Lemasen Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2011] VCAT 280

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit shall issue in respect of Permit Application PP10/0448.

Mr Chris Taylor, Solicitor of Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd. Mr Taylor called the following expert witnesses to give evidence: Mr Lloyd Elliot, Town Planner, Mr Rob Galbraith, Arborist, Mr Barrie Gallacher, Landscape Architect, Mr Jim Higgs, Traffic Engineer and Mr Mark Sheppard, Urban Design Consultant of David Lock Associates.

A statement was also provided by Mr Daniel Flood, Director of Flood Slicer Pty Ltd verifying compliance with VCAT requirements for the preparation of photomontages. No party sought verbal evidence from this witness.

Mr Darren Wong, Solicitor of Maddocks. Mr Wong called Mr James Holdsworth, Urban Design Consultant to give evidence.

Mr Tim Beattie, Mr Anthony Baird and Mr Peter Hunter

In person and in a combined submission appeared for the following parties[1]:

Wai Kong Chan, Elizabeth Browne, Alvin Tan, Colin Chun, Serene Teo, Pamela and Simon Brockbank, Emma Brockbank, Christopher Brown, Ann Brown, U M Wood, Gray Bailey, Bryan Petereit, Jeanette and Michael Kelly, John Papanastasiou, Michele Rogers-Papanastasiou, T P Berryman, Nancy McCormack, Thi-Dung Nguyen, Chin Louey, Jean Wilcox, R and E Catherall, Amy Baird, Judith Baird, Anthony Baird, Peter and Heather Hunter, Tim Beattie

Development of land for 17 dwellings in a three storey building with a basement car park.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.01-4 Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot

Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 of the State Planning Policy Framework.

Clauses 21, 22.03, 22.07 and 22.10 of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

Clauses 32.01, 55 and 65 from the particular and general provisions.

The land is located on the west side of Belgrove Avenue some 44 metres south of Belmore Road. The site is rectangular save for a wider section adjacent to the rear boundary. The land has a frontage of 21.49 metres and a site area of 1015 square metres. A fall of approximately 3m occurs across the site from south-west to north-east and the land contains a single storey dwelling set in an established garden that includes a number of canopy trees.

To the north of the review site is the Belmore Heights shopping centre. An access way behind the shops/commercial premises connects Belgrove Avenue with Balwyn Road to the west and provides rear access to business premises.

The review site adjoins two properties to the west both of which face Balwyn Road. One contains a two-storey church and the other a detached house.

A single storey house adjoins the review site to the south. Opposite, on the east side of Belgrove Avenue, is residential development comprising a multi unit development, a detached dwelling and a vacant lot. Belgrove Avenue contains residential development including single and double storey dwellings in a variety of styles and materials and some limited multi unit development.

I inspected the subject site and surrounds including neighbouring properties at 27 Belgrove Avenue and 182 Balwyn Road on 8 February 2010. An additional view of the area was undertaken on 7 February 2010.

1. A proposal for development of 17 dwellings in a three storey building with a basement car park was refused by Boroondara City Council. This refusal was supported by 35 objections from nearby residents. The applicant seeks a review of this decision.[3]
2. Following consideration of the submissions and evidence at the hearing, the provisions and policies of the Boroondara Planning Scheme and having inspected the review site and surrounds I find that there are a number of key questions to determine in this case as follows:
   • Is there policy support for increased residential density on this site?
   • Does the built form respond appropriately to its context and to neighbourhood character?
   • Is the opportunity for landscaping and tree retention acceptable?
   • Will there be unreasonable amenity impacts arising from the development?
   • Are traffic and car parking issues adequately addressed?
3. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted. Despite planning policy support for increased density of development on the review site that adjoins a neighbourhood activity centre and a number of positive design features, I consider the proposal has not responded acceptably to the sensitive residential interface to the south. This failure together with concerns about some elements of the streetscape presentation and protection of a tree on an adjoining site has led me to a decision that no permit should be granted. My reasons follow.

1. I find there is strong support in the State and local planning policy of the Boroondara Planning Scheme (the 'Scheme') for increased density of development in this location having regard to the following:
   • The development will take advantage of existing services and facilities and be within walking distance of an activity centre, open space and bus services in accordance with State policy objectives for housing and activity centres.[4]
   • The proposal will accord with local policy[5] that seeks to increase residential development opportunities in and around commercial centres.
   • The type of housing proposed will contribute to the diversity of houses that is sought in both State and local policy[6].
2. Neither Council or the respondent objectors contested the policy support for increased residential density on the review site but argued that this support must be balanced against assessment of the proposal against other policies and provisions of the Scheme that include consideration of neighbourhood character and appropriate design response. I address this issue next.

1. Mr Taylor, for the applicant, submitted that the height, scale and form of the building is appropriate given the upper level setbacks from the east and south boundaries, the retention of significant vegetation at the front of the land and the context provided by Belmore Heights Activity Centre. Mr Taylor submitted that visibility of the building is not a reason for rejecting the proposal.[7] He relied on the evidence of Mr Sheppard that whilst the scale is greater than nearby development and the design is contemporary, this will not detract from the character of the area that includes a mix of dwelling styles.
2. The evidence of Mr Elliott was that the development is appropriate in terms of built form given the robust environment created by the adjoining activity centre and church and the height proposed will provide an appropriate transition between the residential area and the activity centre. Mr Elliott's evidence was also that the front setback of the building is consistent with the prevailing setbacks within Belgrove Avenue, will allow retention of significant vegetation and the design response to the south that incorporates a range of setbacks with significant recessing of the second level will avoid unreasonable visual bulk impacts to that interface.
3. Contrary to these views, Mr Wong, for Council, submitted that the proposal is an inappropriate departure from the existing character of the neighbourhood given the apartment style building that creates an uncharacteristic bulk and scale, the flat roof form and contemporary building materials that do not reflect those of existing housing stock and the minimal side and rear setback and high site coverage that fail to respect the well vegetated character of the area.
4. Mr Holdsworth gave evidence that the development is too large for the site in terms of bulk, site coverage and setbacks and will result in a building which is out of scale and not respectful of the local neighbourhood character including the 'backyard' character. The architectural expression of the building was also criticised by Mr Holdsworth as failing to respect the smaller scale of nearby dwellings and the neighbourhood character.
5. It was Ms O'Neill's submission that the proposal will sit in contrast to the predominant form and scale of dwellings in Belgrove Avenue in terms of boundary to boundary construction, high site coverage, limited planting opportunity, minimal retention of existing vegetation, massing, detailing and height. In particular, she criticised the length of the building to the south elevation and the design that results in an unrelieved mass of the building as viewed from the private open space of 27 Belgrove Avenue.
6. Mr Beattie speaking on behalf of respondent objectors argued that it is self evident that the development will not 'fit in' with the character of the neighbourhood in terms of roof form, building mass and height, typical setbacks, site coverage, landscaping and garden space. He submitted that the proposal could not be seen as consistent with local policy that seeks new development to enhance and respond positively to the existing neighbourhood character.
7. Various provisions of the Scheme[8] place considerable emphasis on new development responding appropriately to the site context and to existing neighbourhood character and achieving a high standard of architecture and urban design. Local neighbourhood character policy includes reference to the Residential Urban Character Study 1995-96 that includes the review site in Neighbourhood Character Area 37. There are a number of elements that are identified as quite important in making a contribution to urban character and these include housing type, fences, front gardens, vegetation and building style and scale.
8. Although being generally satisfied with the height of the proposal and the presentation to the west and north, I have found the design fails to respond to the context to the south and includes some elements that are unacceptable to the streetscape. I explain these findings in my examination of each interface that follows.

1. My inspection of the street confirmed submissions and evidence given at the hearing that the dwellings in Belgrove Avenue are diverse in terms of style, materials, roof pitch, setback and front boundary treatment. Whilst there are some inter-war dwellings, there are examples of various post-war styles including some large contemporary houses. Heights include both single and double storey and there are examples of flat roof forms. The neighbourhood activity centre to the north is at a lower level topographically and incorporates single and double storey shops facing Belmore Road with rear yards used for car parking and storage.
2. It is my view that the Belgrove Avenue context of the site that includes commercial built form to the north and a diversity of dwelling styles and front boundary treatments create a neighbourhood character that could not be described as consistent. In this setting, I am satisfied that the development presents with some design features that are acceptable and these include the following.
3. The front setback at ground level that varies between 7.9m and 9.2m creates a transition from the boundary construction of commercial buildings to the north to the more generous front setbacks to the south. The varied setbacks in the street that include the multi dwellings to the north east at 3.2m and the limited importance placed on this element in the Neighbourhood Character Area 37 are relevant to my findings on this matter.
4. The proposed layout allows for retention of three existing trees in the front setback and this will appropriately retain the vegetated appearance of the site when viewed from the street. In a neighbourhood where vegetation is mature and identified as quite important to urban character this is a positive design feature.
5. The contemporary style of the development I consider acceptable in a street that, as referred to earlier, includes a mix of dwelling styles and a variety of external finishes and materials.
6. The front fencing proposed is setback 2.5m from the frontage and on the landscape plan[9] is shown as 1.5m high. A number of nearby dwellings have solid high front fences resulting in minimal connection with the street. In this context I am satisfied that the front fence design and setback will provide an appropriate interface with the street.
7. The inclusion of only one vehicle crossing and driveway appropriately limits loss of front garden and nature strip and maximises kerbside parking opportunities.
8. I acknowledge that the three storey height is new to the street but I find the relatively confined nature of the upper level will avoid an unacceptable intrusion into a neighbourhood that comprises single and double storey development. The upper level is setback 14.6m from the frontage, 6m from the southern boundary and 4m from the northern boundary creating a recessive third level when viewed from the street.
9. Despite these positive design elements, I consider the presentation to Belmore Avenue raises some neighbourhood character concerns as follows,
10. I am concerned that the boundary to boundary construction across the width of the site creates a building bulk that is excessive in the context of the predominantly detached dwelling character of the area. Whilst I acknowledge that there is boundary construction on nearby residential sites this tends to be confined to garages and sheds of limited size.
11. Although I am satisfied that the third level can be accommodated on the site I consider the second level is dominating and not well resolved when viewed from oblique angles in the street. The north elevation presents a two storey section of blank wall that will be unattractive to the street view. The south elevation similarly presents a section of wall above the side fence with a solid projecting balcony screen that will be intrusive in views from the street and difficult to soften with vegetation due to boundary construction at ground level.

1. To the north of the review site land is zoned Business 1 and occupied by shops and other commercial premises. An access way linking Belgrove Avenue to Balwyn Road and providing access to parking at the rear of commercial premises adjoins the review site. I am satisfied that the proposal presents appropriately to this interface having regard to the following.
2. The proposal incorporates some boundary construction on the northern boundary together with setbacks of less than 1m for first floor balconies and 2.4m for second floor balconies. I find these setbacks acceptable in the context of the business zoning and commercial uses to the north that create a robust and less sensitive interface compared to the residential neighbours.
3. Save for the concern I have expressed about the two storey section of blank wall visible to the street, I consider the north elevation provides a high level of articulation through the use of varied setbacks, fenestration, placement of balconies and diversity of external materials and finishes.
4. Although there will be some visibility of the building above the commercial premises facing Belmore Road, this will be not intrusive to the activity centre and in the long term may be screened by redevelopment of the commercial area that can be sought under current planning provisions.[10]

1. To the west, the review site adjoins a blank wall of a church at 184 Balwyn Road and the rear yard of a dwelling at 182 Balwyn Road. The proposed development presents with a two storey wall setback 2.1 metres from this boundary with the upper level setback 3.6m. Adjacent to the southwest corner where the site adjoins the rear yard of 182 Balwyn Road, the building is recessed and an area for ground level open space provided.
2. I inspected the adjoining properties including a view from east facing windows of the dwelling on 182 Balwyn Road. Although the proposed building will be visible from the windows and rear yard of this property, I find the excavation proposed in the southwestern corner that will limit adverse impact due to height and the setbacks that include significant recessing of the top level, will avoid an unreasonable visual intrusion to this property. In reaching this position, I note that the common boundary between the review site and 182 Balwyn Road is relatively limited at just under 7m and the dwelling is setback in excess of 15 metres from that boundary.
3. The church building on 184 Balwyn Road presents to the review site with a blank wall of approximately 2.5m height setback 2m from the common boundary. The setbacks of the proposal meet the relevant ResCode standards and given the nature of the interface, I am satisfied that the presentation to this boundary will not be detrimental to neighbourhood character.
4. I do not share concerns over the loss of 'backyard character' due to the extent of the built form on the review site. Whilst I accept that the development would result in the loss of the existing rear yard on the review site, I agree with Mr Sheppard that the location of the church close to the common boundary with the review site together with the adjoining development at 27 Belgrove Avenue extending close to the rear boundary creates a setting where this is not a uniform element of the neighbourhood character.

1. The adjoining property to the south, 27 Belgrove Avenue, is occupied by a dwelling that has been designed to take advantage of its northern aspect with its private open space and windows to living room, dining room, meals area and two bedrooms facing the review site. My inspection of this site revealed secluded private open space with high amenity value adjoining the boundary with the review site. The importance of a design responding to context is a clear direction in the various applicable provisions of the Scheme. I am not persuaded that the design has responded acceptably to the sensitive interface to the south. I say this for the following reasons.
2. The first floor extends for 31m along the south elevation at a setback of between 1.7m and 2.7m with a screened balcony for Unit 2.09 setback 1.4m. I find the extent of this first floor at the setback proposed will create a building bulk that is unreasonable when viewed from the south. I am less concerned about the impact of the upper level that is for the most part setback more than 6.5m from the southern boundary although I agree with Mr Sheppard that the stair and lift core should be setback further, particularly at the second floor.
3. It is my view that there should be opportunity for the softening effect of landscaping along the extent of the southern boundary given the sensitivity of the outlook from that property. The basement that is setback 2.7m from the southern boundary allows for in-ground planting but the ground floor incorporates two sections of wall on the southern boundary. Although the length (12.3m) and the height (not exceeding 2.8m) of the boundary walls meets the ResCode standard and will be only marginally visible above the fenceline due to excavation proposed adjacent to this boundary, I consider their location unreasonably restricts the opportunity for landscaping along this boundary. Furthermore their location will restrict access to other areas of proposed landscaping along the southern boundary will create difficulties in managing those areas, a matter acknowledged by Mr Gallacher in response to questioning.
4. On the third day of hearing, Mr Taylor tabled three versions of an amended plan all of which deleted the wall on boundary associated with Unit 1.02 providing a minimum setback to the southern boundary at ground level of 2.7m behind the remaining section of wall on the boundary. The plans also showed the stair and lift core setback approximately 4m from the southern boundary and Mr Taylor indicated that the balcony for Unit 2.09 could be relocated to the west. The variation in the three versions of the plans related to the type of planting that could be included in the additional setback proposed. Although I consider the increased setback provided in these tabled plans would provide an improved result in terms of opportunity for landscaping and reduced visual bulk to the south, I find the changes are inadequate to address my concerns about this interface that include not only the matters referred to above but also protection of an existing tree, a matter I address next.
5. My findings in relation to design response and neighbourhood character result in a decision to reject the proposal. Other issues in contention I address as follows.

1. Council and respondent objectors raised concern about the loss of existing trees on the site and the minimal opportunity for landscaping on the site.
2. I consider the retention of three established trees in the front setback is a positive design response that together with other planting proposed on the landscape plan will maintain and enhance the landscape contribution the site makes to the streetscape in accordance with local policy. I am satisfied that subject to an altered treatment to the fencing, retaining wall and pathway location[11] the trees proposed to be retained can be protected.
3. I acknowledge that the removal of other vegetation from the site will change the treed outlook obtained from the two adjoining residential properties but the arboricultural evidence has not revealed trees of particular significance that should be retained. The site is not subject to vegetation protection controls under the Scheme and in balancing the policy support for increased residential density with respect for landscape character, I find the level of tree retention proposed acceptable.
4. I share concerns about the minimal opportunity for landscaping to the south boundary, a matter I have addressed in discussing built form and neighbourhood character. I consider this interface requires increased opportunity for landscaping that will soften the greater built form proposed on this site. The setback of the basement from this boundary allows for in-ground planting but the location of two sections of walls on the boundary and the need to provide a retaining wall unacceptably limit the opportunity for landscaping sufficient to soften the building bulk when viewed from the secluded private open space of the adjoining property.
5. The landscaping treatment to the western boundary that proposes planting of narrow evergreen trees I find acceptable. There is opportunity for denser planting in the southwestern corner where the site adjoins the rear yard of 182 Balwyn Road that I consider will allow for filtering of the built form. The remainder of the western boundary faces the blank wall of the church at 184 Balwyn Road and the setback proposed will allow establishment of a row of narrow trees that in time will provide some greenery in the outlook from the proposed dwellings.
6. To the north, the layout allows opportunity for only minimal landscaping generally in the form of narrow planting beds capable of accommodating climbing plants or ground covers. I consider this an acceptable response given that the adjoining land is zoned Business 1 and accommodates a vehicle accessway and commercial development.
7. There are two trees located on 27 Belgrove Avenue that have been identified by the applicant's arborist potentially at risk from works undertaken on the review site. Mr Galbraith gave evidence as follows:
   • Trees 11 and 12[12] are both Eucalypt nicholii and are located in the north-west corner of 27 Belgrove Avenue close to the boundary with the review site.
   • Due to concerns about the proximity of proposed works to Tree 11, non-root destructive exploratory trenching was undertaken and some roots were found.
   • It is recommended that the retaining wall proposed along the boundary be relocated 1m north of the boundary. This will likely accelerate the decline of Tree 11 which already has compromised health due to a canker rot in the trunk but will not affect its structural stability. Tree 12 should not be impacted if the retaining wall is setback 1m.
   • The impact on Tree 11 will be a probable reduction in life expectancy by about half from 7 years to 3-4 years.
8. In my view, the starting point for design of a development is to consider the constraints and opportunities of the site and that includes assessment of surrounding land. In this application the location of Trees 11 and 12 on adjoining land are a constraint to development on the review site. Given the evidence that, even with the altered location of the retaining wall, Tree 11 will be detrimentally affected by the proposal, I consider the design has not responded acceptably to site constraints.

1. Council criticised the internal amenity provided for future residents in relation to the size, location and useability of private open space and the daylight to new habitable room windows.
2. In an apartment development with 17 dwellings I find the provision of private open space is generally acceptable having regard to the following:
   • All dwelling have direct access to private open space from a living room.
   • All but three dwellings have private open spaces with northern aspect providing good solar access.
   • Although the size of ground level space does not meet the ResCode standard, I consider this is acceptable for the style and size of dwellings proposed. In making this finding I have had regard to the storage opportunities provided in the basement and the proximity of the review site to parkland and a major recreational facility to the north east on Belmore Road.
3. I agree with Council that the open spaces of the north facing ground level dwellings (1.03, 1.04, 1.05 and 1.06) do not have a high level of amenity due to enclosure by high fencing to the north and overhanging balconies projecting from the units above. This design also limits access to daylight to living room windows of the ground level dwellings. Whilst I accept Mr Elliott's evidence that there is some advantage in the balconies acting as eaves to the northern aspect, I consider that increased recessing of the first floor would be preferable to achieve better amenity for the ground level dwellings.
4. Some opportunities for internal overlooking of secluded private open space exist but could be addressed by appropriate screening.
5. Mr Sheppard's evidence has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the concern regarding overlooking to 27 Belgrove Avenue is unfounded and furthermore that shadow impacts of the proposed development are acceptably limited.

1. Council raised concerns about the layout and dimensions of the car park and access and the provision for bicycle parking. Mr Wong acknowledged that these matters could be dealt with by permit condition. In relation to visitor parking Mr Wong submitted that the three car spaces required by the Scheme should be provided onsite.
2. Respondent objectors submitted that the proposal would add to existing parking and traffic problems in Belgrove Street arising from high on street parking at the northern end of the street. This area is heavily parked due to commuter parking (the last bus stop in Zone 1 is nearby) and overflow parking from the adjoining business area. The existing extent of on-street parking, in the resident's submission, results in only single file access along Belgrove Avenue at peak times, poor visibility for traffic and restricted access to existing dwellings. The demand for on street parking and the additional traffic generated by the development will exacerbate these existing problems.
3. Mr Higgs gave traffic evidence that included the following:
   • The development provides adequate car parking of appropriate design in compliance with Clause 55 of the Scheme.
   • Belgrove Street has the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic likely to be generated by the development and traffic impacts will be minimal.
   • Visitor car parking should not be provided in the basement. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate visitor parking on street given that peak demand for visitors to residential is at night and weekends when commuter and business parking demand is less.
   • Bicycle parking in the basement for residents and adjacent to the entry for visitors should be provided.
4. Turning first to car parking I find as follows. The provision of 19 car spaces in the basement meets the Clause 55 standard of 1 car space per one and two bedroom dwelling and two car spaces per three bedroom dwelling and I am satisfied that this will adequately cater for car parking demands generated by future residents.
5. Visitor car parking for the development can be provided in the basement although this is not supported by Mr Higgs. While I would not have found this matter determinative in the application I have not been persuaded that there should be no visitor parking provided onsite. I was not provided with surveys of car parking occupancy in the street although both residents and Mr Higgs referred to observations of car parking. It is clear that the nearby business centre and proximity of the area to the end of Zone 1 in the bus route generates demand for on-street parking in Belgrove Street. I see no reason to add to the demand for on street parking in this context especially given that waiving the visitor car parking requirement will not result in any advantages such as reduced basement size or increased opportunities for landscaping. I am satisfied that subject to a requirement for an intercom system that allows residents to provide access to the basement for visitors, the arrangement will be acceptable and similar to that made in many apartment complexes throughout Melbourne.
6. The parking and access layout I consider either acceptable or capable of being acceptable subject to permit condition. It is my view that a regular user of car space 22, which requires reverse manoeuvre to access, will be able to conveniently access this space. Provided the space is not set aside for visitor use, a matter that can be addressed via a permit condition, I find the car space acceptable. I accept Mr Higgs evidence that the layout of the car parking, ramp grade and width meets the Scheme standards and will provide for convenient and safe parking and access. I agree that there should provision for bicycle parking and limits on the height of kerb and landscaping adjacent to the vehicle entry to ensure appropriate sight lines to the street.
7. In regard to traffic, I accept Mr Higg's evidence that Belgrove Avenue has the capacity to accommodate the additional vehicle trips likely to be generated by 16 additional dwellings on this site. In considering traffic generation, I have had regard to the proximity of the review site to the commercial centre which allows access to some services by foot. Although the site is not proximate to fixed rail transport, it nevertheless is accessible to several bus routes allow access to the city and to nearby schools.

1. There are a number of positive aspects to this development. It increases housing choice and diversity in a location where future residents can utilise services and facilities in the adjacent activity centre and the nearby recreational facilities. It has been well designed to avoid overlooking and overshadowing of adjoining properties, takes advantage of northern aspect, and incorporates retention of trees to the frontage. However, it is my view that the layout has inadequately responded to the context created by the dwelling to the south and will create a visual bulk to this sensitive interface with inadequate opportunity for the softening effects of landscaping. This is my primary reason for rejecting the proposal although other concerns relating to boundary to boundary construction evident to the street, presentation of the development in oblique angles to the streetscape, sense of enclosure to north facing ground floor open space and protection of a tree on adjoining land are factors in the decision.
2. For the reasons provided in this decision I affirm the decision of Boroondara City Council and direct that no permit be granted.

[1] Mr Beattie provided letters of authority from a number of residents of the area. Only those who lodged Statements of Grounds with the Tribunal have been listed as parties represented by Mr Beattie, Mr Baird and Mr Hunter.

[2]I have considered all submissions and evidence presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[3] At the hearing I indicated that the applicant for permit and applicant for review were not the same and I granted an application to amend the applications to rectify this. After the hearing I found that in fact, both applications are in the name of Lemasen Pty Ltd and no amendment is required.

[4] At clauses 11.01-2, 11.02-1 and 16 of the Scheme.

[5] At clauses 21.07-3 and 22.10-03 of the Scheme.

[6] At clauses 16 .and 21.07-3 of the Scheme.

[7] Mr Taylor referred to findings in Rowcliffe Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC & Ors [2004] VCAT 46 to support this submission at paragraph 54.

[8] Including Clauses 15, 21.05, 21.07, 22.07 and 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

[9] The landscape plan (TPO1 dated 17 January 2011) submitted as part of Expert Evidence of Mr Gallacher

[10] Parties referred to the City of Boroondara Draft Activity Centres Strategy that indicates this part of the Belmore Heights Activity Centre is suitable for four storeys. That document was been endorsed by Council for community consultation in August 2010 but carries no weight in my decision given it has not been adopted by Council and is not referred to in the Scheme.

[11] As shown on the Landscape Concept Plan TPO1 dated 17 January 2011 submitted as part of the expert evidence of Mr Barrie Gallacher.

[12] Tree numbers are referred to in the Statement of Evidence on Arboricultural Issues by Rob Galbraith dated 12 January 2011.