1-5 Westley Avenue, 2 Ivanhoe Parade and 16 Seddon Street, Ivanhoe

Insite Architects v Banyule CC [2011] VCAT 152

1. Leave is given to the permit applicant to substitute for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

TP000, TP001, TP002, TP003, TP004, TP100, TP101, TP102, TP200, TP201, TP202, TP203, TP204, TP205, TP206, TP207, TP400, TP400, TP401, TP402, TP403, TP500, TP600, TP700, TP800, TP900, TP950. All revision G

1. Pursuant to section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the following people are joined as parties to this proceeding:

Mr R Fyfe, Ms S Course, Ms G Minano, Ms S Thompson, Ms B Stancombe, Mr J Warden, Mr S Goodson, Ms A Pearson, Dr and Ms Dowell, Ms B George, J & A Keating, C Wilding and F Brophy, Ms S Yoemans, Ms J Rush, Ms M Garett, Mr Monigatti, Dr H Vaughan, Ms S Pateras, Ms J Doolan, Mr A Milano, Ms M Tsomos, Mr A Ryan, Ms L Cascun, F & J Fragalic, Ms L McCubbin, J & J Irwin, Ms J Kienhus, Ms R Roberts, Ms D Santilli, Ms J O'Connor, APT Real Estate.

1. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. P394/2009 is set aside.
2. A permit is granted in relation to land at 1-5 Westley Avenue, 2 Ivanhoe Parade and 16 Seddon Street, Ivanhoe. The permit will allow:
   • Buildings, works and landscaping;
   • Reduction of car parking requirements;
   • Removal of vegetation;
   • Use of a residential village, community facilities (place of assembly) and a licensed food and drink premises.

generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1 to these reasons.

Mr C Townshend, barrister, and Mr P O'Farrell barrister, instructed by Russell Kennedy.

• Mr R Milner, town planner, 10 Consulting Group;
• Mr M Sheppard, urban designer, David Lock Associates;
• Mr J Walsh, transport engineer, Cardno Grogan Richards;
• Mr C Dance, landscape architect, Landdance Pty Ltd;

Mr R Gough, Chief Executive Officer, UnitingCare Harrison provided lay evidence on the project's objectives.

Evidence of Mr A McCormack, architect, Orbit Visual Amenity was accepted on the papers.

• Mr C Czarny, urban designer, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd

Ms R Roberts, Mr R Fyfe, Ms S Course, Ms C Izzard, Ms D Horton.

Mr B Gevaux town planner, representing R and C Izzard, Mr Veneziale, Ms R Horton, Dr Walker, Mr and Mrs McColl.

Mr D Gold, town planner, Planned FX, representing Dr S Goodison

To use and develop the land for two mixed use buildings comprising 87 dwellings, three retail tenancies (fronting Seddon Street), a licensed food and drink premises (café), community space (place of assembly) a reduction in car parking and the removal of approximately 15 trees.

The dwellings would typically be occupied by householders who are over 55 years old, some with younger family members. At least 30 percent of the dwellings would be occupied by households that meet social housing criteria.

The development would comprise two buildings each being seven storeys in height. Parking for 116 cars would be provided at ground level and in a basement.

The buildings would have a maximum height of approximately 26 metres.

Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Clause 32.01-1 (food and drink premises and place of assembly in R1Z)

Clause 32.01-4 (two or more dwellings on a lot in R1Z)

Clause 34.01-1 (dwelling with frontage at ground level, food and retail premises and place of assembly in a B1Z)

Clauses 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, 21.04, 21.05, 21.06, 21.07, 21.08, 22.02, 22.03, 22.04, 52.07, 52.17, 52.34, 52.35, 52.36 and 65

The review site comprises five lots located to the south of Westley Avenue, to the west of Ivanhoe Parade and to the north of Seddon Street, Ivanhoe. The site is irregular in shape, with an area of 4,477 square metres, comprising 3,201 square metres fronting Westley Avenue and 1,276 square metres fronting Seddon Street.

A right of way adjoins the northwest boundary. Another right of way traverses the site in an east-west direction.

The site is occupied by a mix of uses. 16 Seddon Street is occupied by double storey buildings containing 22 dwellings. 1 Westley Avenue is a former dwelling used for community purposes. 3 Westley Avenue is occupied by gardens and sheds, and 5 Westley Avenue is a former dwelling used as a medical centre. No. 2 Ivanhoe Parade is a dwelling occupied by the minister of the nearby Uniting church. The land slopes west to east and is not constrained by any special features or encumbrances.

The land is located in a mixed use precinct within the Ivanhoe major activity centre. No 10 Seddon Street is used partly as a medical centre (dentist) and part as a dwelling. Another medical centre is located to the southeast fronting Seddon Street.

Ivanhoe train station is located a few minutes walk to the east. Land to the east and northeast is occupied by dwellings, and a public car park is located to the north. The Ivanhoe commercial centre fronting Upper Heidelberg Road is within several minutes walk to the west of the land. The Ivanhoe Uniting Church is to the south, on the opposite side of Seddon Street.

We undertook an inspection of the site and its environs on 24 December 2010. We also inspected the rear garden of 10 Seddon Street. The parties did not accompany the inspection.

Prime Life Corporation Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2000] VCAT 766

1. In July 2009, the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Victoria) lodged with Banyule City Council an application for a planning permit. The application sought approval to redevelop land between the Ivanhoe shopping centre and the Ivanhoe train station for two, seven storey mixed use buildings. These would accommodate 87 dwellings, three retail tenancies (fronting Seddon Street), a licensed food and drink premises (café), community space (place of assembly), a reduction in car parking and the removal of approximately 15 trees.
2. Council and the applicant extensively discussed the proposal and a number of changes were made to the project. By September 2010, council had not determined the application, and the permit applicant requested the Tribunal to decide the matter.
3. Council resolved in November 2010 that had it determined the application, it would have been refused. Council's decision is supported by many of the forty six people who objected to the proposal. Many of these people have sought to be joined as parties to this matter.
4. The key issues that we must determine are:
   • Would the proposed uses be appropriate in a major activity centre?
   • Would the scale and bulk of the buildings be appropriate given the location and zoning?
   • Would there be any unreasonable off site amenity impacts, given the site's zoning?
   • Would the car parking and access arrangements be adequate?
   • Would future residents enjoy reasonable amenity?
5. We must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme, we have decided to grant a permit. Our reasons follow.

1. We think it is important to set out the context and environs of the review site.[2]
2. Land to the west is used for commercial premises fronting Upper Heidelberg Road. These premises form part of a commercial centre within several minutes walk from the review site.
3. A right of way adjoins the land to the west providing access to the shops fronting Upper Heidelberg Road. A second right of way provides access to the land and connects the above mentioned right of way to Ivanhoe Parade.
4. Land to the south is occupied by a Uniting Church and associated buildings, featuring a spire in the order of 10 metres in height. Bus services operate from Seddon Street to Northland and Melbourne's northern suburbs.
5. Land to the east is occupied by a two storey neo-Georgian former dwelling now used as a medical centre (dentist) and dwelling. Further east is a single storey medical clinic. The Ivanhoe train station and bus interchange is located within several minutes walk to the review site.
6. Land to the east is occupied by dwellings in Ivanhoe Parade.
7. Land to the north is occupied by a ground level public car park serving the commercial centre.
8. The review site has a fall of approximately 6 metres from Upper Heidelberg Road to Ivanhoe Parade.
9. All parties agreed the review site is strategically well located as follows:
   • Within a major activity centre as designated under Melbourne 2030
   • Within walking distance to train, buses, medical centres, churches library, and community facilities
   • Within walking distance to a wide range of shops, banks, offices and entertainment venues such as cafes and restaurants.
   • Public car parking is available close to the railway station and on the north side of Westley Avenue.
   • It has sensitive interfaces to the south and east, comprising dwellings and medical centres.
   • Some nearby buildings have local heritage significance.
   • The prevailing built form is predominantly one and two storey, although some taller buildings have been introduced into the commercial centre.
10. All parties agreed the site should be intensively developed, generally in accordance with the strategic directions set out in the state and local sections of the Banyule Planning Scheme. However, the council and the resident objectors said the scale and mass of the buildings would impose adverse outcomes on the locality and be excessive for this locality. The views of those opposed to the development is well reflected by council's resolution repeated below:

Notwithstanding the recommendation above the proposal to include a mixed use development on this site is supported by council. It is recognised that a site of this size and location presents an excellent opportunity for a larger scale development. It is not expected that a new development would replicate development in the area, as it would be an underdevelopment of the site.

However, care must be taken in ensuring that a development on the site is of the best quality and design, as it will create a landmark for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre.

It is council's desire to encourage development in well located areas within activity centres where there are services available to future occupants. ......... Despite the good intention of this type of housing, development needs to be consistent with policies that encourage high quality design, respect existing and preferred character and ensure sustainability is best achieved. Council encourages that the concept be pursued but the design be reconsidered.

1. Those opposed to the development thought it to be too large, an uncomfortable fit, and it would have adverse impacts including traffic, parking, overshadowing, overlooking and detriment to heritage places.

Would the proposed uses be appropriate in a major activity centre?

1. The review site is owned by the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Victoria). UnitingCare Harrison has the beneficial use of the land as they would implement the permission hereby granted.[3]
2. This development proposes a mixed use building comprising 87 dwellings, community spaces, a café and three retail tenancies. Notably, the dwellings are to be targeted to households over 55 years of age. Of further note, from 30 percent to possibly, in the future, 50 percent of the dwellings would be those who satisfy criteria identifying them as eligible for social housing. Operated by UnitingCare Harrison, Mr Gough described the project aims as:

The provision of high quality but affordable retirement housing that meets all built and social requirements of living at home with dignity as one ages and providing an environment which fosters relationships between residents and the wider community.

1. This project aims to utilise the property of the Uniting Church to provide an initial 30 percent social and affordable housing (which is to increase over time). This development also aims to enable UnitingCare Harrison to contribute funding to social and affordable housing elsewhere. This project is to be the first of at least three other similar projects in Melbourne.[4]
2. For this project Mr Gough defined social housing as accommodation subsidised with a waived ingoing fee and a service fee set at no more than 25 percent of income (primarily for people eligible for public housing), and affordable housing as accommodation that would be subsidised or offered at a reduced ingoing fee or reduced service fee. Mr Gough noted that market priced apartments would subsidise lower income households.
3. The proposed development retains many of the uses presently located on the review site, particularly social housing and community spaces. It introduces new uses, being a licensed café and three retail tenancies fronting Seddon Street. The community spaces and the gardens are intended to be available for community events such as the RSL, local history groups and multicultural groups.
4. With the exception of the licensed café, the suitability of the site to accommodate these uses was not contested.
5. Ivanhoe is identified as a major activity centre in the State and local planning policy frameworks. More intensive housing development is encouraged in and close to principal and major activity centres. Planning policies encourage:
   • A diversity of housing at higher densities in and around activity centre
   • A broader mix of uses including serves over a longer hours appropriate to the type of centre and needs of the population
   • A mix of activities that generate a high number of trips including business, retail, services and entertainment
   • Intensive housing development without conflicting with surrounding land uses.
6. We note the planning policies for major activity centres vary from those for neighbourhood activity centres. Higher density development in and around a major activity centre is not expected to respect the context and enhance the character of the area, rather, it is expected to not conflict with other uses.[5] Policy envisages a more robust and intensive level of development in the higher order centres.
7. From a local perspective, more intensive development close to major activity centres is supported to protect the amenity and built form of sensitive residential areas. Amendment C63, gazetted in late 2010, inserted in the planning scheme a modified residential framework plan. Under this plan, the review site is identified as being within the major activity centre and within a diverse and accessible residential precinct.
8. The housing diversity area is seen as being suitable for:

Shop top apartments living in higher density mixed use and residential apartments. These include strategic redevelopment sites that provide for higher density.[6]

1. Planning policies also encourage land to be provided for affordable housing and the provision of high quality social housing.[7] Opportunities for a wide range of income groups to choose housing in well serviced locations is supported by policy. More intensive housing is encouraged on sites well located to activity centres employment corridors and public transport.
2. The Banyule Housing Strategy (adopted by council in March 2009) affirms the strategic directions in the planning scheme. Salient excerpts from this strategy suggest:
   • Banyule's population is ageing and households are becoming smaller
   • Housing affordability is a problem and more options for disadvantaged households are needed
   • More intensive housing developments be directed to activity centres with good access to shops, public transport and services.
   • More affordable housing is to be encouraged in Banyule
   • The number of affordable houses for low income households be increased.
3. Mr Gough noted the following demographic trends that we think indicate a growing demand in the Ivanhoe area for accommodation for the active aged:
   • An increase in persons aged 50-69 of 3.8%, higher than the Melbourne Statistical Division.
   • Ivanhoe contains many who have higher than average incomes, although there is also a considerable group of people on lower incomes.
   • Between 2005 and 2008, Ivanhoe apartment prices rose by 46 percent compared to an increase of 21 percent for the inner Melbourne region.
4. We need little convincing that this project delivers the policy directions embedded in the Banyule Planning Scheme. We strongly endorse the comments made in support of this project. We think the mix of uses is entirely consistent with the strategic directions of state and local planning policies, and concur with Mr Townshend when he commented that this project implements planning policy. We think this project delivers these housing policy directions.
5. The project includes several retail tenancies fronting Seddon Street. Some submitters thought this might detract from the integrity of the core retail precinct on Upper Heidelberg Road. We do not agree. We concur with Mr Czarny that Seddon Street is one of the primary pedestrian routes in the centre. Presently there is little activation for pedestrians and we think some additional shops fronting Seddon Street would provide casual surveillance, interest and activity to a presently quiet and isolated streetscape. We also think additional retail outlets add to the overall mix and vitality of the wider centre, enhancing its attraction and competitiveness.
6. Some submitters were concerned with the introduction of a licensed café, thinking it would attract people who might engage in inappropriate behaviours. We were advised Ivanhoe has in the order of 14 licensed venues, so one more is unlikely to be a significant change or lead to a deterioration of behaviour. We think most of the patrons to this café are likely to be residents, their family and guests, and regular users of the building and the community spaces. As it is within a building occupied by older households, we are confident there would be little tolerance of poor management and anti social behaviour by patrons. We do not foresee a problem with this aspect of the proposal, indeed, we think it adds to the vitality and amenity of the project.
7. We think the mix of uses implements planning policy and we strongly support the proposal.

Would the scale and bulk of the buildings be appropriate given the location and zoning?

Would there be any unreasonable off site amenity impacts, given the site's zoning?

1. The proposed development comprises two buildings, each seven storeys in height. The Seddon building fronting Seddon Street would be a rectangular building. The buildings' facade to Seddon Street is approximately 18.8 metres, with a depth of approximately 15.2 metres. It has a maximum height to Seddon Street of 24.5 metres at its south-east corner. An enclosed driveway to the basement is located on the east side of the building, with a wall height of 4.6 metres on its east side.
2. The Seddon building would be setback at ground level to Seddon Street by approximately 2.7 metres. The wall of the building would be set back 3.4 metres from the frontage, although balconies extend to the street frontage. At the seventh level, the wall of the building would be set back 5.3 metres and the front edge of the balconies would be set back 1.9 metres. The east wall of the building (above the driveway) would be set back 6.9 metres from the boundary to 10 Seddon Street.
3. The Westley building is "F" shaped, with the main part of the building located parallel with and adjacent to the central right-of- way. Two "wings" extend north towards Westley Avenue. The building located adjacent to the right-of-way would have a length of approximately 80 metres. The western end near the shops fronting Upper Heidelberg Road would have a height of approximately 20 metres, whilst the highest part of the building would be 23 metres. It steps down to a height of 14 metres at the interface with Ivanhoe Parade.
4. The east corner of the building (community centre) is setback from Ivanhoe Parade 5 to 6 metres at ground level. The setback would be 3.7 to 4.5 metres at levels 2 to 4. The setback increases to 5.5 metres and 7.5 metres for level 5, 8 to 10 metres at levels 5 and 6, and 18 metres at level 7.
5. The architecture form was described by Mr Sheppard to represent a consistent and contemporary language.
6. The materials mainly comprise precast coloured concrete, zinc cladding, timber clad blades (to the Seddon Street frontage), aluminium panels and frameless glass.
7. High quality architectural design and built form are encouraged by the planning scheme. We hear from experts from the same field with opposing views on the same building, attesting to its subjectivity. The ultimate test for us is whether the building's scale and height is a good fit into its context.
8. It is undoubtedly a skilfully planned and complex building that has been developed to satisfy a complex brief, balancing planning policy, functional benchmarks and economics, and its form appears to follow its function. We cannot say if it is a remarkable building, but we are satisfied it is a competent building. We are satisfied it fits into its context, including its strategic context. We were not persuaded by those who opposed it on the basis of visual bulk, and consider they failed to provide us with any compelling reasons or evidence as to why it is not appropriate.
9. We outline our conclusions on context, height, scale and massing below.

What is the planning policy framework in respect of built form?

1. The State and local planning policy frameworks provide guidance in respect of built form. Clause 15 encourages development to create environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity. Relevant design principles include:
   • Development should take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of its location.
   • A comprehensive design analysis should be the starting point for height, scale and massing of new development.
   • The public realm should be protected.
   • Personal safety should be enhanced.
   • Landmarks should be protected and enhanced.
   • Heritage should be respected.
   • Site consolidation should not result in buildings that are inconsistent with the complexity and rhythm of existing streetscape.
   • There should be sunlight and shade in the public realm.
2. The design principles in clause 15 are complemented by design guidelines for development in activity centres.[8]
3. The local planning policy framework aims to guide discretion, taking into the particular character of Ivanhoe. Clause 21.06 notes change is necessary in Banyule to accommodate the community's housing needs and some population growth. Some parts of the municipality are best able to absorb change whilst other areas can accommodate only limited change. Clause 21.06 encourages future development to respect and contribute to the desired future neighbourhood character of the site. The Urban Design Guidelines for Ivanhoe Shopping Centre [2002] is a reference document to clause 21.06. The guidelines apply generally to the centre and are to include precinct guidelines, but none have not been developed for this precinct. We consider it notable that the guidelines identify the entire site as being within the Ivanhoe Shopping Centre.
4. The Residential Area Framework (clause 21.06-2) encourages development on this land to include higher density housing as the site is a strategic redevelopment site that provides for medium density housing and a higher density component.
5. The Westley Avenue frontage is affected by the Residential Neighbourhood Character policy.[9] The objective of the policy is to ensure that development complements and respects the desired future character of the area. The subject site is within Garden Suburban Precinct 6. The policy includes a desired future character that is low scale suburban, similar to the present dwellings. It acknowledges the land is within a major activity centre and the future character is to be guided by a structure plan for the centre, which has not been completed.[10] We think this local policy has no weight in this matter.
6. State and local planning policies also encourage development to conserve, protect and enhance heritage places, such as 10 Seddon Street and three dwellings in Ivanhoe Parade.
7. Design and development overlay 7 (DDO7) applies to the review site. The design objectives are to ensure the design, materials and scale of development take into account the character of the shopping centre, to enhance and reinforce views, and to avoid unreasonable impacts from development on neighbouring areas. The Ivanhoe Shopping Centre Urban Design Guidelines (2002) encourages medium density housing, high quality design and respect for the prevailing architecture styles.
8. We think the schedule to the overlay needs to be read in conjunction with the SPPF and LPPF that references the need for a more compact, intense and diverse housing stock, best located in and close to major and higher activity centre. We note the guidelines for specific sub-precincts have not been prepared, so we consider DDO7 and its guidelines to provide little assistance in this matter. Their usefulness is also limited by their age, which predates Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @ 5 million.

1. Mr Glossop, Mr Czarny and the resident submitters thought the building to be unduly tall and its visual bulk to be inconsistent with the character of the centre. They were particularly concerned with the interfaces to Seddon Street and Ivanhoe Parade. Mr Czarny prepared a massing plan showing alternate building envelopes that might enable a building to rise to six storeys close to the shops, but have greater setbacks to Ivanhoe Parade and a built form of three to four storeys to the Ivanhoe Parade and Seddon Street frontages.
2. We concur with the submissions made by Mr Townshend that Mr Czarny's massing plan is unlikely to satisfy the brief and does not optimise the site. Accordingly, we consider it to be indicative. Whilst this approach may be appropriate in the preliminary stages of preparing a structure plan, or indicative designs for a particular site, we think the discussion about this site has moved past these indicative sketches. A concrete proposal has been put forward and must be assessed on its merits and impacts. For this site, with only two potentially sensitive interfaces, and a strategic context calling for intensive development, we do not think the proposal needs to be held back by somewhat arbitrary limits. We are required to consider real and demonstrable conflicts and impacts, as called for by policy.
3. This is a large building and we can understand the objecting parties' caution in embracing this significant change. However, if we do hold back and not allow such opportunities, the its benefits are likely to be lost and the additional households will need to be accommodated elsewhere, probably in less appropriate places.
4. Of particular note is the fact that the principal bulk of the building has been concentrated into the Seddon Building. The Westley Building, on the other hand, has a deliberate setting back from the residential properties even though they are some distance away.
5. Mr Milner thought this building is what one "ought to expect in one's walk from the shops to the railway". Taking into account the site's strategic context, we concur with his conclusions. We consider the overall siting, massing and built form to have the following positive benefits for the centre:
   • The business and residential elements are separated and are consistent with their context.
   • The right-of-way network is utilised and improved for both vehicles and pedestrians.
   • Most of the built form is located to the western end behind the commercial premises.
   • It steps down to the residential interfaces.
   • Substantial areas are provided for landscaping and community activities.
   • Vehicle access is directed to Seddon Street, limiting traffic impacts on residents in Ivanhoe parade.
   • Trees at the eastern end of the site are to be retained and augmented.
   • Substantial setback to Upper Heidelberg Road diminishes the visual bulk and it would be screened by the existing shops along that road.

1. The proposal provides an attractive and interesting interface to Westley Avenue. Mr Czarny and Mr Sheppard thought the height, massing and design to be appropriate. The two arms of the development would be readily visible from Westley Avenue. However, these would present relatively narrow frontages to Westley Avenue. They are articulated with balconies and the side elevations of the arms are articulated with a variety of materials. Mr Czarny thought views of the development from Upper Heidelberg Road to be entirely appropriate and well resolved. Mr Sheppard agreed, subject to refinement of fencing on Westley Avenue to the private open space areas at ground level. He suggested the fencing be setback to allow landscaping to the public realm on Westley Avenue. We agree with the assessment of the urban design experts.
2. We turn to whether this building generates any conflicts with its sensitive interfaces.

1. Seddon Street slopes approximately 6 metres down from west to east. 10 Seddon Street is a two storey neo-Georgian brick building with a high hipped roof. A single level medical centre is at the east end of the street, and a church is opposite the review site.
2. The interface to Seddon Street presents a six storey façade to Seddon Street, with the seventh level setback behind the front façade. The street level would have three retail tenancies activating the frontage. The façade to Seddon Street is articulated by the balconies. Vertical timber blades are to be placed at the front edges of the balconies to levels one and two to soften the facade.
3. Mr Glossop and Mr Czarny considered Seddon Street to be a primary pedestrian route in the activity centre. The nearby intersection of Seddon Street with Waterdale Road and Upper Heidelberg Road is a focal point for the centre. They were highly critical of the Seddon building, saying it would be too high and dominant.
4. Mr Sheppard thought there was no particular built form character to this interface. He thought the proposed design and scale to be reasonable as the Seddon Street frontage includes a street wall that matches the prevailing parapet height of the adjoining shops.
5. We agree with Mr Sheppard and have paid particular attention to how the timber screen, with its dominant horizontal line up to level three effectively provides some visual continuity with the lower scale Upper Heidelberg Road buildings, whilst the forms above are represented as a secondary element, effectively reducing their visual scale.
6. The interface between the Seddon building and the dental practice/dwelling at 10 Seddon Street is the most sensitive site interface. The east facing façade of the Seddon building would be approximately 25 metres in height. It would be separated from the neo-Georgian building by 7 metres. Part of the height would be screened by the wall of the driveway that would be 4.9 metres in height on the common boundary.
7. No 10 Seddon Street is included in a heritage overlay. Mr Gold and the resident submitters opined the significant variance in height would overwhelm and diminish its heritage values. We do not agree. We think when viewed from Seddon Street, the neo Georgian building would continue to be perceived as a separate identifiable building with its own distinct form and character. We do not think it's local heritage values would be diminished by this proposal. There are many examples of heritage buildings in commercial centres framed by nearby larger buildings. The heritage buildings have not lost their identity or integrity and we think particularly when viewed from opposite or from the east, No 10 Seddon Street would continue to stand alone and proud in the street.[11] No heritage expert evidence was provided to us that suggested its local heritage values would be compromised or diminished by this development.
8. We concur with Mr Milner the variance between the existing and proposed buildings would be highly visible and comprise a new scale for this centre. It is not in our view, unreasonable, nor impose unreasonable outcomes or conflicts. We think the land is included in a Business 1 zone and a multi storey commercial building could be developed on the review site at any time. The rear yard of No 10 Seddon Street is extensively vegetated and the views to the north and west are heavily screened. The proposed nearly 5 metre wall on the boundary, which is less than would be expected if a new commercial building was constructed, would substantially screen the upper parts of the building. We think the variance in height is acceptable in a major activity centre.
9. We acknowledge there would be possible overlooking between the terraces on the east side of the Seddon building and the second floor habitable room window on the west side of No 10 Seddon Street. We consider overlooking can readily be managed by screening of 1.7 metre height for level 2 and screening to prevent downward views for levels 3 and above.
10. Revised shadow diagrams were circulated after the hearing as the previously circulated plans were shown by Mr Gold to be incorrect. The further amended plans show the rear north wall of the upper level of the dwelling at 10 Seddon Street will receive direct sunlight from 10am to 12.45pm at the equinox. The rear garden would receive sunlight from approximately 11am to a little after 2pm. Mr Sheppard estimated that a minimum of 40 square metres of the total garden of 160 square metres would be in sunlight from 11.30 to 1.30pm.
11. We accept the development would overshadow the secluded open space to the rear of 10 Seddon Street and diminish its access to sunlight. The habitable room window on the northeast wall of the dwelling in the upper level would also receive less direct sunlight. The outcome would not comply with standard B21 of clause 55. Mr Glossop and Mr Gold thought this outcome to be unreasonable, Mr Milner and Mr Sheppard thought this to be reasonable given the context and zoning of the site.
12. We note that 10 Seddon Street, and all properties in that street are included in a Business 1 zone. The objectives and standards of clause 55 must be considered in the assessment of residential developments in a Business 1 zone, except apartment buildings four storeys or more. Design suggestion 2.6.2 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Housing suggests that sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of dwellings should be consistent with clause 55.
13. We give limited weight to the matter of overshadowing. We think the primary use of the building to be a medical centre, with the dwelling a secondary use. Mature canopy trees presently limit sunlight to ground level. The land is in a business 1 zone, in a major activity centre. The lesser amenity that may occur would be offset by the improved amenity of the right of way to the rear of this property, and convenient access to the community spaces, forecourt and community gardens provided by this development. The residents and staff at No 10 Seddon Street would also enjoy convenient access to the wide range of cafes, shops and spaces in Upper Heidelberg Road and the wider area. We think people who choose to live within an activity centre enjoy enhanced amenity through proximity to many facilities, and cannot reasonably expect to enjoy the same amenity in their private spaces as if they are residing in a local residential street.
14. We also consider that the development of buildings at a height suggested by Mr Czarny would be likely to have similar impacts on this property. We are not persuaded that the overlooking or overshadow impacts on the rear yard of 10 Seddon Street are sufficiently grave to require modification or refusal of this proposal.

1. Mr Gevaux opined the interface to Ivanhoe Parade is also highly sensitive and the development's visual bulk would have significant adverse impacts on residents in Ivanhoe Parade.
2. We agree the residents in Ivanhoe Parade will see a larger building than at present. We are not persuaded seeing a larger building (in a major activity centre) would be an adverse outcome sufficient to warrant rejection of this proposal. The interface between the review site and the dwellings facing the site is screened by mature canopy street trees. The east end of the Westley building would be at least 26.5 metres between the closest point of the building and the existing dwellings. The amended plans propose further setbacks and lighter colours and materials to further reduce the perceived visual bulk.
3. We give considerable weight to the inclusion of Ivanhoe Parade within the major activity centre. This inclusion means Ivanhoe Parade is not a local residential street. Some dwellings are now used for medical centres and other professional offices. The dwellings are located opposite a public car park serving the commercial centre, and they are within a few minutes walk from a train station and bus interchange. We think residents and council should anticipate development of key sites such as this for buildings with considerable height and massing.
4. We further note it is likely that the public car park will be substantially developed and this would be likely to diminish the perceived bulk and visibility of the Westley building.
5. In respect of the dwellings at Nos 1, 3 and 5 Ivanhoe Parade, we think in addition to separation and screening, the residents of these dwellings would be likely to predominantly use the rear of the dwellings for their day-to-day living, and would therefore have occasional glimpses of the proposal. We also think it possible that this area might gradually transform to one comprising professional offices rather than dwellings. However, whilst these buildings remain as dwellings, we do not believe their amenity will be compromised by the review building.
6. Hence, in our view, the key issue in this interface is the possible effect on the heritage values of the dwellings. As with No 10 Seddon Street, it is our view the proposed Westley building has sufficient setbacks and lighter colours, filtered by vegetation, to not impose itself on the dwellings and so not impact on their heritage values. They will continue to stand proud and separate from the Westley building. As with No 10 Seddon Street, we note we were not provided with heritage evidence to suggest the development would have an adverse impact. We are satisfied the local heritage significance of these dwellings would remain intact in this instance.

1. Ms Roberts and Mr Czarny were concerned the proposed buildings would intrude into longer distance views of the centre. We think the proposed buildings would fit well into views from all directions. We accept they will be seen. We do not think some additional built form is necessarily a poor outcome. The buildings would be in a major activity centre, close to a train station and a major commercial centre. They would be in a middle suburb, only some 8 kilometres from central Melbourne. It is an urban setting, not a semi natural, low density suburb usually characterised by considerable vegetation and spaces between buildings. One expects to see buildings of some size and scale in this area.
2. We also consider the prevailing built form on Upper Heidelberg Road is not of such special character that new forms cannot be introduced and co-exist. Indeed, we think some new, competently designed built form would assist to confirm landmarks and its place in the wider region. However, we also consider the buildings would be small additions to the long distance views rather than dominant new elements, particularly when viewed from the north and west. We concur with Mr Milner's comment that people's enjoyment of Upper Heidelberg Road would remain unchanged.
3. Mr Dance prepared a draft landscape concept plan. It proposes significant additional planting on the southern interface to Ivanhoe Parade to strengthen the screening of the Westley building. It also establishes vegetable plots on the Westley Avenue frontage and a village square as a forecourt to the Westley building. The community centre would also have a terrace adjacent to the community spaces within the building and as an interface to the community gardens. The plan also proposes planting on the right-of-way linking to the train station
4. We consider the draft landscaping to strengthen and be a significant improvement to the review site and its interfaces.

1. Design principals in clause 15 encourage the consolidation of sites to achieve urban objectives. However, larger sites can encourage larger developments that overwhelm the rhythm of an area with fine grain subdivision, frontages and varying built form. In this case, we consider whilst the proposed built form is large, it does not overwhelm the finer built form of the locality into which it is set. The Seddon building is tall, but has a frontage of only 28 metres, not dissimilar to the existing buildings on the site. It retains a fine grain presentation to the street level. The middle and upper levels are variable rather than monolithic. The larger built form of the Westley building is centred in the site and its form is moderated by the wings presented to Westley Avenue.
2. We acknowledge the two buildings would be taller, with greater mass and presence in the centre than existing buildings. We think buildings of greater height and massing to be reasonable in view of the strategic, natural and built form context in which they will be located, as follows:
   • Changing demography indicates there is additional social and affordable housing in Ivanhoe, and this location is identified by policy as a highly suitable place.
   • In a major activity centre, policy encourages intensive development provided the development does not conflict with established uses.
   • The development fits well into the interfaces to the north and west, where it abuts a public car park and the existing commercial premises. It will be visible, but not dominant when viewed from these directions.
   • The retail tenancies will activate Seddon Street and be a "natural" extension of the commercial activities into a heavily trafficked pedestrian route.
   • The apartments and balconies fronting Seddon Street will activate and provide casual surveillance of that street.
   • The buildings would not diminish the heritage values of the heritage dwellings that will continue to be separate and stand proud on their own merits.
   • The Westley building is adequately separated from Ivanhoe Parade, and would be screened by the existing and proposed vegetation, noting again the strategic context that it is within the major activity centre and intensive development is to be expected.
3. We consider it important to note the strategic context and think this to be a rare opportunity to achieve a range of social, economic and environmental outcomes. This opportunity encourages us to give considerable weight to substantial change rather than limiting change to the form and scale of the prevailing built form. If we interpret policy to limit change in established middle suburbs to little more than the prevailing built form, we will fail to make the adjustments needed to respond to emerging issues of demographic change, climate change, peak oil and the costs of continued low density outward growth. We think Mr Czarny should have included these considerations into his assessment of context.

Would the car parking and access arrangements be adequate?

1. 116 car parking spaces in three parking areas are to be provided for the apartments, shops and cafe. 38 spaces would be provided on the ground level and 71 spaces in a basement. Both these areas would be accessed from Seddon Street. 7 spaces would be provided on the ground level, accessed from the central right-of-ay.
2. 63 spaces would be allocated to the residents of the 87 apartments. 9 spaces would be allocated to the retail tenancies and the café would use 6 spaces. The community space would use 18 spaces during the day and 45 spaces in an evening.
3. Council and resident objectors submitted the provision of car parking to be inadequate for the proposed uses. Mr Fyfe opined active aged people are likely to be extensively involved in numerous activities. Many will rely on cars to continue their activities, and the proposed provision would be inadequate. Submitters thought the public car parking around the train station and on the north side of Westley Avenue would be unable to accommodate the visitor car parking generated by the café and community centre.
4. Mr Walsh stated that retirement villages in Vermont South and Donvale generated a parking demand up to 0.62 spaces per dwelling. These villages were in locations with relatively poor access to public transport or walking access to shops and facilities, so they would have higher rates of car ownership than this location. Car parking in this proposal is to be provided at a rate of 0.72 spaces per apartment, which Mr Walsh thought was likely to be higher than required, given its proximity to public transport and shops.
5. We consider the car parking provision for residents to be satisfactory in view of the high level of access to public transport and local shops, offices and community facilities. We also note the intent of policy is for developments in locations "rich" in public transport is to encourage a modal shift to public transport and walking rather than providing for high levels of car ownership. We think this is a suitable location to implement this approach.
6. Mr Glossop considered the proposed provision of visitor parking for the café and community centre to be inadequate. Mr Walsh submitted most of the visitors to the café would be people already visiting the activity centre. He thought four staff spaces and six customer spaces to be adequate. He also thought 18 spaces for the community space (for 50 persons) would be adequate and consistent with the statutory rate in clause 52.06.
7. He opined that car parking surveys indicate that public car parking is well utilised, however after 2pm on most afternoons, and in the evenings, utilisation declines sharply and there would be adequate public car parking available for community events and for the café.
8. We find the provision of car parking to be satisfactory.

1. Bicycle parking is to be provided in a room located on the level 2, adjacent to a storage area and apartment B101. Access to the room appears constrained, and it is unclear the number of bicycles that might be stored.
2. Mr Glossop and Mr Townshend agreed 11 bicycle spaces for visitors are required. These could be located in the forecourt fronting Westley Avenue, and Mr Dance confirmed such facilities can be readily incorporated into the landscape concept plan.
3. We have no difficulty with the proposed provision of bicycle parking and, whilst some valid concerns with the workability of the bicycle area were rightly raised in the hearing, we see these as matters of detailed design and will entrust this to the architect to resolve, in consultation with council.

1. A loading and unloading bay is provided on level 2 of the Seddon building. The loading bay would be accessed from the right-of-way behind the shops. Some loading could also occur from Seddon Street. A headroom of around 4.5m metres is to be provided, adequate to meet the requirements of most delivery vehicles.
2. A private waste collection service would manage the storage and removal of waste from the development. Bin storage areas are to be provided adjacent to the kitchen for the café, and on the ground level adjacent to the east/west right-of-way. A waste collection loading bay is provided to facilitate the transfer of waste to removal vehicles. Mr Glossop thought the arrangements to be generally satisfactory, subject to minor modifications that we agree should be included as conditions of permit.

1. Residents thought the development would worsen traffic movement through the area. Mr Walsh thought not, and Mr Glossop said council's traffic engineers agreed traffic was not of concern.
2. Mr Walsh thought fewer people residing in this development would work or study due to their age group, compared to an apartment comprising younger people. He thought each dwelling would generate in the order of four trips per day, or 348 movements per day, and most trips would occur outside peak hours. He estimated their contribution to peak hour traffic would be no more than 13 trips in each peak hour.
3. The retail café and community uses are to be provided with 13 spaces. This would be expected to generate seven arrivals/departures in the morning and afternoon. Traffic from patrons would already be within the centre, or would attend in evenings and weekends when traffic levels are low.
4. In total, he thought the development would contribute approximately 20 vehicle movements in each peak hour, which he thought would be readily absorbed by the local street network. He had no concerns with the capacity of the local road network to accommodate additional traffic outside the peak hours.
5. We are satisfied the development would not impose adverse impacts on the operations or safety of the local street network.

1. The occupants of the apartments provided in the two buildings are likely to be mostly aged 55 years and over, some with disabilities. These households should expect to enjoy a similar level of amenity as younger households. Their needs may vary from younger households, as they would be likely to spend more time in their dwellings. They may also have a higher incidence of mobility impairment.
2. The objectives and standards of clause 55 do not apply to buildings of four storeys or more. The design of taller apartment buildings is guided by Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development that invokes some of the measures set out in clause 55.
3. Mr Glossop accepted residents would generally enjoy reasonable amenity. Mr Milner thought the development "appears well appointed and mindful of the target market." He noted the development provides flat, level floor plates to enable easy mobility within the building. He thought all apartments would enjoy convenient access to lifts and residents would benefit from easy access to the café, community spaces and the community garden. He supported these facilities to encourage social participation and engagement within the facility and with the wider community.
4. We concur with the planning experts and consider the building has been well designed for older people. We particularly note:
   • There are a range of dwellings to accommodate households with differing needs.
   • All apartments include one or more balconies that are extensions of living areas.
   • Most apartments have a northern aspect and would enjoy a high quality of natural light.
   • Windows and living areas overlook streets and public spaces.
   • Habitable room windows and balconies are protected from unreasonable overlooking from other dwellings.
   • Building entries are clearly delineated in the building façade.
   • Frontages to streets are open and transparent to improve casual surveillance.
   • The basement is easily accessible from within the building.
   • The waste management service should enable waste to be conveniently removed.
   • Mail boxes can be conveniently located near the ground floor lift lobby.
   • All apartments would have adequate and convenient storage.
   • All apartments would have reasonable private open space.
   • All apartments enjoy access to communal open space.
5. We particularly note and support the provision of "buggy" parking spaces at the entries to each apartment. Buggies are an important aide for people who are mobility impaired. They are sizable aides and need to be stored, preferably outside the apartment. This provision speaks well of careful design for the intended occupants.
6. Mr Glossop opined further design modifications are required to improve the internal amenity of some apartments and the building in general. He suggested the following aspects need further attention.
7. Four pedestrian entries are provided to the Westley building. The two main entries are well setback from the street and are partly screened by the building. We agree they should be closer to the street, more easily seen and given greater prominence through landscape materials.
8. Residents in the Seddon building rely on an accessway, to be shared with the retail use, and no mailboxes are to be provided. Mr Glossop thought this entry should be redesigned. We see no difficulty with the Seddon entry, but concur with the inclusion of mailboxes within a secure part of the lobby, adjacent to the lifts.
9. Terraces on levels 2 to 5 on the west side of the Westley building generally face blank walls. Proximity to the commercial premises is a positive aspect in terms of convenient access, but the views are a less attractive aspect. We think they have been well designed given their proximity to the rear of the commercial premises. These terraces have been oriented to face north and have oblique views to the northwest. We think they both receive north sunlight and to face the review building rather than the backs of the shops. We are satisfied the design response is adequate. We also note the landscape concept plan includes some planting on the right of way to soften this interface.
10. A light well in the west side of the Westley building enables light to penetrate to bedrooms and communal spaces. Mr Glossop thought screening is needed to minimise views to communal spaces. We think the communal spaces should be visible and open to casual surveillance, but concur that windows to bedrooms adjoining the lightwell should be screened.
11. Bedrooms in apartments B207, B308, B410, B510 and B607 enjoy access to daylight from windows in a wall setback on the north side of the building. Mr Glossop thought access to daylight would be limited by the roof overhang above. We think the windows face north and would enjoy reasonable access to daylight. We think there is limited scope to modify the alignment of the roof, and changes would deliver very limited benefits, given the depth of the bedroom from the northern wall of the building.
12. Balconies on the south side of the Seddon building will be in shadow. We note that balconies on levels 6 and 7 have been extended to the east and west facades. We think extending the envelopes to the east and west sides on the lower levels would interrupt the alignment of the building and its design integrity to these facades. We note the terraces on levels 2 to 5 would have generous size (over 30 square metres) and width (3 metres) which off sets their south orientation. We also think their casual surveillance of Seddon Street also offsets their lesser access to the north sun.
13. Some balconies (B204, A304, A404, and A504) are 1.1 metres wide. Standard B26 of clause 55 provides that a balcony should have a minimum width of 1.6 metres. We consider at least the part of the balcony in these apartments adjacent to the living area should have a width at least 1.6 metres.
14. Screening is required to prevent overlooking between common areas such as corridors and private rooms. We agree that private areas such as balconies and bedrooms should be screened to minimise unreasonable overlooking. We think that corridors and communal spaces should be under casual surveillance, particularly given the intended demographic who are more prone to falls and mishaps.
15. Mr Glossop thought a passenger lift capable of accommodating an ambulance stretcher should be provided. Whilst we do not disagree in principle, planning does not provide guidance on lift standards and dimensions. We are conscious that buildings are complex, intricate designs and we are reluctant to make changes (albeit well meaning) that might have unknown foreseen consequences. We think this matter is better managed through the building approval process that provides standards for disability access.
16. Mr Glossop and resident submitters thought a development of this scale should include ESD initiatives. An ESD report from Umow Lai Consulting Engineers was attached to Mr Milner's expert evidence and provides a range of options rather than a definitive list of sustainability initiatives to be incorporated into the building.
17. Mr Townshend submitted a schedule of the ESD initiatives committed by the permit applicant and we are satisfied they would contribute to the building's energy efficiency and minimise water use. We think these initiatives should be included in the final plans and we propose to implement this through permit conditions.

DO ANY OTHER MATTERS WARRANT REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL?

1. Several other matters were raised in submissions including precedent, property valuations, impacts during construction and on a major sewer. In our view, none of these matters provide the basis for rejecting the permit application or requiring additional conditions. All planning proposals are assessed on their particular context and merits. The Tribunal has long held that property values is not a planning matter, and impacts on adjoining buildings arising from construction is a matter to be resolved through the building approval stage and a construction management plan.
2. In respect of the sewer, Mr Townshend advised agreement has been reached with the appropriate authority, and we note that no construction would occur without such agreement.
3. Mr Townshend was critical of Mr Cazrny and others for recommending the building envelope be reduced to lessen its visual bulk. He provided a summary of the project's financial modelling and opined this indicated the financials of the project were finely balanced. On the summary information provided to us, any reduction of the development footprint would diminish the capacity of the project to meet its social and financial objectives and the project would not proceed. He thought Mr Czarny should not recommend changes to the built form without appreciating their effects on the project's viability.
4. We think it to be difficult for any party external to the project team to appreciate the financial dimension of a project. We think Mr Czarny could not be reasonably expected to know if some changes would imperil the project. Generally, we would also give little weight to assertions regarding the financial viability of a project as it involves so many variables and assumptions.
5. However, in this case, we give some weight to the statement on behalf of UnitingCare Harrison that this project stands or falls as presented. We think this project has the potential to deliver many outcomes identified in planning policies. We think it would be a lost opportunity if it does not proceed. However, we have assessed the proposal on planning, design, parking, traffic and amenity grounds. We have found it to be very acceptable. Our decision has not been swayed by the proponents assertions that less floor space means no development. We think it deserves support on its planning and design merits.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is our conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be affirmed and a permit granted with varied conditions.
2. The permit will include conditions that have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties, and the matters that arise from our reasons.

1-5 Westley Avenue, 2 Ivanhoe Parade and 16 Seddon Street, Ivanhoe

• Buildings, works and landscaping;
• Reduction of car parking requirements;
• Removal of vegetation;
• Use of a residential village, community facilities (place of assembly) and a licensed food and drink premises.

Buildings, works and landscaping, in accordance with the endorsed plans, reduction of car parking requirements and vegetation removal. The use of a residential village, community facilities (place of assembly) and a licensed food and drink premises.

1. Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the substituted by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal dated 30 November 2010 but modified to show:

1. All plans amended to show finished floor levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD) and corresponding levels abutting proposed buildings. 2. Clear notation and detail of the proposed door (or similar access restriction) for access to the basement, including location, materials and how the door is controlled and how it will allow access to visitors.

1. Designation of the area (internal and external) set aside for the licensed food and drink premises.

1. Detail of the sweep paths and manoeuvring for vehicles using the waste collection and loading bay areas, ensuring that vehicles are able to leave the site in a forward direction. Detail must also include the maximum vehicle length and height that may be accommodated. 2. Provision of bicycle facilities in accordance with Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities. 3. Nominated locations for signage for any commercial uses. 4. Improve the visibility from the forecourt of the two entries to the Westley building adjacent to the lounge by moving the entry doors to the front north facing wall of the lounge and highlighting their presence in landscape and building materials. 5. Provide mailboxes for residents of the Seddon building in the lobby to that building. 6. Provision of two on-site short term parking space, in an easily accessible location for the use of services and deliveries for the residential component. The spaces must have clear notation advising the restriction. 7. Increase the width of balconies to apartments B204, A304, A404, and A504 to a minimum of 1.6 metres. 8. Provision of 6m3 of lockable storage area (not included within the dwellings) for each dwelling.

1. Screening or obscure glazing to comply with clause 55.04-6 to minimise overlooking to 10 Seddon Street.

1. Screening or obscure glazing to prevent unreasonable internal overlooking from communal areas to private open spaces or habitable rooms, particularly bedrooms in apartments B204, B304, 403 and 503. 2. Screening or fencing to the private open spaces of dwellings A201 and A202 to minimise overlooking from Westley Avenue. 3. Any changes as a result of the preparation of a landscaping plan as required by Condition 2 of this permit. 4. Any changes as a result of the Management Plans required by Condition 8 of this permit. 5. A schedule of external building materials and colours, including details of cladding and roofing materials. The schedule should be presented on a separate sheet and must include colour samples. 6. Any staging proposed.
2. The use permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a landscape plan ("Landscape Plan") is submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and include:

1. The identification of existing vegetation to be retained or relocated, and nomination of vegetation for removal throughout the site; 2. Identification of Tree Protection Zones ("TPZ") around trees to be retained.

1. A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which includes the location and size at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified.

1. Location and details of paving, steps, retaining walls, water tanks, clotheslines, fence design details and other landscape works, including cut and fill.

1. The development as shown or described in the endorsed plans or documents must not be altered or modified except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the development permitted by this permit must not commence until all lots comprising the subject land must be consolidated into one lot under the Subdivision Act 1988.
3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the proposed use(s) permitted by this permit must not commence until the development has been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the permit and endorsed plans (including, but not limited to built form and layout, parking, landscaping, drainage, street numbering and landscaping).

1. The residential village allowed under this permit must operate under the provisions of the Retirement Village Act 1986, provided further:

1. Subject to condition 7(c), only retired persons as defined under the Retirement Villages Act 1986, may occupy the dwellings on the land; 2. Retired persons under the Retirement Villages Act 1986 means: 1. a person who has attained the age of 55 or has retired from full time employment; and 2. the spouse or domestic partner of such a person; or 3. if the person mentioned in paragraph (1) has died, the person who was the spouse or domestic partner of that deceased person.

1. on-site manager(s) or caretaker(s) of the residential village and their families may reside on the land.

1. Unless otherwise agreed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, not less than 30% of the dwellings will be leased or licensed by the operator as affordable housing, such that affordable housing means accommodation subsidised or offered at a lesser cost by the operator of the residential village by way of, variously:

1. a reduced in-going fee; or 2. a reduced on-going service fee; or

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, before the development permitted by this permit starts, particular reports to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the reports will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three hard copies of the reports must be provided. The reports must be in accordance with the plans that are to be endorsed as part of the approval, they must be prepared by a suitably qualified or experienced person.

1. A Construction Management Plan. The plan must include, but not be limited to:
   1. [outside scope of permit][out of control of applicant - matter for service authorities]. How the demolition and excavation will occur and when, including a travel plan for works vehicles.
   2. How off-site amenity impacts will be minimised during construction (all works onsite must comply with 'Building Site Code of Practice - Banyule City Council').

Once approved, this management plan must be adhered to by the owner(s), permit holder(s) and operator(s) of any use at all times unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. A Car Park Management Plan. Such a plan must identify:
   1. How the car parking will be signed and allocated to limit conflict between the various uses and associated visitor spaces.
   2. How parking arrangements will be enforced.
   3. Maintenance and security schedule for the parking area.
   4. How access will be provided to secure parking areas.

1. An Environmental Sustainability Design (ESD) Report. The report should include a number of design features that will ensure that the sustainability of the building is high. The features to be included in the proposed ESD shall be generally in accordance with the list of sustainability features provided to the hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in December 2010. Such items that may be included (but not limited to) are:
   1. Retention and use of rain water and grey water (such as for cooling, landscape irrigation and/or toilet flushing).
   2. Type of cooler/heater used for the building.
   3. Use of natural light and natural air circulation.
   4. Use of materials both internally and externally and use of finishes ie. low emission paints or recycled materials.
   5. Level of glazing.
   6. Energy resources (i.e. renewable energy).
   7. Waste disposal.

1. A Waste Management Plan. The management plan must incorporate information as to:
   1. How the collection of refuse and recycling material will be managed and minimised, avoiding detriment to amenity.
   2. The frequency for the removal of such refuse and recycling material.
   3. Times for collection.
   4. How waste from the different uses will be transferred to the point of collection.
   5. How it is intended to control the emission of odour caused by such refuse and recycling material when it is being stored within the site.
   6. Diagram showing area for waste points and point of collection, including preferred travel route for vehicles collecting the waste.
2. A Venue Management Plan for the licensed food and drink premises that includes (but is not limited to) the following:
   1. Premises Address.
   2. Number of staff.
   3. A plan of responsible serving of alcohol and how the venue and staff will operate to comply with such requirements.
   4. What measures will be taken to ameliorate noise generated from the venue and patrons.
   5. What measures will be undertaken to reduce off site waste from patrons i.e. cigarette butts and bottles. Waste must not be swept into the public drains or public realm.
   6. What management measures will be undertaken to ensure that patrons leave the site in a quiet manner, so as to not disturb the near by residents.
   7. What, if any, entertainment (live or recorded) will be on-site and how often.

Once approved, the management plan(s) or reports approved under this condition must be adhered to by the owner(s), permit holder(s) and operator(s) of any use at all times, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. The subject land must be kept neat and tidy at all times and its appearance must not, unreasonably adversely affect the amenity of the locality.
2. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.
3. The walls of the development on the boundary of adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Restrictions on use for the food and drinks premises

1. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority the food and drink premises so designated on the endorsed plan ("Premises") allowed under this permit must:
   1. not operate outside the hours of 7.00am and 11.00pm daily;
   2. not serve or allow the consumption of alcohol before 11.00am or after 11.00pm;

Restrictions on use for the community facilities (place of assembly)

1. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the community facilities (made up of the community centre, community workshop and community produce garden) so designated on the endorsed plan must not operate outside the hours of 7.00am and 12.00pm (or 11.00pm on Sundays).

1. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.
3. Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service lane must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council's Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will use the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council Supervision under a Memorandum of Consent for Works which must be obtained prior to commencement of works.
4. The boundaries of all car spaces, access and egress lanes and the direction in which vehicles should proceed along the access lanes must at all times be clearly indicated on the ground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including a requirement that any dead, diseased or damaged plants must be treated, or if required replaced.
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works (including demolition) on the site, Tree Preservation Zones must be established around trees 67 68 and 61 and Council's street trees 50 and 58, that are shown to be retained. The Council's Development Planning Arborist must be contacted when the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and approved the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements:
   1. Extent

Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the canopy of the trees (with the exception over road or footpath) indicated as being retained on the endorsed plan.

Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removed and the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse grade woodchips.

Vegetation Preservation fences with a minimum height of 1.2 to 1.5 metres and of chain mesh or like fence with 1.8 metre posts (e.g. treated pine) or like support every 3-4 metres and a top line of high visibility plastic hazard tape must be erected around the perimeter of the zone.

1. The posts must be strong enough to sustain knocks from on site excavation equipment.
2. The fences must not be removed or relocated without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.

Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the Tree Preservation Fencing, stating "Tree Preservation Zone - No entry without permission from the City of Banyule".

The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interface on a weekly basis.

1. Accss to Tree Preservation Zone
   1. No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Vegetation Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority.
   2. No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or stored within the Vegetation Preservation Zone and the servicing and re-fuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away from the root zones.
   3. No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to take place within the Vegetation Preservation Zone.
   4. Nothing whatsoever, including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device, is to be attached to any tree.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit; or
   2. The development is not completed and the use has not commenced within four years of the date of this permit.

[1] We have considered all submissions presented by the parties although we do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] The land and road network is not aligned to the main compass bearings. For our purposes, we consider Seddon Street to be the south frontage, the train station/Ivanhoe Parade to be east, Westley Avenue to be north and Upper Heidelberg Road to be west of the site.

[3] Uniting Care Harrison was established in the early 1960's to assist young people. It is now an agency of the Uniting Church that assists disadvantaged people, and in 2006 it assumed management of UnitingCare's independent living units in metropolitan Melbourne. It works with Uniting Church congregations to develop housing projects on church land. It is responsible for the 22 dwellings on the review site.

[4] Mr Gough advised that UnitingCare network is the largest community services provider in Victoria and possibly Australia with $2 billion annual expenditure. Uniting Care Harrison operate 10 independent living facilities for persons aged over 55 years. It is responsible for the 22 dwellings on the review site.

[5] Clause 11.04-2 Activity centre hierarchy

[8] Guidelines for higher density residential development, and Guidelines for activity centres.

[10] Mr Glossop advised a draft structure was being prepared, but would not be available even in draft form for a considerable time.

[11] We note no expert heritage advice was provided to indicate the development would adversely impact on heritage values.