51 Functions of Tribunal on review

...

(2) In determining a proceeding for review of a decision the Tribunal may, by order -

(a) affirm the decision under review; or

(b) vary the decision under review; or

(c) set aside the decision under review and make another decision in substitution for it; or

(d) set aside the decision under review and remit the matter for re-consideration by the decision-maker in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.

1. Having considered all of the submissions and evidence of the parties and the relevant planning context, I have determined to vary the decision under review, on the basis that the UDF as currently drafted is a document that is not satisfactory, but will be satisfactory once amendments have been made.
2. As will be explained in the reasons for this decision, I do not consider that the UDF is unsatisfactory in its general treatment of residential development in the Core and Local business sub-precincts. With this in mind, I had initially considered that while amendments can, and should, be made to the UDF to improve its clarity and operation, drafting amendments were not a matter for the Tribunal to direct if, fundamentally, the UDF was satisfactory.
3. However, as I reviewed the UDF in greater detail, I found that, whilst I agreed that high density residential, generally anticipated at upper levels, was supported by the UDF, it was not appropriately reflected, captured or presented within the detailed document so as to be generally in accordance with the content and vision of the PSP and provide clarity to readers and users of the document.

1. There were many inconsistencies within the document itself and elements of the PSP that were not adequately communicated, in addition to clear conflicts such as the two storey mandatory height requirement in Table 06 and 07, which does not provide the alternative for a 7 metre street wall height that is specifically included in Table 10a of the PSP. Together, these led to a finding that the UDF is not currently a document prepared to the satisfaction of the council and the VPA.
2. An option for the Tribunal was to set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the council and the VPA in accordance with directions or recommendations of the Tribunal. I do consider that this UDF is a document that should be reviewed by the authorities in its entirety with respect to all the matters within it. It is likely that further issues will arise when development proposals are made with respect to sub-precincts and to provisions of the UDF that have not been considered in this application. Clause 2.5 of the UGZ4 provides the ability for the council and the VPA to amend the UDF to their satisfaction and this should be utilised where appropriate.
3. However, this application for review is focussed on the UDF as it relates to housing development in the Core and Local business sub-precincts, with additional and incidental matters set out in written submissions or raised orally during the hearing. The submissions made to the Tribunal did not address every detail of the UDF and there was no suggestion that the UDF is not generally in accordance with the PSP with respect to matters other than those raised during the hearing. The UDF is 42 pages, covers five sub-precincts and includes matters relating to urban structure and land use, access and movement, development and interface, open space and public realm. In determining the state of satisfaction of the council and the VPA, the Tribunal has had regard to the matters raised and has not considered elements of the UDF not raised in written submission or orally during the hearing.
4. As a result, I have determined to vary the decision under review, and require amendments to the UDF which will result in a document that will then be satisfactory as it pertains to the matters raised.
5. My detailed reasons follow.

1. The expert report of Robert Milner ('Milner'), at paragraph 22, includes the following useful summary of the relevant planning that has been undertaken and documents that have been prepared with respect to Officer and the Officer Town Centre, since 2011:

1. The Milner report, at paragraph 120, also included the rationale for the review of the 2011 PSP as follows:

1. The UGZ4 applies to the 'Officer Precinct Structure Plan September 2011 (Amended November 2019) - Officer Town Centre'.
2. Clause 2.1 of the UGZ4 provides as follows:

1. Clause 2.2 of the UGZ4 provides that the applied zone provision for both the Core and Local Business areas is clause 34.01 - Commercial 1 Zone.
2. Clause 2.5 sets out specific provisions for buildings and works in the UGZ4. With respect to the urban design framework, it provides as follows:

Except with the consent of the responsible authority and the Victorian Planning Authority, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, or construct a building and carry out works until an urban design framework for the area has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Victorian Planning Authority.

An urban design framework approved under this schedule must be generally in accordance with the incorporated Officer Precinct Structure Plan.

An application for use and/or development on land identified must be consistent with any urban design framework approved under this schedule.

A permit may be granted to subdivide land or to construct a building or construct and carry out works prior to the approval of an urban design framework if, in the opinion of the responsible authority and the Victorian Planning Authority, the permit is consistent with the requirements for the urban design framework and the permit implements the objectives in the incorporated Officer Precinct Structure Plan.

The responsible authority may allow an urban design framework to be prepared in stages.

The urban design framework may be amended to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Victorian Planning Authority.

1. Importantly, it is under clause 2.5 that the urban design framework is required to be prepared to the satisfaction of the council and the VPA; that it must be generally in accordance with the PSP; that future applications for planning permission must be consistent with the approved urban design framework, and that it may be amended to the satisfaction of the council and the VPA.
2. As previously stated, the council and the VPA have determined that the urban design framework dated February 2024 (the UDF) was prepared to their satisfaction. This proceeding is an application to review 'the state of satisfaction', of both the council and the VPA, as described by Deputy President Bisucci in the preliminary hearing of this application.[2]
3. The applicant in this proceeding owns land in the areas shown in Plan 2 above as 'Core; and 'Local business', to the south of the railway line. The areas of land owned by the applicant are shown in the image below and are included in the applicant's written submissions at paragraph 2:

1. The Stroud Road and Siding Avenue land is all located within the Core precinct, whereas the Officer South Road land is located across both the Core and Local Business precincts.
2. Planning permit T220531 was issued for part of the land at 67 Officer South Road on 26 July 2023, directly south of the train line and to the west of Siding Avenue, for dwellings, buildings and works associated with dwellings, retail premises and offices, reduction in car parking, subdivision and removal of easement. This permit was issued prior to the approval of the UDF, subject to the provisions of the UGZ4 set out above. The proposed plans include townhouse development in Lots B1, B2 and B3 and retail and office use and development in Lots A1 and A2, shown below.

1. I also note that the area to the east of Siding Avenue, shown in the above plan as 'Existing Retail and Townhouse Site' is a developed area of land within the Core precinct which also contains townhouses.

1. In reviewing the state of satisfaction of the council and the VPA with respect to the UDF, the relevant starting point is the UGZ4, and specifically clause 2.5 which requires that an urban design framework approved under the schedule must be generally in accordance with the PSP.
2. As articulated by the applicant, its key concern is that the UDF as drafted 'appears to undermine the PPF, the PSP and UGZ4 in relation to the delivery of residential development in the Town Centre by restricting the ability to deliver a diversity of housing types and densities'.[3]
3. The applicant's primary contention is that residential development and a diversity of types of residential development including townhouse development is supported by the PSP and this support is not translated into the UDF as approved. The submissions put to the Tribunal concerning changes required to the UDF relate primarily to the Core and Local Business sub-precincts within which the applicant owns land.
4. The applicant describes the question before the Tribunal as follows:
   1. ... Officer Holdings submits that the question for the Tribunal is effectively how well the UDF gives effect to the relevant parts of the PPF, PSP, and UGZ4.
   2. If the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a direct inconsistency between the UDF and one of the above documents, then it is appropriate to vary the UDF. Even where there is no direct inconsistency, however, it will be appropriate to vary the UDF where the UDF as approved fails to properly reflect, 'respond to', or 'support' the strategic direction set out in the PSP and UGZ4.
   3. Finally, Officer Holdings observes that, while the UDF is required to be generally in accordance with the PSP in order to be valid, a conclusion that the UDF is generally in accordance with the PSP does not mean that the UDF must be approved. General accordance is a minimum requirement, rather than a passing mark.
5. The council, however, submits that the UDF is satisfactory and that the applicant's proposed changes are not consistent with the overarching documents:
   1. Council's key underlying contention is that while there are numerous ways in which one can draft and express an Urban Design Framework (UDF) for the Officer Town Centre, the approved UDF, together with the "fine tuning" that Council proposes (if the Tribunal thinks it is necessary) is more consistent with the PSP and in particular the relevant planning and design guidelines in Tables 10 and 10a, and the principles as either set out or illustrated in Plans 6 and 6a.
   2. On the contrary the changes being sought by the Applicant as per paragraph 28 of the Applicant's submission circulated in this proceeding will considerably water down the ability of the UDF to encourage (through the need for consistency with it) development which will further the significant role of the Officer Town Centre in providing the extent and type of housing in the primarily commercial/employment/services focussed sub-precincts consistent with what the PSP has planned.
   3. As for the Applicant's preferred development typology, while there is a limited role for the townhouses at ground floor in some parts of the broader Officer Town Centre, in the Core and Local Business sub-precincts, particularly at ground floor level, the main intent of both the:

13.1 Commercial 1 applied zone; and

13.2 the PSP as expressed in:

13.2.1 the role of the precinct as explained in the sub-precinct plan (Plan 6) the concept plan at Plan 6a; and

13.2.2 the planning and design guidelines at both Table 10 and Table 10a -

is to provide predominantly for commercial/employment/service uses at ground level with residential above at a variety of densities (but mainly in a high density form).

1. The VPA submits that the UDF is consistent with the PSP and therefore satisfactory:
   1. The VPA submits the UDF is generally in accordance with the PSP. As discussed through these Submissions, the UDF adopts and applies the preferred land use and structure planning set out in the PSP. This is highlighted by the consistent treatment of the Applicant's Landholdings in both the PSP and UDF.
2. While the principle is expressed differently, the key issue in this application is whether the UDF is satisfactory, which is a matter that must be assessed with reference to its consistency with the PSP and, as relevant, the UGZ4 and the Scheme.
3. With respect to the phrase 'generally in accordance' found at clause 2.5 of the UGZ4, the decision of Woolworths Ltd v Surf Coast SC[4] provided the following useful summary of key principles (footnotes excluded) in understanding the term:

General principles were outlined in Canet v Brimbank CC where the Tribunal stated that:

1. General accordance is a question of fact to be judged on the facts and circumstances of each case; and
2. The less detail and precision there is in the primary document or documents, the more flexibility is given by the phrase 'generally in accordance with".

More recently Member Cook surmised in TAG-Doreen Pty Ltd v Whittlesea:

• general accordance is a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case. The term itself contemplates some flexibility of application;
• for a proposed development to be generally in accordance with the relevant plan, it need not be identical to that described in the development or incorporated plan;
• The less detail and precision there is in the primary document/s, the more flexibility can be accorded to the term. The converse may also apply and this is a central issue in the proceeding;
• It is appropriate to consider the incorporated plan and development plan as a whole when making this assessment, including its language and intent. The assessment should not involve a 'spot the difference examination' rather, it is a question of whether the departures are 'sufficiently confined and otherwise acceptable having regard to the objectives, responses and plans comprising the 'approved plan/s.

1. I note from the outset that I do not agree with the applicant's position that even if there were no direct inconsistency, it would be appropriate to vary the UDF where it fails to properly reflect, respond to, or support the strategic direction set out in the PSP and UGZ4. I also disagree with the proposition that general accordance is a minimum requirement, rather than a passing mark. If I had found that the UDF contained no direct inconsistencies and was generally in accordance with the PSP, it follows that the state of satisfaction would have been achieved.
2. As stated many times during the hearing, there are multiple ways to draft a document and a different approach to drafting does not immediately render a document unsatisfactory. So too, having regard to the above principles, a spot the difference exercise is not the way to assess general accordance, and regard must be had to the entirety of the document.
3. As it stands, however, the finding of lack of satisfaction has been reached due to several inconsistences which may be viewed as 'spot the difference' exercises but have cumulatively resulted in a document which does not provide general accordance as a whole or a flexibility in application which could have otherwise overcome some of the problems.
4. In ordering the variation I was conscious that some elements to be amended were substantive in ensuring that the UDF becomes a satisfactory document and some, arguably, could be considered drafting elements to improve clarity and consistency but may not be material to a finding of satisfaction.
5. I considered whether it was appropriate to only make the changes required to reach a satisfactory status or whether the Tribunal can require the entirety of drafting amendments discussed, many of which were agreed between the parties during the hearing but may have not been determinative on their own in finding that the UDF was not satisfactory.
6. I found that, given that a variation was required, to ensure the UDF as amended is a satisfactory document, it was appropriate to include all the elements raised that I considered should be amended, and not leave matters uncertain following that variation process.

1. As a starting point it is important to note that the PSP covers an area of approximately 1,000 hectares of land, of which the Officer Town Centre ('OTC') is only a small part, albeit an important one.
2. Section 3 of the PSP is titled 'Integrated precinct design'. Section 3.1 describes the vision and section 3.2 describes the future urban structure. Section 3.2.2 provides a summary of the range of housing densities, referring specifically to high density housing, such as shop-top dwellings and apartment living with the OTC. It also refers to medium density housing around the Officer Railway Station:

1. Section 3.3.2 provides the following explanation of the net residential area:

1. The elements of the PSP are included in section 4, being image and character, housing, employment and activity centres, community facilities, open space and natural systems, transport and movement, and utilities, energy and sustainability.
2. Section 4.2 of the PSP addresses housing. A section in clause 4.2.1 titled 'Officer Town Centre' was deleted by Amendment C232, and two dot points inserted into the general housing objectives in clause 4.2.1, as follows:
   • Maximise housing diversity and density within the Officer Town Centre to take advantage of proximity to the Officer train station.
   • Provide a high amenity urban environment within the Officer Town Centre, including active frontages to streets, as well as public access and permeability between buildings where appropriate.
3. Clause 4.2.2 provides that the objectives for housing and lot diversity are met by implementation of all the following:
   • Plan 5: Future Urban Structure;
   • Plan 8: Housing;
   • Table 6: Distribution of Housing Densities;
   • Table 7: Housing Planning and Design Guidelines set out in 4.2.3;
   • Figures 1 to 5b;
   • Figures 10a & 10b;
   • Section 4.1 Image and Character, in particular the Character Area assessment; and
   • Appendix A: Small Lot Housing Code.
4. The following paragraphs review the relevant areas of the PSP highlighted in clause 4.2.2 of the PSP, noting that Figures 3 to 5b, 10a and 10b, section 4.1 and Appendix A are not relevant to the OTC and/or areas of review in this decision.

Implementation of housing strategy in the PSP

1. Plan 5, titled Future Urban Structure, identifies the applicant's properties as being located in the Major Activity Centre ('MAC), shown as 'MAC Core Business' and 'MAC Peripheral Commercial'.
2. Plan 8, Housing, provides a map of the entire PSP area indicating the various land uses anticipated and indicating where different residential uses are proposed to develop, including whether they are standard, medium or high density.
3. All of the land owned by the applicant is shown in plan 8 as 'Commercial (Residential Permitted)'. An excerpt of the plan is included below, including the applicant's land shaded grey, and the accompanying legend. Within the land comprising the OTC, plan 8 also anticipates the development of land other than the applicant's land as High density/Mixed use, High Density Residential A and High Density Residential B.

1. Table 6 provides a breakdown of how many dwellings are anticipated to be provided in each of these areas:

1. Table 7 then sets out planning and design guidelines that must and should be met for each area. Below is the section of the Table relating to the OTC, nothing that within the housing density type, Commercial (Residential Permitted) is not specifically referenced.

1. There is a separate sub-heading for medium density development that is not prefaced with 'Officer Town Centre' in the manner seen above. However, within the planning and design guidelines that should be met, there is reference to medium density development being located within 400 metres walking distance of an activity centre and/or 800 metres from the train station, as follows:

• Medium density residential development is to:

- include a mix of smaller lots ranging in size from 130 square metres to 350 square metres, as well as the provision of integrated housing sites;

- be located within 400 metres walking distance of an activity centre and / or 800 metres from the Officer Railway Station; and/or;

- be located in areas that overlook, abut or are within close proximity of open space.

1. The applicant illustrated that the 400 metre radius covers most of the Local Business and Core sub-precincts located south of the train station.
2. Figures 1 and 2, following on from Table 7, set out indicative high and medium density residential typologies. Figure 1 - indicative high density residential typologies - references providing 'a mix of dwelling styles - apartments, townhouses etc at multiple levels (2+ storeys)'. Figure 2 - indicative medium density residential typologies - refers specifically to townhouse development. Figures 3 to 5b are not relevant to the area of focus in this decision.

Other elements of the PSP relevant to the Tribunal's review

1. Section 4.2.2 is specifically relevant to implementation of housing strategy within the overall PSP. However, the land the subject of this review is contained within the OTC and there are several other elements of the PSP that must be considered in conjunction with the housing elements.
2. Section 4.3.3 of the PSP relevantly includes Tables 9, 10 and 10a, and Figures 6 and 6a, all relevant to the OTC.
3. Table 9 provides a hierarchy of activity centres within the PSP. The OTC is identified as the MAC within the PSP area. Indicative floor areas provided within this Table refer to retail shop, other retail and non-retail commercial only. Within the role and function of the MAC, the following dot points are included:
   • Major Activity Centre (MAC) with retail, peripheral commercial and office uses.
   • Provision of high density housing including shop top housing, apartments and SoHos.
4. Table 10 includes employment and activity centres planning and design guidelines, including those that must be met and those that should be met. In the 'should' column, the following are included:

• Where SoHos are provided, they should:

- be designed to enable ground floor tenancies to be split from upper floor tenancies; and,

- ensure entrances can be provided from the street frontage from both ground floor and upper floor tenancies.

• Subdivision, land use and development should have regard to the proposed land uses shown in Figure 6: Officer Town Centre Sub-Precinct Plan and Figure 6a: Officer Town Centre Concept Plan.

1. Table 10 is followed by Figure 6, reproduced below:

1. With respect to residential use, the heading 'Officer Town Centre sub-precincts', includes four bullet points, one of which is 'Provide medium-high density residential development in areas of high amenity and in proximity to services and public transport'.
2. With respect to residential development, the Core precinct includes six bullet points, one of which is 'fine-grain active development at street level and residential and/or commercial uses on upper levels' and another sets out the diversity of uses including residential.
3. The Mixed Use precinct includes the bullet point - 'High-density mixed-use development, comprising primarily residential development', and 'Opportunity for SOHO development along gum lead lane'.
4. Local business includes seven bullet points, one of which is 'Active uses at street level and residential and/or commercial uses on upper levels'.
5. The Gateway precinct does not include any reference to residential development.
6. The Residential precinct is to provide 'medium and high density residential development incorporating a range of housing types'.
7. Table 10a then provides planning and design guidelines that must and should be met for the MAC. In the 'should' column, the following are included:
   • Subdivision, land use and development should have regard to the proposed land uses shown in Figure 6: Officer Town Centre Sub-Precinct Plan and Figure 6a: Officer Town Centre Concept Plan.
   • Other than along Siding Avenue, non-residential built form in the Officer town centre should provide continuous ground floor active frontages to the public realm where practical, for the following uses shown in Figure 6a: Officer Town Centre Concept Plan:

- specialty retail

- commercial

- commercial w/ residential above.

Where continuous ground floor active frontages are not possible, applicants should demonstrate a suitable alternative design response, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Table 10a is followed by Figure 6a, reproduced below, which identifies the land owned by the applicant as 'Local Business' and 'Commercial with Residential Above'.

1. The following is a clearer version of the note included in Figure 6a:

1. Clause 4.3.3a of the PSP sets out the requirements for the UDF, referring specifically to Figures 6 and 6a:

1. Appendix B, also referred to in clause 4.3.3a above, is the OTC urban design framework guide. As the heading suggests, it provides a framework for development of the UDF document. The general explanation and requirements are included below:

1. The UDF is dated February 2024 and was approved by the VPA on 14 February 2024 and the council on 19 February 2024. Its purpose is described at section 1.1 as facilitating the delivery of well-integrated urban form. Section 1.1 also provides a guide to using the UDF, as follows:

1. Section 2.1 provides a sub-precincts map and overview, which is generally consistent with Figure 6 of the PSP in the locations and provides a summary sentence descriptor of each sub-precinct.

1. Each sub-precinct is then separately described in terms of preferred future character and roles and influences.
2. The Core sub-precinct description is included below and includes high density residential as a secondary role.

1. The Local Business precinct description, reproduced below, does not include residential in the roles and influences section. However, in the preferred future character, it states that 'future urban renewal opportunities include apartment and vertical mixed use development' and 'future living and working population will have access to high amenity open spaces and active transport'.

1. The Officer South Road land owned by the applicant is included in both the Local Business and Core sub-precincts, with the Stroud Road and siding Avenue land included wholly in the Core sub-precinct.
2. Section 3 covers the 'Urban Design Framework - Centre Wide Provisions' and is described as providing 'the design response for Officer UDF categorised by themes, outlining objectives, requirements and guidelines'.
3. Section 3.1 - Vision, includes the following references to residential development:

The urban environment and associated activity in the Officer Town Centre and the breadth of facilities, services and business will be supported by a more intensive mixed use and residential environment (including higher density housing) creating a compact urban experience.

...

Environmental sustainability features will be incorporated with a design that optimises solar access, water sensitive and energy-efficient design and integrated water management. Officer Town Centre will contribute to sustainability by clustering land uses and housing densities to optimise active transport, supporting a reduction in the extent of car use.

As the town centre continues to grow, the character of Officer will evolve along with its residents and visitors, balancing the old and new, the rural and urban, and spacious and intimate.

1. Section 3.2 - Key Directions, outlines seven key directions for the OTC. The only direction that appears to reference residential development is direction 8 - 'A Town Centre that supports high density, mixed use transit oriented precinct around Officer Station'. Figure 2 is titled 'Key directions diagram and Officer Town Centre'. Within Figure 2, the applicant's land is shown as employment (within the local business sub-precinct), employment and high density living (within the core sub-precinct), with part of the Siding Avenue land shown as high density residential A&B (within the core sub-precinct). Siding Avenue, from north to south, is identified as the main spine of the OTC.
2. The high density residential designation is a deviation from what is anticipated within the Core sub-precinct as outlined in section 2 of the UDF and within the PSP. However, this deviation does not appear to be an error as it is reinforced in Figures 3, 4 and 10.
3. I do not recall the reason for this being explained during the hearing. However, on reflection, I consider that it is probable that it has been shown this way in the UDF due to the existing residential development to the north of Piggott Street and to the east of Coxon Street. Despite this area being identified as generally commercial with residential above in the PSP, permission was granted for townhouse development in this location and that development is complete, precluding the ability for future development of commercial with residential above. The inclusion of part of the applicant land as residential in this pocket appears to be an acknowledgement that this land will provide a residential link between these already developed residential areas.
4. The existing developed area can be clearly seen in the nearmap image below, taken on 12 December 2025, with the applicant land being the undeveloped portion in the south-west corner of the image.

1. Section 3.3 is titled 'The Urban Design Framework - Centre Wide Provisions' and includes Figure 3 - future urban structure concept plan for Officer Town Centre. Figure 3, reproduced below, describes the future urban structure, describing the applicant's land as local business use, retail and commercial use, and high density residential B use. For each of these areas, the darker lines around the boundary specify local business frontage, commercial frontage and high density residential B frontage, respectively. This Figure replicates the main spine along Siding Avenue and also expands on the detail within Figure 2.

1. Section 4 covers design themes and provides objectives, requirements and guidelines for each design theme and precinct.
2. Section 4.1 covers 'Urban Structure and Land Use' and acknowledges the ability for good urban structure to support complementary land uses. It explains that:

Designated as a key destination for mixed use in Melbourne's south-east, a variety of land uses will generate an active and lively street environment, day and night, centred around a fine grain retail interface along Siding Avenue. Larger format commercial, office, high density residential and community uses will be provided to encourage activity within the centre.

1. It includes an urban structure and land use plan at Figure 4 which includes the same designations for the applicant land as Figure 3.
2. Table 01 follows and is reproduced below, setting out design considerations for urban structure and land use. This includes objectives, design requirements and guidelines.
3. Within the objective of creating greater housing choice, design requirement R7 specifies the mixed use and residential sub-precincts as providing the mix of housing typologies, including high density, within proximity to the train station and the Town Centre Core.

1. Table 02, reproduced below, provides a further description of the role and function of each sub-precinct, their applied zones and primary and secondary land uses.

1. Residential is included in the role and function description of both the Core and Local Business sub-precincts in this Table, and, unlike in the sub-precinct description in section 2.1 of the UDF, residential is identified as a secondary land use in the Local Business sub-precinct. In the Core sub-precinct, high density residential is recognised as a secondary land use, consistent with section 2.1.
2. Section 4.2 covers access and movement and includes design considerations and requirements relevant to access and movement.
3. Section 4.3 covers development and interface, specifying heights and setbacks anticipated within the OTC. Table 06, Development Typology Framework, identifies that in the Local Business and Core sub-precincts, a minimum two storey height is expected with street wall based forms, with potential land use identified as commercial. Table 05, Design considerations - Development and interface, include a design requirement R1 that development typology and scale must be consistent with Table 06, in all precincts. This is within the objective 01 of establishing a sense of place and community.

1. Section 4.4 covers open space and public realm.
2. Section 5 is titled 'Indicative Concept Plan', which is included at Figure 10. It is described as illustrating how the vision, key directions, design requirements and guidelines for each precinct can be realised across the study area. This section specifically acknowledges that 'future applications within the UDF area may vary from this Indicative Concept Plan whilst still meeting Design Requirements and Guidelines'.
3. The applicant's land in Figure 10 is identified as local business, as commercial with residential above, and residential.

1. The UDF concludes with Appendix A, which provides graphic support including benchmark images and recommendations to inform the implementation of the different themes.

1. Section 1.2 of Appendix B articulates the purpose of a UDF as providing a link between the PSP and development proposals in town/commercial centres and supporting and building on the strategic vision established by the PSP.
2. Clause 4.3.3a of the PSP requires that the UDF must respond to the vision, objectives and planning and design requirements set out in the PSP, have regard to the principles demonstrated within Figure 6 and 6a, address the guide in Appendix B and any relevant design guidelines.
3. This application for review has focussed on how residential development of the applicant's land has been treated in the UDF and its consistency, or lack thereof, with the strategic vision of the PSP.

1. I have reviewed the content of the PSP as it relates to housing in the Core and Local Business sub-precincts. With respect to housing specifically, the PSP says that:
   1. Housing typology in the OTC will be high density housing, such as shop-top dwellings and apartment living (3.2). Also described as 'provision of high density housing including shop top housing, apartments and SoHos' (4.3.3).
   2. Housing diversity and density in the OTC should be maximised to take advantage of proximity to the train station (4.2.1).
   3. A high amenity urban environment to be provided within the OTC (4.2.1).
   4. The areas owned by the applicant are described as:
      1. Commercial (Residential Permitted) (Plan 8);
      2. Residential on upper levels in the Core and Local Business precincts (Figure 6); and
      3. Commercial with Residential above and Local Business (Figure 6a).
2. Separate to the provision of housing, the PSP identifies the primary purpose of the land in the Core and Local Business areas as commercial. This is clear throughout the document and illustrated in plans 5, 6 and 8.
3. Plans 5 and 6 - titled future urban structure and land use budget, respectively, and reproduced below - clearly illustrate that, although residential development is permitted, the applicant's land is not residential land. It is core business and peripheral commercial. There has, however, always been a significant residential precinct included in the OTC, to the east of the core commercial area, and a mixed use precinct, both of which actively support a diversity of residential development.

1. Plan 8 of the PSP identifies areas where different residential uses are proposed to develop, including whether they are standard, medium or high density. While plan 8 provides that residential is permitted in the commercial areas, it is not provided with a specific housing designation. The specifications relating to High density/Mixed use, High Density Residential A and High Density Residential B apply to land in the OTC outside of those two sub-precincts.
2. Tables 6 and 7, providing a distribution of housing densities and housing planning and design guidelines, and Figures 1 and 2, setting out high and medium density dwelling typologies, must be read in the context of plans 5, 6 and 8, and in conjunction with section 3.3.2.
3. The planning and design guidelines included at Table 7 and the typologies that include townhouses at Figures 1 and 2 are not applied to the commercial areas.
4. Whilst there is a Figure included in Table 6 with respect to the anticipated residential development of commercial (residential above) areas, section 3.3.2 explains that while dwellings may be provided on land identified for development of employment and activity centres, this is not included in the net residential area. It states that the estimates in Table 6 relate to the number of dwellings anticipated to be provided on land designated for residential development, referring specifically to Plans 5 and 6, which clearly illustrate that the land of concern in this review is not land designated for residential development.
5. There was discussion about the meaning of the two bullet points in section 3.2.2 of the PSP referring first to high density housing, such as shop-top dwellings and apartment living in the OTC, and then to medium density housing around the Officer train station.
6. The two bullet points in clause 4.1 similarly seek to maximise housing diversity and density within the OTC to take advantage of proximity to the train station, and seek to provide a high amenity urban environment within the OTC, including active frontages to streets.
7. The applicant submitted that the first of each of the two bullet points, together with the planning and design guideline in Table 7 seeking medium density residential development within 400 metres of an activity centre and 800 metres of the train station, should be understood to be supporting both high and medium density across the OTC, including in the Core and Local business areas.
8. The applicant also had regard, in this context, to Figure 6 where the heading 'Officer Town Centre sub-precincts' includes four bullet points, one of which is 'Provide medium-high density residential development in areas of high amenity and in proximity to services and public transport'.
9. Having regard to all of the elements of the PSP relevant to the OTC, I understand these bullet points to be providing general support to maximising high density residential development within the OTC that does not compromise the active frontages sought for commercial areas of the OTC. It is also offering support for both medium and high density residential development in locations closer to the core commercial area and the train station. These two propositions are not necessarily contradictory but will mean that not every part of the OTC will be able to accommodate both medium and high density housing.
10. While housing is supported and anticipated in the OTC and proximate to the train station, Figure 6 clarifies that high and medium density developments are specifically planned for the Residential sub-precinct of the OTC, with high density residential planned for the Mixed use sub-precinct and the Core and Local Business sub-precincts anticipating residential development above commercial to preserve and enhance the urban environment. While residential is permitted and is anticipated above commercial uses in those areas, it is more specifically planned for in other areas.
11. In general, I consider that section 3.3.2 clarifies that the residential densities sought are anticipated in those areas shown as residential in Plans 5 and 6, ensuring that the primary focus of the commercial areas of the OTC remains commercial, without the pressure of achieving specific numerical housing densities.
12. I see the overarching statement within Figure 6 referring to 'medium-high density residential development' and proximity to services and public transport' to be just that, a general statement setting an expectation that within the entire OTC there will be both high and medium density residential development close to the main commercial centre, open spaces and the train station. I do not consider that it should be interpreted to mean that both high and medium density development is anticipated in all areas of high amenity and proximity to services and public transport, essentially encompassing all areas of the OTC.
13. The bullet points included in the same Figure 6 with respect to each of the sub-precincts clarify precisely what type of residential development, if any, is sought within each sub-precinct. Clause 4.3.3a provides that the UDF must have regard to the principles demonstrated within Figures 6 and 6a.
14. It is within Figure 6 that residential development within the Core and Local Business areas is referred to as being provided above commercial development, and in Figure 6a, commercial with residential above is specified within the Core sub-precinct but not within Local business which is only referred to as Local business. Residential development is not referred to within the Gateway sub-precinct, while the Mixed use sub-precinct is specified to have high density mixed use, comprising primarily residential development and the opportunity for SOHO development along gum leaf lane. It is only in the Residential sub-precinct that both medium and high density residential development incorporating a range of housing types is described.
15. Other than the Gateway sub-precinct, all of the sub-precincts in the OTC are proximate to the train station and the main commercial centre, with some areas of each sub-precinct being located closer than others.
16. There are two relevant notes within the PSP, at Table 10a and Figure 6a, included earlier in this decision, that provide the ability for alternative design responses to be considered, either to the satisfaction of the responsible authority or if consistent with the relevant objectives and planning and design guidelines.

1. Returning to the UDF, the applicant's primary contention is that residential development and a diversity of types of residential development including townhouse development is supported by the PSP and not translated into the UDF. The focus has been on the applicant's land within the Core and Local Business sub-precincts.
2. As is clear from my above assessment of the PSP, I do not consider that the statements referring generally to diversity of development are intended to apply to every site within the OTC. I consider that the strategic vision of the PSP as it relates to housing development within the Core and Local business areas of the OTC is that it is not a primary objective but is permitted, subject to it generally being situated above commercial development, so an not to interfere with the active commercial frontages sought within those areas of the OTC and the primary purposes of commercial/core business and local business/peripheral commercial.
3. I find that the UDF is consistent with the strategic vision of the PSP in confirming the primary commercial role of both the Core and Local business sub-precinct.
4. The drafting of the PSP does allow for an interpretation, as borne out in the drafting of the UDF, that there are primary and secondary objectives and roles for each of the sub-precincts. I consider the UDF correctly applies residential as a secondary use within the Core and Local business sub-precincts, having regard to the primary commercial role of these sub-precincts, described above.
5. However, the lack of clarity in the drafting of the UDF with respect to this issue departs from the guidance in section 1.5 of Appendix B, which requires drafting to be clear, concise and easily navigable. There is a lack of clarity and lack of consistency within the UDF as to the meaning of high density, if high density is required in both sub-precincts, the form of development sought and how opportunities for alternative development are provided. All of this combined, results in a document that does not reach the state of satisfaction required.

1. Within the Core sub-precinct, the UDF includes the following information concerning residential use and development:

1. High density residential has a secondary role (section 2.1 and Table 02);
2. Employment and high density living (section 3.2 - Figure 2);[5]
3. Core areas combine a diversity of uses including retail, food and beverage, entertainment, commercial/professional services, recreation and residential (Table 02).
4. Commercial with residential above (Figure 10 - indicative concept plan).

1. Within the Local Business sub-precinct, the UDF includes the following information concerning residential use and development:
   1. Future urban renewal opportunities include apartment and vertical mixed use development, and future living and working population will have access to high amenity open spaces and active transport (section 2.1 - preferred future character);
   2. The Local Business precinct provides a variety of residential and commercial opportunities and create a transition zone between the Core precinct and existing industrial uses (Table 02);
   3. Residential as a secondary land use (Table 02).
2. Sections 3.3 and 4, in Figure 3 - future urban structure concept plan for OTC, and Figure 4 - urban structure and land use map, identify the Core land as Retail and Commercial use with Commercial frontage, and no reference to residential. With respect to the Local Business sub-precinct, Figure 2 identifies it as 'employment' with Figures 3 and 4 specifying Local business and Local business frontage and no reference to residential.
3. Figure 6, the development and interfaces map, identifies the development typologies within the OTC as follows, with most of the land in the Core sub-precinct identified as Type B and most of the land in the Local business sub-precinct identified as Type A.

1. Table 06, development typology framework, requires a maximum mandatory height of 2 storeys for development in each of these areas, with Area A described as 'setback and separated commercial forms' and Area B described as 'street wall based forms'. Area C's typology is 'setback and attached forms' and 'attached town houses'.
2. I find that sections 3.3 and 4, as well as Figure 6 and Table 06, provide a development typology that reflects the PSP designation of these areas and the intention that they present as commercial areas in their built form and have a primary character consistent with their retail, commercial and employment designations.
3. However, where detail is required within the document to ensure clarity as to development typology, the UDF falls short, in a manner that is more substantial than simply drafting error and that, if not amended, establishes that the UDF as currently drafted is not generally in accordance with the PSP.

Form of development anticipated, and alternative outcomes

1. This is highlighted by the issue raised by all parties with respect to Table 06. All parties agreed that, with respect to development typology and street wall height, Table 06 does not reflect Table 10a of the PSP, which provides the following planning and design guideline that must be met for the OTC:

Buildings within the Officer Town Centre be a minimum of two storeys in height along street frontages or present a minimum 7 metre street wall height to create a sense of enclosure to the public realm. Where provided, upper storeys should be sufficient to enable appropriate uses, but do not need to extend the full depth of the ground floor. Single storey buildings should be designed to be able to accommodate a future second floor.

1. Table 06 also includes a 'Note 1' that assumes that each level is developed at 4 metres. The parties agreed that this is not something derived from the PSP or required.
2. To more accurately reflect the content of Table 10a of the PSP, the parties agreed that there should be a specific note allowing an alternative to the minimum mandatory 2 storey height which will clarify that a minimum 7 metre street wall height is also an acceptable design response. They agreed that this should be included in both Table 06 and Table 07. The following wording was suggested, to facilitate this amendment:
   1. Note 1 in Table 06 to be deleted and replaced with the following wording and a new note to be included in Table 07 as follows:
      1. Buildings within the town centre should be a minimum of two storeys in height along street frontages, otherwise present a minimum 7 metres street wall height to create a sense of enclosure to the public realm. This note does not apply to sites identified for taller forms and buildings in Figure 4, Table 6, and Table 7.
3. I have ordered that this change be made.

1. If the UDF is not amended in this manner, there is no ability to provide anything other than a 2 storey minimum height in these areas. This is because the way in which flexibility is provided in the introduction section to the UDF only applies to guidelines. Design requirements are expressed as mandatory and plans are said to illustrate the spatial expression and application of objectives. While it says that these provide a level of flexibility, it is only with respect to guidelines that it says that alternative design solutions may be provided.
2. It does not appear that Table 06 is expressed as a guideline and there are no words within Table 06 that allow for a different design to achieve the sense of enclosure sought. In addition, design requirement R1 of Table 05 provides that 'development typology and scale must be consistent with Table 06'. This does not allow deviation from the typology and scale expressed in Table 06.
3. The applicant submitted that design requirement R1 of Table 05 should be a preferred rather than required outcome.
4. I note that design requirement R5 of Table 05 also provides that development must be consistent with the street wall height and setback provisions described in Table 06, which should be Table 07. This has been addressed in the orders.
5. To be consistent with the PSP, I find that the UDF must include some flexibility in application. As discussed during the hearing, there may be proposals not yet developed that can meet the strategic vision and objectives of the PSP for the OTC, particularly in the Core and Local business sub-precincts, that provide active frontages where required and involve some type of townhouse development, whether sitting behind or above commercial frontage at street level.
6. The mandatory nature of the design requirements could have the effect of disallowing proposals that would otherwise be consistent with the strategic vision. Alternative design solutions must be able to be considered as long as they do not prejudice intended outcomes of the area.
7. In terms of the specific issue identified and its resolution through the revised drafting of note 1, I view that as an appropriate resolution given that the PSP includes it as a design guideline that must be met, while providing two specific options.
8. However, I can envisage situations throughout the entire OTC where a proposal is put forward that varies, even slightly, from the specific numerical outcomes within Tables 06 and 07 but meets the 'justification' in Table 06 or the 'comment' in Table 07 and generally accords with the strategic vision for the relevant precinct but cannot be approved because it is viewed to be inconsistent with one of the elements of those Tables.

1. I agree with the applicant that the PSP requires that the UDF include some flexibility and that this is required to avoid unintended outcomes. However, I share the concern of the authorities that changing 'must' to 'should' in design requirement R1 of Table 05 could also lead to unintended outcomes by a watering down of the expectations within the OTC.
2. Given that I consider some flexibility should be included, I have ordered that a further note be included in Tables 06 and 07 as follows, with no material change to the design requirements in Table 05:

Alternative design responses that are consistent with the vision and relevant objectives may be considered.

1. Following on from this, I consider there are several sections of the UDF that require this level of flexibility, to allow for alternative proposals not yet developed that can meet the strategic vision and objectives of the PSP for the OTC without watering down the general intent and strategic vision for development of the separate sub-precincts within the OTC. As such, I have required the following amendments:
   1. The draft UDF included the following text accompanying the Indicative Concept Plan at section 5.1:

In the Indicative Concept Plan illustrates how the Vision, Key Directions and design requirements and guidelines for each precinct can be realised across the study area.

It is acknowledged any future development application on the site may vary from the indicative concept plan while still meeting the requirements.

There are many ways upon which the Masterplan can be realised and the Indicative Concept Plan only demonstrates one of many possibilities. This plan is not the decision plan.

It demonstrates urban design consideration, the intent of the UDF and its compliance with Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria.

The approved version of the UDF removed the entirety of the third paragraph of this text and amended some of the remaining text.

I have ordered that the second paragraph of the existing text be amended to:

It is acknowledged that future applications within the UDF area may vary from this Indicative Concept Plan while still meeting the vision and objectives of the UDF. Alternative design responses that are consistent with the vision and relevant objectives may be considered.

1. In section 1.1, a further paragraph is to be added to the 'How to use this document' section, as follows:

Planning applications that contain alternative design solutions to the above may be approved pursuant to the UGZ4 if they are consistent with the UDF in its overall vision and objectives.

1. Table 02 is to be amended to include the following sentence at the end of the 'Role and function' description of the Core and the Local business sub-precincts as follows:

Commercial uses are anticipated at ground level with high density residential above. Alternative design responses may be considered in terms of density and location of residential development if they do not conflict with the primary land uses and the role and function of the precinct as described.

Residential above commercial, and high density residential

1. The terms 'residential above commercial' and 'high density residential' were discussed at length during the hearing.
2. As set out above, the UDF currently transitions between referencing anticipated development in the Core and Local business sub-precincts as high density residential, high density living, commercial with residential above, residential, and apartment and vertical mixed use.
3. There was discussion as to whether townhouse forms of development can be considered high density development or, as one would traditionally expect, medium density development. There was also discussion about whether townhouse forms can be built above ground floor and whether there may be other siting opportunities not yet explored, as noted earlier.
4. The meaning of the terms must be taken from the documents. Figure 6 of the PSP anticipates medium density development only in the Residential sub-precinct of the OTC, whereas the other sub-precincts seek high density residential or residential above commercial. The Core sub-precinct specifies 'residential and/or commercial uses at upper levels', the Mixed use sub-precinct specifies high density mixed use, primarily residential and the Local business sub-precinct specifies active uses at street level and residential and/or commercial uses on upper levels.
5. In Figure 6a, the OTC concept plan, the Core area is identified as commercial with residential above and local business does not have a residential designation. In other areas of the PSP, as set out earlier, there is general reference to high density housing in the OTC which includes shop top housing, apartments and SoHos.
6. While I explained earlier that I consider that the planning and design guidelines at Figures 1 and 2 of the PSP are not applied to the commercial areas, they, together with Table 6, do provide guidance as to the way the PSP defines high and medium density housing typology and yield.

1. At Figure 1, below, in providing indicative high density residential typologies, it clarifies that these may include a mix of dwelling styles, described as 'apartments, townhouses etc, at multiple levels (2+ storeys)'. It also seeks to maximise opportunities for alternative living options and 2+ storey development. Importantly, the note states as follows:

This figure provides an indicative example of how a development application could respond to the requirements of the PSP. Alternative design responses that are consistent with the relevant objectives and planning and design guidelines may be considered.

1. Figure 2 provides indicative medium density residential typologies and refers solely to townhouses.
2. Cumulatively, review of these provisions of the PSP lead to the conclusion that the PSP seeks high density residential development in the Core sub-precinct, which may take the form of apartments, shop top housing, SoHos and/or townhouses, and that residential development within the Core sub-precinct is generally anticipated to be located above commercial development. The forms of development are provided as examples of high density housing, rather than exhaustively defining the term, and could include other forms of development not specified.
3. With respect to the Local business sub-precinct, the PSP is seeking active uses at street level with residential permitted above. While it is permitted, there is less of a focus within the PSP on residential being provided in the Local business sub-precinct. This has been translated into the UDF.
4. As such, I consider that the designation of High density residential as a secondary use in the Core sub-precinct is the correct designation and may encompass several different development typologies, potentially including townhouses.
5. High density residential should also be a secondary use in the Local business sub-precinct and specified as such in Table 02, in place of the current 'Residential'.[6] This is consistent with the reference in section 2.1 to 'apartment and vertical mixed use development' in the Local business sub-precinct.
6. I expect that the provision of high density residential will predominantly be at the above ground floor level so as not to conflict with the active frontages and commercial character sought within these sub-precincts. I consider it is necessary to include the specification of above ground floor in the secondary role description for these sub-precincts, to provide clarity about the anticipated form of development and maintain the primary commercial role of these sub-precincts and commercial form of development anticipated.
7. I consider that the inclusion of flexibility within the document as outlined earlier will allow for alternative forms of development including the potential for residential at ground floor if an innovative design response is conceived that will not conflict with the strategic vision.
8. As such, I have ordered that 'High density residential (above ground floor)' be included as a secondary role for both sub-precincts in section 2.1 and Table 02.
9. To ensure consistency throughout the UDF in this regard, and clarity concerning general expectations, I have also ordered that the following amendments be made throughout the UDF:
   1. In Figure 2, in the Legend, replace 'Employment & high density living' with 'Retail & commercial use (high density residential permitted above ground floor), and replace 'Employment' with 'Local business (high density residential permitted above ground floor).
   2. In Figure 3 and Figure 4, in the Legend, add '(high density residential permitted above ground floor)' to the entries for Retail & commercial use, and Local business use.
   3. In Figure 10, in the Legend, add '(high density residential permitted above ground floor)' to the entry for Local business and amend 'Commercial with residential above' to 'Commercial (high density residential permitted above ground floor)'.

1. While the form of residential development was the primary issue in contention between the parties, there were other elements of concern raised with respect to the content of the UDF.

1. The most significant of this was the inclusion in Table 02 of a column setting out whether supermarkets, discount department stores and mini majors were permitted or prohibited in each sub-precinct. All parties agreed that Table 02 should be amended to delete the prohibition on supermarkets, discount department stores and mini majors in the Local Business sub-precinct. The Local business sub-precinct has an applied zone of Commercial 1 ('C1Z'). Supermarket is an as of right use in the C1Z. Making this use prohibited in the Local business sub-precinct, while possibly a simple drafting error, causes the UDF to be directly contradictory to the overarching provisions of the UGZ4.
2. The UGZ4 was introduced into the Scheme to implement the requirements of the PSP as they pertain to the OTC. The consequence of this prohibition being included in the UDF, whether or not in error, is to render a part of the document directly inconsistent with the PSP.
3. This must be amended for the UDF to be a satisfactory document.

1. The applicant sought the following amendments concerning access and movement:
   1. amend Figure 3 in the UDF to remove the roundabout treatments shown at the intersections of Rucker and Hickson Roads;
   2. amend Figures 3 and 5 in the UDF to remove the roundabout treatment shown at the intersection of Stroud Road and Siding Avenue; and
   3. amend the Figures in the UDF to show Rucker Road north of Hickson Road offset from the eastern edge of the Hygain land to reflect the approved outcome of the Permit.
2. All parties agreed to amend Figures 3 and 5 in the UDF to remove the roundabout treatment shown at the intersection of Stroud Road and Siding Avenue. I have made this order.
3. In terms of both roundabout treatments, the applicant submitted that Plan 15 of the PSP - Road Network, includes roundabouts, signalised intersections and Table 20 - Infrastructure Project List - Within PSP Area, includes a list of road treatments and roundabouts. There is no reference to either of the roundabouts that are included in Figures 3 and 5 (noting that the Rucker and Hickson roundabout is not even shown in Figure 5). The applicant submitted, and I agree, that this cannot be included in the UDF where it has not been provided for in the PSP. No justification or further traffic assessment has been provided to support the inclusion of these roundabouts. I consider that this, too, is a direct inconsistency with the PSP and must be removed.
4. The council submitted that Figure 3 should be amended to remove the roundabout treatment shown at the intersections of Rucker and Hickson Roads and replace it with a note stating 'intersection treatment to be determined'. I agree with the applicant that there is no justification for included further notations in circumstances where this treatment has not been derived from the very detailed road network and infrastructure planning in the PSP.
5. In terms of the proposed amendment of the Figures in the UDF to show Rucker Road north of Hickson Road offset from the eastern edge of the Hygain land, in circumstances where the permit has already been issued, I do not consider this is required to be amended. While it would provide greater clarity and should have been illustrated differently if the permit was issued before the approval of the UDF, there is no dispute that permission has been granted for this development and no concern has been raised that the development will not be able to be completed if this is not amended. As such, I have not required the relevant plans to be amended.

1. Below I review other elements of the UDF drafting that arose during the hearing and determine whether or not amendments are required. However, I do this for the sake of completeness and clarity, not because I consider that any of those elements of themselves would render the UDF unsatisfactory.

1. There were concerns raised about design requirement R7 in Table 01.
2. As explained earlier in this decision, within the objective of creating greater housing choice, design requirement R7 requires 'A mix of housing typologies, including high density housing (i.e. shop top dwelling) and apartment living must be positioned within proximity to Officer Station and the Town Centre Core'. This requirement is applied to sub-precincts P3 and P5 - Mixed use and Residential. Submissions were made that shop top dwellings in particular are not necessarily anticipated in these sub-precincts and that perhaps requirement R7 should be applied to P2 and P4, the Core and Local business sub-precincts, as well as or instead of P3 and P5.
3. By the conclusion of the hearing, each of the parties in oral submission offered different opinions as to the appropriate drafting of this requirement.
4. I consider that this guideline is correctly applied to P3 and P5 which are the sub-precincts where residential development is expected to be focussed. Table 01 follows on from Figure 4 which is the urban structure and land use map that specifies the uses in the Core and Local business sub-precincts to be retail and commercial, and local business. It makes sense, therefore, for a design requirement concerning housing choice to be directed to the sub-precincts where housing is prioritised.
5. I see the reference to the mix of housing typologies, including high density and apartment, to be a clarification that the higher density typologies can be applied to those sub-precincts (in addition to sub-precincts P2 and P4 where this is already expected). This does not preclude the medium and higher density development of differing typology anticipated in those sub-precincts but focuses on enabling the provision of a higher density and different type of housing typology in those parts of P3 and P5 that are closer to the train station and the town centre core. I do not see any inconsistency with this drafting.
6. However, if, following this decision, the council and VPA determine to further review and amend the UDF pursuant to clause 2.5 of the UGZ4, it is open to them to amend R7, noting that the council raised specific concerns about shop top housing in the residential sub-precinct where it is not anticipated.

1. In reviewing the role of residential within the sub-precincts, I noted that High density residential is included as the sole primary role in section 2.1 in the Residential sub-precinct. However, Table 02 specifies the primary land use to be Medium-High density residential. Although the parties did not make submissions on this element, this is an inconsistency that should be clarified.
2. I note that within the PSP, Figure 6 includes both medium and high density residential in this sub-precinct. However, plan 8 of the PSP includes only High density residential A and High density residential B housing in the Residential sub-precinct of the OTC, noting that the yield for High density residential B (35) in Table 6 is closer to a medium density yield (25) than that anticipated for High density residential A (50). Figure 1 includes several different forms of development and Figure 2, indicative medium density residential, includes 2 to 3 storey townhouse forms, which may provide a higher yield than traditional two storey townhouses.
3. As such, I consider that the PSP, when read as a whole, is seeking medium and high density residential development within the Residential sub-precinct, as those terms are understood within the PSP. I have ordered that the primary role of Residential in section 2.1 be amended to read 'Medium-High density residential'.

1. I have included the items at sub-paragraphs 25(a), (b) and (e) of the applicant's written submissions as agreed between the parties.

1. The applicant made the following submissions concerning Table 06 and Figure 6:
   1. It is unclear whether Table 6 is, in fact, intended to regulate land use, but it is difficult to understand the purpose of referring to land use types in the Table if it is not.
   2. Officer Holdings submits that Table 6 and Figure 6 should be revisited to consider whether the intention behind them can be more clearly expressed, potentially without reference to land use types. As a minimum, the entry for Area B should be amended to include reference as a potential land use, noting that it is expressed as applicable to both the Core and Local Business sub-precincts and residential development is contemplated in those areas by the PSP.
2. I have made orders amending elements of Table 06, earlier in this decision. However, I don't agree with the applicant that the potential land use designation must be amended or deleted. I understand this section of the UDF to be clearly about development typology which, in the Core and Local business sub-precincts, is anticipated to be a commercial typology, with street wall based forms and a primary commercial role.
3. It is clear from the remainder of the UDF that residential development is not precluded in these areas. When the UDF is read as a whole, the reference to potential land use as commercial is not problematic.

1. I have found that general accordance with the PSP, as required by clause 2.5 of the UGZ4, has not been achieved. On that basis, in reviewing 'the state of satisfaction', of both the council and the VPA, I have found that the UDF is not drafted to the satisfaction of those authorities.
2. For the reasons given above, I have determined to vary the decision under review. Once varied, the UDF will be a document that has been prepared satisfactorily.

Paragraphs 25 and 28 of the applicant's written submissions

1. Since the initiation of the proceeding, Officer Holdings, Council and the VPA have been able to agree several changes to the UDF to address matters raised by Officer Holdings. In particular, it is agreed that:
   1. references to 'Commercial frontage' in Figures 3 and 4 of the UDF should be varied to refer to 'Core frontage'. This is consistent with the approach taken in other sub-precincts in those Figures where the frontage is labelled with the name of the sub-precinct.
   2. Design Requirement R4 in Table 1 should be amended to apply to the Core sub-precinct (Precinct 2) as well as the Mixed Use and Local Business sub-precincts (Precincts 3 and 4) currently identified.
   3. Design Requirement 7 in Table 1 should be amended to apply to the Core and Local Business sub-precincts (Precincts 2 and 4) as well as the Mixed Use and Residential sub-precincts (Precincts 3 and 5) currently identified.
   4. the parenthetical phrase 'subject to required environmental testing and Hygain site relocation' should be removed from the Residential land use in Row 4 of Table 2 on the basis that the UGZ4 will continue to apply to require the impact of the Hygain facility on sensitive uses to be assessed.
   5. Figure 6 should be amended to align with Table 7 to allow a setback of between 0 and 3m for access streets in Area A in that Figure.
   6. in order to more accurately reflect the content of Table 10a of the PSP, Note 1 to Table 6 of the UDF should be substituted with a new Note which provides:

Buildings within the town centre should be a minimum of two storeys in height along street frontages, otherwise present a minimum 7 metres street wall height to create a sense of enclosure to the public realm.

1. In light of the narrowing of issues, Officer Holdings no longer seeks a declaration that the UDF is invalid. Rather, it contends that, on the merits, the UDF should be varied to:
   1. identify Residential as a primary role in both the Core and Local Business sub-precincts in Section 2 of the UDF, consistent with the terms of the PSP and UGZ4 or, alternatively, amend Section 2 to remove the distinction between primary and secondary roles;
   2. consistent with this, update Table 2 to identify Residential as a primary land use in both the Core and Local Business sub-precincts or, alternatively, amend Table 2 to remove the distinction between primary and second land uses;
   3. consequential amendments to Figures and other text arising from the above to recognise the role of Residential in the Core and Local Business sub-precincts (e.g., alterations to legends, annotations on Figures, etc.);
   4. amend Table 2 to delete the prohibition on supermarkets, discount department stores and mini majors in the Local Business sub-precinct;
   5. amend Figure 3 in the UDF to remove the roundabout treatments shown at the intersections of Rucker and Hickson Roads;
   6. amend Figures 3 and 5 in the UDF to remove the roundabout treatment shown at the intersection of Stroud Road and Siding Avenue; and
   7. amend the Figures in the UDF to show Rucker Road north of Hickson Road offset from the eastern edge of the Hygain land to reflect the approved outcome of the Permit.

Further amendments agreed by the council and VPA during the hearing

• identify High density residential (above ground floor) as a primary role in Core sub-precinct;
• identify 'High density residential (above ground floor)' as having a secondary role in Local Business sub-precinct;
• amend Figure 3 in the UDF to remove the roundabout treatment shown at the intersections of Rucker and Hickson Roads and replace with a note stating 'intersection treatment to be determined' (amendment to proposal in 28(e));[7]
• amend Figures 3 and 5 in the UDF to remove the roundabout treatment shown at the intersection of Stroud Road and Siding Avenue (as per 28(f));
• amend Table 2 to delete the prohibition on supermarkets, discount department stores and mini majors in the Local Business sub-precinct;
• amendment of the new note to be included in Table 07 as follows:
  • Buildings within the town centre should be a minimum of two storeys in height along street frontages, otherwise present a minimum 7 metres street wall height to create a sense of enclosure to the public realm. This note does not apply to sites identified for taller forms and buildings in Figure 4, Table 6, and Table 7.
• Note 1 in Table 06 to be deleted and replaced with the same wording as the note in Table 07 above.

• Amendment to Figure 3 to include the words (Residential Permitted) to the blue and purple shaded areas in the legend i.e. Retail and Commercial Use (Residential Permitted) and Local Business Use (Residential Permitted).

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Officer Holdings (VIC) Pty Ltd v Cardinia SC [2025] VCAT 97, [48].

[3] In the written submissions of the applicant, [35].

[4] [2017] VCAT 1029, [17].

[5] Noting that there is a section of the Core sub-precinct that is identified in the UDF as High Density Residential B use, commencing from Figure 2. I have explained earlier in this decision that I consider this is a recognition of and response to pre-existing development in this area and the need to integrate with that development as opposed to a change in vision for the Core sub-precinct.

[6] Noting that the parties submitted that the current Residential reference including the Hygain information in Table 02 was information included in the UGZ4 and the UGZ4 will continue to apply to require the impact of the Hygain facility on sensitive uses to be assessed. As such, it is not required to be replicated in the UDF.

[7] Noting that the applicant says there is no treatment required and that the roundabout should be removed with no further note included.