A Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit is recommended, subject to appropriate conditions addressing off-site impacts and finishes of the structure, landscaping and paving.

12 Council then issued a Notice of Decision dated 10 November 2004 to grant a permit subject to 33 conditions including a limit of 3 practitioners; a reduction of 3 car spaces; a schedule of materials and finishes; a small landscape strip at the front; a textured finish to the east façade; hours of operation; and an agreement setting aside the northern portion of the land as a carriageway easement.

13 Application for Review P3299/2004 was lodged by a number of objectors citing the following grounds:

•

The scale is inappropriate to the heritage area.

•

The height should be reduced to allow a view to the eastern area and the Anzac Gardens.

•

The building should be redesigned to give a more appropriate elevation to the east and the Anzac Gardens.

•

The building should be redesigned to relate to the heritage area and the heritage precinct of St. Vincent Place.

•

There is no easy pedestrian access across Ferrars Street for elderly and less able patients.

14 There are an array of statutory planning controls and strategic planning documents relevant to this application. In a statutory sense, the subject site and land to the north and south is within a Mixed Use zone. Evidently this zone was applied to the land at the time of the introduction of the "new format" Port Phillip Planning Scheme in about 1998. Within this zone, a medical centre is a Section 2 (permit required) use. Land to the east (the rail line) is in a Public Use No. 4 zone; and land further east is zoned Residential 1 other than the Anzac Gardens which are zoned Public Park and Recreation (PPRZ). Land immediately to the west (Ferrars Street) is within a Road Zone Category 1 while St Vincent Gardens is PPRZ and the housing stock in St Vincent Place is zoned Residential 1.

15 The subject site is also affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO3) and the land on the west side of Ferrars Street is within HO 258 which specifically covers the St. Vincent Place and Gardens precinct.

16 The land at the rear of the site, along the rail reserve, is within Environmental Significance Overlay No.1 (ESO1) which seeks to conserve the existing remnant indigenous vegetation along the rail corridor. On inspecting the area, the Tribunal noted the degree of existing mature vegetation within this rail reserve and also noted that it is an area proclaimed by Yarra Trams as a "revegetation area" as part of its "Naturelinks" program.

17 In a strategic sense, Clauses 15, 19, 21 and 22 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme are most relevant and these are analysed in detail below.

18 There is a long history of use and development proposals on the subject site. According to Council:

The land was originally to be part of the St Vincent Garden 'circus' subdivision, but the advent of the train line denied that occurring... The subject site and abutting properties have been developed for a number of commercial purposes, originally pursuant to leases from the Victorian Railways (later the Public Transport Corporation), and later, pursuant to freehold title as the PTC disposed of surplus properties.

The subject land, which is known as Railway Lot 17B or 333 Ferrars Street was developed and used for a plant nursery. The adjacent land to the south known at Lot 18A or 335-337 Ferrars Street is developed with a 1940's era red brick factory building that has been converted to 2 storey offices and associated car park area. The adjacent land to the north is known as Lots 15 or 17A of 329-331 Ferrars Street and is developed with a similar commercial building, rendered and painted light grey, and used for an interior/furniture sales and distribution business. The City to St Kilda light rail runs in a cutting behind the property.

19 Two relevant Tribunal decisions were referred to us. Application 1998/72527 (Buckerfield Pty Ltd v Port Phillip City Council; C Gadsden & Ors) involved a proposal for four double storey townhouses (one of which had a three level tower). Council had opposed the application and the Tribunal upheld this decision rejecting the proposal finding that "..the form of development for this land is inappropriate in heritage and neighbourhood character terms". The Tribunal made extensive reference to non-compliance with some specific 1995 Council guidelines and noted:

I find that the proposed development fails to adequately respond to the character of the neighbourhood and would be detrimental to the historic values of the locality. I am of the view that the design fails to respond adequately to the spirit of the specific guidelines developed in 1995 for the railway land, and at the same time fails to respect the architectural style of buildings in all parts of the neighbourhood.

I do not believe that the development is appropriate in heritage terms and I believe does not comply with the two documents most recently adopted by the Responsible Authority as policy - the Ferrars Street Guidelines and the Conservation Strategy for St Vincents Gardens.

20 A subsequent proposal (Buckerfield Pty Ltd Architects v Port Phillip City Council & A Schrader - 2001/12863) for three dwellings (part two and part three storey) was also rejected by Council. The Tribunal provided an historic and site context for its discussion and noted:

The conflict which has surrounded the redevelopment of this land arises from its location and context. In this current application the permit applicants have sought to respond to the conclusions of Ms Moles in the most recent of the earlier Tribunal decisions in Application for Review 1998/072527, Buckerfield Pty Ltd Architects v City of Port Phillip...... It is this complex history relating both to the original development of Albert Park, and the more recent disposal of Government owned land, which has led to the current application for review and its predecessors.

21 Throughout the course of that hearing discussions took place as to how that design could be adapted so as to be more site responsive. Evidently one of the critical aspects was the maintenance of a visual link from St Vincent Gardens in the west with Anzac Gardens to the east. On this basis some modified plans were prepared of which the Tribunal said:

In relation to the proposed architecture and materials, the basic contention was that the design does not respond sufficiently to the character of residential development in St Vincent's Place, and in particular the building has a somewhat commercial character. In my view the architecture of the proposed building is undoubtedly very modern, but the rhythm and articulation of the proposed design is a very well considered response to both the established character of development in Ferrars Street and the rhythm and articulation of Victorian residential development in St Vincent's Place.

22 A matter which was of considerable importance to the Tribunal in that case was the permanent setting aside of land at the northern end of the site so as to maintain the "axis view" between the gardens on both sides of the rail line. The Tribunal, in granting a permit, imposed a condition requiring a 6.4m wide open space easement so as to permanently preserve the view line. The Tribunal granted a conditional permit for the development and as yet, the permit has not been activated although we were advised that it remains a "live" permit.

23 The Tribunal has inspected the subject site and surrounding area and it has considered all of the material presented to it. The Tribunal believes that the following issues need to be addressed in this application:

•

Planning controls;

•

Strategic direction in the scheme;

•

Status of documents outside the scheme;

•

Site context including relationship with St Vincent "precinct" and the connection between St Vincents Gardens and Anzac Gardens;

•

Building design including height and scale;

•

Design in context;

•

Other matters including relevance of previous Tribunal decisions; car parking and permit conditions.

24 We agree with Mr. Gobbo that our assessment of this application is confined to the matters included in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. It is not for us to speculate on why the controls are as they appear; or whether any changes may ever be made to the current planning regime. We begin this process by acknowledging that the site is within a Mixed Use zone and a planning permit is required for the use and development of the site for a medical centre. It is sufficient to observe that no parties are really contesting the appropriateness of a medical centre on this site especially as it is the relocation of an established medical premises nearby at 51 St Vincent Place.

25 In many ways the relocation of the medical premises to this site will be of benefit to this community. Not only will it remove traffic and parking from St. Vincent Place, it will also result in a purpose built clinic with a designated parking area, allowing the two historic houses it currently occupies at 51 St. Vincent Place (in Rochester Terrace) to revert to their original use as dwellings.

26 The real matter in dispute is the design of the building resting as it does within a heritage overlay. The site is within HO3 which is an overlay which covers a vast area of South Melbourne, Middle Park and Albert Park. The Tribunal notes that the site is not within Heritage Overlay HO258 covering the outstanding St. Vincent Place precinct.

27 The Heritage Overlay is to be found at Clause 43.01 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The overlay has five explicit purposes, the first of which is to implement the state and local planning policy framework. This includes the Municipal Strategic Statement and any local planning policies. The remaining relevant purposes are:

•

To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.

•

To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.

•

To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.

28 The Heritage Overlay is limited to those "heritage places" specified in the schedule to the overlay. The overlay contains permit requirements; exemptions from notice and appeal; and decision guidelines.

29 The decision guidelines (at 43.01-5) require that before deciding on an application, the Responsible Authority must consider, as appropriate, (and among other things);

the significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place. (our emphasis)

any applicable heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.

30 Other decision guidelines repeatedly refer to consideration of the proposal affecting the "significance, character or appearance of the heritage place".

31 The site was assessed in the Port Phillip Heritage Review 2000 which is an incorporated document in the Planning Scheme. 333 Ferrars St is "nil graded" in that review. The Port Phillip Heritage Review is of assistance to us as it provides a "Statement of Significance" for HO3 as required by Clause 43.01-5 in the following terms:

The South Melbourne, Albert Park, Middle Park, and St Kilda north of Fitzroy Street area encompass the bay shoreline and is further defined by Fitzroy Street in the south, Queens Road in the east and generally by Pickles and York Streets and Kingsway in the north..... It is historically important (Criterion A) as one of Melbourne's earliest suburbs, founded in response to the demand for accommodation arising from the Gold Rush of the early 1850. The layout of the streets and parks is highly distinctive, recalling British planning practices at St Vincent Place and Heather Street gardens. The development of the plan is expressive of the boom times of the 1870s and 1880s and especially demonstrated by the Council's Emerald Hill civic precinct development, the subdivision of parkland, and the development of the Beaconsfield Parade foreshore as a resort for the metropolis. The diversity of development within the discrete periods of growth characteristic of the area constitutes a special heritage valued not only by its residents but by Melbourne at large (Criterion g). This importance is due to the area's ability to inform present generations about the way of life now past, when communities were to a large extent self contained as a consequence of limited personal mobility. (Port Phillip Heritage Review 2000).

32 Our statutory framework then is that we have to consider whether or not this proposal will "adversely affect" the significance of a precinct which, according to its Statement of Significance has a ...diversity of development... within it.

33 In a strategic sense, Clauses 15, 19, 21 and 22 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme are relevant. Mr. Gobbo referred to what he called the "maze" of planning layers that now have to be taken into account as a result of the new VPP schemes which, rather than making things clearer, typically make it harder to distil the Council policy direction. While this is an unfortunate observation on a relatively new system, it is an observation with which we reluctantly agree.

34 We were referred to no less than twelve separate clauses in the Port Phillip Scheme of relevance to this application being Clauses 15.11(Heritage), and 19.03 (Urban Design) of the SPPF; Clauses 21.02 (Profile), 21.03 (Key Issues), 21.04 (Vision), 21.05-3 (Neighbourhood Character), 21.05-4 (Urban Design), 21.05-5 (Heritage Conservation), 21.05-8 (Commercial Land Use) and 21.05-12 (Mixed Use Areas) of the MSS; and Clauses 22.04 (Port Phillip Heritage Policy) and 22.06 (Urban Design) of the local policies. These clauses repeatedly interchange words like "respect", "enhance", "protect", "complement", "maintain", "sympathetic", "responsive", "integrate", "harmonise" and "contribute positively". In addition, we were referred to the Port Phillip Heritage Review 2000 and the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map 2000, both of which are incorporated documents in the planning scheme. We were finally referred to the City of Port Phillip Urban Character Study.

35 The Port Phillip Planning Scheme is certainly not alone in its level of complexity, and without being too critical of this or any other scheme, it appears to us that many of the new format planning schemes resemble the "Da Vinci Code" in their complexity. The message is typically camouflaged under so many layers of unnecessary or repetitive material that it is difficult to distil the real policy direction. It is unclear why the same thing needs to be said over and over and over again in different sections of the scheme. As identified above, there are no less than twelve separate clauses to take into account (quite apart from the zone, the two overlays, the Incorporated Documents and Reference Documents) in attempting to determine the strategic direction in this scheme. It should not be that difficult.

36 Rather than dismantling the planning scheme word for word, we feel that it is preferable to stand back and try and summarise what Council is trying to achieve. While that is no easy task, we feel that having read, in context, all of the state and local policy sections of the scheme it seems to us that Port Phillip Council is saying that:

•

its wonderful heritage assets should be protected;

•

new buildings (as opposed to alterations) should not mimic existing buildings;

•

high quality, innovative and contemporary buildings are to be encouraged;

•

the diverse "character" of Port Phillip makes an important contribution to the area and has to be taken into account.

•

development must respond to its site and its context

37 Of all the Clauses in the Planning Scheme (apart from the heritage overlay itself) we get most assistance from Clause 19.03 (at the state level) and Clause 22.04 (at the local level). Clause 19.03-2 is often overlooked in the planning scheme but we are attracted by its simplicity in direction where it states, with respect to heritage, that:

New development should respect, but not simply copy, historic precedents and create a worthy legacy for future generations.

38 The sentiment of "respecting" rather than "copying" is carried forward by Council with the Port Phillip Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04 which invites a contextual approach as follows:

Encourage a contextual design approach for additions and/or alterations to a heritage place or for new development. A contextual approach is where the alteration, addition or new development incorporates an interpretive design approach (derived through comprehensive research and analysis). New development should sit comfortably and harmoniously integrate with the site and within the streetscape and not diminish, detract from or compete with (our emphasis) the significance of the heritage place, or streetscape character of adjoining or nearby buildings.

•

Contemporary architecture and innovative design which is an important part of the contextual approach because it adds to the existing diversity and layering of styles through time. This layering is a defining feature in a number of areas and is therefore an important component of Port Phillip's heritage.

•

Accurate reproduction architecture may be employed in limited instances where detailed evidence, such as photographic evidence, exists for that alteration, addition or new development. This approach may be more appropriate in the South Melbourne, Albert Park, Middle Park HO3 area, but may have limited application elsewhere.

39 It seems to us that given that all parties agreed that reproduction architecture is not appropriate on this site, then it is the former approach which Council seeks - namely, a contemporary and innovative design which will not compete with the heritage asset but will add to the diversity of layers which have all helped define Port Phillip's heritage. This invokes the second arm of Clause 19.03 which aims to create a worthy legacy for future generations. Presumably that legacy will be delivered via "contemporary and innovative design" rather than by "reproduction architecture" and it was not in dispute that the subject application was both contemporary and innovative. Like Council, we therefore conclude that there is quite strong strategic support for this proposal in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

Status of documents outside the planning scheme

40 Before addressing the merits of the design in the context of the planning controls and the site, we wish to make reference to some documents and guidelines which had been prepared by Council some years ago which address the St Vincent precinct in general and the subject site in particular. All parties referred to these documents at the hearing. In 1995, faced with the sale of some lots on the east side of Ferrars Street by the PTC, Council prepared "Development Guidelines for Ferrars Street at St Vincent Place, South Melbourne". These guidelines were evidently prepared by Mr Robert Sands (the "Sands Guidelines") and they were intended to assist purchasers and developers of four allotments, one of which is the subject site. The guidelines address building location and height; building envelope; and landscaping. Of particular relevance in the Sands Guidelines is the identification of a "no build zone" abutting the southern end of the subject site; an indication of two storey height limit with some scope for a three storey section on the site; and the identification of a view axis line running east/west from St Vincent Gardens to the Anzac Gardens. This axis line is at the northern end of the subject site. The Sands Guidelines have informed numerous applications on the site and have been relied upon by parties in this hearing. They were clearly relied upon in the above mentioned Tribunal decisions on the subject site.

41 The other document is the "St. Vincent Gardens Conservation Analysis and Management Strategy" which was prepared for Council by Ms. Jill Orr-Young in September 1997. This strategy was evidently a review of the 1995 draft St. Vincent Place Conservation Study and the earlier 1986 St. Vincent Gardens Master Plan. The strategy was evidently not a review of the 1995 Sands Guidelines, but responded to new information which had been received and was to be a management document for the conservation and recreation values of the gardens.

42 Despite the submissions of all of the parties, the Tribunal is loathe to give the guidelines and the strategy the weight requested of them by the objectors. Notwithstanding the "maze" of planning material already included in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, these documents do not even rate a mention in the scheme. Any number of other documents are included in the scheme as reference documents or incorporated documents but not these. The Tribunal cannot hazard a guess as to why these documents have "fallen off" the scheme but we would have thought that if they were to be as critical as was made out at the hearing then some attempt would have been made to include them. In particular, the Sands Guidelines have the potential to be referenced in the MSS as being a relevant decision making tool, and then absorbed into the scheme by way of a Design and Development Overlay. None of this has occurred and seemingly there has not been an attempt to absorb them into the scheme. While the documents remain adopted Council documents and by virtue of Section 60(1)(b)(ii) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 are a matter which we may take into account and while Clause 43.01-5 of the heritage overlay enables us to have regard to any applicable heritage study and any applicable conservation policy we do not attach much status to them at all.

43 We feel that neither the Sands Guidelines nor the Jill Orr-Young report pass any of the accepted tests for inclusion into the scheme. It may well be that they are suitable for inclusion at some stage but there is a long journey ahead of them to achieve this status. This Tribunal will have regard to them (especially in informing us of the site context) but it will not rely on them and it will give them less weight than anything that is included in the scheme. If the Tribunal were to give them the weight expected by some of the parties then this would elevate them to a status never intended by the planning reform program. It would also give comfort to every other Council who is happy to use "informal" policies sitting outside the scheme. Council has had every chance to include these documents in the scheme and the fact that they have not done so reduces their status considerably in the mind of the Tribunal.

44 Context is always a relevant consideration and it is especially so in this application. It is the context and abuttals of this particular site which have generated the objections to the proposal rather than the proposal itself. Indeed, we were advised that it is a proposal which may well have gained the support of all parties on another site. As already noted, it was described by all parties, including the objectors, in complimentary terms. However, it is because of its abuttal to one of the most outstanding residential precincts of the Victorian era anywhere in the country that is the cause for concern.

45 In terms of site context, Council's Manager of Urban Design and Architecture was aware of this and noted:

The site is a sensitive and highly visible one, for which various schemes have been prepared in the past. Its sensitivity relates to its location within the wider St Vincent Gardens precinct although there are no specific controls over the site except for an extensive Heritage Overlay. Its high visibility is due to its location on a main road and abutting a light rail line and the nearby public open spaces on both sides of the rail/road corridor.

46 We feel that while there was an understandable emphasis placed by the objectors on the context of St Vincent Place and Gardens, we believe that this was almost to the exclusion of the context of Ferrars Street. It is our observation, after inspecting the site and its vicinity, that the context of this site is as much Ferrars Street as it is St Vincent Place. It is as much the context of a busy north south arterial road as it is a quiet residential enclave around the gardens; it is as much about a site compromised by and sandwiched between a road carrying 25,000 vehicles per day and a busy rail line, as it is about the passive parkland and trees of the gardens. Indeed, the immediate context of this site is more to do with cars, bitumen and trams than it is to do with St. Vincent Place and Gardens. On our observations, the building will be read in its Ferrars context to a much greater degree than in its St Vincent Place context.

47 Of course that is not to say that St. Vincent Place and its heritage qualities are irrelevant. Clearly they are relevant and both the applicant and Council acknowledge this. But this site is anything but the "black tooth in the white smile" of the St Vincent Place heritage area. It is no surprise to us that the site is not within the St Vincent heritage overlay as it is essentially peripheral to it.

48 We also consider that there was considerable overemphasis placed on the nexus between the east and west sides of the site and the connection between the two gardens. We believe that the east side of Ferrars Street and the former railway reserve within which the site is located, has very little relationship to the St Vincent Place precinct. One hundred and fifty years ago there was a proposed connection because the original plan had the "circus" being completed all the way around. This plan was never practically implemented and within a year of the plan being devised in 1857 the rail line was routed to St. Kilda forever burying the prospects of the complete circle. To the casual observer, the two sides of the "circus" have little in common and their respective development phases are quite different. We agree with Council's heritage advisor on this point who noted that ...either side is obscured from the other by vegetation, the central axis from the square is the rather ordinary rear of the RSL building and the existence of the crescent is simply not legible.

49 Unfortunate as the non-realisation of the original circus form planned for St Vincents Place may be, or however attractive this idea might have been, the eastern crescent has always been divorced from the remainder of the circus by the railway line. Buildings along the western edge of the railway line are in the main commercial, due no doubt to their location, squeezed between a railway line and a busy four lane road. This is the case all along Ferrars St between City Rd and Kerferd Rd.

50 It seems to us that the very best that could be done with a design on this site would be to maintain a visual link and this is clearly satisfied by the proposed design. Indeed, we believe that the prospects for retaining a link are actually improved by this design which provides a visual connection with the Anzac Gardens on the north and south sides of the building, with further prospects for a visual link beneath the building at ground level. While the building was criticised by the objectors as denying the prospects for viewing canopy trees on either side of the gardens we not only cannot find any planning scheme basis for this as being relevant, but we think the maintenance of the sense of connection from east to west is all that is relevant and that this design advances those prospects.

51 Putting to one side for a moment the question of the compatibility of the building with the heritage area, the Tribunal believes that the proposed design has a number of things in its favour including:

• It is of a modest scale and height for an inner city redevelopment.

• It is of a height consistent with other newer building stock on Ferrars Street.

• It is of a height consistent with the building stock within St. Vincent Place.

• It is of a height which has been (in part) approved by the earlier Tribunal decision.

• Unusually from an inner city perspective there is no real suggestion of any off site amenity impacts by way of overlooking, overshadowing or loss of daylight.

• The curve wall and roof are "recessive' elements meaning that the building will not appear as high as shown on the submitted plans. Indeed it could be said that the building echoes the successful additions to the building to the south where the second storey is set back in a way which minimizes the perception of height by drawing the eye away from the Ferrars Street interface.

• It adheres to the spirit and much of the detail of the guidelines (notwithstanding the low weight which we give them), in that it maintains the visual link from east to west across the light rail reserve by staying away from the "no build zones" of the guidelines.

• It further improves visual links from east to west by developing only a small central area at ground floor level which encourages the passerby to look through the undercroft of the building.

• It avoids mimicking the architectural features of the landmark residential terraces nearby.

• It does not fight with or attempt to compete with the outstanding building stock to the west.

• The proposal will most certainly add to the existing layering and diversity of styles which the planning scheme refers to.

• It incorporates a number of ESD attributes.

• Its siting ensures that it will be visible from a very restricted area within the gardens or the heritage precinct of St Vincent Place. This was well demonstrated by the "red rag" photographs produced at the hearing and confirmed on inspection by the Tribunal. It seems to us that it is really only at the very eastern end of the gardens and St. Vincent Place North and South that the building will be clearly visible.

• The main sight lines will be on the Ferrars Street corridor where it will be viewed by passing motorists.

• The fact that it will be visible from some parts of the gardens or obliquely from some parts of St Vincent Place is not the test and is not fatal in any event.

52 There are any number of examples of very modern buildings successfully sitting close to heritage buildings or precincts both here and overseas. While we are careful not to be seduced by attractive architecture, we are also mindful of the fact that we are not judges in an architectural competition. The test for us is to be guided by the direction in the planning scheme which quite clearly contemplates a contemporary building in a location such as this notwithstanding its proximity to a heritage precinct of the highest significance. The planning scheme further cautions us against replicating the features of that heritage precinct lest the new fight with and diminish the old.

53 This brings us to the critical issue. How does this contemporary design sit in context with an area which is influenced by the presence of an outstanding heritage precinct?

54 On behalf of the objectors, Mr. Lewis submitted that:

The proposal should be refused. This is because it completely fails to respect the significance of the site and its context.

The building will create a continuous north south wall that will permanently divide the two sections of St. Vincent Gardens and the precinct. It will block existing views of the main section from the eastern section of the gardens.

The building form is incompatible with the significance of the built form of the area. The western facing part of the building is of an innovative design that would be completely acceptable in a different environment, free from heritage constraints. However it has no place in this sensitive location.

The modern architectural character does not respect the built form, rhythm and urban design of St Vincent Place North and South. The extremely strong new forms are completely out of character with the defined significance of its context.

It is of a bulk that is much larger than the current approved scheme for three town houses, and much more of a physical barrier. It will not permit as many vistas of the tree canopies and other views that that scheme would have provided. It is much more aggressive as a building form and will be much more visually dominant within the surrounding area than the approved scheme.

55 On the other hand, Mr. Taylor on behalf of the permit applicant stated that:

The proposed building's siting is consistent with the now evolved Ferrars Street/Canterbury Road rail side developments of the 1980's and 90's. Siting has been modified to meet the central axis/view corridor objective which has been a recurrent theme in different examinations of the site.

The three level building achieves an apparent lesser height and bulk through use of a lower height car parking zone at ground level and incorporation of a type of attic storey third level to Ferrars Street.

The proposed .... form and architectural language contrasts with the previously approved scheme. The contrast is positive. This previous scheme was a characteristic development of the railway strip, which proposed a busy sampleboard of stripped down traditional building elements of front fences, walls, windows, doors and roofs.

A merit of the proposed medical centre is that it less plainly expresses its use so that it is not architecturally jostling with the great terraces of St Vincent Place.

The proposal's second aspect of merit is (the) use of its unconventional building form; and its abstract expression of architectural envelope components, structure and envelope. The form and expression read less like a building and more like a landscape element. .............

Overall, the development presents a model which is architecturally abstract so that it does not "fight" with the architecturally distinct crust of built development around the site.

The proposed abstracted building form which evokes a cultivated landscape element rather than a building, has potential to unify this physically and historically dispersed urban area: an area which was planned as a complete urban ensemble, but which never was seen through.

56 We believe that Mr. Lewis' assessment is based on an assumption that this site is a crucial element in the St Vincent Place heritage precinct and that it is offensive to that precinct. We do not share this assumption. As noted, we do not think that the site "reads" as part of St Vincent Place and is much more influenced by Ferrars Street than it is by the gardens and buildings of St Vincent Place. We also do not agree that it is somehow central to a wider precinct which extends to the east side of the rail line. That wider precinct never really existed and to the casual observer it is indecipherable. We are not persuaded that the visual impacts on views from the east are of concern. The rail line and its intervening vegetation (protected as it is by the planning scheme) have diminished the practical prospects for any visual or physical connection. Having said that, we find that the detail on the eastern elevation presents as an attractive, varied and interesting façade.

57 The Tribunal's attention was drawn on several occasions to a three storey office building at 343 Ferrars Street, where the architect had delicately sheathed the building with a skin of fixed horizontal metal sun louvres. This was cited as an example of a contemporary building which successfully emphasised the horizontality seen in rows of nearby terraces, and where the permeability of the façade reflected the layering achieved by Victorian verandahs. The Tribunal agrees that the building at 343 Ferrars is an admirable insertion into the neighbourhood. That is not to say however that the subject building with its facetted façade will not be. Indeed, we consider that the design successfully incorporates quite strong vertical and horizontal articulation. We do not concur with Mr. Lewis' assertion that the building is a "dramatic design" of "massive bulk" which does "not respect the built form, rhythm and urban design of St. Vincent Place North and South." We agree with Council's heritage advisor and urban design manager, and are persuaded that the height, bulk, form, setbacks, rhythm and design of the proposed building sits comfortably within its site context.

58 We have already noted that we are not judges in an architectural competition - rather, we are guided by Clause 31.01-2 of the planning scheme which asks the responsible authority to determine whether the proposal will produce "acceptable outcomes" in terms of the strategic direction and the statutory controls in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

59 We are quite satisfied that this design achieves an "acceptable outcome" in the context of the planning scheme directions in that it results in a mixed use activity in an contemporary and innovative building which avoids mimicking its near neighbours but retains the height and scale of those neighbours.

60 A number of peripheral but important matters were raised in the hearing which require some comment. The first is that the ground floor use on the plans is "associated medical centre services" and there was some uncertainty as to what that entails. The applicant indicated that this might include the hire of things such as crutches or wheel chairs which are related to the activity in the medical centre. We note that Condition 7 of the Notice of Decision requires that the ground level area must be used in association with the medical centre and we are satisfied that this is a sufficient mechanism.

61 The second issue related to traffic and parking. The Tribunal heard from Mr. Turnbull on this aspect and we are quite satisfied on the basis of supply and demand that a reduction in the required car parking rate to nine spaces is justified especially as it will ensure that the land to the northern end of the site is kept free from building. We are satisfied that both vehicular and pedestrian access into the site is both safe and convenient. We acknowledge that there will be the need for an ambulance to attend the site from time to time and are satisfied that there is ample space in the event of such an emergency for such a vehicular to park on site. We see no need to specify as a condition of permit where that ambulance should park. The ambulance driver will know that better than us.

62 In terms of proposed permit conditions on the Notice of Decision, the only matters which we believe warrant modification are the need for samples for materials and colours; and, as suggested by Ms. Orrlov, a condition requiring that the rear boundary fence be more open so as to assist in the visual permeability from east to west. We are satisfied with Condition 8 which specifies a limit of three practitioners other than if further permission is obtained from Council. We have slightly modified Condition 22 in relation to the location of signage.

63 The final issue is that of the previous Tribunal decisions. We are mindful of the fact that an initial proposal was rejected and that a subsequent application was approved after modification. We have read those decisions carefully and it is quite clear that in the initial refusal, the Tribunal placed considerable weight on the 1995 guidelines and the 1997 strategy and clearly expected that these documents would ultimately be reflected in the planning scheme. As we have already said, the fact that this has not taken place significantly downgrades the status of these documents in our mind. Instead we are now faced with a design which has been assessed in the context of the more recent Port Phillip Heritage Review 2000 and, unlike the earlier proposals, this application is greatly assisted by having:

• The support of Council's heritage advisor;

• The support of Council's urban designer; and

• The support of Council.

64 In the final analysis and having considered the planning controls, the site context, the building design and the impacts to the east and west, we conclude that the application passes the test in the planning scheme in that it will not "adversely affect" the significance of the heritage overlay of either HO3 or HO258.

65 It also seems to us that the conclusion of Council's heritage adviser best sums up our view where he concluded that ....architecturally I believe that it will be a quality asset to both St. Vincent Place and Ferrars Street...

66 The Tribunal directs that a conditional planning permit be issued.