Figure 1: Front elevation street perspective - Source: Decision Plans

Figure 2: Ground Level Plan - Source: Decision Plans TP10

Figure 3: Level 1 Plan - Source: Decision Plans TP11

Figure 4: Level 2 Plan - Source: Decision Plans TP12

Figure 6: Elevation Plan West & East - Source: Decision Plans TP30

Figure 7: Elevation Plan North & South Building 1 - Source: Decision Plans TP31

Figure 8: Elevation Plan North & South Building 3 - Source: Decision Plans TP32

1. Amendment VC243 ('AmVC243'), was gazetted 22 September 2023. The amendment 'codified' residential standards and applies to the proposal as the application was lodged in December 2023.

1. Amendment VC267 ('AmVC267') was gazetted 6 March 2025. This amendment implemented a greater level of 'codification' to residential standards under clause 55 provisions. However, the amendment does not apply here as the application was lodged prior to gazettal and therefore the transitional provisions expressed in the amendment apply.[6] This was not contested between the parties.
2. However, AmVC267 also modified the wording of the purposes of the General Residential Zone to 'respond' rather than 'respect' neighbourhood character. The applicants submit that 'either way,' new development applications 'must continue to have regard to the surrounding character.'

1. Amendment VC283 ('AmVC283') was gazetted on 2 September 2025. This gazettal occurred after the conclusion of the proceeding and subsequent site inspection by the Tribunal.
2. The Explanatory Report accompanying AmVC283 states:

Amendment VC283 to the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes is required to update the Planning Policy Framework to implement Plan for Victoria (Department of Transport and Planning, 2025). The amendment updates and introduces policy, removes references to Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Metropolitan Planning Strategy and makes general drafting improvements and clarifications.

1. Given the extent and nature of policy changes associated with this amendment, I issued an order to provide an opportunity for the parties to provide a written submission addressing any implications arising from AmVC283 for this proceeding.
2. Council submitted AmVC283 provided further policy support for the proposal, saying it would help contribute to the housing targets set for Darebin. The council also highlighted the amendment reinforces opportunities to increase housing opportunities within appropriate locations, particularly development sites such as the review site, which are close to nominated activity centres, rail stations and other service infrastructure.
3. The respondent agrees with council and highlights the new housing targets set by State Government. The respondent noted the amendment replaces 'Plan Melbourne' with an updated 'housing statement,' which is now included at clause 11 (Settlements). The respondent also highlighted the amendment seeks to focus ongoing investment and residential growth in areas close to activity centres, including rail stations nominated in the Suburban Rail Loop ('SRL') system.
4. The respondent further notes Reservoir Rail Station is located within the SRL, which is located approximately 500m from the review site. The respondent says the size of the review site delivers up to 24 new dwellings into Darebin, providing opportunities for further housing diversity.
5. The respondent also sought to highlight new cultural heritage policy at clause 15.03-1S, that focuses attention on the restoration and adaptation of existing heritage assets. The respondent says the restoration and residential use of the former heritage church is consistent with AmVC283. Accordingly, the respondent submits that the Tribunal should place weight on AmVC283 in supporting the proposal.
6. The applicants say that AmVC283 does not alter specific planning controls at a local policy level. They say there is already a focus in the Scheme for growth and investment into housing. The applicants note that Reservoir Rail Station, while located in the SRL, was not nominated as a Priority Project in the SRL. The applicants also noted the amendment did not alter the relevant housing and design provisions under clause 15.03-1S.

1. I agree with council and respondent that AmVC283 provides an additional level of housing policy support that is consistent with and supportive of the proposal.
2. Importantly, AmVC283 strengthens clause 15.03-1S regarding cultural heritage policy. The proposal features the retention and change of use of the existing former heritage church building for residential use. I have therefore given this weight.

1. Having considered the respective submissions and evidence of the parties, assisted by my site visit, I consider the following key issues are relevant in my determination of the proposal:
   • Does the proposal provide an acceptable planning response to its planning policy context?
   • Does the proposal provide an acceptable planning response to amenity and neighbourhood character?
   • Does the proposal achieve an acceptable planning response to parking and traffic?
2. I find the proposal will result in an acceptable planning outcome under the Scheme, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Appendix A to this decision.
3. My reasons and findings follow.

Does the proposal provide an acceptable planning response to its planning policy context?

1. I have set out the relevant zone and overlay provisions that applies to the review site in my Information section above. More particularly, I note the relevant GRZ2 purposes seek:
   • To encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area.
   • To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
2. Similarly, the key purposes of the HO264 seek:
   • To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.
   • To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.
   • To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
3. The associated Statement of Significance for HO264 is also relevant and identifies the heritage significance of the former church building.

Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The Reservoir Methodist Church at 34 George Street, Reservoir, constructed in 1934 to a design by Raymond G. Wilson, is significant. It is a modest inter-war Gothic Revival church set back from George Street by a lawn. The church has a gable roof clad in terracotta tiles. The walls of the church are red brick and the street facing elevation has a red brick porch projecting towards the street. The porch is entered from its sides, and it is flanked by pointed arched windows on the wall of the main part of the church. The wall of the porch facing the street has a four-centred arched stained glass window. On the wall of the church above the porch is a smaller four-centred arched window. The side walls of the church are divided into bays by piers/buttresses, with each bay having a pointed arched window. Later alterations and additions and other buildings on the site are not significant.

How is it significant?

The former Reservoir Methodist Church at 34 George Street, Reservoir is of local historic, architectural and social significance to Darebin City.

Why is it significant?

Historically, the former Reservoir Methodist Church is significant as a representative example of a simple interwar Gothic Revival church, which is associated with the first phase of suburban development in Reservoir during the inter-war period. The architectural and historic significance of the church is enhanced by its high level of intactness and its rarity value as the only surviving inter-war church in Reservoir. (AHC criteria A.4, B.2, D.2)

Socially, the former Reservoir Methodist Church is significant as a building that is known, used and valued by the local community over 70 years. It illustrates the continuing strength of the Methodist faith as an important denomination in Darebin in the twentieth century. (AHC criterion G.1).

1. I consider the retention and adaption of the former heritage listed church building is an important part of the proposal and is a positive planning response to the context and setting of the site. I note this finding is consistent with the council's heritage adviser.
2. I have also outlined the key policy context above that I have considered as part of my assessment. I do not intend to repeat these here. However, I note clause 15 provides support for new residential development that responds to its physical context and character setting (see clauses 15.01-1S, 15.01-2S and 15.01-5S), while clause 16.01-1-2S seeks to:
   • locate new housing in designated locations that offer good access to jobs, services and transport.
3. Clause 16.01-2S also supports the supply of affordable housing close to jobs, transport and services. A relevant strategy under this objective also seeks to:
   • improve housing affordability by increasing choice in housing type, tenure and cost to meet the needs of households as they move through life cycle changes and to support diverse communities.
4. The applicants note the review site is in an 'incremental housing change area' (Strategic Housing Framework Plan at clause 02.04-2). They note at clause 02.03-5, this classification encourages a 'moderate level of change' which they say is 'generally consistent with the character of the area and responsive to varying local conditions, allowing for moderate housing growth and diversification over time.'
5. The applicants submit that clauses 15.01-1L-01 (Urban Design), 15.01-5L (Neighbourhood Character) and 16.01-1L-01 (Housing Growth) also support the notion of 'low scale density development that respects existing neighbourhood character in incremental housing change areas.'
6. They say the proposal has an unacceptable 'high density rate' on the site that equates to 1:124sqm. They also submit a three storey housing form across the site is inconsistent with the predominantly low scale building form in the area. The applicants also highlight the 'limited' boundary setbacks (including on-boundary walls) and significant parking reductions sought by the proposal. They also note the new building form, at approximately 11.0m, will be higher than the existing church building at 8.4m and is not characteristic of building heights in the area.
7. While the applicant supports the retention of the existing former church building on the review site, they say the new 'attached and vertical terrace form proposed effectively introduces an entirely new typology' into this area.

1. I have not been persuaded by the applicants that the proposal will introduce 'an entirely new building typology' into the area. My site visit identified other contemporary styled buildings emerging. I find that the proposal is consistent with the planning policy context I have set out above.
2. I find that reference to site density alone is not a satisfactory indicator that the proposal is an overdevelopment. I consider that a density rate used in this way is a blunt tool.
3. I note the Darebin Housing Strategy 2013 (revised 2015) ('the Strategy') is a reference document in the Scheme at clause 16.01-1L-01. (It is also a Background document at clause 72.08). It is a relevant document.
4. Importantly, the Strategy provides objectives that apply to new development. The Strategy enables changes in building form and density when assessed against local character and physical conditions. I have underlined relevant sections below.

Areas that are reasonably close to public transport and activity areas and relatively unconstrained so that a moderate level of housing change over time is encouraged. This may include a mixture of single and semi-detached dwellings as well as infill development including 2-3 storey town houses and villas, with scale and outcome dependent on local character and conditions. Medium density housing may be encouraged in selected locations. Within the incremental change areas, there are varying local conditions that necessitate a different scale and built form outcome.

1. The review site is also a large site (3000 sqm) which in the context of the existing neighbourhood, offers an opportunity to design a larger medium density proposal that responds to this physical setting. I say this noting the decision plans also show the building site areas and garden area associated with this proposal (source: Plan Drawing TP02, Revision E). In my view, these site areas do not reflect an overdevelopment of this large site.

1. The strategy objective above also highlights an opportunity for a combination of two and three storey built form as proposed. I am satisfied the varied building height of the proposal sits comfortably across the review site and is within the height expectations specified in the GRZ (11.0m or up to three storeys).
2. My site visit of the area surrounding the review site also confirmed that there are other large and substantive new built forms emerging in the immediate area. While I accept the building form proposed on the review site is contemporary, I also find it is responsive to the existing built form and setting of the former heritage church building. I find this is a positive design outcome in relation the primacy and character setting of the existing streetscape.
3. The adaption of this building into a four bedroom dwelling is an important outcome which is also consistent with the amended direction of heritage cultural policy that has been emphasised in AmVC283.
4. The location and size of the review site also supports policy aspirations that seeks higher density outcomes on sites that are close to public transport and activity centres. In this regard the site is well located to capitalise on existing public transport options (both train and bus) and is within comfortable walking distance of existing business and community services in the nearby Reservoir activity centre.
5. Nevertheless, I have some concerns regarding the manner in which the proposal presents to the street at the northern boundary of the review site and to the adjoining dwelling at 5/36-38 George Street. I share concerns with the applicants that the existing street rhythm and building spacing are important character elements to be considered here.
6. While I am satisfied the proposed side and rear setbacks of the two new rows of dwellings (Buildings 2 and 3) are appropriate and the centralised open space area on the site offers meaningful landscape treatment and communal open space, I find the double storey massing form at the northern juncture of the site to George Street is excessive at the upper level.
7. The proposed on-boundary double storey form of Dwelling TH05 is inconsistent with the streetscape setting. It is not reflective of the spacing/rhythm of existing built form I observed during my site visit. The on-boundary double storey wall will also adversely impact the visual outlook of the occupants in Unit 5/36-38 George Street.
8. To address this concern, I will require deletion of the upper level bedroom 1 of Dwelling TH05 (an area of approximately 3.7m X 3.0m), to be replaced with an open, upper level balcony form. This will necessitate some change to the roof and wall boundary, including overlooking screening of the side of the new balcony form as it presents to the dwelling at 5/36-38 George Street.
9. While I accept this change will reduce this dwelling to a single bedroom offering, the placement of a balcony form at this corner of the site is important to visually reduce the appearance of excessive bulk and building massing at the upper level at this important view shed location.
10. A similar design approach has been taken to the angled built form of Dwelling TH02, that effectively opens out important views towards the heritage building. I consider this is a positive site response that helps maintain the visual primacy of the heritage building to the street.
11. In the same manner, the removal of the upper level bedroom 1 in dwelling TH05 will reduce the appearance of visual bulk to the street and the public realm; particularly as one moves along the street and seeks to obtain further views of the former heritage church building.
12. The applicants also raised massing concerns arising between dwelling TH16 and the dwelling at 9/35-37 Ashley Street. I do not share the same concerns with this building interface. Noting the upper level of dwelling TH16 will be setback a minimum of 1.57m from the boundary with a sloping roof form that will integrate into a double storey form.
13. The applicants also expressed concerns regarding a proposed single car space to be located in the front setback of dwelling TH05. While I accept this design feature was not a prevalent feature in the front setbacks of surrounding properties, providing this front area is devoid of any built form and the access is formed through 'grasscrete' type material, I am satisfied this area can still perform an important landscape function for the dwelling. I will include a condition to address this.
14. With this additional design modification, I am satisfied the proposal will achieve an acceptable planning outcome that is responsive to the zone and overlay purposes and the policy context that I have outlined and discussed above.

Does the proposal provide an acceptable planning response to amenity and neighbourhood character?

1. The applicants are concerned that backyard character will be adversely impacted by excessive building bulk and massing associated with the new development; when viewed from the rear yards of 5/36-38 George Street, 32 George Street and 9/35-37 Ashley Street.[7] They say that variations sought to the Standard B17 building envelope should not be supported in these circumstances, particularly where they say, the level of bulk and massing would impact the amenity and outlook of occupants from all three rear yards.
2. The applicants submit that any Standard B17 building envelope encroachment should be viewed as unacceptable. They say that elevations along the northern and eastern elevations of Building 2 and elevations along the southern and eastern elevations of Building 3 are non-compliant with Standard B17 and the western elevation of Building 2 are non-compliant with the B17 setback (5.09m required and 4.8m proposed).
3. The applicants note the decision plans show a compliant setback of dwelling TH05 to the northern boundary. However, they say this compliance relies on the setback being calculated to the northern side of the adjacent former right-of-way. They submit, when calculated from the northern boundary of the review site, dwelling TH05 encroaches both Standards B17 and B18.
4. The applicants also submit that excessive overshadowing will be generated by the proposal into the rear open space area of the property at 9/35-37 Asley Street.[8] The applicants say this open space area is already compromised in relation to existing sunlight and the proposed height and location of the development will further impact available sunlight penetration into this backyard in the afternoon.
5. The applicants also have concerns regarding overlooking from the first and second levels of dwellings TH17 - TH21 and the first floor of dwelling TH22. They submit the proposed design of this building row will result in overlooking that will adversely impact the neighbour's amenity at 32 George Street.
6. The applicants also say that dwellings TH06 - TH16 fall short of the 40sqm of SPOS. The say this is 'symptomatic' of an overdevelopment of the site. They also note the root systems of the existing street tree (Tree 1) may be adversely impacted by the proposed centralised vehicle crossover in George Street into the review site.

1. I am satisfied the proposed design change removing the upper level bedroom 1 and replacing this with an open balcony form for dwelling TH05, will in my view, appropriately address amenity impacts and character setting concerns raised by the applicants at the northern boundary and achieve an acceptable planning outcome in regard to Standard B17.
2. I note the objectives associated with side and rear setbacks (Standard B17) and walls on boundaries (Standard B18) seek to achieve the following design and amenity outcomes:

Side and rear setbacks objective (Standard B17)

To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings or small second dwellings.

Walls on boundaries objective (Standard B18)

To ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings or small second dwellings.

1. As I outlined above, the objectives require combined consideration of amenity impacts to adjoining properties and a design response that respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character in the context of existing dwellings.
2. Based on my review of the relevant elevation plans (TP30/31/32) and layout plans, I find the Standard B17 and B18 variations sought by the respondent are modest and acceptable in the context of existing interface conditions with adjoining properties. The design outcomes will result in a planning response that will be consistent with the objectives expressed above.
3. A 4.8m side setback will be provided to the northern boundary for Building 2. I am satisfied this setback will enable meaningful landscaping along this interface. The southern boundary setback of Building 3 is narrower to accommodate under croft parking. Importantly however, the upper level built form of Building 3 will be set back 3.4m to this side boundary. I agree with council this design approach is acceptable given the existing dwelling at 32 George Street is separated from the southern boundary of the review site by an existing vehicle driveway.
4. Regarding the eastern interface, I note steps are underway by adjoining landowners to gain adverse possession of the 3.0m wide parcel of land owned by the deceased estate of Mr Henty. I agree with council this parcel of land effectively provides important buffer distance between dwelling TH16 and the existing dwellings at 9/35-37 and 5/39 Ashley Street.
5. I also note a 3.6m setback is proposed between dwelling TH24 and the existing dwelling at 9/35-37 Ashley Street. I am satisfied this will enable meaningful landscape buffer treatment between these interfaces.
6. As noted above, the design approach for dwelling TH16 incorporates an on-boundary wall and sloping roof treatment set back 1.5m from the boundary interface, leading into the upper level of that dwelling. I find this is an acceptable design treatment given the existing dwelling at 5/39 Ashley Street does not present any habitable room windows to this interface and includes an alternative SPOS area to its east.
7. Overall, I find the on boundary wall construction forming part of the proposal is appropriate given the context of this large site and the variations sought to Standards B17 and 18.
8. The submitted shadow diagrams also show the dwellings at 5/39 Ashley Street and the dwelling at 9/35/37 Ashley Street will experience some additional shadow from 2.00 pm onwards. However, I am persuaded by council that the additional shadow impact to the SPOS of these dwellings must also take into consideration the title conditions and boundaries created by the Henty Estate land.
9. I say this noting the decision guidelines of Standard B21 require consideration of the following matters:
   • The impact on the amenity of existing dwellings or small second dwellings.
   • Existing sunlight penetration to the secluded private open space of the existing dwelling or small second dwelling.
   • The time of day that sunlight will be available to the secluded private open space of the existing dwelling or small second dwelling.
   • The effect of a reduction in sunlight on the existing use of the existing secluded private open space.[9]

1. When assessed in the context of the underlined matters expressed in the guidelines above, I am satisfied the additional overshadowing impacts between 2.00 pm - 3.00 pm into the existing secluded private open space conditions associated with the above properties is acceptable.
2. The decision plans indicate there may also be some overlooking potential into the SPOS areas of adjoining dwellings. I am satisfied this can be appropriately addressed through screening devices that meet Standard B22 to identified windows/balconies of these dwellings. I support the retention of council's condition 1(p) to address this matter. However, I will also include additional screening treatment to the upper level windows of dwelling TH22 as sought by the applicants.
3. The applicants also raised concerns regarding the amount of SPOS provided for dwellings TH06 - TH16. I am satisfied the overall communal open space setting provided on the site, combined with the SPOS areas provided at ground level for dwellings, appropriately addresses the corresponding objective of Standard B28 that seeks 'to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs' of future occupants.
4. Regarding the protection of the existing street tree in George Street. I am satisfied council's draft landscape conditions (4-6) will ensure the existing street tree in George Street will be protected during the construction period of the proposal.

1. The applicants submit the proposal will not provide an acceptable planning response to neighbourhood character and landscape treatment. They say the proposal should respond to and respect existing neighbourhood character. They point to the relevant description of the existing character of Precinct E6 of the Darebin Neighbourhood Character Precinct Guidelines ('Guidelines) which applies to the review site.[10] This description states that streetscapes in this precinct are generally 'low scale and open.'
2. Referring to the same Guidelines, the applicants submit the proposal fails to acknowledge the preferred character statement for Precinct E6, noting that new dwellings should encourage the following:
   • Designing new dwellings that interpret elements of the Interwar era in a contemporary manner, while respecting existing period architecture.
   • Encouraging more contemporary architectural styles in streets that have few period dwellings. These buildings must adopt the predominant scale, form and setbacks of their streetscape context, while showing design innovation.
   • Respecting the predominant height and setbacks of nearby buildings.
3. In regard to landscape treatment the applicants submit the following:
   • There is limited landscaping capacity along the southern interface of building three;
   • A large 20.0m lemon scented gum proposed in the south eastern corner of the site is an unrealistic expectation in a 1.0m wide landscape strip and building setback of 3.4m from the boundary.
   • Construction of dwelling TH05 on the northern boundary eliminates any potential for landscaping along this interface.
   • A two-storey wall adjacent to the northern boundary introduces an element which is completely out of context within the neighbourhood character setting.
   • A principal car park is proposed within the front setback of Dwelling TH05.
   • The plans indicate a permeable wire fence to the church. A timber picket fence is a more appropriate outcome.

1. I have addressed key character and landscape considerations under the first key issue heading above. This includes amending the building form of dwelling TH05 that will reduce the visual impact and massing of double storey form to the northern corner of the review site.
2. I have also found the overall height and appearance of the proposal provides an acceptable planning response to the existing streetscape. Particularly noting the proposed maximum height of the building forms across the site is consistent with and generally below the height provisions specified in the GRZ2.
3. I am also satisfied the discrete building envelope locations and setbacks of the three distinct building modules to the front and side boundaries of the review site appropriately responds to the street setting I observed during my site visit. The retention of the former church building in situ, combined with a centralised vehicle access and communal open space spine, will also enable important 'blue-sky' views through the site to maintain the existing rhythm and built form spacings I observed along George Street. The proposed height of Buildings 2 and 3 is also respectful of the height and setting of the former church building when observed from the public realm.
4. I also find the contemporary design features and building layout proposed for the new residential development is appropriate given the physical and visual setting of the former heritage church building. I note this was also the opinion of council's heritage adviser. [11] I also do not share the same concerns raised by the applicants regarding the 'zincalume' façade cladding treatment. Noting I observed use of similar material in the surrounding area during my site visit.
5. I also note the respondent table a revised landscape plan at the hearing that demonstrated a smaller species of lemon scented gum could be located in the south east corner of the review site. I support this approach and will add this into the respective landscape plan condition (condition 4) in Appendix A.
6. Pickett style fencing is also proposed at the George Street frontage in council's draft conditions (condition 1(j)). The respondent supports this and I have retained this in the set of conditions at Appendix A.
7. For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied the proposal will result in an acceptable planning response to amenity and neighbourhood character.

Does the proposal achieve an acceptable planning response to parking and traffic?

1. The proposal seeks to accommodate 24 spaces (one per dwelling), with 23 car spaces in the under croft car park area to the rear of the existing former church building. One open car space is proposed in the front setback area for dwelling TH05.
2. Access to the under croft car park is proposed by a centralised driveway with a passing bay and crossover from George Street. A communal bike shed is proposed within the car park area, with a total of 24 bicycle spaces.
3. The applicants submit the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area if the reduction in carparking is approved.[12] Their written submission provided a table based on the number of proposed bedrooms per dwelling, showing a shortfall of 18 parking spaces. While they accept that George Street has some capacity to absorb overflow parking, they contend this overflow would result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding residents and introduce an inequitable expectation for similar reductions that may occur into the future.
4. The respondent submits that clause 52.06 enables consideration of parking reduction, particularly highlighting the locality is well served by public transport options. The respondent also provided a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment, prepared by One Mile Grid, dated 20 December 2023 ('TIA report) that supports reduced parking under this clause. I comment further on this below.
5. Council concurs with the shortfall of 18 on-site parking spaces as submitted by the applicants. However, council considers the site's access to a range of public transport options and its 'walkability' to the Reservoir Activity Centre also supports the level of on-site parking reduction sought.
6. I was not presented with any other traffic or parking evidence during the course of the hearing. However, I was directed to the respondent's TIA Report prepared by One Mile Grid Traffic Consultants. I note this formed part of the further application material required and considered by council in issuing its NoD.
7. The TIA report confirms the review site has 'excellent public transport accessibility, with a wide variety of transport modes.' The report notes the Reservoir Railway Station is located approximately 10 minutes walking distance from the site. The following table is provided from that report, identifying the modes of transport and distance to each mode. The TIA report also notes the review site has a healthy Walk Score rating of 82/100, indicating that most 'day to day' errands are able to be accomplished on foot.

Figure 9: Public Transport Provision Table - Source: Traffic Impact Assessment, One Mile Grid, 20 December 2023.

1. The TIA report notes that design standards for the proposed car park area satisfy clause 52.06-9 and includes relevant swept path plans that demonstrate that vehicles can enter and leave and safely. Including safely negotiating access into the under croft car park area with 'adequate clearances and no corrective manoeuvres.'
2. The TIA report also confirms the proposal has a shortfall of 18 car spaces and provided a parking demand assessment in accordance with clause 52.06-7 to assess the parking demand likely to be generated by the proposal.
3. The findings of the TIA demand assessment concluded that dwellings within the review site could be expected to be appealing to potential owners/tenants who do not have the need to park a vehicle at their place of residence.
4. The TIA report also assessed capacity for on-street car parking in the area. Survey work was undertaken and estimated up to 116 on-street car parking would be available for parking in George Street and Edwardes Street. According to the survey results, the report found that approximately half of the on-street car spaces would be available during peak occupancy use at midday and evening times (based on the TIA Wednesday and Saturday survey times).
5. The TIA report is thorough and is a relevant matter in my assessment. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I have given this weight in my assessment of the traffic and parking concerns raised by the applicants.

1. Based on the survey work and findings in the TIA report, I am satisfied the reduced parking provision sought by the respondent will result in an acceptable planning outcome that is supported by clause 52.06 and associated policy.
2. The review site has excellent access to public transport modes and I am satisfied the existing traffic road system is capable of accommodating the additional traffic movements arising from the proposal.
3. I am also satisfied the street network and availability of on-street parking will be sufficient to ensure the proposal does not result in any loss of amenity to residents in the area.
4. I find the proposal will achieve an acceptable planning response to parking and traffic as sought under relevant provisions of clause 52.06.

1. Draft conditions circulated by the council before the hearing were discussed between the parties at the conclusion of the proceeding.
2. I have considered the oral submissions made by parties. The conditions set out in the Appendix A to this decision reflect these discussions and my reasons and findings expressed above.
3. For the reasons stated above I have included a condition 1 requirement to delete the upper level bedroom 1 of dwelling TH05 to address building massing to the street and towards the adjoining dwelling.
4. I have also included a standard condition regarding the prohibited use of gas reticulation to the proposed development in accordance with legislation requirements.
5. I have also specified the form and height of the proposed canopy tree in the southeast corner of the site (4(a)).
6. Council also included draft conditions that seek to confirm that no more than three rooms in each of dwellings TH02 to TH24 are to be used as bedrooms at any one time. I have deleted these conditions on the basis they unnecessary and enforceability will be problematic.
7. I have also undertaken minor editing and formatting of the council's draft conditions which do not change their purpose or intent.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

Demolish or remove a building; construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.

1. Before the development starts, including before the commencement of any demolition allowed by the permit, 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 this Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Pages TP03, TP04, TP05, TP06, TP07, TP10, TP11, TP12, TP13, TP20, TP21, TP22, TP23, TP24, TP25, TP26, TP27, TP28, TP29, TP30, TP31, TP32, TP41, TP44, and TP60 in Revision E of project no. 2301 prepared by YS Housing and dated July 2024) but modified to show:

(a) Deletion of bedroom 1 at the upper level of dwelling TH05 to be replaced with an open balcony form with overlooking screening to the northern section of the balcony to meet Standard B22 requirements.

(b) Annotated dimensions of the car parking space for dwelling TH05 (the northernmost dwelling facing the street) to achieve compliance with the standards of Clause 52.06-9 and use of 'grasscrete' type or similar paving to the proposed vehicle access to integrate with landscaping proposed in the front setbacks of dwellings TH02-TH05.

(c) Annotated dimensions demonstrating all of the building (excluding any porch) for dwellings TH02 to TH05 being setback from the frontage (western boundary) by at least 6.03 metres.

(d) Annotated dimensions of the heights of the fences separating the Secluded Private Open Space of dwelling TH02 to TH05 to comply with Standard B29 at Clause 55.05-5 of the Darebin Planning Scheme.

(e) Annotated dimensions of the heights of the front fences to comply with Standard B32 at Clause 55.06-2 of the Darebin Planning Scheme.

(f) The provision of pedestrian visibility splays measuring 2.0 metres (width across the frontage) by 2.5 metres (depth into the site), to the northern and southern sides of the crossovers to George Street. Where within the site, the splays must be at least 50% clear of any visual obstructions (structures, vegetation and the like). The splays may include an adjacent entry or exit lane where more than one lane is provided, or adjacent landscaped areas, provided the landscaping in those areas is less than 900mm in height.

(g) Removal of the north-facing windows of dwelling TH05.

(h) Relocate the Hot Water Unit of dwelling TH16 to a location within the eastern side of the Secluded Private Open Space, or any other location to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

(i) The front fence for the church building to be timber pickets or another material to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, with detailed dimensioned plans of the fence included.

(j) A cumulative provision of at least 5 cubic metres of storage in the First Floor porch, underneath each dwelling's First/Second Floor stairway and on the Second Floor Balcony of each dwelling TH17 to TH24.

(k) The portion of the southern crossover which serves vehicles finished in concrete.

(l) A comprehensive schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (including colour samples).

(m) Details of the fences on the northern, eastern and southern boundaries (except within 9 metres of the western boundary of the land) in accordance with Condition No. 12 of this Permit.

(n) The location of all plant and equipment (including air-conditioners, condenser units, rainwater tanks, solar panels, hot water units and the like). These are to be:

1. co-located where possible;
2. located or screened to be minimally visible from the public realm;
3. air conditioners located as far as practicable from neighbouring bedroom windows or acoustically screened; and
4. integrated into the design of the building.

(o) The location of water and electricity metres. Where metres would be visible from the public realm, these are to be:

1. co-located where possible;
2. positioned on a side boundary or adjacent to the accessway; and
3. screened from view using either landscaping or durable screening that integrates with the development.

(p) The northern window of the northern First Floor bedroom of dwelling TH08 and the southern First and Second Floor windows of each dwellings TH17 to TH21 and the First Floor windows of dwelling TH22 with either:

1. a sill with a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level;
2. a fixed external screen with a maximum permeability of 25% to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level; or
3. fixed obscure glazing (not film) with a maximum transparency of 25% to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

Where fixed screens are being utilised a section diagram must be included to demonstrate how the screens minimise overlooking of adjoining properties. Screens must be constructed of durable materials and be integrated with the design of the development.

(q) Any fencing visible from the street, other than fencing along common boundaries shared with an adjoining site, to be of a design, colour and quality of material (not timber palings) that matches the character of the development.

(r) Any modifications required as a result of the approved Landscape Plan required by Condition No. 4 of this Permit.

(s) Annotations detailing Tree Protection Zone(s), associated tree protection fencing and tree protection measures in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 5 and 6 of this Permit.

(t) Any modifications required as a result of the approved Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) required by Condition No. 7 of this Permit, including:

1. All East and West upper-level windows to be operable: two awning style windows or both casement style.
2. External operable shading devices to all west and east facing windows and glazed doors to habitable rooms drawn and labelled with ASD (Adjustable Shading Device) on the floor plan and elevations. The first-floor window shading devices must be operable from within the dwelling. Include a product diagram or section of the proposed device (must not be roller shutters for any street facing glazing). Ensure windows that have external adjustable shading can open when using the blind.
3. Horizontal, fixed, external shading devices to all north facing habitable room windows and glazed doors where not located directly under an eave or overhang. Draw and label all shading on the plans and elevations with FSD (Fixed Shading Device). Provide a dimensioned section diagram or photograph of the shading. The depth of the device must be equal to 25% of the distance from sill height to the base of the device. The device must also extend horizontally to both sides of the window or glazed door by a distance equal to the depth of the device.
4. Double glazing 'DG' to all habitable room windows, glazed doors and skylights annotated on each individual glazing unit and specified on the material/colour schedule/window legend. New operable glazing doors to church-dwelling to be double-glazed and existing wall vents to be renovated.
5. The location and size of all rainwater tanks, labelled, including a notation indicating that the rainwater tank will be collecting from specified roofed area (sqm) and servicing all toilets. The tanks must be accessible for maintenance, leak detection and repair.
6. Label Water Efficient Gardens, annotate rainwater tank connection to garden, noting that no potable water is to be used for irrigation. Location of taps and floor waste on balconies / courtyards, clearly annotated. Size of Vegetated area labelled (sqm), as defined in BESS.
7. Details of the permeable surfaces with a cross section - if permeable paving as per Darebin WSUD guidelines.
8. Annotate 3kW minimum photovoltaic array solar panels per dwelling, facing North with tilt angle annotated. Panels must be located to avoid being overshadowed.
9. Update the ESD table to show items that cannot be drawn e.g. NatHERS, ACH, building material certifications (PEFC timber, E0, Non-VOC etc), glazing properties (U-value, SGHC), appliance ratings and cooling/heating ratings; A minimum 4/4/5 WELS rated Shower/Toilet/Taps; a minimum 4 Star WELS Dishwasher.
10. Draw and label: Ceiling fans to all bedrooms. The clothesline for each dwelling. Skylights and note as operable. Skylights to Church must have operable shading. Electrical power points to bike parking area for E-bikes.
11. The roof specified with a Solar Absorptance value of less than or equal to 0.50 on the plans and in the Materials/Finishes schedule. The driveway specified as no darker than 'Medium' i.e. with a Light Reflectance Value of 40 or higher.
12. Show 6 visitor bike parking or bike rails.
13. Provision of a minimum 32A dedicated circuit from switchboard to carparks to allow for electric vehicle charging for each carparking space.
14. All bathrooms to have humidity-controlled exhaust fans.
15. Location of food and garden waste facilities.
16. Amended Landscape, WSUD, Garden Plans.

(u) The provision of a Stormwater Management System Plan, including a Water Sensitive Urban Design Plan, in accordance with Standard W1 of Clause 53.18-4 of the Darebin Planning Scheme. (Refer to Condition No. 9 of this Permit.)

(v) The provision of a Site Management Plan in accordance with Standard W3 of Clause 53.18-6 of the Darebin Planning Scheme. (Refer to Condition No. 10 of this Permit.)

(w) Any modifications required as a result of the approved Waste Management Plan (WMP) required by Condition No. 11 of this Permit.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
2. Any new dwelling allowed by this permit must not be connected to reticulated gas services (within the meaning of clause 53.03 of the relevant planning scheme). This conditions to have force and effect after the development authorised by this permit has been completed.
3. Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the Landscape Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and drawn to scale with dimensions and must incorporate:

(a) The specie of tree proposed in the south east corner of the subject land shown as a Eucalyptus Woodwardii (Lemon flowering gum - 12.0m x 3.0m).

(b) Tree protection measures in accordance with Condition No. 5 and 6 of this Permit.

(c) Any modifications relating to landscaping required as a result of the Sustainable Management Plan required by Condition No. 7 of this Permit)

(d) Any modifications relating to landscaping required as a result of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Plan/Report required by Condition No. 9 of this Permit).

(e) Details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed, including overhanging trees on adjoining properties and street trees within the nature strip. The genus, species, height and spread of all trees must be specified. All existing trees to be retained must be retained and protected in accordance with Australian Standards.

(f) A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity, pot size and quantities of all plants.

(g) A diversity of plant species and forms including at least:

1. Eight (8) large sized canopy trees in the private open space of the proposed development, with a minimum mature height of 10m or more. At the time of planting these trees are to be from 50L size pots and at least 2m in height.
2. Twelve (12) medium sized canopy trees in the private open space of the proposed development, with a minimum mature height of 8m. At the time of planting these trees are to be from 50L size pots and at least 2m in height.
3. Twelve (12) small sized canopy trees in the private open space of the proposed development, with a minimum mature height of 4m. At the time of planting these trees are to be from 50L size pots and at least 2m in height.

(h) No trees are to be located in the church's front setback, i.e. both to the west of the church building and to the south of the main crossover.

(i) Annotated graphic construction details showing all landscape applications and structures including tree and shrub planting, retaining walls, raised planter bed and decking.

(j) Type and details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and permeable and/or hard paving (such as pavers, brick, gravel, asphalt and concrete) demonstrating a minimum site permeability of 20%. Percentage cover of permeable surfaces must be stated on the plan. Where paving is specified, material types and construction methods (including cross sections where appropriate) must be provided.

(k) Hard paved surfaces at all entry points to dwellings.

(l) The location of all plant and equipment as shown (including air conditioners, letter boxes, garbage bins, lighting, clotheslines, tanks, storage, bike racks and the like).

(m) Type and details of edge treatment between all changes in surface (e.g. grass (lawn), gravel, paving and garden beds).

(n) An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of entry doors, windows, gates and fences.

(o) The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services. Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided.

(p) Clear graphics identifying trees (deciduous and evergreen), shrubs, grasses/sedges, groundcovers and climbers.

(q) Scale, north point and appropriate legend.

(r) Landscape specification notes including general establishment and maintenance requirements.

The requirements of the endorsed Landscape Plan must be complied with and implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The development must not be occupied, unless otherwise approved by the responsible authority in writing, until the landscaping works shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan are completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.

The landscaping shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including by replacing any dead, diseased, dying or damaged plants to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

All landscaped areas must be provided with an appropriate irrigation system to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the development (including demolition) starts, tree protection fencing (TPF) must be erected in accordance with the following requirements to provide a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):

Tree 3 - Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (Lawson's Cypress)

*As defined in Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Treetec Professional Tree Services and dated 8 December 2023.

1. The following tree protection measures must be implemented for trees identified in the table to Condition No. 5 of this Permit:

(a) Tree protection measures must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970 - 2009: Protection of trees on development sites or as otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

(b) Tree protection fencing must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh (or similar) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed or unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority in writing.

(c) The tree protection fencing must be maintained at all times and may only be moved the minimum amount necessary for approved buildings and works to occur within a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The movement of the fencing to allow such buildings and works shall only occur for the period that such buildings and works are undertaken, after which time the full extent of the fencing must be reinstated.

(d) Tree 1 will require an exploratory dig, to a depth of 300mm below existing grade, using a non-destructive method such as manual, pneumatic or hydro excavation is undertaken. The excavation must be undertaken under supervision of an AQF Level 5 arborist. The excavation should expose the area of encroachment within the SRZ of tree 1, to ensure that no large roots, greater than 40mm in diameter are within this footprint.

If roots of this size are discovered, they must remain in situ and an engineering solution, such as suspending the slab of the proposed extension, implemented to avoid the severance of these roots.

Roots smaller than 40mm in diameter within this SRZ encroached area may be severed to facilitate the footings of the proposed design.

Any severance or engineering solution must be undertaken/designed in co-ordination with a suitably qualified arborist.

TPZ fencing can only be reduced by the minimum amount necessary for construction of the approved crossover.

(e) All excavations for the construction of the proposed southern crossover are to be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist with all root pruning undertaken in accordance with section 9 of AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees.

(f) The proposed building footprint within the SRZ and TPZ of tree 7 must be constructed using root sensitive footings. The proposed courtyard paving must be constructed at or above the existing soil level, with permeable materials, and with no trenching or major excavation inside the TPZ of tree 7. The new fence construction must use the existing fence post holes where possible and where new post holes are needed within the TPZ of tree 7, these must be dug by hand. If roots greater than 40mm are found, they must remain in situ and the post hole must be moved further away from the tree. If roots less than 40mm are found, these can be cut with a sharp clean tool by a suitably qualified arborist. These works will be closely supervised by the project arborist, to ensure there is no inadvertent impact to the roots of this tree.

(g) A qualified arborist must oversee all works in and around Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) for trees 1, 2, and 7.

(h) All services must be routed outside 'Tree Protection Zones'. If there is no alternative to passing through the protection zone, the local authority and the consulting arborist must be advised in writing on the need for directional boring beneath root zone; this must be maintained at a minimum depth of 45cm in soil depth when inside the TPZ of a retained tree.

(i) Except with the written consent of the responsible authority:

1. The area within the TPZ and Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1cm of trunk girth measured at the soil/trunk interface on a weekly basis.
2. The area within the TPZ of Trees No. 1, 2, and 7 must be provided with 100mm layer of coarse mulch.
3. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within a TPZ, save for that allowed to complete the approved development.
4. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within a TPZ.

(j) Any pruning works must be conducted in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4373 - 2007: Pruning of Amenity Trees and undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist.

(k) The construction of the crossover (and any other buildings and works within a TPZ) must be undertaken under the supervision and direction of a qualified arborist.

(l) Where applicable to a nature strip tree, a TPZ is confined to the width of the nature strip.

(m) Where applicable to a tree on a neighbouring lot, a TPZ only applies where within the site.

(n) Before any development (including demolition) starts, all existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plan(s) to be retained must be marked and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, an amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to an approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the amended SMP will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The amended SMP must be generally in accordance with the document identified as Sustainable Design Assessment prepared by YS Housing and dated 12 February 2024 but modified to show:

(a) Provide preliminary NatHERS ratings assessments for all thermally unique dwellings and achieve an average of at least 7 Stars; and Provide preliminary NatHERS ratings assessments for the retrofitted church.

1. The NatHERS ratings must be updated to include all skylights.
2. All skylights to be double-glazed and operable.

(b) Specify 4 Star WELS rated toilets.

(c) If claiming in BESS a Building Users Guide, provide a further description of what information is going to be included.

(d) Amend the BESS report (and any other corresponding documentation) to:

1. Select 4 star WELS rated toilets in the BESS water category.
2. Include the updated heating and cooling loads and overall star rating obtained from the preliminary energy ratings in the dwelling Energy Profiles.

(e) A STORM report and stormwater management response that maintains a minimum STORM score of 100% but is modified so that:

1. There is consistency between the plans, SMP and STORM report.
2. An equivalent minimum 2000L rainwater tank to each dwelling, plumbed to flush toilets, independent of any on site detention requirements.
3. It must not use proprietary products, buffer strips, swales or large areas of hard surface draining to in-ground raingardens.
4. If rainwater tanks are used: Their reliability a minimum of 80%.
5. If raingardens are used: A minimum of 1 square metre in size, and 2% - 4% of the catchment area they are treating. The catchment area must be a minimum of 25 square metres and detailed to Darebin's preferred design.

(f) An amended WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design) catchment plan that is consistent with the STORM report, clearly showing:

1. Location and size/s of rainwater tanks (labelled) including access to underground tank maintenance.
2. Where all stormwater will drain, downpipes clearly marked and the direction of flow shown with arrows (including roof, balconies, driveway and raingarden).
3. All permeable areas dimensioned;
4. All stormwater catchment areas (impervious areas and roofs) clearly marked and dimensioned (in sqm) and connected to corresponding Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) treatment measures.

Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in this condition, the responsible authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development. When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, the amended SMP and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit. No alterations to the SMP may occur without the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. The development must not be occupied until a report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prepared by the author of the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) endorsed under Condition No. 6 of this Permit, or similarly qualified person, is submitted to the responsible authority, confirming that all measures specified in the SMP have been implemented in accordance with the endorsed SMP.
2. Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, a detailed Stormwater Management System Report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the Stormwater Management System Report will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The report must include:

(a) Details of how the stormwater management system is designed to meet the current best practice performance objectives for stormwater quality contained in the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999), including;

1. An assessment using an industry recognised stormwater tool;
2. The type of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) stormwater treatment measures to be used and details of these treatment measures including cross sections, materials, plants and drainage directions;
3. The location of stormwater treatment measures in relation to buildings, sealed surfaces, neighbouring properties and landscaped areas;
4. A plan illustrating where all impervious surfaces will be treated and drained;
5. A construction and maintenance schedule;

(b) Details of how the stormwater management system contributes to cooling, improving local habitat and providing attractive and enjoyable spaces;

(c) Consideration of how the WSUD stormwater treatment measures will integrate with on-site detention requirements;

The requirements of the endorsed Stormwater Management System Report must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before plans are endorsed under Condition 1 of this Permit, a Site Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the Site Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Site Management Plan must be generally in accordance with Melbourne Water's Keeping Our Stormwater Clean - A Builder's Guide (2002) and must describe how the site will be managed prior to and during the construction period, including requirements for:

(a) Erosion and sediment.

(b) Stormwater.

(c) Litter, concrete and other construction wastes.

(d) Chemical contamination.

The requirements of the endorsed Site Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before plans are endorsed under Condition 1 of this Permit, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Waste Management Plan must:

(a) Ensure all bin types, bin sizes, the size of the waste storage area/s and any other relevant detail/s specified in the Waste Management Plan are shown to scale on the endorsed plans.

(b) Explain how and where waste will be stored on the site.

(c) Detail the size and location of general, recyclable, [*FOGO and glass] waste bins.

(d) Include a plan that shows:

1. The waste storage and collection area.
2. The length and width of the footpath/ nature strip directly abutting the site boundary.
3. The location of any available on-street carparking, loading zones and tram/bus stops.
4. The location of all street furniture, light poles, electricity poles, driveways, street trees, bus shelters or similar obstructions.
5. The location of the bins within the road reserve, with a minimum gap of 300mm between bins and other obstructions.
6. If private waste collection is required, type and size of collection vehicles, frequency of collection, times of collection, location of collection point for vehicles and location of bins prior to collection.

The plan may require bin sharing or that collection be undertaken by a private contractor if it cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that the kerb-side collection of individual bins will not cause car parking and/ or amenity issues.

Where waste is collected by a private contractor, bins must not be stored off site before and after collection.

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the approved Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Waste storage and collection must not affect the amenity of the surrounding area.

Waste storage and collection must not cause any interference with the circulation and parking of vehicles on abutting streets.

1. The development must not be occupied until a fence to a minimum height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level is erected along the southern, northern and eastern property boundaries, except within 9 metres of the western boundary. The fence must be constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

If the existing fences on the southern, northern and eastern with a height less than 1.8 metres is structurally sound, the fence height may be increased by the addition of a free-standing, self-supporting trellis adjacent to the fence to the required height. If used, such trellis must be a maximum of 25% visually permeable and be fixed, permanent, durable and of materials, finishes and colour that will blend in with the development.

1. At the completion of the constructed ground floor level(s), and before the starting of the building frame or walls, a report prepared by a licensed land surveyor to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to the responsible authority, confirming the ground floor level(s). The report must be submitted to the responsible authority no later than 7 days from the date of the inspection.

The development must not be occupied until a report prepared by a licensed land surveyor to the satisfaction of the responsible authority is submitted to the responsible authority, confirming the floor level(s).

1. No buildings or works are to be constructed over any easement or other restriction on the land or any sewers, drains, pipes, wires or cables under the control of a public authority or the responsible authority without the prior written consent of the responsible authority and/or any relevant authority with vested interest in the easement
2. Before the use starts, an automatic external lighting system capable of illuminating entry to each unit, access to each car parking space, each car parking space itself, and all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The external lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining and nearby land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. All guttering, rain heads, pipes including downpipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site including those associated with a balcony must be:

(a) concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view; or

(b) located and designed to integrate with the development,

All to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. No plant, equipment, services or structures other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the buildings without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
2. The plant and equipment proposed on the roof of the building must be located to be minimally visible from the public realm or screened in a manner that integrates with the design of the development, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and a slot for newspapers to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4. Before occupation of the development, the areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:

(a) constructed;

(b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

(c) surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat;

(d) drained;

(e) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes; and

All to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
2. Before the occupation of the development all vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, nature strip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Community Infrastructure Levy and/or Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Darebin City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan Overlay.
4. The development must include no more than 24 dwellings.
5. This Permit will expire if either:

(a) The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this Permit; or

(b) The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.

As relevant, the responsible authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing:

(a) Before this Permit expires;

(b) Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or

(c) Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion of the development or a stage of the development.

[1] A planning permit is not triggered under the DCPO1.

[2] Council advised that the land immediately adjacent and along the rear boundary of the review site, includes a 'former carriageway easement' that is currently used as secluded private open space by the rear dwellings located at 35-37 and 39 Ashley Street ('the Henty Land'). I was also informed this land is currently progressing through 'vacant possession' procedures by the respective dwelling owners.

[3] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[4] As worded prior to gazettal of AmVC243.

[5] The HO264 does not require a permit for internal alterations to the former church building.

[6] AmVC267 inserted a transition provision in residential zones to provide that any application lodged before the commencement date can continue to be assessed under the provisions in force immediately before the commencement date.

[7] D'Andrea v Boroondara CC [2023] VCAT 1148, Costa v Banyule CC [2023] VCAT 1273 and Oechsle v Frankston CC [2023] VCAT 1356 referred to.

[8] Ling v Whitehorse CC (Red Dot) [2023] VCAT 307 referred to.

[9] Decision guidelines stated are those in place prior to the gazettal of AmVC243.

[10] Darebin Neighbourhood Character Precinct Guidelines (Planisphere, 2007).

[11] Council's heritage adviser also supported the contemporary design outcomes associated with the proposal in relation to the retention and setting of the former church building (advice dated 10/1/24).

[12] Alameddine v Darebin CC [2023] VCAT 839 and Mavrikis v Darebin CC [2024] VCAT 646 referred to.