Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2010-11-19|Before: Mr P

La Strada Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2010] VCAT 1861 (19 November 2010)

Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Moreland Planning Scheme; Eight storey apartment building; Brunswick major activity centre, Draft Brunswick structure plan; Master planning of larger precinct; Orderly planning; Building height and visual bulk; Building design; Façades and materials; Internal amenity of apartments; Wintergardens and terraces; Car parking; Vehicle access; Impact on operations of trams.

P Hannon, H Sawer, K Sayce, R Both, D Van Urk, S and C Lore, R Cooney, J McLean, M Rowe, A Jordan, P Webster Bloom, J Holcombe, M Macmillan, A Fearnside, G Lasslett

La Strada Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2010] VCAT 1861

The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. MPS/2009/304 is set aside.
A permit is granted in relation to land at 240 Lygon Street, Brunswick East. The permit will allow:
- use and development of a multi level building comprising dwellings and retail premises (other than a hotel or tavern)
- reduction of the car parking requirement

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

To develop an eight storey apartment building over a basement with three levels. The proposed uses in the building include one retail premises at ground level fronting Lygon Street (423 square metres floor area) and 112 apartments. Eighty-two apartments would have one bedroom and 30 apartments would have two bedrooms. Parking for 103 cars and 48 bicycles would be provided in the basement.

Application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Clause 34.01-1 (use of land for dwellings in B1Z as entry is greater than two metres)

Clause 34.01-4 (Construct a building or carry out works in B1Z)

Clause 43.02-2 (Construct buildings and works in DDO)

Clauses 21.03, 21.04, 21.05, 22.02, 22.04, 22.10, 22.11, 22.15

The review site is located on the east side of Lygon Street, approximately 50 metres south of Albert Street. The review site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to Lygon Street of 35 metres, a depth of 43.68 metres and an area of 1,569 square metres.

The review site forms part of a larger site that extends to the east. The larger site is generally rectangular and has an area in the order of 6,000 square metres. The review site and the larger site presently comprise one title. The residual part of the land is included in the Business 3 Zone. The site is occupied by single storey industrial buildings. The land is flat and is not constrained by any special features or encumbrances.

The review site forms part of the Brunswick activity centre. This part of the centre is characterised by a mix of retail, wholesale, manufacturing and office land uses in commercial buildings. Land to the east and southeast is developed for residential. Methven Park is located to the southeast of the review site.

We inspected the site and its environs on 8 July 2010, including an inspection from the roof terrace of Mr Fearnside's residence, and the immediate environs of Ms Lasslett's property. We also inspected an apartment with a wintergarden located in the Northbank development at 525 Flinders Street, Melbourne.

Metaxas Architects v Moreland CC [2004] VCAT 1752

Carlos Constructions Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2005] VCAT 2718

Liistro & Ors v Moreland CC [2009] VCAT 1795

Merri Merri Developments Pty Ltd v Darebin CC [2010] VCAT 1045

In June 2009, La Strada Investments Pty Ltd (the permit applicant) lodged an application for a planning permit with Moreland City Council to develop an apartment building with a height of 35 metres (eleven storeys) over four basements. That proposal would accommodate 165 apartments comprising a mix of bedsits, one bedroom and two bedroom apartments. Parking for 151 cars and 49 bicycles would be provided in four basements.
In November 2009, the applicant sought a review by the Tribunal as the council had failed to determine the application within the statutory period. The Tribunal ordered in February that the application be amended to delete permission for access to a road in a category 1 road zone. The Tribunal also ordered that the applicant notify owners and occupiers of nearby properties, and the wider community of the application.
Council supported medium density residential development on this site, but considered an eleven storey apartment building to be excessive in height and to have adverse impacts on the nearby sensitive residential precinct and park. Development of this scale would be inconsistent with the draft Brunswick Structure Plan that encourages development in this locality to be in the order of five storeys. Council also considered that if approved, the development would set an undesirable precedent for the locality and Lygon Street. Local residents joined the review and opposed the development on grounds similar to council.
The merits of the development were heard over two days in June 2010. The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development would be generally consistent with state and local planning policies that aim to create an activity node to the north of Albert Street and to redevelop former industrial sites for residential and mixed uses.
The Tribunal found the proposed eleven storey building to be excessively tall and its design to present blank and bulky facades to the residential interfaces to the east and south. The Tribunal also thought the internal amenity and the mix of apartments should be improved.
The Tribunal gave an interim decision in which it invited the proponent to redesign the development with a building no higher than eight storeys. Amended plans were prepared and distributed to council and all parties who attended the hearing. Parties who did not attend the hearing were notified of the amended plans.
Parties were to advise the Tribunal by 15 October 2010 if they opposed the plans and were to lodge with the Tribunal a summary of their objections to the development.
Council advised that it had no objection to the proposal, and no parties advised the Tribunal prior to the hearing that they opposed the development.
Ms Lasslett attended the hearing. She acknowledged that she had not advised the Tribunal or the other parties that she wished to object to the circulated plans, as she has been overseas. Mr Um and Mr Lofting had no objection to her making a submission.
Since the previous hearing, the Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C105 to the planning scheme. That amendment gives greater statutory weight to the draft Brunswick Structure Plan.
The matters that we must determine are:
- Do the amended plans comply with the interim order?
- Would the modified development comply with the draft Brunswick Structure Plan?
- Would the development provide reasonable amenity for residents?
- What conditions are appropriate?
The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions, evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies, provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme and the amended plans, we have decided to set aside council's decision and grant a planning permit. Our reasons follow.

Do the amended plans comply with the interim order?

Our interim order required the height of the building be reduced, its articulation be improved, balcony and louvre treatments be increased, all without a wholesale redesign of the building to the extent where it would be a transformation of the original proposal. The new proposal should not create new offsite amenity issues.
We are comfortable that the podium and upper sections are adequately separated, the upper section is set back sufficiently and the use of louvres has been maintained in a manner where the bulk of the building, particularly facing Lygon Street, has been substantially reduced.
During the hearing, Mr Lofting was able to clarify some details of the use of external materials, and particularly the louvres, to satisfy us that, with the combined use of translucent glass, sliding panels and operable louvres, the façade is likely to have interesting texture and diversity. This will be further enhanced with the visually diverse sections of the façade that will not have louvres.
The eastern façade too, is greatly improved. Whilst this remains as the simplest facade of the building, it is now better considered, so that its visual interface with the community has less of a 'back wall' typology. We think it to be more respectful to the residential hinterland that it addresses, albeit some distance away. We note that the plans show the long, tall glazed section in its centre as painted. We think that this is an error and it is intended to be an important glazed articulation point of this façade, even if it is to be translucent glass.
We were mindful that the modified design should not create any offsite amenity issues. The substitution of the louvred 'wintergarden' components with balconies does not in our view create any overlooking issues as this site is well separated from any homes. The lower building eliminates any possible overshadowing of the nearby dwellings. We are comfortable that no offsite amenity issues result from this proposal.
We are therefore satisfied that the applicant has properly responded to our orders and has achieved their objectives.

Would the modified development comply with the draft Brunswick Structure Plan?

This part of Lygon Street is occupied by small shops, some community facilities, and manufacturers offering sales from industrial premises. A few cafes and restaurants are located between Albert Street and Victoria Street. The prevailing built form is one to two storeys of commercial scale buildings, intermixed with one storey shops. Some three and four storey apartment buildings also abut Lygon Street.
In our interim decision we described Lygon Street as an area waiting for change. The industrial buildings are dated and are some being used for purposes that appear transient and temporary.
The review site is located within the Brunswick major activity centre. It is located adjacent to a designated hub within the activity centre. This hub is located between Victoria Street and Albert Street, and is intended to become a focal place for the centre.
Change is coming to Lygon Street. A ten storey apartment building is under construction within the hub. Other apartment buildings up to seven storeys have been approved by council and the Tribunal along Lygon Street. Over time, the vision in the draft Brunswick Structure Plan will be realised and the street will transform from a low rise, part industrial/part commercial strip to a cosmopolitan area with shops and cafes at ground level and apartments above. The built form will also transform from one to two commercial storeys to medium sized multistorey buildings. In our view, this proposal is consistent with the vision for Lygon Street.
Since our interim decision in July 2010, Amendment C105 has been gazetted. The amendment introduces Design and Development Overlay schedule 19 and a local policy at clause 22.15. The amendment also includes the Draft Brunswick Structure Plan 2008 into the scheme as a reference document. The schedule to the overlay and clause 22.15 lapse in September 2011.
Clause 22.15 requires the draft Brunswick Structure Plan to be considered when assessing development proposals. Schedule 19 of clause 43.02 provides that a permit is required for a building more than five storeys in height.
In considering this proposal for a building taller than five storeys, we must consider:
- the draft Brunswick Structure Plan,
- whether the site is a landmark site, and
- whether the proposal demonstrates exemplary architectural design and best practice environmental sustainable design.
We addressed the strategic directions of the structure plan in our interim findings. We considered that the proposed mix of uses would be entirely consistent with state planning policies and the draft Brunswick Structure Plan as it would:
- accommodate over one hundred households within an activity centre rather than in new suburbs on Melbourne's fringes
- provide greater choice of housing stock by offering smaller dwellings for one and two person households
- provide opportunities for people to walk, cycle and use public transport rather than cars
- locate new households in close proximity to shops and encourage cafes, restaurants and other service businesses to locate in the major activity centre.
We also think the proposal to be consistent with the draft Brunswick Structure Plan. Whilst higher than the preferred height of five storeys, we think the proposed development is consistent as it:
- locates new households close to the proposed hub between Albert Street and Victoria Street who will intensify the use of community facilities, cafes and shops
- provides retail space at Lygon Street that will contribute to an active streetscape
- provide the demographic and economic base to promote employment opportunities within the activity centre hub
- makes a good use of a redundant industrial site
- retains the opportunity for a pedestrian link between Lygon Street and Methven Park
- is of a scale that respects and does not overwhelm the adjoining residential area or Methven Park.
We think an eight storey building to be appropriate to this site as it is not a landmark site that might call for a taller building. This is a midblock building that should fit in with an emerging new built form. It is not a site that should dominate other sites in or close to the hub. We think that this building will complement landmark buildings on key sites but not compete.
We consider this building to display competent rather than exemplary architecture. We think this to be appropriate for this midblock site, close to the hub, playing its part in the emerging built form, but not dominating or calling for undue attention. This building will play its part in the emerging context.
Mr Um confirmed that council officers, including their urban design expert, were satisfied with the design of the proposal.
Ms Lasslett thought the modified building to be significantly better than the previous proposal. She thought it would be a more polite neighbour, as it would have fewer blank walls and less height and bulk and so be less overwhelming when viewed from the residential areas or Methven Park.
Nevertheless, she thought that it would still be excessively large and bulky to the detriment of the Lygon Street's built form and streetscape. She thought that it would set an undesirable precedent for other development on the remainder of the site and in Lygon Street.
We do not agree. We previously concluded that a building of eight storeys would fit into the emerging character of Lygon Street. We drew on the planning and urban design expertise of Mr Milner, Mr Czarny and Mr Biles, who all thought a building of this scale would sit comfortably. We thought that as the site is at the edge of the core hub of the major activity centre, some bulk and mass would be appropriate. We thought that the ten storey building under construction within the hub sets a benchmark for appropriate scale, and this building responds well to that emerging built form.

Would the modified development provide reasonable amenity for its residents?

We were critical of the palette of dwellings presented to us last June. We thought that there would be insufficient diversity of dwellings, too many bedrooms relied on secondary light, and too few apartments had external private open space. We were sceptical of the wintergarden concept.
The architects have responded positively to our comments and we are generally satisfied with the modified plans. The proportion of two bedroom apartments is increased to thirty percent of the total. Less than one quarter of bedrooms rely on borrowed light, and those that do are one bedroom dwellings where the sleeping area can be opened to naturally lit and ventilated spaces without compromising privacy. This is not possible in a two bedroom dwelling. Most apartments have balconies. We think the palette of dwellings to be greatly improved. We are satisfied that the residents of this building would have reasonable amenity, complemented by convenient access to the existing and emerging facilities in the activity centre.

Mr Lofting was concerned with several draft conditions, particularly 1(a) and 15. Condition 1(a) requires that the area marked 'driveway' on plan TP-110 be designated as a shared vehicle and pedestrian space to facilitate its possible conversion in the future to a pedestrian link.
Condition 15 proposes that the owner(s) of the land enter an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to close their vehicle access from Lygon Street and to redirect vehicles to a possible north-south road located to the east of the land.
The pedestrian link and the proposed alternate arrangements for vehicle access are shown on the indicative concept plan AP-001. We asked for this plan in response to legitimate concerns regarding how this proposal might integrate with the possible development of the remainder of the site and the wider precinct.
It was our intention that the concept plan AP-001 be illustrative and indicative. It was to provide us, council and the other parties with the comfort that this development would not close off, or prejudice the worthy strategic opportunities necessary to make this precinct a better place in which to live and work. We needed to be confident that this development would not prevent future pedestrian links and a future north-south road between Leinster Grove and Albert Street. We also needed to understand the likely interfaces between this building and other buildings on the remainder of the land in this title.
Ms Hicks and Mr Cicero agreed at the earlier hearing that consideration of the provision of these links was in its 'early' stages. Council was not committed to particular actions or timelines, particularly in respect of land acquisition or funding of the links. Mr Um did not suggest that anything has changed to provide greater certainty about the implementation of these elements of the structure plan.
We think that plan AP-001 should be regarded as a concept plan that might guide the development of the land to the east, and the wider precinct. It might inform and guide long term options, but should not form part of this permit.
We think that there remains considerable uncertainty about the implementation of the pedestrian and road links, and the redevelopment options for the remainder of the land in this title. We think that locking in the links through this permit would be premature and unreasonable. We consider there are alternate ways to implement the concept plan, including the forthcoming amendment review process.
The draft permit required that prior to the endorsement of plans, a draft disability access plan be modified to include matters to enhance access for people with disabilities. We think that most of the matters to be addressed in these plans would be requirements under the building permit and we consider this condition to be unnecessary. This is not to say that the matters to be addressed are unimportant, however we are satisfied that they will be addressed in the detailed approval of the building.
Mr Lofting opined that draft condition 28 was unreasonable and inconsistent with recent Tribunal decisions. This condition requires a green travel plan to be prepared that would encourage public transport use by residents. We concur with Senior Member Byard and Member Naylor[2] and regard this condition as being well intentioned but poorly drafted and unreasonable. We think there are many problems with its implementation. The requirements to be included in the condition are vague and unclear, such as its objectives, the incentives to be considered, the monitoring and review, and the period over which it is to be operable.
It is our view that informing people of the alternatives to motor car travel and encouraging people to use public transport, cycling or walking is best undertaken by state and local government agencies. They could achieve this through considered and targeted campaigns in preference to loosely worded obligations imposed on developers, landowners and owner corporations.

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

Use and development of a multi level building comprising dwellings and retail premises (other than a hotel or tavern).
Reduction of the car parking requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans.

Use and development of site for the purpose of a multi-level building comprising dwelling and retail premises (other than hotel or tavern), and a dispensation in the car parking requirements

Before the use and development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (filed with the Tribunal in response to the Order dated 26 July 2010, referenced Revision B, Sept'10) but modified to show:

the retail premises on the ground floor annotated as 'retail premises other than hotel or tavern' 2. allocation of three car parking spaces for the retail premises

the car park entry from Lygon Street secured with semi-transparent security grilles set back a minimum distance from the site frontage to allow vehicles to enter and stand on the site without projecting over the pavement, or an alternative design response to the satisfaction of the responsible authority

the bicycle parking room with minimum dimensions 8.2 metres by 7.3 metres 2. a canopy/awning over Lygon Street set back from the kerb by at least 750mm and with a clearance of at least 3 metres above the footpath 3. highlight windows in the east-facing south end of the common corridor wall to levels 1, 2 and 3 4. 6m3 of storage area set aside for each 2 bedroom dwelling 5. the location of any substation required by the relevant power company, to be incorporated within the building (i.e. not free standing or pole mounted in the street) to ensure minimal impact on the visual amenity of the public realm 6. a landscape plan in accordance with condition 3 of this permit 7. a waste management plan in accordance with condition 5 of this permit 8. a traffic management plan in accordance with condition 7 of this permit

an amended ESD Management Plan in accordance with condition 8 of this permit

an amended access plan in accordance with condition 11 of this permit; and 2. details of acoustic attenuation in accordance with condition 18 of this permit.
The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified unless with the further written approval of the responsible authority.
Prior to the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:
1. a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs, ground covers and climbers as applicable on the ground floor (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces
2. integration of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) features if contained within Environmental Management Plan.
Following completion of the development the landscaped areas as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Plan must include, but not be limited to the following:

a description of ease of disposal for residents that does not disadvantage recycling, for instance chutes work for garbage but not for recycling (because of glass and cardboard), requiring additional effort to recycle, discouraging recycling 2. a plan showing either that the storage area is sufficient to cater for the required number of mobile garbage bins or instead a statement made that Council waste collection service will not be used together with calculations showing the amount of garbage and recycling generated, size of bins and frequency of collection

details of ventilation to prevent garbage odours causing unreasonable detriment

details of how the bins will be taken to the point of waste collection 2. details of where the bins will be placed for waste collection; and 3. whether parking restrictions will be required for the waste trucks to service the bins.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, the Waste Management Plan and associated notated plans will form part of this permit.

The Waste Management Plan approved under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the responsible authority unless with the further written approval of the responsible authority.
Prior to the commencement of any use and/or development, a Traffic Management Plan shall be developed for the site and address the following:

management and timing of roadworks 2. offsite car parking and bicycle facilities

vehicle movements, queuing, appropriate informational and directional signs

loading and unloading 2. access for service and waste collection vehicles 3. the location and management of any vehicle access card reading, intercom and/or other security device required to operate the secured car parking area 4. management of the basement car park 5. emergency evacuation of the buildings and site, and access to the buildings and site by emergency services (prepared in consultation with the Metropolitan Fire Brigade).

The Plan shall be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. When approved the Plan will form part of this permit and must be complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, to the extent that this is in the control of the owner of the land.

Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan prepared by Sustainable Built Environments dated 22 July 2009 must be amended to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to relate to the 8 storey proposal and address, but not be limited to, resolving matters identified in Council's ESD referral comments dated 27 November 2009.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, the amended Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan and associated notated plans will form part of this permit.

The recommendations of the plan must be incorporated into the design and layout of the development and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the occupation of the development.

All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. No alterations to the ESD Management Plan may occur without written consent of the responsible authority.
Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the responsible authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.
Before the development commences, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The plan must address, but not be limited to, the following:

hours of demolition and construction 2. methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within the site, and the method and frequency of cleanup procedures

the protection measures for site features to be retained (eg retaining walls, buildings, other structures, pavement, etc); 2. delivery and unloading points and expected frequency 3. a liaison officer for contact by residents and the responsible authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced 4. the movement of construction vehicles to and from the site to ensure that no traffic hazards are created in and around the site 5. parking facilities/arrangements for construction workers 6. measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land 7. an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services 8. processes to be adopted for the separation, reuse and recycling of demolition materials

measures for prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials and other pollutants on or off the site, whether by air, water or other means

measures to minimise the amount of waste construction materials, the provision for the recycling of demolition and waste materials, and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a program of reuse or recycling); 2. measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours; and 3. provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all onsite contractors and sub contractors.
The Construction Management Plan approved under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the responsible authority unless with the further written approval of the responsible authority.
Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works pursuant to this permit, or any works associated with the dwelling use:
1. a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the land must be issued in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and provided to the responsible authority; or
2. an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a Statement in accordance with Section 53Z of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use and development that are the subject of this permit and that statement must be provided to the responsible authority.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, the buildings and works and the uses of the land that are the subject of this permit must comply with all directions and conditions contained within the Statement.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, prior to the commencement of the use, and prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, and prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit under the Building Act 1993, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be submitted to the responsible authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the Statement have been satisfied.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, and any condition of that Statement requires any maintenance or monitoring of an ongoing nature, the Owner(s) must enter into an Agreement with Council pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required, the Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of the permitted use, and prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988. All expenses involved in the drafting, negotiating, lodging, registering and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the responsible authority, must be met by the Owner(s).

Bicycle facilities must be provided in accordance with Clause 52.34 of the Moreland Planning Scheme and be installed in accordance with the specifications in Bicycle Victoria's Bicycle Parking Handbook, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Bicycle signage at least 300mm wide and 450mm high showing a white bicycle on a blue background must be erected directing cyclists to the location of the bicycle parking in accordance with Clause 52.34-5 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this permit, a report prepared by a qualified Acoustic Engineer must be submitted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority outlining specific noise attenuation measures to be undertaken to minimise the impact of noise from the adjacent arterial road and tram route. Construction and maintenance of the buildings must be in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Prior to the commencement of the development a stormwater drainage plan and calculations showing a detention system and how the site will be drained to the point of discharge previously issued to the applicant, must be submitted to and approved by and constructed under the supervision of, the responsible authority.
Prior to the occupation of the development, the vehicle crossing must be constructed to a standard satisfactory to the responsible authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
Prior to the occupation of the development, any existing vehicle crossing not to be used in this use or development must be removed and the kerb and channel and footpath reinstated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
Air-conditioning and other plant and generator equipment must be screened from the view of adjoining properties and the street to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The car parking spaces provided on the land must be solely associated with the development allowed by this permit and must not be subdivided or sold separately from the development for any reason without the written consent of the responsible authority.
Prior to the occupation of the development, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Mailboxes, with separate aperture for newspapers and other non-mail articles must be provided for each of the premises in or adjacent to the entry lobby. The mailbox dimensions, placement and numbering must comply with the Australia Post - General Post Guide 2004 (Point G4.3) as published on its website to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
All telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority, any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views. This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater downpipes.
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

the development is not commenced within three (3) years from the date of issue of this permit 2. the development is not completed within five (5) years from the date of issue of this permit

the use is not commenced within five (5) years from the date of issue of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

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

[2] Merri Merri Developments Pty Ltd v Darebin CC [2010] VCAT 1045

La Strada Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2010] VCAT 1861

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (64 paragraphs)

La Strada Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2010] VCAT 1861 (19 November 2010)

La Strada Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2010] VCAT 1861 (19 November 2010)

Parties