appellant. The Tribunal set aside the Responsible Authority's decision and directed that a permit be granted for the use and development of a five-storey building comprising offices and restricted retail...
Key principles
The Tribunal set aside the Responsible Authority's refusal and granted a permit because the proposed 5-storey office and restricted retail development appropriately responded to...
The Tribunal found the proposed on-site car parking (557 spaces) to be satisfactory when assessed against current planning provisions, the site's excellent public transport...
A discrete, remediable pedestrian safety/access issue (obscured sightlines for drivers exiting an adjacent basement ramp onto Lynch Street) required an amendment to the eastern...
Issues before the court
Whether the proposed 5-storey development complies with and is supported by the relevant State and local planning policy and the Boroondara Planning...
Whether the proposed building's urban design elements (height, setbacks, atrium, glazing and articulation) cause unacceptable off-site amenity or...
Whether the amount and allocation of on-site car parking is adequate and lawful, and whether a reduction should be refused.
Plain English Summary
VCAT allowed Mirvac's review and granted a permit for a five-storey office and restricted retail development at 291-311 Burwood Road, Hawthorn. The Tribunal concluded the proposal accords with State and local policy promoting office development in the corridor, that the building's design (podium, upper-floor setbacks, atrium, glazing) is acceptable and does not cause unacceptable off-site impacts, and that 557 on-site car spaces are satisfactory given public transport access. The permit includes conditions: a ground-floor setback/splay to improve sightlines to an adjacent basement ramp, a parking management plan allocating 68 short-term spaces to be reviewed after one year, and standard construction, drainage and operation conditions.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,789 words · generated 13/07/2026
What happened
Mirvac applied for a planning permit (PP08/00412) to consolidate and redevelop 291-311 Burwood Road, Hawthorn, into a five storey building containing offices and restricted retail (bulky goods) with 557 on-site car spaces. Boroondara City Council refused the application on six grounds, principally urban design and car parking. Mirvac sought review at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) (Applicant for Review: Mirvac Victoria Pty Ltd; Responsible Authority: Boroondara City Council).
Whether the proposal created an unacceptable access or pedestrian safety risk by obscuring sightlines to drivers exiting an adjacent basement ramp.
Cited legislation
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The matter was heard before Presiding Member J A Bennett and Member Vicki Davies in March 2009. Expert evidence was called for town planning, urban design and traffic. The Tribunal undertook a site inspection and, after hearing submissions, set aside the Responsible Authority's decision and directed that a permit issue. The Tribunal issued detailed reasons and an appendix of permit conditions (including an amended plans requirement to set back the eastern ground-floor wall by about 2 metres to provide a sightline splay, and a parking management plan allocating 68 short-term spaces to be reviewed after one year) (see Reasons and Appendix, passim).
Key procedural points: the Tribunal refused to admit late expert urban design evidence from Council because it had not been supplied in accordance with the Practice Note; Council's planner presented submissions and a late statement could be used only as part of Council's submissions (Appearances).
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal's decision rests on three linked assessments: (1) planning policy context, (2) urban design and amenity impacts, and (3) car parking and access safety.
Planning policy context
The Tribunal gave effect to the planning scheme, noting that local policy (Clauses 21.08 and 22.08) identifies the Burwood/Camberwell Road corridor as a primary mixed activity corridor and a precinct where office development is preferred. That policy support meant the development was broadly consistent with the zoning and strategy for the area ([Policy 1]). The Tribunal gave little weight to a draft West Hawthorn Urban Design Framework because it was at an early stage of amendment and therefore of limited weight (Assessment - Policy).
Urban design and amenity
The Tribunal evaluated the building's massing and articulation in the context of the site: a large consolidated site with no sensitive residential interfaces, close to public transport and a major activity centre ([Urban design 1]). It accepted the three-storey podium (13.4m) and the upper floor setbacks of approximately 7m (fourth) and 14m (fifth) as suitable for this large site. The atrium was supported as an amenity-providing feature; the Tribunal accepted that the atrium and service areas projecting above the fifth floor were acceptable in visual terms because they did not create unreasonable off-site impacts and were largely out of view from the immediate public realm ([Urban design 1]-[3]). On floor-to-ceiling heights and glazing, the Tribunal accepted higher heights for ground floor bulky goods and upper-level office amenity, and rejected Council's suggestion to reduce heights or glazing absent demonstrable off-site impacts ([Urban design 2]-[4]).
Car parking and access
The Tribunal addressed the parking dispute by reference to the applicable parking rates. It noted that Council's former local parking policy had lower rates but Clause 22.06 had been amended, leaving Clause 52.06's 3.5 spaces/100m2 as the relevant office rate; a strict application could generate a requirement for 598 spaces. Rather than imposing that arithmetic result rigidly, the Tribunal weighed locational attributes: proximity to train and tram routes, and policy aimed at increasing public transport usage. On that basis it accepted expert traffic evidence that 557 spaces were satisfactory ([Car parking and access 1]-[3]).
To address user needs the Tribunal required that the top basement level provide 68 short-term spaces for visitors, and that a parking management plan be prepared with a review of the allocation after 12 months so real usage patterns can be assessed before any change is made ([Car parking and access 3]; Appendix - Parking and Traffic Management Plan).
On site inspection the Tribunal identified an access/sightline safety issue in Lynch Street where the eastern ground floor elevation abuts the footpath and would obscure westward views for drivers exiting a neighbouring steep basement ramp. The Tribunal found that the problem was remediable by setting back the eastern ground floor wall by about 2 metres to provide a triangular splay of uninterrupted view lines; it imposed an amended plan condition to that effect without changing upper-floor envelopes ([Car parking and access 4]; Appendix - Amended plans).
Overall, the Tribunal balanced statutory planning controls and policy with evidence of site context and technical expert opinion, using permit conditions to tailor the approval and remedy discrete safety concerns.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision, local planning authorities and applicants were already required to assess developments against the planning scheme, consider policy weight including draft documents, and address car parking requirements under Clause 52.06 and any local clause variations. The Tribunal's approach confirms and illustrates established planning assessment principles rather than establishing a novel legal rule.
This decision reinforces several practical tenets:
Draft framework documents have limited weight if at an early amendment stage (little weight given to the West Hawthorn Urban Design Framework).
The Tribunal will consider broader policy objectives promoting public transport and mixed-use corridors when assessing parking adequacy; an arithmetic application of parking rates may be tempered by locational realities.
Permit conditions are an appropriate mechanism to address discrete and localised adverse impacts (for example, sightline splays or parking allocation and review).
Thus, the decision does not change the law but demonstrates how VCAT applies policy-led, site-specific balancing and uses conditions to manage residual issues.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"Local policy at Clauses 21.08 and 22.08 identifies the Burwood/Camberwell Road corridor as a primary mixed activity corridor and one of three key precincts within Boroondara where office development is preferred." ([Policy 1])
Plain English: Council's planning scheme specifically supports office and mixed-use development along this part of Burwood Road, so such proposals are consistent with local strategy.
"We are satisfied that the proposal has responded appropriately to these policy settings and to the specific site context." ([Urban design 1])
Plain English: The Tribunal considered how the design fits the site and policy and concluded it is an appropriate response.
"We also accept that higher floor to ceiling heights for the upper level offices provides for improved internal amenity and are not convinced that these should be reduced when there are no off-site or visual impacts justifying such a reduction." ([Urban design 2])
Plain English: Higher ceilings for better office spaces are acceptable here because they do not harm neighbouring properties or the public realm.
"Given all this information we agree with Mr Hunt that the amount of car parking is satisfactory." ([Car parking and access 3])
Plain English: Taking into account transport options and site circumstances, the Tribunal accepted expert traffic evidence that the proposed 557 parking spaces are adequate.
"It would include setting back the eastern ground floor wall by around 2 metres so as to open up view lines." ([Car parking and access 4]; Appendix - Amended plans)
Plain English: To fix a safety issue for drivers and pedestrians, the Tribunal requires a small adjustment at ground level so drivers can see clearly when exiting a neighbouring ramp.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most directly relevant to development applications in similar circumstances:
Large consolidated sites located in activity corridors where local planning policy explicitly supports office or mixed-use intensification (Business 2 Zone corridors).
Sites close to high-quality public transport (train stations, tram routes) where a strict application of parking rates might be moderated by locational attributes.
Proposals for mid-rise commercial buildings (four to six storeys) which include features such as podiums, upper level setbacks and rooftop/atrium elements visible from distance but not dominating the immediate public realm.
Situations where local draft design frameworks exist but are at an early stage of amendment; the Tribunal may accord them limited weight.
Cases where discrete access or pedestrian safety issues can be addressed by condition (for example, a small ground floor setback or splay) rather than requiring wholesale redesign.
Practitioners should note that the Tribunal accepted a combination of policy support, expert urban design and traffic evidence, and a willingness to use conditions with monitoring (12 month parking allocation review) to manage uncertainty.
How later courts have treated it
This is a VCAT decision (Administrative Tribunal). It is primarily persuasive precedent for subsequent VCAT panels and for decision-makers in Council assessments. The decision exemplifies commonplace VCAT approaches: place-based policy weighting, balancing parking demand against public transport accessibility, and the use of staged or monitored permit conditions. It does not purport to overrule or depart from binding higher court authority on planning law. Subsequent panels dealing with comparable fact patterns are likely to refer to this decision for guidance on:
How to apply local policy and weight draft documents,
The practical assessment of parking in well-served transport locations,
The form and use of conditions to manage discrete safety/design issues.
Given the decision's fact-specific nature, its persuasive force depends on the closeness of factual and policy parallels.
Still-open questions
Degree of weight for draft policy: The Tribunal gave little weight to the early-stage WHUDF. The precise moment at which a draft document gains more weight remains case and context specific. Practitioners should not assume all draft frameworks are to be ignored; later-stage drafts or exhibited amendments attract greater weight.
Quantitative parking thresholds vs policy-led moderation: The Tribunal accepted fewer spaces than a strict application of Clause 52.06 might produce after local clause changes. That balancing exercise invites questions about the evidentiary threshold required to justify departures from arithmetic parking requirements and the extent to which modal shift objectives can be relied upon absent local transport demand modelling.
Monitoring and enforceability of staged conditions: The Tribunal required a 12 month trial for parking allocation adjustments. How such trials and reviews are to be monitored, who pays for monitoring, and what evidentiary standard will justify subsequent variation remains an operational question when implementing similar conditions.
The limits of remediating access risks by condition: The Tribunal imposed a modest ground-floor setback to address sightlines. Where access or safety issues are more substantial, the dividing line between acceptable conditional remediation and refusal is factually dependent but not exhaustively articulated here.
Practical takeaway: where a site is in a corridor identified for change and is well-served by public transport, applicants can expect VCAT to give weight to policy supporting intensification, provided urban design and amenity impacts are managed and discrete site risks are remedied by proportionate conditions.
Judgment (35 paragraphs)
[1]
This matter was listed for two days but all submissions and expert evidence had been presented by the end of the first day. We undertook a site inspection on the following morning and then returned to give an oral decision to grant a permit. The following are the reasons for our decision.
We do not detail the proposal, the site context and planning scheme provisions other than to note that the site is zoned Business 2 and is also affected by a Special Building Overlay. An Environmental Audit Overlay also applies but is not relevant as the land is not to be used for a sensitive use. The site has an area of 5,002 m2, a frontage to Burwood Road of 82 metres and depth along Golding Street of 61 metres.
[2]
It was suggested that this is a 'go-go' area rather than a 'no-go' area. Although Council's six grounds of refusal and written submission focussed on urban design and car parking, broader State and local policies provide positive support for this proposal and must be included in our assessment. Local policy at Clauses 21.08 and 22.08 identifies the Burwood/Camberwell Road corridor as a primary mixed activity corridor and one of three key precincts within Boroondara where office development is preferred. Although we have given little weight to the draft West Hawthorn Urban Design Framework (WHUDF) because of its early stage in the planning scheme amendment process, the strip of land on the north side of Burwood Road generally between Glenferrie Road and Power Street is earmarked as an area for substantial change.
[3]
In relation to urban design we are satisfied that the proposal has responded appropriately to these policy settings and to the specific site context. It is a large site that consolidates a number of smaller sites. It has no sensitive residential or institutional interfaces. It is very close to a train station, tram routes and a major activity centre in Glenferrie Road. It is bounded by three roads and although fronting a road in a Road Zone Category 1, gains all vehicle access from Lynch Street at the rear. The building presents to Burwood Road with a three storey podium of 13.4 metres with the fourth and fifth storeys set back by approximately 7 metres and 14 metres respectively from the frontage. Although this does not match the suggestions contained in the draft WHUDF, we are satisfied that the setbacks are appropriate for this large site.
The high floor to ceiling heights are necessary if the ground floor is to be used for restricted retail (bulky goods) which is something that the planning scheme encourages in this location. We also accept that higher floor to ceiling heights for the upper level offices provides for improved internal amenity and are not convinced that these should be reduced when there are no off-site or visual impacts justifying such a reduction.
The central glazed atrium provides a high level of amenity to the interior of the building and is a feature we strongly support. Although Council criticised the height of the atrium above the roof we do not have any objection to it protruding above the fifth floor. We accept that both the atrium and service areas will be visible from further away along Burwood Road and higher vantage points, but in our view they do not detract from the overall appearance of the building, and indeed provide some interest and visual articulation to the top of the building. We also make the point that they will be largely out of view from the public realm close to the site. There are no off site amenity impacts such as unreasonable or excessive overshadowing of the public realm (for example overshadowing of the footpath on the south side of Burwood Road) and we find there is no justification to reduce or alter these heights or setbacks. We also note the large measure of support from Council's Urban Designer and the support given by Mr Sheppard.
Although Council is critical of the amount of glazing, our inspection confirmed Mr Sheppard's observation that newer buildings generally have more glazing than older buildings. Council is also critical that the building is not more obviously divided into narrower vertical elements to reflect the existing finer grain of buildings in this location. We do not accept this proposition. This is not a fine grained Victorian streetscape and although some of these buildings exist, there are many larger and wider office, industrial and warehouse buildings which do not have a fine grain. We also agree with Mr Biasci that the substantial change envisaged for this area inevitably means a very different built form. We also make the perhaps obvious point that as more of the sites in this strip are redeveloped for higher and larger buildings, buildings such as the one proposed here will simply become part of the new streetscape. In the same way that the older one and two storey buildings were considered the norm, then so too in 10 or more years 4, 5 or 6 storey buildings will be considered the norm along this section of Burwood Road.
[4]
We lastly wish to discuss car parking and record our support for the number of car spaces being provided on the site. Until relatively recently Council's own parking policy included car parking rates of 3 spaces/100m2 for office and 1.5 spaces/100m2 for restricted retail. The 557 spaces being provided would exceed these requirements. Clause 22.06 has now been amended to delete the office car parking rate so that the rate of 3.5 spaces/100m2 in Clause 52.06 is the applicable rate. Using that higher rate results in a requirement for 598 spaces.
We have already noted the locational attributes of this site and the close proximity to train and tram routes. Unlike many suburban sites there are practical and very convenient alternatives to car based travel. State policy is aimed at increasing public transport usage; something which recent statistics suggests is working very successfully. Development in the area along Burwood Road provides an ideal opportunity to further increase public transport usage and to lessen our dependence on car based transport.
Given all this information we agree with Mr Hunt that the amount of car parking is satisfactory. One area of concern is the allocation of certain spaces for short term parking. We accept Mr Hunt's contention that as a general rule, short term visitors and customers will choose to park on-street in the first instance. But we are also aware that on-street parking in this part of Hawthorn can be very difficult to find. Our preference then is that the 68 car spaces in the top basement level be set aside for short term parking for use by visitors and others requiring to come and go on a more frequent basis. Although first time or one off customers may not know to park in the basement, repeat customers and office visitors will become acquainted with the off-street parking and in our view will use it in preference to on-street parking. This is particularly likely if they are purchasing larger goods. We understand and accept Mr Canavan's submission that a parking management plan should be required so that there is greater flexibility in the number of spaces allocated for customers and visitors. While we agree that a parking management plan is a good idea and have included a condition requiring such a plan, we also consider that any variation to the allocation should only take place after a 12 month 'trial period' has elapsed to enable an accurate assessment of actual parking needs before there is any change to the allocation of 68 spaces.
[5]
In assessing Council's draft permit conditions we have made a number of changes to reflect submissions and discussion about them at the hearing. We have made some minor changes to replace the word 'shall' with the word 'must' and the words 'responsible authority' with the words 'Responsible Authority' in order to give some consistency in the way conditions are worded.
[6]
Having regard to all of the above we will direct that a permit issue subject to the conditions discussed at the hearing and set out in the Appendix.
[7]
Before the development starts amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided, substantially in accordance with the set of plans prepared by Mirvac Design and stamped 'Statutory Planning, Received 19 Jun 2008', but modified to show:
(a) An amendment to the eastern boundary wall in Lynch Street (at ground level only) to provide a triangular splay of around 2 metres from the boundary of the review site to allow for uninterrupted views between pedestrians and drivers exiting the basement ramp at the rear of No 313 Burwood Road.
[8]
The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works and the description of the use(s) on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
[9]
Prior to the commencement of any site works whatsoever (including demolition and excavation), the owner must submit a Construction Management Plan to the Responsible Authority for approval. No works (including demolition and excavation) are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must provide details of the following:
(a) hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit;
(b) measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
(c) the location and design of a vehicle washdown bay for construction vehicles on the site;
(d) the location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows. Any car park on the land must be made available for use by sub-constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay;
(e) measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan;
(f) contact details of key construction site staff;
(g) the location of any site sheds and the like; and,
(h) any other relevant matters.
[10]
All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated with the approved development is to be limited to the following hours, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:
(a) Monday to Friday: 6:00am to 6:30pm;
(b) Saturday 8:00am to 5:00pm;
(c) Sunday & Public Holidays: No construction.
[11]
Before the use starts or any building is occupied, area/s set aside for car parking, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a) Constructed;
(b) Formed to such levels and properly drained so that they can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans;
(c) Surfaced with an all weather seal coat;
(d) Line marked to indicate each car space;
(e) Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and driveways.
[12]
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plan must not be used for any other purpose and may only be used by staff and customers to the building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[13]
Before the use or occupation of the development starts, a traffic and parking management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Traffic and parking operations on and adjacent to the site must conform to this endorsed plan. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include:
(a) The allocation of 68 spaces for short term parking in the upper basement car park. This allocation of spaces is to be reviewed after one full year of occupancy of the ground floor tenancies and may be varied if the Responsible Authority is convinced that a different allocation is justified. Such variation is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(b) Areas set aside for car parking shown on the endorsed plans must be made available at all times for use to employees and visitors of the building and must not be used for any other purpose.
(c) Measures to prevent car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plan being used for any other purpose.
(d) Line marking to indicate each car space, line marking to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways.
(e) Details of any car park control equipment (controlling access to and egress from the internal/basement car parks). These details may include a car park control device which can be accessed by visitors to the development including clear instructions on how to operate any security system.
(f) External signage on the building directing customers and visitors to use the basement carpark.
(g) Provision of low intensity lighting to ensure that car park areas and pedestrian accessways are adequately illuminated during evening periods without any loss of amenity to occupiers of nearby land.
[14]
All loading and unloading of vehicles must be carried out within the boundaries of the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[15]
Loading and unloading of deliveries is only permitted to occur at the following times:
(a) Monday to Friday (except public holidays): 6:00am to 8.00pm;
(b) Saturday: 8:00am to 8:00pm;
(c) Sunday & Public Holidays: 10:00am to 8:00pm.
[16]
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and all drainage works must be completed prior to the completion of the development approved under this permit.
[17]
Stormwater drains must be connected to a legal point of discharge approved by the Responsible Authority. Drainage connections within a road reserve must be to Council's standards. No such works are permitted to commence unless a Supervision Permit is first obtained from the Responsible Authority.
[18]
Any new vehicle crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover must be constructed in accordance with Council's standard details. No such works are permitted to commence unless a Supervision Permit is first obtained from the Responsible Authority.
[19]
All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type approved by the Standards Association of Australia and must be connected to a registered security service.
[20]
All outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent light from the site causing any detriment to the locality, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[21]
Noise from the premises must not exceed limits prescribed by the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[22]
No external sound amplification equipment or loudspeakers are to be used for the purpose of announcements, broadcasts, playing of music or similar purposes, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[23]
All bins and receptacles used for the collection and storage of garbage, bottles and other wastes must be kept in a storage area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This storage area must be:
(a) properly paved and drained to a legal point of discharge;
(b) screened from view with a suitably designed enclosure;
(c) located away from residential boundaries;
(d) supplied with adequate hot and cold water; and
(e) maintained in a clean and tidy condition free from offensive odours
[24]
Any air-conditioning or cooling units, condensers and the like must not be located on external walls without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
[25]
Prior to the occupation of the permitted buildings, access for disabled persons must be provided to the site and buildings. All work carried out to provide access must be constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard for such access and mobility.
[26]
All pipes (except down-pipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from external view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[27]
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plan are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
[28]
Reticulated electricity must be provided underground to the subject land and all buildings on the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[29]
The site must be so ordered and maintained so that it will not prejudicially affect the amenity of the locality by reason of appearance, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[30]
Buildings, engineering works, fences and landscaped areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[31]
No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.
The finished floor levels of the retail ground floor level must be constructed a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood levels.
[32]
Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.
[33]
The entry / exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex of a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
All doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park must be a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
Any drainage system to the basement must be designed such that stormwater is unable to penetrate the basement. Details of the drainage system must be submitted to Melbourne Water and the Responsible Authority prior to the works commencing.
The building / structure including footings, eaves etc must be set a minimum 1.5 metres laterally clear of the outside edge of the main drains.
The depth of the footings must be adequate to satisfy the angle of repose relative to the drain as per Melbourne Water's specifications (Refer to Melbourne Water's Standard Drawing: 'Angle of Repose - Footing Design' for details).
Any new connection must be made to Council's drainage system. Evidence will need to be provided by Council regarding the point of discharge. In the event that connection cannot be made to Council's system, a separate application is necessary for any new or modified stormwater connection or alteration to Melbourne Water's drainage system (i.e. junction pits) must require approval from Melbourne Water.
No loading must be placed on Melbourne Water's drains.
Any damage caused to Melbourne Water's assets must be borne by the applicant.
Prior to commencement of works / demolishment, Melbourne Water must require the proponent to carry out a pre and post construction inspection of the sewer at the proponent' expense.
A Site and Environmental Management Plan addressing sediment and silt management controls as a result of the construction works to be submitted to Melbourne Water.
A works method statement, demonstrating measures proposed to protect the main drains, is to be submitted to Melbourne Water.
[34]
This Permit will expire if:
(a) The development does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this Permit; or
(b) The development is not completed within five (5) years of the issue date of this Permit; or
(c) The use does not start within five (5) years of the issue date of this Permit.
[35]
The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the Permit expires or within the three (3) months afterwards.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Mirvac Victoria Pty Ltd
Respondent/Defendant:
Boroondara CC [2009] VCAT 435
Legislation Cited (1)
Environment Act 1987
Cases Cited (1)
Mirvac Victoria Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2009] VCAT 435 (20 March 2009)
AI Analysis
Outcomeappellant
Disposition:
The Tribunal set aside the Responsible Authority's decision and directed that a permit be granted for the use and development of a five-storey building comprising offices and restricted retail premises and a reduction in on-site car parking at 291-311 Burwood Road, Hawthorn, in accordance with endorsed plans and subject to the permit conditions set out in the Appendix, including amended plans to provide a 2 metre triangular splay on the eastern ground floor wall and a parking management plan allocating 68 short-term spaces with review after one year.
We do not support Council's concerns about lack of landscaping or the recessed entrance and agree that buildings abutting the footpath are very common and that frontage landscaping for sites on the north side is the exception. This is in contrast to the southern side where, in some cases, buildings are set back to preserve established large trees.
As discussed at the hearing, our inspection revealed a potential access problem in Lynch Street which had not been identified or discussed by Mr Hunt or in submissions. There is no footpath along most of the northern side of Lynch Street and pedestrians primarily walk along the southern side in front of the review site. The eastern most wall of the proposed building extends right to the footpath and will obscure westward views for drivers exiting the steep basement ramp for the existing building to the east at the rear of No 313 Burwood Road. In our view it introduces a level of risk for pedestrians which we consider unsatisfactory. We are aware that it is often necessary to provide splays at front property boundaries to open up views between pedestrians and drivers. In this case we consider that a simple solution is available. It would include setting back the eastern ground floor wall by around 2 metres so as to open up view lines. The setback of upper floors would not need to change as it is only at ground level that the problem exists. We do not have a definitive solution but have included an amended plans condition requiring a change to the Council's satisfaction.