford Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2010] VCAT 1240.

[5] See for examples Clauses 15, 22.02 and 22.06.

[6] The applicable flood level is 56.48m AHD.