Melbourne Domain Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2013] VCAT 1832

1. There being no objections from the parties, the amended plans circulated in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Note prepared by Hayball Pty Ltd, Plan AO1-AO14 inclusive and dated 5 August 2013 are adopted for the purposes of this hearing.
2. The decision of the Responsible Authority in relation to permit application no. TP-2010-991 is affirmed. No permit is granted.

• Mr Mark Sheppard to give urban design evidence;
• Mr Stuart McGurn to give town planning evidence;
• Mr Damian Hancox to give traffic and parking evidence; and
• Mr Bill Melbourne to give wind evidence.

Mr Rory O'Connor, Solicitor of Norton Rose Fulbright for days 1-3 inclusive, Ms Jane Sharpe, Barrister for day 4.

Mr Redmond McNamara, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership

To construct a 36 storey building 108 metres in height to be used primarily for residential purposes with car parking, retailing, office and a café.

Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.04-2 Use of land as a retail premises in a Mixed-Use Zone.

Clause 32.04-6 Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in a Mixed-Use Zone.

Clause 43.01-1 Partial demolition as subsequent buildings and works in a Heritage Overlay.

Clause 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 52.06, 52.07 and 65.

The site has a frontage of 20 metres to La Trobe Street, a depth of 49 metres and an overall area of around 1000 square metres. At the rear, the frontage to Grange Place is 11 metres. The site has 100% site coverage with retail uses and student accommodation fronting La Trobe Street, and a covered car park facing Grange Place that will be demolished to allow the construction of the proposed apartment building. The subject land of is known as Stage 2, the result of a 2008 plan of subdivision which divided the retail and student accommodation uses facing La Trobe Street into a separate ownership. The site generally falls to the south so that the La Trobe Street entrance is one level below that from Grange Place. There is an existing drain that runs under the property from the end of Grange Place to La Trobe Street.

To the west of the site is a large parcel of land which includes the old Russell Street Police Station. Its abuttal to the site contains a large residential apartment building part of a redevelopment known as Concept Blue. To the north of the site, No. 41-43 McKenzie Street is developed as a four-storey office building, with two storeys to the rear where it abuts the subject site. To the east of Grange Place at 27-39 McKenzie Street is a 32 storey residential building containing commercial uses at ground floor and parking accessed from Grange Place. This application involved widening Grange Place to facilitate vehicle access to the car parking for the development.

To the east of the site is 54-56 La Trobe Street containing a two-storey building to the front and a single storey building to the rear, with a paved courtyard between the two. Further to the east of the site is a building at 36-40 La Trobe Street with a permit for a building of 37 storeys with an overall height of 111 metres. To the south of the site, on the opposite side of La Trobe Street within the Capital Cities Zone is an existing building of 15 to 20 storeys on the corner of Exhibition Street. On the southern portion of this site, a new building of 58 storeys is under construction.

An accompanied Tribunal inspection of the site and the surrounds including views to the site from selected apartments in Concept Blue Tower was undertaken on Tuesday 17 September 2013. This inspection also included the interior of the building to the east and its open court yard which is currently operated as a TAFE hospitality facility.

Courtney Property & Investments Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 739

Tapil Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council [2011] VCAT 666

Bradey Lonsdale Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2007] VCAT 349

CK Design Works v Melbourne CC [2011] VCAT 584

1. On 7 December 2010, Melbourne Domain Pty Ltd applied to the Melbourne City Council for a permit to construct a 36 storey building. In March 2013, Council issued a notice of refusal for the proposal. The refusal was on a range of grounds which primarily related to an unacceptable loss of amenity for the occupiers of adjoining properties, poor internal amenity bought about by small room sizes and the north-south orientation, design details and the lost opportunity to provide access to Grange Place through the building. Adjoining property owners and some residents within Concept Blue, through separate applications, support Council's decision. The applicant has applied to the Tribunal to review it.
2. We consider the key issues to be determined in this application are:
   • Is there strategic support for the proposal?
     • Is the design of the building and its relationship to adjoining buildings acceptable?
     • Are external and internal amenity impacts acceptable?
     • Are the proposed car parking and access arrangements satisfactory?
3. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, we have decided to affirm Council's decision. Our reasons follow:

1. The subject site is within the Mixed-Use Zone (Schedule 1). The western part of the site is affected by Heritage Overlay 488 which relates to the Russell Street Police Station Complex. Council acknowledges that this is a mapping error. Apart from a Parking Overlay, there are no overlay controls for the land determining a fixed or preferred height for the site, or for adjoining sites.
2. In addition to the residential use proposed for the site, is also proposed to develop an office, food and drink premises and retail premises. None of these uses require planning approval in the Mixed-Use Zone. A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot or on common property,[1] and is in association with the Section 2 use. None of the parties to the hearing take issue with the mix of uses at the lower ground level.

1. The purposes of the Mixed-Use Zone at Clause 32.04 include:
   • To implement the State and local planning policy framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies;
   • To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which compliment the Mixed-Use function of the locality;
   • To provide for housing at higher densities; and
   • To encourage residential development response to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of the area.
2. The Parking Overlay Schedule 12, Residential development in specific inner city areas, provides for a maximum parking rate of one space per dwelling.
3. At a State Planning Policy Framework level, there are a number of relevant provisions which include:
   • Clause 11.01-2 - Activity Centre Planning, which encourages consolidation of retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural development within Activity Centres. Whether they range of housing types in higher densities in and around Activity Centres.
   • Clause 11.04-3 - Central Melbourne, which seeks to support central Melbourne's capital cities functions through higher scale and higher density mixed residential and commercial development.
   • Clause 15.01 - Urban Design which seeks to promote good urban design to create liveable and attractive spaces and developments which contribute to community and cultural life.
   • Clause 15.01-2 - Urban Design Principles seeks to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that make a positive contribution to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impacts. Strategies that need to be addressed include: context, landmark views and vistas, pedestrian spaces, consolidation of sites, architectural quality, and policy guidelines which direct consideration of the design guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.
   • Clause 16.01-4 - Location of residential development, which looks to locate housing in or close to Activity Centres and employment areas.

1. Amendment C62 introduced a new Clause 21 - Municipal Strategic Statement. It was gazetted on 12 September 2013.
2. The vision at Clause 21.03 identifies key issues including settlement, built environment, heritage and housing, which all seek to ensure that the City's primary role as a major capital city is reinforced and that growth is provided for and directed to designated areas. The growth areas are nominated as the Central City, Southbank and Docklands.
3. We consider Clause 21.07 - Housing to be pertinent to this proposal:

Residential growth must be managed to ensure a good quality of life and amenity for existing and future residents. High standards of on-site amenity should be provided for all residential developments, including good access to sunlight and daylight and privacy. Residential development also needs to consider the amenity impacts of established and potential uses, including noise and a light spill and take protective steps to minimise these impacts.

1. Under the new MSS, the site is located within a new local area named "the Hoddle Grid area" which incorporates most of the previous central city local area but adds the area north of the grid which is roughly triangular in shape, bounded by La Trobe Street, Victoria Parade and Peel Street. The site is no longer in a designated sub-precinct designated for substantial change. Rather, the Hoddle Grid Local Area is an area now designated for "ongoing change".
2. There was a discussion at the hearing about the confusion cause by the use of the term "Hoddle Grid" in different parts of the planning scheme to describe both surveyor Hoddle's original city grid and also for the new local area which includes the review site. Council advised that the CCZ does not apply to the land bounded by Victoria Parade, La Trobe Street and Peel Street within which the review site is located.
3. The Scheme's Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)[2] gives guidance with regard to development outside the capital city zone. This guidance seeks to respect for the valued aspects of the existing built form character in the city and seeks to maintain the overall quality of the urban environment. The parts of this guidance that are relevant to this application include:
   • To ensure that the scale, siting, massing and bulk of development compliments the scale, siting, massing and bulk of adjoining and nearby built form.
   • To ensure that the building design includes the use of materials and activities at the ground floor frontages of buildings creating and improving pedestrian interest and engagement.
   • To ensure that development uses design and detail to ensure all visible facades (including the rear and sides of buildings) provide a rich and positive contribution to the public realm.
   • To ensure that developments avoid ambiguity and conflict in the design of fronts and backs of buildings.
   • To ensure that development contributes to a pedestrian and vehicle network which ensures pedestrian movement and amenity is a priority and strength in its networks of pedestrian pathways through an area.
   • To ensure that development promotes building forms that will minimise the adverse impacts of wind in surrounding the public spaces and provide weather protection where appropriate.

Underpinning the above objectives are a range of policy principles which deal with context, building height, building bulk, street level frontages, fronts and backs of buildings, visible facades and blank walls, pedestrian connection and vehicular access.

1. With regard to context, buildings and works are encouraged to respond to the building and settlement pattern of the surrounding area, acknowledging that any development that is part of a larger setting and may differ from other areas. The issue of equitable development is also addressed:

New buildings and works should consider the potential for other development to occur in immediate environment and respect the ability of surrounding sites to be at least equally developed.

1. With regard to building height, new development should respect the existing built form of the immediate surroundings. The height of new development is encouraged to respond to the height of the emerging preferred new built form character. The articulation of a building's form and surface treatment is encouraged to create contrast between recessive and projecting elements and break up of buildings overall volume into a number of sub-volumes to modify its perceived size.
2. A reference document in the Planning Scheme is the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development[3] which set out design elements and principles. Each design element has a list of key objectives and strategies that should be achieved.
3. We consider the relevant element concerns the building envelope. It seeks to ensure that new development identifies characteristics that support the preferred neighbourhood character -

To ensure the height of new development responds the existing urban context and neighbourhood character of the area and is appropriate in scale to nearby streets of other public spaces and buildings.[4]

1. Other objectives[5] seek building separations that support private amenity and reinforce neighbourhood character, avoid unreasonable impacts on adjoining properties by addressing outlook, sunlight, the equitable access and a contribution to the public realm.
2. It is against this policy framework that the proposed development must be assessed together with the decision guidelines at Clause 65. We acknowledge the policy vacuum at the local level, in that there is no DDO or structure plan to give guidance to decision makers. However, what the local planning policy framework does make clear is that there is to be a transition at this north-east corner of the city to the lower rise forms of Carlton and north and west Melbourne. In addition, the existing physical context cannot be ignored.
3. It is clear to us that although the site is not in the Capital City Zone, in a Mixed-Use Zone there is still potential for high rise buildings and more intense residential use. However, the actual height of the building is not addressed by policy. We need to consider the way that the proposal responds to the height and setbacks of the adjoining properties, the external appearance, and the lower scale areas to the north of Victoria Parade in deciding whether or not the proposal is an acceptable urban design outcome.

Is the design of the building and its relationship to adjoining buildings acceptable?

1. At the commencement of the hearing, Council provided the Tribunal with a helpful "fly by" of the site and its surrounds by using the computerized 3-D modelling tool used by it for a variety of purposes. This enabled all parties to appreciate the proposal and its physical context when viewed from various locations.
2. Design issues raised by Council in its grounds of refusal included the height of the proposal, the setbacks to east and west, the failure to provide equitable access to outlook and sunlight between towers and its failure to make a positive contribution to the public realm due to its lack of architectural quality.
3. We accept Council's submission that policy would at the very least indicate a lower scale for buildings on the north side of La Trobe Street as built form approaches the lower scale finer grain areas to the north. This appears to be the only indication of "identified preferred built form character".[6] This transition has largely been achieved north of McKenzie Street by the scale of the redeveloped Space Hotel and the historic Horti Hall next to it. However, this policy directive was apparently ignored in the approvals given for both the Concept Blue tower (27 storeys with a four to five storey high projecting fin above) and 27-39 McKenzie Street (32 storeys) which flank the review site to the west and northeast. An approval has also been given for a 34 storey building at 40 La Trobe Street with a front setback of 6 metres above a podium.
4. Despite these approvals, we cannot perceive any justification for a built form higher than the aggressive bulk of Concept Blue which marks the intersection of La Trobe and Russell Streets. Future redevelopment of the front half of the site will mask development on the review site, but we do not think this justifies a building which projects above what are already high buildings in an area designated for ongoing change, but with heights which provide a transition from the CC2 to the north. We accept Mr Sheppard's evidence that the size of the setback from La Trobe Street will reduce the visual presence of the building on the street, but not his justification of a building height roughly equivalent to the top of the Concept Blue "fin" as contributing to the emerging character of taller buildings supported by the area's intensification.
5. The reduction in size of the allotment is only problematic in that it reduces the area available to the applicant to achieve an appropriate separation between the proposal and already built nearby towers, whilst not ignoring any future development to the immediate east. Consideration of the affect of the proposal on Concept Blue or 27-39 McKenzie Street is brought into sharp focus by the seeming disregard of each of these buildings in ensuring the preservation of its own amenity over time.
6. The two areas of blank wall along the western boundary of Concept Blue presented an acceptable level of equity for the development of the adjoining site - as at that time the allotment had not been subdivided and was thus less constrained. However, the dimensions of the lightwell imposed a considerable restraint on any development, as even had the current proposal reflected the 3 metre dimension of the existing lightwell, the amenity of the 17 rear apartments whose only outlook is south into the lightwell and the bedrooms which face east at the higher levels would have been totally inadequate. The apartments which face north onto the lightwell have an alternative outlook onto La Trobe Street.
7. We adopt the Tribunal's observation in Hightbury Focus Pty Ltd at [18] noting however that the development on Wills Street was within the Capital City Zone and the review site is in an area outside it, in a zone where a higher level of amenity is expected. The Tribunal said:

The fact that these apartments were approved solely reliant on this inadequate light well for light and ventilation is a serious failure of the planning system. It is apparent that when the Wills Court building was approved it was anticipated that a building of similar scale could possibly be constructed on the subject Subject Site. The decision that these apartments exist is the relevant consideration. While the residents of these apartments cannot reasonably expect that no building will be constructed on the subject Subject Site, in our view their already compromised access to light and ventilation should not be further compromised.

1. We accept the applicant's assertion that in this case the provision of an additional 7 metre separation in line with the Concept Blue lightwell is a more than acceptable response which also preserves an outlook to the southeast from the upper levels. Further, during the hearing the applicant offered a further 2.6 metre setback of the west wall of the car park on Level 4 adjacent to the lightwell. This amendment should be incorporated in any subsequent proposal for the site.
2. The abutting neighbour to the east, whose small (525 square metres) property is also a candidate for redevelopment, wishes to preserve this potential for the land. Mr McNamara identified a concern that given Council's submissions which seek spacing between towers, in the absence of any setback of the east wall of the proposal before us, the onus would fall on his client to provide separation. He argued that there is little support in the scheme to support a dispersed urban form on sites such as his client's which are small in area, have narrow frontages and are without heritage constraints in a mixed-use area where the only policy guidance lies in the transitional nature of the location. We agree with him that the lack of regulation in this area may well have led to a high level of development activity within it. His client seeks reassurance that an approval on the review site will not inhibit development on his own, particularly as the low level of internal amenity of the proposed apartments (which we discuss below) allows little tolerance for any further impact from the redevelopment of 54-56 La Trobe Street. As an example, those units shown with balconies returning along the east face which enjoy a southeast aspect may be deprived of it by the redevelopment of 54-56. Mr McNamara noted also that Council has approved a wall to wall development at 36-40 La Trobe Street, a site wider than his client's.
3. Council policy for this area appears to be in a state of flux. Council officers suggest a setback on side boundaries on habitable room levels of at least 5 metres, a view supported by Mr Pryor. He agrees that to not set the proposal back from the east could limit the development options of the adjoining site. As it is our decision to refuse the grant of a permit for reasons of amenity and substantial reconfiguration will be required in any future iteration of the project, the extent of wall built to the east boundary is a matter for consideration at that time. Ideally the redevelopment of the two adjoining sites could be considered together and an appropriate urban design solution arrived at collaboratively.
4. The extent of the wall along almost the whole of the east boundary appears to result from the decision to maximise the intensification of the site, and to compensate for the setback from the west. We think that this may indicate an over-optimistic view of the potential yield which can be achieved on this site.
5. Council asserts that the approval of boundary to boundary development on this site will have a negative effect on the public realm of La Trobe Street in that it would encourage the development of a "wall of towers" which in turn would create an oppressive streetscape, rather than one of relative openness which is sought outside the Hoddle Grid. Mr Pryor also considers that the treatment of the south façade of the building lacks interest and has limited variation. He criticises the fact that the building has not been designed in the round. He says the blank cast wall does not provide "a rich and positive contribution to the public realm" sought by the objective in 22.17, and that this is particularly important due to the ongoing visibility of this wall from the Carlton Gardens. Another negative impact is the additional shadows cast on La Trobe Street.
6. We consider that "the horse has bolted" in terms of the impact on the public realm caused by previous approvals. We find that the abstract patterning on the south and north facades is acceptable, but in view of our refusal of this application make no further comment on the treatment of the exterior of the building.
7. The student accommodation building to the south is currently four levels with a mezzanine to the top level, with approval for an additional two levels. It is separated from the south wall of the proposal by around 7.7 metres. An 18 metre long corridor through the ground level of the building provides the main entrance and access to the proposed development. From an urban design perspective, this undistinguished building adds little to the public realm. It appears from the drawings that a facelift is proposed, at least to the ground floor entrance area. We find that the fact that the new building will remove any solar access now enjoyed by the constrained student accommodation is not a product of the height of the design proposal as any new building to the north would have a similar result.
8. We conclude that a height no higher than the Concept Blue tower (excluding the fin) would be acceptable.

Are the external and internal amenity impacts acceptable?

1. We have already discussed the impact of the proposal on the existing apartments in Concept Blue and the student housing in terms of overshadowing. The outlook to the north from the student housing is, at the lower levels, directly onto the ventilation louvres to the car park. With the upper levels are directly opposed to the residential units on Levels 6 and 7 of the new building. We note that with a separation distance of less than 8 metres, the proposal has had less regard for the 24 student units, directly facing or at 90º to the south face of the proposal, than it has for the 17 south facing units in Concept Blue.
2. We find the amenity afforded to the student housing unacceptable. We agree with Council that in addition these dwellings will be entrenched in shadow almost every day of the year. The imposition of screening to protect privacy will only serve to exacerbate the situation.
3. Council, Mr McNamara and Mr O'Connor were highly critical of the level of amenity afforded future residents of the proposal, identifying the following:
   • Two dwellings per floor rely on borrowed light to bedrooms, and these are two of the four dwellings per floor which face south.
   • The three dwellings per floor which face north will not enjoy the benefits of that orientation due to the development at 31-39 McKenzie Street. According to Mr Clarke's calculations, only the top three levels of the building will receive solar access at the equinox. We note that these are the apartments at or above the level of the roof terrace of 31-39 McKenzie Street.
   • The minimal provision of communal facilities. We note that the pool at Level 4 will receive little sunlight.
   • The minimal size of apartments. (One bedroom 41-42m², two bedroom 51-57m²)
   • The low ceiling height (2550mm). At the hearing the Tribunal was advised that the applicant was happy to increase the floor to floor dimension, but not decrease the number of levels proposed.
   • The inadequate provision of storage (21 spaces for 213 units). At the hearing the applicant offered to provide 50 additional over bonnet storage units.
4. We agree that these characteristics, when combined, cannot be said to provide high standards of amenity including good access to sunlight, daylight and privacy as sought by clause 21.07. We find that the proposal internal amenity is poor. The north-south orientation of the site does not make south facing apartments inevitable. The lack of storage for such small apartments indicates that they have been designed as investment properties with scant consideration for the living conditions of future residents.
5. The applicant points to the direct access of living rooms to balconies, access to communal facilities and maximised northern aspect and views of the city as indications of an appropriate level of internal amenity. We disagree. Few apartments derive any benefit from their northern orientation and the disadvantages of, for example, low ceiling heights, minimal floor area and lack of adequate storage tip the balance to an unacceptable outcome.
6. In balancing the competing objectives of urban consolidation and public and private amenity, we conclude that this proposal fails. The fact that both Concept Blue and 27-39 McKenzie Street have poor regard for either the transition in height from the Hoddle Grid to the north or for the provision of an appropriate standard of internal amenity for a considerable number of dwellings - in McKenzie Street there are considerable number of bedrooms totally reliant on artificial lighting - is not a reason to approve yet another development with poor levels of amenity.
7. We do not accept the applicant's contention that a trade-off for the availability of the attributes of the cultural city is an apartment with a poor level of amenity. As Mr Scally observes, there are many apartments in the city which have, for example, poor solar access. We do not think that their numbers need to be increased for lack of a more creative (and thus acceptable) design solution.
8. Research indicates that 85% of apartments in the City of Melbourne are bought by investors.[7] As apartments have become an investment class, the price point required has resulted in smaller and smaller apartments. In a market with low vacancy rates, the imperative for improved amenity is reduced.
9. Equally, in seeking to provide diversity in housing, there have been many dwellings built at the lower end of the amenity spectrum. Using "affordability" as an argument does not justify reducing amenity to a bare minimum. Policy seeks to ensure that "reasonable expectations" of amenity are maintained. This design has failed to achieve an appropriate balance. Whilst we acknowledge the constraints of the site, we think that rather than attempting to maximise the intensification of the site, it may be that a more modest yield could produce dwellings with an acceptable level of amenity both for future residents and those in adjoining buildings.

Are the proposed car parking and access arrangements satisfactory?

1. Although not a determinative matter in our decision made in relation to this proposal, the car parking and access arrangements were fully discussed at the hearing. Currently, the site is accessed from La Trobe Street with a 23 space public car park. Towards the rear of the site is a 20 space commercial car park, accessed from Grange Place. Recently completed works at 27-39 Mackenzie Street included the widening of Grange Place to a 5.5 metre carriage way width and a pedestrian footpath on the west side of the lane. Although the review site currently has two access points for vehicular movement, these are not connected. If the proposal were to be approved, the vehicle access from La Trobe Street would be removed and all access to car parking would be from Grange Place via a roller door at the end of the lane.
2. Based on the proposed uses of one and two bedroom dwellings, office, restaurant and retail, the statutory parking requirement for the development is 221 spaces. The plans indicate provision of 87 spaces spread over two basement levels and two above ground levels accessed by two car lifts.
3. The maximum number of parking spaces required is one space per dwelling or 213 spaces[8], therefore the total provision on-site is 87 spaces, satisfying Schedule 12. However, Schedule 12 deals with residential car parking requirements and does not make any reference to office, restaurant or retail uses. The applicant proposes to provide one on-site parking space for each of the commercial tenancies, creating four spaces in total to be used by staff. A loading bay is also provided within the development, directly accessed off Grange Place for the ground floor premises and for residents loading and unloading furniture.
4. Surveys taken in similar developments indicate that a trip generation rate of 0.14 vehicle movements per parking space will be generated. This rate generates 12 vehicle movements during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. It is expected that Grange Place will generate in the order of 20 vehicle movements during the peak hour and approximately 200 vehicle movements per day. Mr Hancock's evidence is that the capacity of Grange Place is between 1000 to 2000 vehicle movements per day, thus the traffic generated by the proposal would be appropriate accommodated within Grange Place. The other parties do not dispute these findings.
5. However, Council is concerned that access to some spaces and to the lifts (discussed below) is awkward and may lead to queuing and thus be dangerous for pedestrians entering the site from Grange Place. The car spaces are typically 4.9 metres long and a minimum of 2.6 metres wide, with a minimum aisle width of 6.29 metres.[9] The swept-path diagrams confirm that although some spaces may be tight for access in the residential building, three manoeuvres or less are required to access these spaces, each of which will be used regularly by the same driver. We agree with the applicant that this is acceptable.
6. Council's concern is with the time taken to access and exit the car lifts and the potential for queuing within the site. Mr Hancock noted that there were a number of different car lifts on the market, and that typically these car lifts have a service rate of up to 90 seconds, giving a capacity of 40 vehicles per hour per lift or 80 vehicles for the two lifts. The Tribunal is satisfied that, with the capacity for two vehicles to prop within the forecourt adjacent to the car lifts, the movement of vehicles will not cause difficulties for users of the site.
7. Refuse collection can be undertaken by vehicles up to a 6.4 metre long rigid truck. Mr Hancock demonstrated that there is sufficient space within the site for this vehicle to manoeuvre and enter and exit in a forward direction. It can also use the loading and service bays, as can removal vans.
8. The Scheme requires 65 bicycle spaces to be provided. The proposal indicates provision of 136 on-site bicycle spaces. Council queried the deletion of spaces for motor scooters or motorbikes which had been shown in earlier proposals. We consider that there is sufficient space for such vehicles to be safely accommodated. We are satisfied that the provision of parking on the site, the use of car lifts to move cars within the site, and that adequate provision of bicycle parking has been provided. Access to load and unload furniture and collection of refuse from the site via Grange Place is also acceptable.
9. We note that there is a deficiency in the amount of secure storage provided on the site. It was suggested that additional over the bonnet storage could be provided in the parking levels to off set this shortfall. If this were found to be acceptable, it could be dealt with by permit condition.

1. Our observations in respect of a number of other issues raised during the course of the hearing are set out below.
2. In relation to the issue of wind, on the basis of Prof. Melbourne's evidence it would appear that the wind impacts arising from the current proposal can be effectively managed. However, as we are not granting a permit and envisage changes will need to occur in any new proposal, an assessment of the wind effects of the new design will need to be undertaken.
3. Residents of an apartment on Level 20 and 25 Concept Blue are concerned not only by the possible detriment to their north and west facing terrace by wind from the proposal but also by the loss of privacy to and outlook from a bedroom window which faces west across the lightwell into the review site. As discussed above, a wind assessment will be required of any new proposal. In terms of the outlook from the bedroom and bathroom windows, any future development on the review site will alter conditions pertaining to rooms which face it. As discussed above, we find the solution adopted in relation to the Concept Blue lightwell in this proposal acceptable.

1. The review site presents a good opportunity for redevelopment at greater intensity. The redevelopment of the land for the proposed uses is appropriate, given its location and attributes, despite the constraints imposed on it by the subdivision of the original landholding. Policy and the zone purpose support its redevelopment. However, we find that the design of the building in terms of internal and external amenity impacts is unacceptable given its immediate context. We affirm Council's decision. No permit is granted.

[7] Future Living: City of Melbourne 2013 p68

[9] Which complies with the design criteria outlined in Clause 52.06-8