1 Within 40 days of the date of this order the applicant must circulate to the Tribunal, the responsible authority and to the respondents who appeared at the hearing amending plans which respond to the reasons attached to this direction

2 Within 14 days of the date upon which the amending plans are circulated in accordance with 1 above, the responsible authority and the respondents who appeared at the hearing may make further written submissions in respect of the amending plans. Copies of any such written submissions must be provided to the Tribunal and the applicant.

3 Within 14 days of the receipt of any of the further written submissions referred to in (2) above, the applicant may make a written submission in response. Copies of any such response must be provided to the Tribunal, the responsible authority and the respondents who appeared at the hearing.

4 Any party may request a further hearing in respect of the amending plans within the timeframes specified above. The request should be accompanied by reasons supporting the need for such a hearing, and copies of such request must be provided to the other parties to the application who appeared at the hearing. The Tribunal will otherwise decide the application in accordance with the submission made at the hearing and the further submissions referred to in these directions.

1 This is an application to review the failure of the responsible authority to grant a permit within the prescribed time in respect of a permit application for a 6 level building over a basement car park at 851-855 Burke Road, Camberwell. The building will contain shops and part of Sofia's Restaurant at ground level and dwellings above. The responsible authority ultimately decided that had it not been for the application for review it would have refused permission for the reasons set out below. As indicated, a number of the matters of concern had broadly been resolved between the applicant and the responsible authority prior to hearing:

1. The height and scale of the proposed building is excessive and will have a dominating impact upon the surrounding area. [Not resolved].

2. The height, scale and massing of the proposal as it faces Burke Road is excessive and will have a dominating impact upon the streetscape character of the Camberwell Junction. [Not resolved].

3. The south elevation does not provide an interesting interface with the Camberwell Junction and should provide greater articulation in the built form. [Not resolved].

4. The west elevation does not provide a sufficiently active frontage at ground level. [Not resolved].

5. The aisle and ramp widths are insufficient and the car parking spaces located next to walls within the basement level car parks have insufficient dimensions to allow for the ingress and egress of vehicles. [Resolved].

6. The proposed car parking and access arrangements are unsatisfactory as vehicles entering the site which are unable to find a car parking space will be unable to exit the site in a forward motion. [Resolved].

7. The proposed development would offer poor levels of internal amenity for future occupants of the dwellings given the dimensions, configuration and location of private open space to a number of the apartments. [Partially resolved].

8. No provision has been made for the collection and storage of waste within the development. [Resolved].

9. Insufficient provision has been made for the storage needs of the residents of the proposal apartments. [Resolved].

10. The proposed location of the bicycle parking is inappropriately positioned at the bottom of the basement, which is potentially unsafe and will not encourage people to cycle to the site. [Resolved].

11. Insufficient information has been provided to properly assess the application, particularly in respect of:

b. the size of facilities for the storage of bicycles;

f. the location and design of car park access controls. [Resolved]

2 The subject land is located on the west side of Burke Road between Mayston and Harold Streets. The land is part vacant and part occupied by a part of Sofia's Restaurant.

3 The vacant southern portion of the site was previously occupied by a two storey bank building which has largely been demolished with the only remaining element of the original building being the façade to Burke Road and the attached sections of the north and south boundary walls. The site has been previously excavated.

4 Burke Road north and south of the subject land is part of the retail core of the shopping centre. Sofia's Restaurant (a large pizza & pasta restaurant) directly abuts the land to the north. The restaurant is contained within a three storey brick building and does not contain any car parking on-site. A caretaker's residence is located on part of the top floor. Five double storey attached shops and offices occupy the land fronting Burke Road to the south. A 3.4 metre wide laneway immediately abuts the Subject Land to the west. West of the laneway is a public car park (55 car spaces) with access to Mayston Street.

5 The residential area commences to the west of the car park and contains a variety of dwelling styles and scale. The dwellings are generally single and double storey dwellings and there are some inter-war and 1960's flats.

6 The proposal involves the retention of the former bank façade facing Burke Road, and redevelopment of the balance of the site with a six storey building over three basement car park levels. At ground level, the development provides two shop tenancies behind the bank façade, with the northern portion of the site integrated with the existing Sofia's restaurant (Largely a reinstatement of the existing condition).

7 Above ground, 41 apartments are proposed at levels 1-5. The apartments range in size from single bedroom dwellings of 54.5m2 (including balcony), to two bedroom dwellings of 138.6m2. Access to the dwellings is via a central corridor running through the site between the restaurant and retail tenancies, connecting to Burke Road and the right of way.

8 In relation to the current proposal the state and local planning policy framework seeks to:

•

Encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas;

•

Encourage development that improves housing choice and accommodates future housing needs;

•

Facilitate residential and commercial development in Principal Activity Centres with good access to public transport;

•

Ensure that development respects the existing character of the Burke Road Precinct, particularly through the application of the Camberwell Junction Structure Plan December 1993;

•

Encourage the design of energy efficient buildings;

•

Achieve high quality urban design and architecture;

9 At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal gave oral reasons for its decision to give the applicant an opportunity to submit an amending plan for consideration. A summary of the Tribunal's reasons are set out below.

10 This is a case with a narrow focus. The primary issue relates to the scale and architecture of the proposed building in this location. Objectors also made submissions in relation to traffic and car parking.

11 The basic uncontested policy position is that there is strong support for more intensive mixed use development including residential development in the Camberwell Junction Shopping Centre, which is a Principal Activity Centre under the provisions of the planning scheme.

12 As usual in any planning decision, a balance must be struck between competing planning objectives. In this case between those objectives relating to more intensive development, and those which relate to neighbourhood character and streetscape. This is not essentially and either or decision, rather it is a decision about the conservatism of the approach to the resolution of these issues. Relevant to this consideration is the question of whether or not the subject land is an opportunity site as that term is addressed in the Carlos Constructions[1] and Golden Ridge[2] decisions of this Tribunal.

13 The Responsible Authority argued that to a limited degree the subject land is an opportunity site because it is a consolidation of smaller sites, but that the opportunities for more intensive development elsewhere within the activity centre are so extensive that a conservative approach to the balancing of these issues[3] is appropriate in this case.

14 In our view the subject land is an opportunity site, it is a consolidated site, it is fortuitously associated with a large car park so that it is buffered from nearby residential properties, and it is located within the retail core of the Camberwell Junction Shopping Centre. Moreover, we think it is an opportunity site of some importance.While it is undoubtedly true that along the Camberwell Road spine in particular there are larger sites capable of redevelopment with larger buildings, it is at present a relatively bleak location for residential development. It lacks the urban complexity and interest of the Burke Road environment. It is important in our view to optimise the development of the subject land, to the extent that it is compatible with other policy considerations.

15 It was argued on behalf of the Applicant that the 1993 Structure Plan, and the associated clause 22.02 of the planning scheme particularly as it relates to issue of height, are stale and outdated having been overtaken by more recent policy development. In particular the relevant newer policy prescriptions include Melbourne 2030, the associated designation of the shopping centre as a Principal Activity Centre, and the introduction of clause 12 into the planning scheme.

16 We do not agree that the 1993 Structure Plan is stale and largely irrelevant. The circumstances of this case are different to those in the Michael Yates[4] case, in South Yarra. In that case there was broad agreement that the particular height and setback provisions of the scheme were inappropriate, and a number of decisions had been made disregarding them. The Michael Yates case was primarily about prematurity of a development application. It proposed a very radical departure from existing norms in a context where a policy development was in a state of flux. We do not think that the decision of that Tribunal is relevant to our decision. It is our view that the Camberwell Junction policy, and the related 1993 Structure Plan, remain relevant considerations but that they must be interpreted and applied in the light of the more recent development of strategic planning for the Junction.

17 A number of architects and urban designers have expressed an opinion about the current proposal, and the possibility for the future development on the subject land. Mr McGauran opposed the current plan but considered that a five or six level building might be possible. Mr Czarny and Mr Holdsworth opposed the current plan but considered that a four level building would be appropriate. Mr Hayball and Mr Collie supported the current plan and considered that a six level development was an appropriate development.

Mr Czarny and Mr Holdsworth have essentially adopted a quite conservative position, which is consistent with the Responsible Authority's own application of its policy in this part of Burke Road over time. It would allow for some higher elements which however would be substantially concealed from most viewpoints within the Burke Road environment.

19 Having inspected the site, and walked Burke Road from south of Riversdale Road to the site and beyond, we have formed the view that the building as proposed is inappropriate but that nevertheless a less conservative view than that adopted by Mr Czarny and Mr Holdsworth would reasonably preserve the Burke Road streetscape character while optimising the opportunities provided by the site in the context of the broader activity centre and the planning policies relevant to it.

20 We consider that the building should be reduced by one level to a building of 5 storeys in height. We share the view that the Burke road street wall should be built hard to the street frontage for the first 3 levels, but agree with Mr Czarny and Mr Holdswworth that an increased setback of 8 to 10 metres on the top two levels will better respond to the streetscape of Burke Road. In general, the outcome will be that the setbacks of the top 2 levels from Burke Road will increase by approximately 4 metres from those proposed by the applicant, whilst the setbacks of the first and second floors are reduced to zero.

21 We see no difficulty in the building envelope having a hard edge 5 storeys high to the lane and car park to the rear, although we support the setback design of the top level shown on the application plans.

22 We estimate that the effect of this change in configuration of the envelope will be to reduce the number of apartments to approximately 30. We further consider that internal amenity of the apartments could be improved by increasing the width of the central corridor to a minimum of 2 metres, and increasing the size of the lightwells at either end to around 8 square metres. This would provide the opportunity to introduce natural light into the rear of 4 dwellings over 3 levels. We agree with Mr Milner that there is scope to reconfigure many of the apartments to better relate the living rooms to their balconies and consider that this replanning is warranted.

23 We consider that the proposed appearance of the building is acceptable and that it should be generally retained when the building is amended as outlined above. We note that the application plans show the 3 storey Burke Road façade only in schematic form. This link between the former bank and Sofias will however require careful consideration and robust detailing as the building's contribution to Burke Road.

24 As to the south wall, our inspection confirmed Mr Collie's observation regarding the prevalence of blank walls along Burke Road. We consider that the proposed finish to this wall is acceptable, and that the provision of lightwells of a useful size is a better solution for the amenity of the residents in the long term than fixed windows in this wall, which may be built out in the future.

25 The proposal provides sufficient car parking for the future residents, and a small surplus of car parking to be applied for the commercial elements of the proposal at ground level. This will result in a small net gain in the car parking supply, accepting that the land has historically been used for a commercial purpose. We think that this is an appropriate approach. Some reconsideration of the car parking provision and basement layout will be required as a result of our proposed amendments.

26 In relation to traffic movements there may be some increased congestion in the laneway itself, and perhaps some delay at its intersection with Harold Street, however, these impacts are unlikely to be unmanageable.

27 It follows from the above reasons that subject to some modification of the design a permit could be granted for the redevelopment of the land broadly as otherwise proposed. We will make directions in relation to the production of amending plans in accordance with our reasons. We will make directions for their consideration by the Tribunal and the parties.

[1] Carlos Constructions Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2004] VCAT 1752

[2] Golden Ridge v Whitehorse CC (Mitcham Towers) [2004] VCAT 1706

[3] More intensive development and neighbourhood character and streetscape

[4] Michael Yates & Co. Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2004] VCAT 637