All significant elements of the building identified as being of aesthetic significance, including the components which contribute to the Georgian revival style and the company name to the parapet, are to be retained and will remain evident in the building form.[11]

Council therefore submits the 1941 rear addition is not a 'critical element' to 'understand' and 'read' the significance of the heritage place.

1. Regarding concerns expressed by the respondent regarding 'facadism,' council drew the Tribunal's attention to the definition of facadism in the Heritage Places Inventory, March 2022. This states:

The retention of the exterior face/faces of a building without the three-dimensional built form providing for its/their structural support and understanding of its function.[12]

1. It is council's submission the proposed demolition is consistent with this definition as it demonstrates the following heritage planning outcomes:

a. The extent (at 26m deep) of heritage fabric retention which comprises the 1926 original building notwithstanding the roof form is to be removed;

b. The appropriateness of the overall height of the additions (remarkably reduced relative to decision plans);

c. The appropriateness of the contemporary extension sitting atop and to the rear of the Heritage Building;

d. The proposed conservation and restoration of/to original details, including the façade sign;

e. The flow on benefits of activation in, across and around the Subject Land, particularly to the immediate laneway interfaces.

1. The applicant agrees with council's revised position and relies on the heritage evidence of White.
2. White supports the extent of demolition proposed in the substituted plans, noting in particular:

The rear 1940s addition is not identified in the statement of significance as an element of significance, although it is acknowledged that the addition forms part of the overall existing building and provides evidence of the evolution of the site.

...

The 1940s addition is of utilitarian form and design, broadly consistent with the side elevations of the original building, but does not exhibit the characteristics of the Georgian Revival style.

1. While acknowledging the removal of the entire roof of the building is removing 'original heritage fabric', it is White's opinion that the roof form is concealed from public view and importantly, makes no contribution to the Georgian Revival style clearly observed in the 1928 portion of the heritage building.
2. It is also White's opinion that retention of the entire 1928 building form ensures it will be viewed in three dimensional form from the public realm. White is also satisfied the removal of brickwork associated with the 1940's addition will '... not impact the overall presentation or significance of the building and will otherwise provide fire services for the building that do not currently exist.' White also supports the removal of 'non-heritage fabric'.

1. It is significant in our findings that the respondent did not provide any heritage evidence that could be tested by the parties regarding concerns of facadism and alterations to existing heritage fabric.
2. The only tested heritage evidence before the Tribunal was provided by White. This evidence was thoroughly tested through cross examination from the parties and further clarifying questions from the Tribunal. We found White's detailed assessment of this matter was comprehensive and remained consistent throughout cross examination. White does not agree with the respondent that the retention of the 1928 section of the subject heritage building is 'facadism.' White remained of the strong opinion that the retention of the 1928 building form would be viewed in three dimensional form, particularly given the extent of building form and wall depth that would remain on the review site.
3. Having considered the evidence and cross examination, we have been persuaded by White's evidence regarding the acceptability of the proposed demolition of the 1940's addition to the heritage building.
4. We agree with White and find the SoS is silent on the level of significance that is to be attributed to the 1940's addition. We say this noting White's evidence that the 1940's addition lacks the key built elements that demonstrate the Georgian Revival style shown in the 1928 building. These are the building elements that the SoS identifies as significant to the heritage place. Our site inspection also confirmed the distinct visual differences observed in building form and style between the two sections of the subject building. We have placed weight on this and find the demolition of the rear 1940's portion of the subject building will be an acceptable planning outcome in the HO803.
5. While we acknowledge the demolition of the roof form will remove original heritage fabric from the building, we are satisfied the roof removal will not result in an adverse impact or lack of understanding of the assessed significance of the heritage place. We also find the roof removal is a necessary part of the demolition to accommodate the new rear built form, including podium and tower elements.
6. We have not been persuaded by the respondent that the retention of the 1928 building form is facadism. This is not the opinion of White. Nor does this view align with the definition of facadism that council highlighted in the Heritage Places Inventory, March 2022.
7. More particularly, we are satisfied that the proposal will retain more of the heritage fabric that is associated with the Georgian Revival style, including retention of its distinctive building face and restored business signage to Bouverie Street. The retained building form will be easily understood and continue to be recognised for its heritage significance as described in the SoS.
8. We are satisfied the building will also be understood as a three-dimensional heritage form that includes prominent side wall depth and heritage fabric when observed from oblique views, including those views from the side and rear laneway settings. We find this is an important heritage outcome in our assessment and support for the demolition of the 1940's building addition.
9. Finally, we make the following comments on the Heritage Design Guide 2023. We were advised the guide was formed by council officers and based on a 2013 heritage strategy. As explained by council, the guide was prepared and primarily intended to be of assistance for 'designers and building owners'. We find the guide is therefore of limited assistance to our decision. It is not an incorporated document in the Scheme, and we have given this document limited weight in our assessment.
10. For the reasons outlined above, we are satisfied the proposal will provide an acceptable planning response to partial demolition of the subject heritage building in the HO803.

Is the proposed new building an appropriate response to the HO803 and associated heritage policy?

1. As noted above, clause 43.01-1 requires planning permission to construct a new building or construct or carry out buildings and works. We have set out above the relevant associated heritage policy that we have considered in our assessment of the new building and works proposed on the review site.
2. The proposal includes the construction of a new four storey podium to the rear of the subject building - including a new multi-level building tower. The new building and works are described in the council's written submission. Relevant features are highlighted below:
   • a. Building height of 57 metres (17 storeys plus plant equipment);
   • b. A gross floor area of 10,532 square metres;
   • c. A floor area ratio of 12.8:1;
   • d. Setbacks as follows:
     • i. 8m front;
     • ii. 4m rear;
     • iii. 850mm to the northern and southern boundaries.
   • e. 300 student rooms (total 324 beds);
   • f. 641 square metres of internal communal area (at ratio of 24sqm for every 12 students);
   • g. 335 square metres of external communal area (at ratio of 1sqm for every 12 students);
   • h. Zero car spaces;
   • i. 62 bicycle spaces; and
   • j. No retail offering.
3. The respondent submits the new podium and tower development will result in a development that would visually dominate and disrupt the appreciation of the heritage building form.[13]
4. The respondent is also concerned the new tower building will intrude into important 'airspace' above the principal retained façade. He says this design outcome is not consistent with Figure 17 of the Heritage Design Guide 2023.
5. The respondent also recommends a permit condition should be included if a permit was to issue, that ensures an appropriate three dimensional form of the heritage building is retained. The respondent says a revised condition is also required that addresses conservation management outcomes of the '... principal and secondary elevations, return walls and retained heritage fabric of the subject building.'
6. Council does not support the views of the respondent and submits the revised podium and tower development is an appropriate response to the heritage policy outcomes sought in the Scheme. Importantly, the council notes the lowered tower form, while distinct from the taller built form in the 'Hoddle Grid,' will be subservient to the height and development of the former Carlton United Breweries ('CUB') site and the student accommodation building at 16-32 Leicester Street.
7. Council therefore supports the revised proposal and says the location of the tower to the rear of the retained heritage building, with a consistent 8.0m tower setback at levels 5-16, is an appropriate design response to its heritage context and physical setting.
8. The applicant agrees with council and relies on the expert evidence of White. White agrees the revised height and scale of the podium and tower is appropriate for the heritage place. While accepting a new tower building is to be introduced onto the heritage place, White is satisfied the revised height and scale of the new tower '... will be viewed as a secondary and contemporary element to the rear of the heritage building.' White expresses this opinion, given the retained 1928 heritage section of the heritage building will maintain its '... primacy on the site.' White is also supportive of the proposed 8.0m setback of levels 5-16 provided by the new tower development, noting this will assist in its overall presentation and heritage setting.

1. Clause 15.03-1L-02 includes policy that seeks to ensure new buildings are responsive to key design attributes of the heritage precinct. This includes consideration of:
   • Building height, massing and form.
   • Style and architectural expression.
   • Details.
   • Materials.
   • Front and side setbacks.
   • Orientation.
   • Fencing.
   • Prevailing streetscape height and scale.
2. We find the revised proposal has considered these matters. We are satisfied the location of the new building tower and podium to the rear of the subject land, combined with a lower height and massing, will be visually subservient when viewing the retained 1928 heritage building form from the surrounding public realm. We are also satisfied the revised tower height and podium treatment to Bouverie Street will ensure the new development will be visually subservient to the heritage listed CUB development.
3. We find the revised design response is also consistent with the strategy that seeks new built form to be positioned behind existing significant or contributory buildings in the heritage precinct; including further strategy that seeks new development to be set back behind the prevailing building line in the street. The proposal has satisfactorily achieved these outcomes.[14]
4. We also support the use (albeit in part) of recycled bricks from the demolished 1940's addition within the redevelopment. We are also supportive of the contemporary materials and cladding used in the podium form and tower to the rear, which will be clearly distinguishable from the retained 1928 heritage building form. We find these design treatments are positive outcomes arising from the redevelopment of the heritage place.
5. We have not been persuaded by the respondent that the tower development will visually intrude into the air space above the retained façade of the heritage building. In this regard, we accept the evidence of White who is satisfied the new tower '... will be viewed as a secondary and contemporary element to the rear of the heritage building.' We agree with this assessment.
6. For the reasons expressed above, we find the proposal will provide an appropriate design response sought by the HO803 and associated heritage policy.

1. Draft conditions circulated by the council before the hearing were discussed between the parties at the conclusion of the proceeding. We are satisfied these conditions are generally reflective and responsive to the permit triggers and referral authority requirements that apply under the Scheme.
2. While acknowledging our assessment has been confined to matters relevant to planning permission required under the HO803, clause 85(1)(b)(ii) of the P&E Act also requires the Tribunal to consider whether conditions should be applied if the responsible authority is directed to grant a permit for the proposal.
3. We have therefore considered the oral submissions made by the parties on council's draft conditions. We note the applicant advised it did not contest any of the conditions proposed by council.
4. The respondent submitted that a revised condition (draft condition 23) was required to address his concerns around conservation management outcomes. We note this draft condition was revised following discussions between council and applicant, after circulation of the applicant's amended plans. The respondent was not part of this discussion.
5. Upon reviewing the condition at the hearing, the respondent conceded that the redrafted condition was acceptable. We have therefore retained this condition without change as circulated by council with its written submission.
6. The respondent also submitted that a new condition should be added that addressed concerns around 'adaptive re-use rather than demolition.' We do not support the inclusion of such a condition.
7. We find this issue has been considered in the context of the 'merits' case put by the respective parties. We find the respondent's submission seeking such a condition would be contrary to the findings we have made above that support the partial demolition of the1940's addition to the heritage building.
8. We have also undertaken some minor editing and formatting of the council's draft conditions which do not change their purpose or intent.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A to this decision.

To construct a building or construct or carry out works.

To construct a building or construct or carry out works.

To externally alter a building by structural work, rendering, sandblasting or in any other way.

To construct a building or construct or carry out works.

To construct a building or to construct or carry out works.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development (including any demolition or bulk excavation) on the land, an electronic copy of plans drawn to scale must be submitted to the responsible authority generally in accordance with the plans substituted in VCAT Proceeding P634/2025 (identified as Project No. 13272, Drawing Nos. TP095-TP105, TP117-TP118, TP200-TP201, TP203, TP210-TP211, TP220 and TP221 (all Rev 03), and prepared by Plus Architecture, but amended to show:

(a) A notation on the plans confirming that all service doors to Bouverie Place do not project beyond the building line by more than 100mm when in the fully open position.

(b) Any Level 4 outdoor terrace screens or barriers required to address wind comfort criteria designed and located to minimise adverse impacts on the heritage value of the host building.

(c) Rearrangement for improved functionality of the study/robe/eating areas of the following Room Types:

1. Type 04.
2. Type 11.

(d) No encroachment of ground level canopies over the Alma Place title boundary.

(e) All external window openings to be retained within the existing building shown on Section drawings to demonstrate that no new internal floors or ceilings within the existing building intersect with the windows.

(f) Material and finish of the Level 4 wind screen.

(g) On an updated proposed ground floor plan, all existing ground level windows, pedestrian doors and vehicle accessways at 16-32 Leicester Street with an interface to Alma Place and Bouverie Place.

(h) Any changes in accordance with the corresponding Environmentally Sustainable Design condition.

(i) Any changes in accordance with the corresponding Landscape Scheme condition.

(j) Any changes in accordance with the corresponding Waste Management Plan condition.

(k) Any changes in accordance with the corresponding Wind Report condition.

(l) Any changes in accordance with the corresponding Conservation Works Plan condition.

(m) Any changes in accordance with the corresponding Melbourne Water conditions.

These amended plans and updated development summary must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and when approved shall be the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The use and / or development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and / or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit must not be amended for any reason without the consent of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to occupation of the development all buildings and works required by this permit must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the development starts (excluding demolition or bulk excavation), a Façade Strategy must be submitted to and be approved by the responsible authority. The Façade Strategy for the development must detail a schedule of materials, finishes and details including but not limited to the colour, type of materials (and quality), construction, appearance and sections of the façade system and sufficient detail (including 1:20 drawings) to denote high quality detailing and finishes. When approved, the Façade Strategy will be endorsed to form part of the permit.

Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Statement

1. Before the development commences, an amended Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and prepared by a suitable qualified person must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the amended SMP report will be endorsed and form party of this permit. The amended SMP report must be generally in accordance with the SMP report prepared by GIW and dated 29 October 2024 (Revision B), but modified to include or show:

(a) MUSIC modelling to demonstrate 40% annual flow reduction as per Green Star Buildings v1 Credit 39 requirement.

(b) Clarification on rainwater tank connection to WCs, demand volume calculation and catchment area.

(c) Details of the Green Star Accredited Professional (individual) who has been engaged and evidence that a GSAP will be engaged for the life of the project.

(d) Airtightness review and a proposed airtightness target.

(e) Daylight, view and glare control narrative against the five requirements for the Credit 11 Minimum Expectation.

(f) An indicative whole of building daylight calculation (based on inferred performance or otherwise) to support the claim that 'the daylight amenity is considered to be acceptable'.

(g) A project-specific pre-screening climate change checklist and climate change risk and adaptation assessment for the development.

(h) A site plan showing materials that reduce urban heat and demonstrate Credit 19 Heat Resilience can be achieved.

(i) Details on how building's upfront carbon emissions can achieve at least 20% lower than those of a reference building.

(j) Provide a pathway (ideally modelling) demonstrating how the 20% saving in energy use will be achieved.

(k) Updated energy modelling that accounts for thermal bridging in the building fabric and includes the thermal performance of floors and roofs.

(l) Indicate tank size and re-uses, and proprietary devices on town planning drawings.

(m) Any other changes as a consequence to the requirements of Condition 1.

Implementation of Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)

1. Prior to the occupation of any building approved under this permit, a report from the author of the endorsed SMP report, or similarly qualified persons or companies, outlining how the performance outcomes specified in the amended ESD report have been implemented must be submitted to the responsible authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and must confirm and provide sufficient evidence that all measures specified in the approved ESD report have been implemented in accordance with the relevant approved plans.

1. Prior to commencement of development, a complete Green Infrastructure Landscape Package and Landscape Maintenance Plan in connection with the proposed development must be submitted to and be approved by the responsible authority. The landscape package must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plans prepared by Urbis and dated Rev A - 2024, but modified to include the following:

(a) Detailed planter sections including soil volumes, support structures, diverse schedule of species including indicative planting locations with specific consideration given to tree species / placement / soil volume requirements and specified lightweight growing media.

(b) Indicative planting locations to consider planter widths to ensure the volume of soil can accommodate root volume of planting.

(c) Planter depths for all planters, with trees to be no less than 1m with a minimum soil volume of 28 cubic metres.

(d) Consideration of further greening added to the Level 4 outdoor area, along with consideration of more shade trees and understory plantings around seated areas.

(e) An irrigation system demonstrating the use of non-potable water sources (rainwater, storm water and recycled water).

(f) A Green Factor score card submitted along with the landscape plan.

(g) A Landscape Maintenance Plan providing comprehensive details of proposed maintenance regimes with provision for maintenance beyond the fifty two week period following Practical Completion.

(h) Any other changes as a consequence to the requirements of Condition 1.

Except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority the approved landscaping must be implemented prior to the occupation of the development. The landscaped area(s) must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, an amended Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be prepared and submitted to the Melbourne City Council - Engineering Services. The updated WMP must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by One Mile Grid and dated 8 November 2024, but modified to address the following:

(a) The provision of a fixed structure to the enclosure around the chute termination points and linear track system to prevent access to unintended users (use of a curtain is unsuitable).

(b) Modification of the waste storage area, including an increase to the overall size as necessary, so that a bin of each type is immediately accessible to the user.

(c) Updated architectural plans attached to the WMP.

(d) Any other changes as a consequence to the requirements of Condition 1.

Waste storage and collection arrangements must not be altered without prior consent of the Melbourne City Council - Waste and Recycling.

Private Tactile Ground Surface Indicator (TGSI) not within the Road Reserve

1. All Tactile Ground Surface Indicator (TGSI) serving private properties shall be contained within the property boundary. Stair shall be set back sufficiently to allow the installation of TGSI's in accordance with AS/NZS 1428.4.1 - Design for access and mobility.

1. All projections over the street alignment must be drained to a legal point of discharge in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

1. The title boundaries for the property may not exactly agree with the road alignments of the abutting the City of Melbourne's laneways. The approved works must not result in structures that encroach onto the City of Melbourne's laneways.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a stormwater drainage system, incorporating integrated water management design principles, must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority - City Infrastructure. This system must be constructed prior to the occupation of the development and provision made to connect this system to the City of Melbourne's underground stormwater drainage system.

1. All groundwater and water that seeps from the ground adjoining the building basement (seepage water) and any overflow from a reuse system which collects groundwater or seepage water must not be discharged to the Council's drainage network. All contaminated water must be treated via a suitable treatment system and fully reused on site or discharged into a sewerage network under a relevant trade waste agreement with the responsible service authority.

1. The roads adjoining the site along Alma Place, Bouverie Place and Bouverie Street must be reconstructed together with associated works including the renewal of kerb and channel and the modification of services as necessary at the cost of the developer, in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

1. The footpath adjoining the site along Bouverie Street must be reconstructed in sawn bluestone together with associated works including the renewal of kerb and channel, provision of street furniture and modification of services as necessary at the cost of the developer, in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

1. Existing street levels in roads adjoining the site must not be altered for the purpose of constructing new vehicle crossings or pedestrian entrances without first obtaining approval from the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

Existing Street Lighting not to be Altered without Approval

1. All street lighting assets temporarily removed or altered to facilitate construction works shall be reinstated once the need for removal or alteration has been ceased. Existing public street lighting must not be altered without first obtaining the written approval of the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

1. Existing street furniture must not be removed or relocated without first obtaining the written approval of the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

1. All street furniture such as street litter bins recycling bins, seats and bicycle rails must be supplied and installed on Bouverie Street footpaths outside the proposed building to plans and specifications first approved by the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, excluding preliminary site works, demolition and any clean up works, or as may otherwise be agreed with the City of Melbourne, a lighting plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of Council. The lighting plan should be generally consistent with Council's Lighting Strategy and include the provision of public lighting in Alma Place and Bouverie Place. The lighting works must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the use/occupation of the development, in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the responsible authority - City Infrastructure.

Noise to Comply with Noise Limit and Assessment Protocol 1826.4

1. Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed noise levels as determined by the EPA Victoria Publication Noise Limit and Assessment Protocol 1826.4 or result in unreasonable and aggravated noise as defined by Part 5.3 of the Environment Protection Regulation 2021, or other equivalent policy to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. No loudspeaker, amplifier, relay or other audio equipment may be installed or used outside the premises at any time.

1. Prior to the commencement of works (including demolition), a Conservation Works Plan (CWP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The CWP must be prepared by a suitability qualified conservation architect or an appropriately experienced heritage practitioner to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The CWP must include, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) Retention and preservation of the 'Modern Printing Works' lettering to the parapet of the Bouverie Street elevation.

(b) Replicated form, portions and detail of the existing metal framed windows if being replaced for the purposes of providing compliance with the National Construction Code.

(c) Documented conditions of the retained sections of the building to aid in their preservation throughout the construction of the development.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or site preparation, a structural heritage assessment prepared by a suitably qualified structural heritage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority, demonstrating the means by which the retained portions of building will be supported during demolition and construction works to ensure their retention, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The recommendations contained within this report must be implemented at no cost to the City of Melbourne and be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

All works must then be carried out in accordance with the endorsed structural documentation to ensure the ongoing stability and support of the existing structures.

1. Prior to commencement of the use the recommendations contained within the Acoustic Assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic, dated 05/02/2025 must be implemented at no cost to the Melbourne City Council and be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use, the recommendations contained within the Wind Impact Assessment prepared by Vipac and dated 22 September 2025 must be implemented at no cost to the Melbourne City Council and be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Specular light reflectance must be less than 15 per cent for all external building glazing and cladding materials and finishes when measured at an angle of 90 degrees to the surface of the material (normal incidence), except with the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or bulk excavation, a detailed construction and demolition management plan must be submitted to and be approved by the responsible authority - Construction Management Group. This construction management plan must be prepared in accordance with the Melbourne City Council - Construction Management Plan Guidelines and is to consider the following:

(a) public safety, amenity and site security.

(b) operating hours, noise and vibration controls.

(c) air and dust management.

(d) stormwater and sediment control.

(e) waste and materials reuse.

(f) traffic management.

(g) an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP). The AIA-TPP must identify all impacts to public trees, be in accordance with AS 4970-2009 (Protection of tress on development sites), AS4373-2007 (Pruning of Amenity Trees), and be authored by a qualified consulting arborist (min. AQF Level 5), including, but not limited to:

1. A public tree location plan drawn to scale including proposed/approved building design, construction zones, site access, machinery, equipment, and temporary structures required to enable demolition, excavation, and construction, where these works are to impact public tree(s).
2. City of Melbourne asset numbers for the public trees to be impacted (found at http://melbourneurbanforestvisual.com.au).
3. The general condition and specific data of each public tree presented concisely with the assistance of tables and photos.
4. A written assessment of all public trees located adjoining property, detailing any construction impact the proposal will have on these trees.
5. Reference finalised Construction and Traffic Management Plan, including designs, details, and dimensions of any public protection gantries, loading zones and machinery locations.
6. Site specific details of the temporary tree protection fencing or hoarding to be used to isolate public trees from the demolition and construction activities. Details of any other tree protection measures considered necessary and appropriate to the works.
7. Specific details of any design modifications or construction methodologies to be used within the Tree Protection Zone of any public trees. These must be provided for any utility connections or civil engineering works.
8. Any pruning required to public trees must include detailed specifications with reference to marked images.
9. A supervision schedule for the Project Arborist, interim reporting periods and final completion report (necessary for bond release).

1. No public tree adjacent to the site can be removed or pruned in any way without the written approval of the City of Melbourne.
2. Approval for any tree removal is subject to the Tree Policy 2021, Council's Delegations Policy and requirements for public notification, and a briefing paper to councillors. All options for tree retention must be explored and exhausted to the satisfaction of a City of Melbourne Arborist before public tree removal, or significant pruning, is approved.
3. All costs in connection with the removal and replacement of public trees, including any payment for the amenity and ecological services value of a tree to be removed, must be met by the applicant/developer/owner of the site. Costs will be provided and must be agreed to before council remove the subject trees.

1. All new or replacement tree plots must maximise available soil volume and rooting area, with either enlarged pit dimensions, relocating, or providing protection of underground services or the use of structural soils.

1. All works (including demolition), within the Tree Protection Zone of public trees must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed TPP and supervised by a suitably qualified Arborist, where identified in the report, except with the further written consent of the City of Melbourne.
2. Following the approval of a TPP a bond equivalent for the combined environmental and amenity values of public trees that may be affected by the development will be held against the TPP for the duration of construction activities. The bond amount will be calculated by council and provided to the applicant/developer/owner of the site. Should any tree be adversely impacted on, the City of Melbourne will be compensated for any loss of amenity, ecological services or amelioration works incurred.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans under this permit, amended plans to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and Council must be submitted to and approved by Melbourne Water and Council. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (i.e. Rev 3 dated 19/09/2025) but modified to include:

(a) natural surface levels and floor levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD);

(b) the Finished Floor Level (FFL) of ground floor fire stair area with basement and external access, must be set no lower than 21.03 metres to AHD (with the exception of any transitional areas containing landings, steps or ramps to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water.

1. The building must be constructed with finished floor levels set no lower than:

(a) Bike Room, Common laundry and Communal area (west of lifts): 21.4 to AHD.

(b) Communal area (east of lifts) and Lift Lobby: 21.3 metres AHD.

(c) Lounge and entrance corridor: 21.1 metres AHD.

(d) Ground floor fire stair with basement and external access: 21.03 metres AHD.

1. All entry and exits points to the basement other than the fire stair, including windows, openings and vents, that could allow entry of floodwaters to the basement, must be set no lower than 21.5 metres to AHD.
2. The layout of buildings and works inclusive of finished floor levels at ground floor level as shown on the plans must not be altered without prior written consent from Melbourne Water.

1. Prior to the occupation of the development, a Student Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The SMP must establish a set of 'house rules' for the use, to be followed thereafter to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The SMP must ensure that a suitably qualified full time manager with responsibility to oversee student behaviour is available to students at all times and must detail the maintenance, cleaning, garbage storage and collection, supervision and security of the site.

1. Prior to occupation of the land, the owner of the land must enter into an agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). The agreement must provide the following:

(a) The accommodation provided on the land is to be used for the exclusive accommodation of students enrolled full time at a secondary or tertiary level educational institution and to be vacated within three months of completion of full time studies.

(b) The building to operate at all times in accordance with the SMP as required by Condition 39 of this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The SMP must establish a set of 'house rules' for the use, to be followed thereafter, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The plan must ensure that a suitably qualified full time manager with responsibility to oversee student behaviour permanently resides on the site and must detail the maintenance, cleaning, garbage storage and collection, supervision and security of the site.

(c) The requirements contained in the agreement shall form part of any lease of the premises which the owner of the land under this permit may enter into with another party.

The owner of the land must pay all of the Melbourne City Council's reasonable legal costs and expenses of this agreement, including preparation, execution and registration on title.

1. This permit will expire if one or more of the following circumstances apply:

(a) The development is not started within three years of the date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within five years of the date of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the permit if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months afterwards. The responsible authority may extend the time for completion of the permit if a request is made in writing within 12 months after the permit expires and the development started lawfully before the permit expired.

[1] Substituted plans removed the proposed retail/commercial space at ground floor in the revised floor layout.

[2] A permit is not triggered for the proposal under the PO1.

[3] 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.

[4] Tribunal Order dated 17 October 2025, order 7.

[5] Source: City North Heritage Review 2013: Statements of Significance.

[6] See page 95 of 113 of the City North Heritage Review - Carlton (Vol 2). We note the historic heritage grading system has since been updated by Amendment C258 to the Scheme.

[7] See paragraph [14], Evidence Statement, Katherine White, Lovell Chen.

[8] Paragraph [34], Evidence Statement, Katherine White, Lovell Chen.

[9] This is supported by White in her Written Evidence Statement, paragraph [59],

[10] See pages [13], [23] and [28] of the Heritage Design Guide 2023.

[11] Paragraphs [53] and [55] of Katherine White's Written Evidence Statement.

[12] Page 4 of 250 in the Heritage Places Inventory, March 2022 (amended August 2025).

[13] Figure 10 of the Heritage Design Guide 2023.

[14] Clause 15.03-1L-02 also includes a similar strategy for new buildings in the Capital City Zone that seeks to position new development in line with the prevailing building line in the street.