1. This is an application to review the decision by Melbourne City Council ('the Council') to refuse to grant a permit for the demolition of the existing buildings and the development and use of a three storey building as serviced apartments at 171-173 Melrose Street, North Melbourne.
2. The planning application was received by the Council in August 2009. Following a request for further information, the application was publicly advertised and twelve objections were received. The Council's Engineering Services considered there was insufficient on site parking provided (which at that time comprised two car spaces for staff). The Council's Urban Design Branch considered the proposed scale, height and bulk was acceptable but the Alfred Street façade was blank and should provide a perception of surveillance and occupancy to the street 24 hours a day. The application was considered at the Council's Future Melbourne Committee in March 2010. Despite an officer recommendation to approve the proposal subject to changes (including the provision of six car spaces, balconies to apartments and the façade treatment being changed), the Council determined to refuse the application for the following reasons:
   1. Overdevelopment of the site.
   2. Inadequate provision of car parking.
   3. Excess height.
   4. Does not reflect neighbourhood context.
   5. Excessive site coverage.
   6. Insufficient consideration of sustainability issues.

1. The Council acknowledged this site has development potential but submitted the key question is whether this proposal is an overdevelopment of the site having regard to (what the Council described as) constraints derived from the existing low rise built form character and Heritage Overlay HO953. Having regard to the submissions and evidence presented, my decision is based upon the following key issues:
   • The character of the area;
   • The appropriateness of the height, scale and bulk of the building having regard to the heritage significance and the neighbourhood character; and
   • The adequacy of the car parking.

1. Mr Walker submitted for the Council that there is strong policy support in the planning scheme for the proposition that any development of this site must retain the low scale development pattern of the area. To this end, he placed significant emphasis upon the content of the Local Planning Policy Framework. Clause 21.05 identifies North and West Melbourne as areas where the existing built form character is to be preserved[1]. For such areas, the amenity principles are set out at table 4 to clause 21.05 and, relevant to this application, include the following:
   • Ensure that the height and bulk of new buildings... respond to site context including the prevailing neighbourhood and heritage character
   • Ensure that development does not undermine the significance of any identified heritage place or precinct.
   • Ensure that neighbouring properties are not adversely affected by the scale and bulk of development.
   • Ensure buildings are designed and located so that levels of sunlight and daylight available to neighbouring properties are not unreasonably reduced.
   • Ensure buildings are designed to minimise overlooking of adjoining residential properties.
   • Ensure a high level of on site amenity for future occupants of new residential developments.
2. Of these principles, I note the first is to respond to the context (as opposed to retain or preserve); the second is not to undermine the heritage significance; the third to the fifth focuses upon residential amenity; and the last relates to internal amenity. I have considered the merits of this proposal in light of these principles.

1. Mr Peake pointed out this site only has one adjoining property to the north, which contains a single storey, single fronted dwelling with a small rear courtyard measuring approximately 3 metres by 2 metres. Screening of balconies and windows have been incorporated into the design to minimise direct overlooking within 9 metres (as suggested in clause 55). Mr Bromhead acknowledged the extent of screening provided on the north facing balconies may be a little excessive having regard to the relevant clause 55 standard, hence I am of the opinion the extent of screening could be reviewed to ensure compliance with the clause 55 standard without applying screening if it is not required. Mr Brennan expressed concern about the potential for overlooking into the property on the northwest corner of Alfred and Buncle Streets as it has a swimming pool behind the Buncle Street boundary. Mr Bromhead stated screening is not required as the road reserve is greater than 9 metres in width. I agree with Mr Bromhead's evidence and find no further screening along the Buncle Street elevation is required.
2. The proposed building does not result in any impact upon the neighbouring property's sunlight and daylight having regard to the standards of clause 55.

1. Mr Bromhead pointed out that all of the serviced apartments are provided with direct access to daylight and there is only one bedroom that relies upon borrowed light out of the 19 apartments. I expressed some concern during the hearing about the ground level courtyard of the apartment on the northern side of the building due to the location of a balcony immediately above it that provides limited opportunities for daylight to penetrate to the ground floor. In my opinion, this should be changed so the entirety of the courtyard is clear to the sky.
2. In addition, I have some concern about the proposal to construct the first floor northern balcony essentially on the northern boundary. My concern is twofold. First, Mr Raworth indicated the adjoining property has an E graded building which, in a policy sense, could be demolished. Hence, the balcony could become partially enclosed if a two storey structure was built next door; and/or, second, the future development of this adjoining property may be impacted upon by the existence of a balcony constructed essentially to the property boundary. I am of the opinion this is not appropriate and the balcony should be setback 1.2 metres in line with the setback of the walls and windows of apartments 10 and 12. This needs to be achieved either through a reconfiguration of apartments 10, 11 and 12 so that the balcony is setback 1.2 metres and apartment 11 is setback further again; or by providing no balcony for apartment 11.
3. This leads me to the concern raised by the Council that the balcony sizes are not in accordance with the relevant standard of clause 55. As this is a serviced apartment land use rather than a residential apartment land use, I am of the view there is an opportunity in this case for some flexibility in the size, shape and, in the case of apartment 11, the necessity for a balcony.

1. The Council also expressed concern about the lack of ESD features in the design. Mr Walker highlighted a number of sustainable design practices which are identified in the planning scheme and could be utilised including energy efficient appliances; solar hot water and photovoltaic cells; on site water recycling; stormwater retention and treatment; landscaping to provide shade; non toxic and renewable building materials; and waste management systems during construction and occupation. Mr Peake submitted it is common practice for a condition to be included on any permit issued requiring the submission of a ESD report by a suitably qualified professional identifying what features will be incorporated into the design. He also submitted there are opportunities for a number of features to be incorporated into the design including sensor lighting, key control lighting in rooms, and water reuse for toilet flushing through the provision of tanks either on the roof (the preferred outcome) or under the car parking spaces. I note Mr Peake's advice that the Council did not require a ESD report as part of the planning application. Mr Peake submitted that this could be because the proposal was considered by the Council to be "a residential building". Mr Peake indicated that his client would be happy for a permit condition requiring an ESD report, and if I had been of a mind to grant a permit, I would have included this as a permit condition.

The Height, Bulk and Setbacks of the Proposed Building

1. The amenity principles in table 4 to clause 31.05 include:
   • Ensure that the height and bulk of new buildings responds to site context including the prevailing neighbourhood and heritage character;
   • Ensure that development does not undermine the significance of any identified heritage place or precinct; and
   • Ensure that neighbouring properties are not adversely affected by the scale and bulk of the development.
2. The objectors expressed concern about visual bulk, which is related to the height and setbacks of the building. Mr Walker submitted on behalf of the Council that the proposal fails to comply with clause 55 standards relating to the street setback, the 9 metre building height, and the side setback to the north.
3. I agree with Mr Peake this site is unusual as it has three street frontages and only one abutting property. In Buncle Street, the east side has a more utilitarian character containing predominantly fences and walls as it generally forms the back boundary to Melrose Street properties. Given this existing context, I have no concern about a building on this site being built to the street frontage. In Alfred Street, there are no immediately adjoining properties as it is separated on each side by Buncle Street and Melrose Street. As such, I am satisfied that a building along the street frontage is appropriate[2]. Mr Walker submitted the building should have a front setback that accords with the cottages fronting Melrose Street to the north of this site. These cottages generally have a 2 metre setback to the front façade with the verandahs extending approximately 1-1.2 metres into that setback. I note apartments 4 and 5 are provided with courtyards adjacent to Melrose Street that have a depth of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 metres. The inclusion of these front courtyard spaces creates a similar streetscape pattern to that of the cottages, but I acknowledge the front setbacks differ to those of the cottages. As this is a new building on a corner site, I am of the view some variation in the Melrose Street frontage setback is appropriate, and therefore I find the provision of the courtyards with the setbacks proposed to apartments four and five is an appropriate design outcome.

1. The Heritage Overlay requires consideration as to whether the proposed building will have an adverse impact upon the significance of the heritage place. Mr Raworth gave evidence there is no statement of significance for the Racecourse Road/Alfred Street North Melbourne heritage precinct. I note that it is a small precinct, and Mr Walker described it as containing residential properties as well as commercial properties fronting Flemington and Racecourse Roads. Mr Raworth focussed on the residential component, particularly Alfred and Melrose Streets. Overall, he described this heritage precinct as being unified by its fine collection of Victorian and Federation building stock, leafy established gardens, wide streets lined with mature street trees, garden squares, a mix of land uses and hilly terrain. Under cross-examination, Mr Raworth explained his reference to leafy established gardens focuses upon properties on the north side of Alfred Street and in George Street.
2. Mr Raworth described this site and the section of the heritage precinct that it is located in as "unusual". This is because this section of the precinct is, in his opinion, of low integrity and significance because each of the frontages to Alfred, Buncle and Melrose Streets have little to no heritage significance and contain low or ungraded buildings immediately surrounding the site[3]. Mr Raworth explained the Council undertook a review of E and F graded buildings a number of years ago and either removed them from heritage overlays or upgraded them to a D grade. The parties agree that the fact there remains a number of E graded buildings around this site appears to relate to the fact that this area of the City of Melbourne was previously part of another municipality at the time this review was done. What this means is the Heritage local planning policy has very limited requirements that are applicable to either E graded or ungraded buildings. For example, the Heritage policy does not require the retention of an E graded or ungraded building, which means there is the possibility any of the cottages to the north of this site along Melrose Street could be demolished (subject to obtaining a planning permit).
3. What I have taken from this situation is that much of the area around this site could change over time, including second storey additions or demolition, given there are limited requirements in the Heritage local planning policy applicable to E graded or ungraded buildings. As such, I do not agree the local planning policy framework seeks the preservation of the area surrounding this site when all of the relevant planning policies are balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.
4. I am persuaded by Mr Raworth's evidence that there are two key aspects of the design that need to be considered in terms of their impact upon the significance of the heritage place. These are the scale of the building and the details/materials of the building.

1. Mr Raworth submitted the proposed building scale is reasonable because the three storey height is of a similar scale and height to the two storey buildings found at the corner of Flemington Road and Melrose Street and on Mr Costello's property. In addition, it is a corner site and is located opposite high rise former housing commission buildings. Under cross-examination Mr Raworth explained he considers a three storey building is a modest change in height and scale, particularly when a Victorian built form characteristic is for there to be no transition (stepping) between a one and a two storey building. Mr Raworth used the example of the relationship between Mr Costello's house and the house next door on the corner of Buncle Street. Mr Costello's house has a sheer two storey wall that is higher than a modern two storey building would be. I am persuaded by Mr Raworth's evidence that a stepping of the proposed building to create "a wedding cake effect" would be at odds with the building scale and building height relationships found in this heritage precinct. I accept a stepped building form is at odds with the Victorian characteristics within the key streetscapes of this precinct, being Alfred and George Streets. Hence, whilst a three storey building per se may seem at odds with the one and two storey residential buildings in Melrose, Buncle and Alfred Streets, I find the overall building height is not dissimilar to the "taller" heights of Mr Costello's house and the hotel building on the corner of Melrose Street and Flemington Road.
2. I did consider whether the northern setbacks should comply with the relevant clause 55 standard, but I am persuaded by Mr Raworth's evidence that it is not appropriate to create a wedding cake effect in this heritage precinct. The setbacks provided from the northern side boundary will not have an adverse effect either upon the amenity of these cottages or upon the significance of the heritage place. Similarly, I find that the overall building height and form will not have an adverse effect on the significance of the heritage place.

1. In regard to the details/materials, Mr Raworth explained the Alfred Street frontage is the most modern façade on the building with the pale timber vertical screening that covers almost the entirety of the façade save for the horizontal cut-outs where the windows and balconies to the apartments are located. Mr Raworth described this as a low key and soft outcome because the consistency of the timber façade treatment essentially "plays it down". I agree with Mr Raworth the Alfred Street frontage is isolated and hence it is capable of sustaining a modern façade addition into the precinct.
2. The Alfred Street elevation contains vertical timber balcony screens on awning panels that can essentially close each of the horizontal openings provided to the windows and balconies of the apartments behind. Mr Peake explained these panels swing vertically and inwards to open up. Mr Raworth did not support their inclusion as he considers the horizontal breaks in the timber cladding provide some rhythm and breaking up of the façade. If I was of a mind to grant a permit, I would have required the timber balcony screens to be removed.
3. Mr Raworth explained the materials change along each of the Melrose Street and Buncle Street facades to provide a transition to a more rendered finish, which he considers is more typical of the heritage precinct. There are zinc elements provided on each of these elevations and Mr Raworth considered these elements to be complementary so long as they do not have a "shiny" finish. Mr Peake subsequently advised during the hearing that the zinc is intended to be coloured, and Mr Marianni submitted that it should be a patina finish rather than coloured zinc. I am of the opinion this is a matter of detail that could be resolved between the Council and the applicant. Overall, I am persuaded by Mr Raworth's evidence that the details and materials of the building will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

1. Mr Walker explained the Council is concerned that the height of the building, the 100% site coverage, the lack of permeability and the lack of landscaping does not retain the low scale built form character, including front gardens and fine grain, generally single fronted dwellings. Similarly, he submitted there are no three storey buildings within this portion of the heritage precinct.
2. Clause 21.05 seeks to preserve the existing built form character by, amongst other things, ensuring the height and bulk of a new building responds to the site context including the prevailing neighbourhood character. Within this neighbourhood are a large number of small properties containing houses and associated outbuildings that cover a significant proportion of the respective site area. This is evidenced by, for example, the adjoining property to the north (175 Melrose Street) that is a single storey, single fronted house built over the entirety of the property save for the front setback (of about 2 metres) and the rear courtyard (approximately 3 metres by 2 metres in area). I agree with Mr Bromhead and Mr Raworth that the dominant landscape features in this area are the street trees. As such, I am not concerned about the 100% site coverage or the lack of permeability and landscaping.
3. In regard to the building height, the plans illustrate an overall building height of about 9 metres with building services extending above. Mr Marianni questioned the accuracy of the 9 metre height given the lack of detail in the plans regarding the relationship between the natural ground levels and the floor levels. The key concern in this part of Mr Marianni's submission was the relationship between the car spaces, the car stacker and the natural ground level. Mr Peake submitted the width of the driveway (about 13 metres) enables an adequate fall and cross-fall to ensure the car spaces can be appropriately accessed, and Mr Fairlie agreed with this. However, Mr Peake also submitted it may be necessary to relocate the car stacker to the southern end of the car spaces to deal with the change in levels. Mr Fairlie agreed with this, but expressed the view the car stacker is not really needed, particularly for a part time employee (being a cleaner). I agree with Mr Fairlie that the car stacker is not necessary in order to provide a space that is only going to be used on a short term basis by a cleaner attending the premises for a few hours each day. Hence, if I was of a mind to grant a permit, I would require the car stacker to be removed. As such, an overall building height of 9 metres should be achievable as proposed. I agree with Mr Peake and his expert witnesses that this height is appropriate in this neighbourhood.

1. When the Council considered the planning application, the proposal included two staff car parking spaces essentially in the form of a double garage in the approximate location of an existing crossover at the northern corner of the site in Buncle Street. The Council's Engineering Services Branch suggested a car parking rate of one car space per room was more appropriate[4]. A traffic impact assessment report submitted during the planning application process suggested the parking demand would be in the order of six spaces based on a rate of 0.3 of a car space to each room. The Council Officer considered this would be adequate and recommended a permit condition requiring six car spaces to be accommodated on the site, but the Council refused the application partly on the inadequate provision of car parking.
2. The substituted amended plans include a total of four car spaces and one car space containing a car stacker for two cars. All of the car spaces are provided in a row accessed off Buncle Street, creating a crossover approximately 13 metres in length.
3. Mr Walker submitted the proposed on-site car parking is insufficient having regard to the following:
   • If there is an undersupply of on-site car parking, the guests will have to rely primarily on unrestricted on-street car parking spaces but traffic surveys show these spaces are at, or close to, saturation between 8.00 am and 1.00 pm on weekdays.
   • The proposal provides only four on-site car spaces for 19 apartments, rather than the six car spaces anticipated in the traffic impact assessment report; and
   • The empirical analysis undertaken in the traffic impact assessment report and the expert evidence is inadequate because the surveys relied upon are dated and for different areas of metropolitan Melbourne; and the relevance and use of the questionnaire for another serviced apartment development in the vicinity of this site is unclear.
4. I agree with the Council's concerns and am not persuaded by Mr Fairlie's evidence.

1. There was some consensus in the submissions and Mr Fairlie's evidence that there is significant car parking occurring in the streets surrounding this site. The Council's Engineering Services Branch described the situation as the "parking in the area is effectively at capacity". Mr Fairlie's evidence included surveys undertaken on a Saturday and Tuesday in October 2009 and a Thursday in August 2010. He stated the surveys confirm there is a high demand for unrestricted parking in the precinct with spare short term parking within the vicinity of the site at peak times. The parties agreed the closest unrestricted car parking is on the south side of Alfred Street, which had one available space at 9.00 and 10.00 am, two available spaces at 11.00 am, three spaces at 12 midday, five spaces at 1.00 pm, six spaces at 2.00 pm, eight spaces at 3.00 pm, nine spaces at 4.00 pm, eight spaces at 5.00 and 6.00 pm, seven spaces at 7.00 pm and five spaces at 8.00 pm[5].
2. During Mr Fairlie's oral evidence-in-chief, he stated the typical arrival time for guests will be between 2.00 pm and 6.00 pm[6], therefore they will be able to use four hour restricted parking in the centre of Alfred Street as they can park there from 2.30 pm overnight[7].
3. Mr Fairlie's opinions are based on his empirical analysis that consisted of three elements:
   1. Questionnaire surveys conducted over a one week period in mid October 2009 by his client of an existing serviced apartment facility in the vicinity of the Parkville Hospital precinct, which Mr Fairlie stated has a similar number of serviced apartments to the proposed development;
   2. A one week survey in early December 2003 by Ratio Consultants of the Quest on Chapel serviced apartments in Chapel Street South Yarra; and
   3. Information gathered by Grogan Richards Pty Ltd between 29 September and 11 October 2001 on car parking from the Medina Grand serviced apartments located in Queens Street, Melbourne.

1. In regard to item iii above, Mr Fairlie acknowledged under cross-examination that a lower rate of car parking is to be expected for a serviced apartment in the CBD. As such, I am not persuaded that reliance on this data is comparable to the serviced apartments proposed in this case. In addition, I note the information was collected in 2001, nine years ago, which was a matter of concern to both the Council and the residents. Mr Fairlie's response to this was to state that he presumed the car parking rate is now "likely to be lower". However, he did not provide any material/data to support this presumption.
2. In regard to item ii above, Mr Fairlie relied on data collected in 2003 (seven years ago) for a larger facility with 46 apartments and 19 on-site parking spaces. Mr Fairlie's evidence is that 30% of the apartments were occupied by guests requiring a parking space for either a personal car or a hire car. This equates to 0.3 of a car space per serviced apartment, a rate that Mr Fairlie stated is generally accepted by the Tribunal.
3. Whilst I acknowledge a rate of 0.3 of a car space per serviced apartment is one that 'rings a bell with me', I took it upon myself after the hearing to have a look at previous Tribunal decisions in an effort to locate a number of decisions where the Tribunal had clearly stated it accepted the rate of 0.3 per room. Whilst there are a number of Tribunal decisions that accepted a level of car parking provision (eg. by specifying a number of spaces), it was unclear whether they had accepted specifically a rate of 0.3[8]. Also, it is a general statement to say the Tribunal has accepted something. It could be, for example, that the car parking provision was not a matter disputed by the parties in a case, which means the Tribunal may well have not specifically determined that aspect of a proposal. Hence, I am not persuaded by the evidence presented (items ii and iii above) that the rate of 0.3 is generally accepted by the Tribunal.
4. The Council and the residents questioned the appropriateness of comparing CBD and Chapel Street locations with this North Melbourne location. The locational characteristics in terms of proximity to the hospitals or universities or other activities of interest combined with the availability of public transport or ease of access to major highways or freeways could all be factors that have an influence upon the car parking needs of a serviced apartment building in a particular location. Hence, I am not persuaded that the reliance on the CBD and Chapel Street serviced apartments surveys is comparable to the activities and public transport facilities surrounding this site.

1. Finally, Mr Fairlie has relied upon a questionnaire that was prepared by his office but completed by his client (or his client's staff) over eight days at what Mr Fairlie says he was told is a nearby serviced apartment facility (also run by his client) with a 90% occupancy. I was advised that this facility contains 18 rooms, hence 90% is about 16 rooms. During cross-examination, Mr Fairlie was unable to answer questions by the Council, the residents and myself about the content of the questionnaire, how it was undertaken, and how many questionnaires were completed. As a result, Mr Fairlie was required to attend the hearing for a second time to present further evidence in relation to these questionnaires.
2. Mr Fairlie advised 17 questionnaires were completed over an eight day period. In response to my question as to how 17 corresponded with a 90% occupancy (about 16 apartments) over eight days, Mr Fairlie stated his client advised there were "some international doctors and nurses staying for some months". There is no evidence of this based on the surveys that were undertaken as 14 (82%) stated they were staying a couple of days and 3 (18%) stated they were staying one week. Hence, I am not persuaded this survey includes all of those people staying (i.e. the 90% occupancy). In addition, only a small number of surveys were completed and I agree with the Council that that creates the opportunity for a significant margin for error in the results.
3. Mr Fairlie stated in his written evidence that 35% of the guests arrived by car, but when he gave oral evidence-in-chief for the second time he indicated that that was incorrect and there were in fact 3 guests (18%) that travelled to the apartments by car. However, the questionnaire asked whether the person filling it out had travelled to the apartments by car as a driver or as a passenger. It is possible that, for example, if there were multiple people travelling together, one person completed the questionnaire and they may have been a passenger. In fact, the results show another 3 guests said they were a passenger. Again, I acknowledge this is a very small figure in a small survey. However, if one was to presume that a car was used in both circumstances, this equates to 36% or 0.36 of a car space per apartment.
4. Mr Fairlie advised that he had been instructed this other serviced apartment building charges $10 a day to park a car in one of the 10 car spaces available. He also advised that he was instructed four of the ten spaces were occupied that day (of this hearing). I asked Mr Fairlie if he had any information about whether paying to park was a disincentive that resulted in car parking not being used in serviced apartment developments. In practical terms, Mr Fairlie acknowledged that it may be a disincentive but he was not aware of any examples, and stated that it is common practice to pay to park in a serviced apartment development. However, there is no material/data before me to support this opinion.
5. What this all means is that I am unable to conclude, based on Mr Fairlie's evidence, that this proposal will generate a car parking requirement of 0.3 of a car space per serviced apartment. I agree with the Council that the empirical analysis undertaken is insufficient.

1. To assist the parties in the event that another planning application is sought for serviced apartments on this site, I will make further findings on the basis that an empirical analysis of 0.3 could be substantiated.
2. The provision of 0.3 car spaces per apartment means this development needs to provide six car spaces for its guests. Mr Fairlie is also supportive of a car space being made available for the manager of the facility, and Mr Peake advised me that the manager would be on site between 7.00 am and 8.00 pm seven days week. Given these hours, I agree that it is desirable for a car space to be provided for the manager. I also agree with Mr Fairlie that it is not necessary to provide a car space for a part time cleaner. The restricted car parking, such as the four hour car parking in the centre of Alfred Street, could be used by part time employee(s).
3. The proposal provides four on-site car spaces for guests, which means that two guests will be required to find car spaces on the street. In addition, the incorporation of a 13 metre long crossover results in the loss of two on-street car spaces in Buncle Street.
4. Mr Fairlie's surveys show car parking on the east side of Buncle Street is at or near capacity for much of the day and the evening. The parking restrictions in Buncle Street are significant[9] and appear to ensure there is the opportunity for resident parking. None of the parties, including Mr Brennan, were aware of any particular reasons as to why the restrictions were more significant in Buncle Street than in surrounding streets, but Mr Brennan explained he has lived there since 1975 and it is a very busy area with a commuter parking issue.
5. Mr Fairlie's evidence report did not address the loss of the on-street car parking. Through his oral evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, Mr Fairlie stated he supported the provision of long term parking on this site rather than short term parking on the street. He also stated the loss of resident spaces could be catered for on the north side of Alfred Street, which has 2 hour parking restrictions but again allows residents to park for longer. Mr Peake and Mr Fairlie argued that if this site was developed purely for residential purposes, a similar loss of on-street parking would be likely along Buncle Street. It may be that the replacement of an on-street resident space with an on-site resident space is a reasonable argument, but it is not relevant to this case before me[10]. Rather, what is proposed here is to replace two resident car spaces with four car spaces allocated to a private development that cannot be used by residents; and the car parking spaces on-site (4 spaces) will not meet the peak parking demand of six car spaces. Hence, overall, there will be a further demand on other car spaces within the surrounding streets in the order of four car spaces[11]. Hence, the question in my mind is is this a reasonable outcome given the general acknowledgment by the parties of the high utilisation of car parking throughout this area.
6. I think this question is best answered having regard also to the proposed layout of the car parking in the form of a 13 metre long crossover. Mr Fairlie stated this proposal is the most efficient car park because otherwise more of the ground floor would be needed to provide a car park within the development accessed via a single or double crossover. However, Mr Fairlie did not say that it could not be done. Hence, I am not persuaded the proposed provision of four guest spaces is appropriate due to the 13 metre long crossover and the loss of two on-street car spaces in a street that has limited car parking already. Any new design for this site should turn its mind to providing more car parking on the site whether it be at ground floor level or at basement level. The car parking provided should cater for the manager or for the identified peak parking demand based on a satisfactory empirical analysis.

1. The primary reason why I have decided to refuse this application is because I am not persuaded by the car parking evidence. Further work is required concerning the likely peak parking demand generated by this use; and the design and provision of car parking on the site. Therefore, I have made findings in regard to the built form, which is generally acceptable subject to some minor changes. However, any changes made to the design to incorporate additional car parking will result in the need for the new design of a building on this site to be considered on its merits at the appropriate time. For these reasons, I will affirm the Council's decision and order that no permit be issued.

[2] I do note Mr Peake's submission that the majority of the building is not built to the street frontages because it has balconies and the apartment walls are setback. However, the architectural design includes a timber screen wall across the entirety of the Alfred Street façade and to all intents and purposes it would appear as if the building is built to the street frontage hence I have assessed it on that basis.

[3] The closest graded building is Mr Costello's property at 6 Alfred Street, which is graded B.

[4] Based on the car parking requirement for a residential building or motel type use (as set out in the table to clause 52.06-5)

[5] Based on Thursday 26 August 2010 surveys

[6] I note this conflicts with the client questionnaire results discussed later and further data/material would be helpful to support this statement if a further planning application is lodged.

[8] Due to the mixed use nature of the development proposed or other factors that made it unclear as to what rate had actually been accepted.

[9] 2 hour parking between 7.30 am and 6.30 pm Monday to Friday and 7.30 am and 12.30 pm Saturday and 1 hour parking between 6.30 pm and 11.00 pm Monday to Friday.

[10] And in any event I make no finding on this.

[11] Created by the lack of 2 on-site guest spaces and the loss of 2 on-street resident spaces.