1. This is one of a number of recent cases before the Tribunal which involves the application of the Brunswick Structure Plan ("Structure Plan")[1] and its companion plans. The assessment of the proposal against the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) provisions calls for an assessment relative to the Structure Plan. This document is also reinforced in clause 22.15 of the scheme. The extent to which the proposal would meet the objectives of the Structure Plan and consequently, the DDO was a key issue in dispute.
2. The sole objective of the DDO is "to ensure that the height and form of new development is compatible with the Brunswick Structure Plan" (my emphasis). A permit is required in this instance because the proposal exceeds the maximum building height on the relevant map within the Structure Plan by a storey[2]. Relevantly, the DDO itself does not dictate maximum building heights.
3. In determining the weight to give to the Structure Plan it is relevant to have regard to both its preparation and its content. In terms of process, I was advised that there was very limited public consultation and that there has been no general process of exhibition. The structure plan has not been tested by an independent authority such as a Panel and the DDO provision is consequently an interim control. In these circumstances, I consider that I am entitled to scrutinise the contents of the Structure Plan more rigorously.
4. At the same time, this document represents the current vision of the council for this area and its broader setting. There is clearly great value in the structure planning process, particularly if urban renewal is to be as widespread and significant as anticipated. One of the key aspects of the structure plan is the attempt to group maximum building heights within each relevant area.
5. Having regard to all relevant matters, I support the proposal for a six storey building on the subject land for a number of reasons, including:

1. The building heights/number of levels within the Structure Plan represent a guide or starting point for preferred maximum building heights - they are not actual maximum building heights - discretion will need to be exercised on a case by case basis where a permit is required under the DDO; 2. I accept that there is a preference expressed within the decision guidelines of the DDO for excedences of the preferred heights only if proposals exhibit architectural excellence and best practice urban design. I find that this proposal represents sound architecture for its setting and provides generally adequate levels of amenity for occupants subject to one area of redesign. It provides a package of ESD measures although falls short of representing best practice. While this is a relevant decision guideline, it is not a mandatory precondition for approving an increase in height.[3] It may become increasingly relevant when entertaining more substantial increases in height than that proposed.

1. The Structure Plan does not disclose the rationale for the nominated five storey height within this part of the precinct. In the absence of this, it is relevant to have regard to broader matters that one would ordinarily take into account when assessing if the height of a building is appropriate, in addition to its relative level of compliance with the Structure Plan. On this basis, I regard the proposal as "compatible with" the Structure Plan and generally support the height of the proposal for reasons including: * The proposal incorporates a four storey podium which I consider to be the most significant design criteria in the Structure Plan for a consistent streetscape presentation; * It exceeds the proposed maximum height of the Structure Plan by only 1.6 metres. A six storey building on this site would relate comfortably to recent approvals which include a five storey building largely to the street frontage at No. 6 Hope Street[4] and developments up to 6 storeys (albeit with increased upper level setbacks) at 10-12 Breese Street. This would support the Structure Plan objective to provide for a consistent scale of buildings; * In general, I agree with Mr Sheppard that there is scope for some variety in building height within this emerging medium rise area. The site is a corner site. In its context, a one level increase in height towards the corner can be sustained; * Although it will present a discordant height compared with the single storey dwellings to the north, I do not consider that the difference between 5 and 6 storeys from their outlook is material. In any event, these properties are encouraged by planning policy to redevelop in line with emerging directions; * The direct street abuttals are relatively robust - in the form of an at-grade public car park to the west and industrial built form over Hope Street to the south; * The Structure Plan provides for a maximum 6 storey height for the land to the south within the Industrial 3 Zone. The subject land will be consistent with but will not rise above this; and * The design and presentation of the upper levels of the building are appropriate for reasons I will now outline.
2. Whilst emerging development tends to have a three storey podium, I agree with Mr Holdsworth and Mr Sheppard that the proposed four level podium for this site is acceptable.[5] This is a key design outcome sought by the Structure Plan for future development and it is also appropriate to provide a single level transition in the podium so built form steps up to the street corners. There is also scope for the differential in podium height to be moderated between this site and emerging development further north by intervening future development.
3. The responsible authority did not support the layout/siting of the upper levels of the building. It submitted that the Structure Plan called for a three metre setback clear of any structures such as balconies/balustrades. Mr Song urged on me to require a setback of this nature to ensure that the upper levels would be sufficiently visually recessive relative to the four level podium below.
4. Interestingly, Mr Holdsworth who gave expert evidence on behalf of the responsible authority did not share this view about the modulation of the two upper levels. While he did not support the upper level of the building since it was not expressly consistent with the Structure Plan, he was of the view that the general siting and design of the upper levels as visible from the public domain[6] were entirely appropriate if a sixth storey was otherwise supported by the Tribunal.
5. I support the position adopted by the applicant and Mr Sheppard in relation to the upper levels. A person standing from any public vantage point will readily appreciate the setback of the two upper levels relative a legible four storey podium below. This is achieved by a combination of different materials and finishes as well as altered fenestration. It is then emphasised by the clear glazing to the balustrade with a predominant 3 metre setback to walls on Breese Street and staggered 2.5 to 3.2 metre setback to Hope Street at level 4. Level 5 incorporates a predominant setback of 4 metres to window face along both elevations, notwithstanding the projecting parapet above. On any measure, setbacks of this order will clearly be perceptible from the public domain.
6. I accept that other new buildings further north in Breese Street adopt a more tiered structure for upper levels, even above a three storey podium/street wall. This assists in reducing the overall visibility of these uppermost levels from the street. However, this is not the only design solution that would be appropriate in this setting or that would conform with the underlying objectives of the Structure Plan.
7. In my view, the proposal is a well composed building suited to its corner site. It achieves a clear differentiation between podium and the two uppermost levels. In this context, it is not necessary for additional design measures in the nature of further setbacks or more 'lightweight' materials to achieve an appropriate streetscape scale and presentation. In addition, given the relatively confined street and lot widths in this area, there will be only limited opportunities for views to the two upper levels.
8. Whilst there are some single storey Victorian dwellings further to the north on the other side of the street, I consider that this proposal would not directly impact on this part of the streetscape. It will be viewed at the threshold of the Industrial and Business 2 Zones.
9. To the extent that there are single storey residential abuttals immediately north of the subject land, I consider the proposal protects an adequate level of amenity for those properties for the reasons put forward by the applicant. Ultimately, these properties are highly likely to be consolidated and redeveloped in the short to medium term with development in the order of 3-5 storeys. I am satisfied that the proposed presentation of the northern façade as varied by the three-dimensional architect's renderings would be appropriate in the interim. This was supported by Mr Holdsworth but a similar treatment was encouraged for the eastern elevation. I agree with this recommendation.
10. I acknowledge that public open space in the area is scant. Its provision within this development is limited to balconies although their siting and dimensions generally comply with the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development[7] and I find them generally acceptable for the size of apartments in this location (subject to qualifications below about the north eastern apartments). While I can conceive of improved opportunities for public open space, such as a roof top garden, a development need not provide this to warrant approval. Presumably at the stage of subdivision of the apartments, a suitable open space contribution will be levied by the council under the Subdivision Act.

1. The responsible authority, supported by the evidence of Mr Holdsworth, was critical of the internal layout of parts of the development. Key concerns included 'borrowed' light and a lack of cross-ventilation to central apartments in particular. The need to design for adequate natural light and ventilation are factors are highlighted in clause 22.11 of the scheme.
2. There are certain areas within the development that provide light wells to certain rooms within apartments. The central apartments fronting Hope Street are such an example. The light court dimensions at 2.8 x 1.6 metres and services a bedroom and bathroom for each apartment. I am satisfied that this is adequate given that this is supplementary to openable walls/windows to each of these bedrooms[8] to open them up to the living areas of those apartments.
3. A further light court of 1.7 x 1.9 metres is provided along the northern elevation, servicing kitchens for north easternmost apartments and a single bedroom for north westernmost apartments. I make a similar comment in relation to the generally adequate provision of light and ventilation to these bedrooms since they open up to the living area and are not overly distant from the light source. While they represent apartments with a reduced level of amenity, I regard them as providing an acceptable level of living accommodation in this proposal.
4. I note that there is potential for the northern light court to be 'closed off' if re-development on the adjoining site to the north is built to the boundary. In my view, this would not result in an unacceptable outcome. This would be compounded if the development on the property to the east was built to boundary. I will address this shortly.
5. I observed on the plan that the internal void rising to level five towards the Hope Street frontage would include a window to the internal passage on the uppermost level. I consider this important at all levels to provide an improved useability and energy efficiency of these passages, notwithstanding the comparatively low level of light that will reach lower levels. I will include this requirement via condition, although the glazing would obviously need to be translucent to prevent views into the adjoining apartments.
6. On the issue of cross ventilation, I am of the view that this is desirable where it is achievable. There are a number of factors such as orientation, site width and the desire to increase densities that have meant that not each apartment can be afforded this opportunity. All other things being equal, I do not consider this to be a major deficiency of the proposal.
7. The project architect provided confirmation at the hearing that 10% of the apartments will be adapted for full disabled use, with all other apartments capable of being adapted in this way. This addressed the responsible authority's concerns about the need to provide proportionate access for those with disabilities and/or limited mobility. Such measures will be attached to the permit by way of agreed conditions.
8. I am not convinced that the development should necessarily be obliged to provide acoustic treatment to windows, particularly those facing east. While there are some industrial activities occurring on the adjoining site and wider area at present, I anticipate that development pressures will result in these uses phasing out in the short to medium term. Residents purchasing within the development will also need to recognise that they are within the Business 2 Zone on the border of the Industrial 3 Zone and need to adjust amenity expectations accordingly.

1. The owners of the adjoining property submitted that the design of the proposal would unreasonably compromise their site's potential redevelopment.
2. To a large extent, rights of 'equitable development' are governed by both building regulations and property law. Beyond this, they are arguably included in more general planning policies that are directed towards orderly development.
3. It is clear to me, as emphasised by the sketch drawings prepared by Mr Sheppard that the adjoining property would retain a high potential for redevelopment for a building in the order of 4-5 storeys provided that an appropriate proposal was put forward. There is no doubt that in practice, once the current development is constructed, it would be appropriate to make allowances in the design of the western elevation of the adjoining property to maintain some light/air/privacy to residents of this development.
4. The fact that the building would need to be more carefully designed along this elevation does not equate to the fact that the proposal is unreasonably or unfairly restricting the development of the adjoining parcel of land. This is part and parcel of developments that are second-in-time in evolving neighbourhoods. I consider that the adjoining property would still be capable of sustaining a medium density development with sufficient flexibility for design.
5. To my mind, the issue at hand is more focused than this. It necessary to focus on whether a reasonable level of amenity would be provided for future residents of this site in the event that the adjoining property might obtain permission to construct a building of comparable height close to or (partly) on the boundary, potentially with a mirror image layout as considered by Mr Sheppard. Although subsequent development is likely and would require approval by the responsible authority, each site needs to assume a sufficient level of responsibility and provide degree of 'equity' in the building footprint, anticipating potential future redevelopment.
6. In that event, I would have real concerns about an inadequate level of amenity afforded to residents of the four north eastern apartments on each level. Their principal outlook and their only private open space would be overly enclosed, and it is likely that they would be impacted in terms of access to light, privacy and potentially ventilation. Excessive amplification of noise would also be a concern. The combination of these factors would in my view result in sub-standard housing for these apartments, even if base requirements of the building regulations were able to be met.[9]
7. Changes to the design/siting of these apartments to provide a minimum 1.8 metre setback to this part of the development will be necessary as part of the approval. Consequential modifications will need to be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. I recognise that this may result in a reduction of one apartment per level but consider this warranted to achieve an secure, acceptable level of amenity for the 20 apartments concerned.

1. In this case, the issues of parking and traffic have a particularly close relationship. It is clear that even with currently moderate levels of development/activity and dwelling intensities, the local road network is under strain. This is contributed to in no small part by the narrow width of local streets.
2. The Structure Plan encourages an increase in densities across the broader area, nominating a proposed 676 additional households within the Anstey Village. To my knowledge, this is not accompanied by any notable change to the traffic network or to the provision of public parking. This raises an obvious challenge, being one that requires a centre-based solution.
3. In terms of the objections, I find it difficult to accept the absence of a current solution to the congested street network as justification for opposing an increase in density on the subject land to 46 apartments. This level of density is otherwise well supported by state and local planning policy and is a level that the site itself can sustain within an appropriate building design.
4. Mr Fairlie's evidence was that the proposal would generate approximately 250 vehicle trips per day. This level of increase was generally considered acceptable by Council's traffic engineers.
5. At the same time, it begs the question as to whether this area should be encouraging 'standard to high' levels of on-site parking for all types of development. This will clearly increase traffic pressures when considering the direction the area is headed.
6. Mr Scully urged me to take a more flexible approach to the number of required on-site car parking spaces. He emphasised aspects of Mr Fairlie's evidence including the likely demographic profile[10] of residents, the nature of the development as a whole and the site's proximity to an excellent range of public transport opportunities.
7. Against the background I have outlined above, this is a case where I feel confident approving some reduction of on-site parking, particularly for one bedroom apartments. Not only is the site extremely well served by all modes of transport at particularly close range but residents can also take advantage of all manner of retail and service opportunities at walking distance. I am prepared to support a reduction in 24 spaces given the relationship between these two factors, combined with the anticipated (comparatively) low level of car ownership, the confined size of the apartments (suggesting a lower number of occupants) and the provision of a share car for these units.[11]
8. The remainder of the residential component of the development is provided with on-site car parking commensurate with empirical levels of demand for residents. I accept that visitor parking for all uses will need to occur on street. On weekends and evenings (times of likely highest visitation) businesses in the area are closed and proximate spaces should be available. I am satisfied that in other times there will be some opportunities (although possibly a greater distance away) given the current level of turnover within the broad pool of short term parking spaces in the wider area.
9. I am keenly aware that existing on-street long-term public parking opportunities are already difficult to secure in this area. Existing supply will come under existing pressure as the area develops further in line with the Structure Plan. This is an issue that requires urgent attention by the responsible authority in conjunction with relevant authorities to further the Integrated Transport Strategy 2010-19 and other related initiatives.[12]

1. For the reasons above, I regard the proposed mixed use development on the subject land as appropriate subject to design changes to improve the amenity of apartments with balconies facing east.

1. Before the use or 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 substituted with reference Conciliation Amendment - Revision B, but modified to show:

1. A minimum 1.8 metre setback along the eastern side of the development (including balconies) at all levels north of the balcony for apartment 11 (and corresponding apartments on levels 2 and 3) and north of the balcony for apartment 45. Consequential reconfiguration of the floor plans and/or number apartments may occur within that part of the building to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, if desired by the permit holder. 2. Translucent windows to the northern side of the internal void at each level to allow light into the central passageway at each level.

1. Bedroom 2 to units 40 and 41 shifted further north on the fourth floor plan to be directly beneath bedrooms 2 of units 49 and 50 on level five.

1. External finishes and materials for the northern and eastern elevations generally in accordance with the computerised rendering tendered in VCAT Application No. P2601/2010. 2. Two scooter or motorbike parking spaces within the basement. 3. A shower for shared use by the retail and office tenancies. 4. Retail space 1 and Office space 2 to be provided with rear access for the disposal of garbage. 5. A 1.5 x 1.5 metre splay at the southern corner of the double crossover. 6. Details showing locations for any signage (under verandah light boxes, verandah fascia signage) on the building for the shops in accordance with a coordinated signage concept package. 7. Design for people with limited mobility or disability in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit. 8. An amended Sustainability Statement in accordance with Condition 5 of this permit.

1. A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 9 of this permit.

1. A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours, including colour samples (3 copies in a form that can be endorsed and filed). 2. Bicycle parking areas dimensioned in accordance with the specifications of Bicycle Victoria's Bicycle Parking Handbook. 3. All screening measures to comply with Clause 22.11-3.7 (Off site impacts (Overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme;
2. All buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans, except as consented to by the responsible authority. Once construction commences, the buildings and works must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Report must be prepared by a suitably qualified access auditor to assess any plans and provide advice/recommendations on access and mobility issues to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Plan must be generally in accordance with the Equal Access Report tendered to the Tribunal in P2601/2010 but modified to incorporate an assessment of the amended plans. The Plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The Plan must provide for, but not be limited to, the following:

1. The development to incorporate the features listed in the SILVER category of the State Government's 'Build for Life' material. 2. All dwellings to be adaptable, specifically to include: 1. reinforced bathroom and toilet walls to allow for future installation of grab/hand rails; and 2. no step or a threshold of no more than 5mm for access to balconies.

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

1. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Disability Discrimination (DDA) Report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. No alterations to the DDA Report may occur without written consent of the responsible authority.

1. Before the development commences, an amended Sustainability Statement to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The amended Sustainability Statement must be in accordance with the Sustainability Statement by Ark Resources 10 May 2010 but modified to show:

1. All initiatives are to be annotated on plans. 2. Further details of initiatives to demonstrate meeting a best practice (at least a minimum Green Star rating of Four Stars) standard: 1. Information about cross ventilation.

1. Information about indoor air quality including performance criteria and targets.

1. Demonstration of meeting best practice stormwater standard.

1. The Sustainability Statement and Development Plans are to be consistent.

1. Demonstration that the development meets Moreland STEPS report must also be included. 2. Details demonstrating the ESD initiatives introduced in the commercial areas. 3. Building management, maintenance and monitoring schedule.
2. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Statement to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. No alterations to the Sustainability Statement may occur without written consent of the responsible authority.
3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Statement, 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 Sustainability Statement have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.

1. Before any buildings or works start, the permit holder must submit a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. Details to be provided in the Construction Management Plan must include, but are not limited to:

1. Details of the anticipated period of construction. 2. Worker access and safety issues.

1. Hours of construction activity including the times and nature of 'out of hours' work.

1. The location of hoardings, hoists and workers amenities. 2. The location of public precautions, loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes, gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street. 3. Details as to how traffic and pedestrian safety and amenity will be controlled within the vicinity of the site and its surrounds. 4. The provision of a traffic management plan, including detailed plans that show the areas required for and the nature of items to be placed on any street during all stages of construction in accordance with approval by the responsible authority, entry and exit points for construction vehicles (including temporary and permanent vehicle crossings), traffic management during construction including road closures/road occupation/footpath closures, work zones/construction zones to accommodate vehicles and deliveries. 5. Service connections, road and footpath openings and anticipated impact on public land during the connection of different services. 6. Measures to be used to protect Council infrastructure from damage. 7. Existing services and environmental management. 8. A list of all environmental hazards that the activities on site pose such as contaminated soil, materials and waste, dust, stormwater contamination from run off and sediment from the site on roads, noise, hours of operation, vibration, washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery, spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery.

1. Protection measures to minimise the risk of the above environmental hazards.

1. Monitoring and inspection arrangements of the above protection measures. 2. Identification of the manager responsible for the above issues.

All activities associated with the construction of the approved buildings and works must be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan may be amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Plan must include, but not limited to the following:

1. Calculations showing that all occupiers will be sufficiently catered for with the proposed number of garbage and recycling bins. 2. The size and location for the storage of general waste and recyclables on the ground/basement floor and details of screening from view

1. A plan showing that the storage area is sufficient to cater for the number of bins, which must include the option of the Body Corporate opting for Council collection.

1. The size and location for the storage of recyclables on each floor. 2. Details of ventilation if garbage bins are in enclosed areas; 3. The provision of dual bins provided in cupboards in each unit to encourage separation of recyclables from garbage. 4. Design details of the built-in waste/recycling system for the building indicating the provision made for the separate disposal of garbage and recycling streams. 5. A description of ease of disposal for residents that does not disadvantage recycling (e.g. chutes work for garbage but not for recycling, because of smashed glass, requiring additional effort to recycle, discouraging recycling). 6. The consideration of the ease of taking the fully laden bins to the collection point(s). 7. Private contractor options, if applicable, detailing the methods of collection with regard to site and road network constraints and the potential requirement to manoeuvre garbage trucks, including a collection plan approved by the proposed collection agencies that meets Council's Waste Management Plan. 8. Confirmation of the hours and frequency of pick-up for general and recyclable waste, with regard to potential noise impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood.

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.

1. The Waste Management Plan approved under this permit must be implemented and complied with as all times to the satisfaction of the responsible authority unless with the further written approval of the responsible authority.
2. All Bin rooms are to be provided with ventilation in accordance with Australian Standard AS1668.

1. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works pursuant to this permit, or any works associated with a sensitive use, or where no works are proposed, prior to the commencement of the permitted use, either:
   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 use(s) 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).

1. Prior to any remediation works being undertaken in association with the Environmental Audit, a 'remediation works' plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The plan must detail all excavation works as well as any proposed structures such as retaining walls required to facilitate the remediation works. Only those works detailed in the approved remediation works plan are permitted to be carried out prior to the issue of a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit.

1. Before any land use commences, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority following consultation with the Department of Transport (Public Transport Division). The plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must encourage the use of non-private vehicle transport modes by the occupiers of the land. The plan must include, but not limited to the following:
   • (a) A description of the location in the context of alternative modes of transport, including walking, cycling and objectives for Green Travel Plan;
   • (b) Outline Green Travel Plan measures for the development including but not limited to:
     • (i) Household welcome packs - train and bus timetables relevant to the local area must be included in the pack of information provided to purchasers upon a purchaser's occupation of an apartment;
     • (ii) Include a minimum of 10 x 2 hour metcard (zone 1 & 2) within the household welcome pack or a myki rail pass (of equivalent value) and registration information;
     • (iii) Bicycle parking and facilities available on the land;
     • (iv) Local walking paths and networks to key destinations;
     • (v) Monitoring and review; and
     • (vi) A plan showing the bicycle parking areas to be provided for use by residents
2. The Green Travel Plan must not be amended without written consent of the Responsible Authority following consultation with the Department of Transport (Public Transport Division).
3. Once approved the Green Travel Plan must form part of the planning permit and any ongoing Management Plan for the land to ensure the Green Travel Plan continues to be implemented by residents/owners to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the approved use starts, there must be provision of a 'car share' space provided immediately outside the premises on Breese Street or within 50m of the subject site to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. In lieu of a space not being able to be provided on the street by a registered car share company, a share car space may be allocated within the on-site car park with the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. The car parking spaces provided on the land may only be used by owners and occupiers of the building or their visitors, except with the consent of the responsible authority.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. 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.
3. A mailbox, with separate aperture for newspapers and other non-mail articles must be provided for each of the premises at the street frontage. 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.
4. Prior to the occupation of the development, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
5. 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 down pipes.
6. Bicycle facilities must be installed in accordance with the specifications in Bicycle Victoria's Bicycle Parking Handbook, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
7. Bicycle signage at least 300mm wide and 450mm high showing a white bicycle on a blue background must be erected at the entrances to residential foyer and the shops directing cyclists to the location of the bicycle parking as required by Clause 52.34-5 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
8. Prior to the occupation of the development, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the responsible authority
9. 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.

1. The verandah must not project beyond the street alignment unless it is setback not less than 750mm from the kerb and at a height less than 3m above the level of the footpath in accordance with Clause 507 of the Building Regulations 2006 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Prior to the occupation of the development, the vehicle crossing must be constructed to a standard satisfactory to the responsible authority.
3. 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, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4. Prior to the occupation of the development, access to the site, any vehicle crossover and any ancillary road and road drainage works must be constructed in accordance with any requirement of the responsible authority.
5. Prior to the occupation of the development, any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of a proposed vehicle crossing must be relocated or modified at the expense of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the relevant service authority.
6. Prior to the occupation of the development the footpath must be constructed to Council's standards using construction plans approved by Council and the works supervised by Council.
7. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes shown on the endorsed plan must to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
   • Be completed prior to the occupation of the development.
   • Be maintained.
   • Be properly formed to such levels that it can be used according to the endorsed plan.
   • Be drained and surfaced.
   • Have the boundaries of all vehicle parking spaces clearly marked on the ground to accord with the endorsed plan.
   • Not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles.
8. Prior to the occupation of the development, the car park entry door must be automatic and remote controlled.

1. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a legal point of discharge is to be obtained, and where required, a stormwater drainage plan showing how the site will be drained from the property boundary to the stated point of discharge, must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. 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;
   3. the use is not commenced within five (5) years from the date of issue of this permit.
2. 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] I have placed greater weight on the Draft Structure Plan, July 2008 which is a reference in the current planning scheme although I have also been taken to the Structure Plan adopted by the responsible authority in August 2010 but not referenced in the planning scheme.

[2] The map nominates a maximum height of 18 metres. The proposal adopts a maximum height of 19. 6 metres.

[3] This is consistent with the views expressed by Senior Member Komesaroff in 457-459 Lygon Street Pty Ltd v Moreland CC & Ors and more recently by Members Sibonis & Keddie in Damfine Pty Ltd & Anor v Moreland CC [2011] VCAT 96 in relation to the DDO provision.

[4] This is a proposal for student accommodation. The responsible authority supported a full waiver of parking for this proposal.

[5] The Structure Plan 2010 recommends a podium height of 15.5 metres. The proposal is for a 12.5 metre high podium.

[8] Within 6.5 to 7 metres of the light source.

[9] This much is assumed, although it was not addressed at the hearing.

[11] The Green Travel Plan as consented to is also included in this assessment. I have also considered relevant aspects of planning policy as derived from submissions and evidence.

[12] As a general observation, I wonder whether there may be an opportunity for a public/private mixed use development incorporating a large number of public parking spaces within a basement on the open public car park site opposite.