To facilitate housing growth in the form of apartment developments of a high quality design and finish.

1. In this context, there is an expectation that the character of this RGZ3 area will change as housing at increased densities in buildings up to four storeys, and of different housing types, and specifically apartments, are developed. Clearly bigger, bulkier buildings than the original single storey detached houses is reasonably expected in this location.
2. The RGZ3 design objectives do not seek breaks or recesses along the side elevations. Rather they seek 'To ensure that the height, scale and form of development respects any sensitive residential interfaces and minimises the appearance of visual bulk'.
3. The Council has not raised concern about the visual bulk of the proposal in the streetscape. Its concern is specific to the lack of 'significant breaks and recesses' in the upper storey.
4. I am satisfied that the design of the proposed upper storey is acceptable. I say this for the following reasons.
5. I place more weight on the design objectives and decision guidelines of the RGZ3 than the general strategies of the local character policy that apply to all residential zones in the municipality.
6. I am persuaded by the applicant that while apartment buildings can be articulated, they rely on a lift core and 'thus cannot readily be broken into separate forms'.
7. The design objective of the RGZ3 seeks to minimise the appearance of visual bulk. I am satisfied that it may not be necessary to include significant breaks or recesses in the building massing to achieve this. Rather, minimising the appearance of visual bulk and managing building massing can be achieved through other design techniques.
8. I am satisfied that the height, scale and form of the development overall respect the sensitive residential interfaces to the side boundaries of the site and minimises the appearance of visual bulk. This is because the side elevations of the proposed building overall are well articulated through variations in building setbacks, the upper level being recessed in from the level below along either side, window fenestration, balconies, materials, finishes, and colours.
9. For these same reasons, I am satisfied that the articulation of the building manages and breaks up the building massing in an effective way to minimise the visual bulk impact of the proposal as it will be viewed from the adjoining properties either side.
10. While the rear yard of the adjoining property to the south can reasonably be considered a sensitive residential interface, I am satisfied that the full extent of the upper level will not be readily visible from this area. The front half of the building aligns with the siting of the dwelling on the property to the south. Only the rear half of the proposal will be readily visible from the rear yard of the adjoining property. The stairwell protrudes along the southern side of the proposed building, effectively dividing the upper level into two parts.
11. At present there is no residential development on the adjoining property to the north. As such there is no sensitive residential interface on this side. Even if the rooming house development that has been permitted on that land does get built, I am satisfied that it will not present a sensitive interface. This is because:
    1. The plans on which the decision to grant a permit for that proposal, and the plans currently being considered by the Council for an amendment to that permit, do not include areas of secluded private open space adjacent to the shared boundary with the site. While there is private open space between the two rooming house buildings, it is shown to be a service yard to be used for bin storage, clothes drying facilities, storage, rainwater tanks, and bicycle spaces.
    2. The bedroom windows in the upper levels of each rooming house building facing the site include opaque glazing.
    3. While there are unscreened bedroom windows in the ground floor level of each rooming house window facing the site, their primary outlook will be to the sideway and boundary fence on their own land, not upwards to the proposal.
12. My only concern with the upper level of the proposed building relates to the material and finish/colour of the external cladding. The upper level is to be clad in natural zincalume metal cladding. Neither the applicant nor the Council could tell me about the degree of reflectivity of this material. The Council commented that if the zincalume is not pre-dulled it would be a concern. I am satisfied that a permit condition could require an amended materials schedule to include a material, finish and/or colour that is not reflective. This could include a 'pre dulled' or 'pre aged' zincalume as suggested by the Council.

1. The Council takes issue with the proposal's non compliances with the side and rear setback requirements under standard B17 at clause 55.04.
2. I am satisfied that the variations to the side boundary setbacks are minor and will not result in result in any unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.
3. I am persuaded by the applicant that the variations in the setbacks are in the order of about 0.1 metre and 0.5 metre. The parts of the building that encroach into the required setbacks are the upper portions of walls. The vast majority of the proposed building complies with or is set back further than the minimum setbacks required under standard B17.
4. I am satisfied that the reductions in the setbacks will not result in unacceptable impacts on the daylight and sunlight to the dwellings on either side. The Council has confirmed that the proposal complies with the 'north facing windows' and 'overshadowing open space' standards at clause 55.04.
5. While not determinative, it is relevant that there are no objections to this proposal from the owners or occupiers of the adjoining properties to either side. This reinforces my finding that the variations to the setbacks will not result in unacceptable amenity impacts.
6. Regarding the rear setback, the issue relates to the set back of the upper level, which requires a 5 metre setback under the local variation to standard B17 in the RGZ3 schedule. I am satisfied that the proposed 4.4 metre setback is a minor variation in its context and is acceptable. The rear boundary interface is to a laneway. It is not a sensitive interface where there might be amenity impacts. Furthermore, the proposed setback is greater than the rear setback of the permitted development.

1. The proposal includes a 1.8 metre high fence to be constructed within 3 metres of the front boundary. The Council submits that high front fencing is not consistent with the existing urban context, the proposed fencing will be a discordant element, and that it should not be introduced in this location.
2. The Council relies on the front fences standard B32 at clause 55.06-2, the integration with the street standard B51 at clause 55.07-17, and the local neighbourhood character policy. As relevant, these standards and policy seek to:
   • encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character;
   • limit high front fencing, unless consistent with the existing urban context;
   • provide low and visually permeable front fences, where proposed; and
   • Design front fences to:
     • Maintain the character of open streetscapes and the pattern of low fencing.
     • Retain views of the building from the street.
3. I find that the proposed front fence is acceptable. I say this for the following reasons.
4. The proposed front fence encloses the secluded private open space for the ground level apartment G.01. I acknowledge that the local character policy includes a general strategy that seeks to 'Avoid the provision of secluded private open space within the street setback'. However, this is a policy that applies to all residential areas throughout Monash. This policy must be balanced against competing objectives of other policies that seek to encourage the intensification of housing in well-located areas such as in and around the Clayton Major Activity Centre and the Monash National Employment Cluster, in which the site is located.[2]
5. While high front fences may not be a common feature within the Thomas Street at the moment, given the street is in the RGZ3, the existing character can reasonably be expected to change.
6. As noted by the Tribunal in _SP18 Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2023][3]_in relation to another site in Clayton that is also in the RGZ3:

The provision of private open space in the frontage for an apartment is a common occurrence and allows for the efficient use of the site in a RGZ3;

1. The provision of private open space in a front setback necessitates some fencing or walls to provide privacy and security.
2. I am satisfied that the design and siting of the fence provide an acceptable response to the site's context.
3. The proposed fence is not a solid fence or wall. It is to comprise vertical blades, with a perforated screen set behind a section of the fence. Landscaping and the open space that sits behind the fence on the northern half of the front setback area will be visible from the street.
4. The fence steps back from the front boundaries, allowing for a landscape treatment along the front boundary. This landscaping will substantially screen or minimise the visual impact of the fence.
5. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the siting and design of the proposed fence reflects a 'high quality design and finish' and provides 'an open garden setting' consistent with the design objectives of the RGZ3 schedule.

THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF CAR PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED IS ACCEPTABLE

1. The proposal provides four car parking spaces on the site. This represents a reduction of five car parking spaces from what is required under the car parking provisions at clause 52.06.
2. The Council considers that the car parking reduction should not be supported. The Council submits that it does not support reliance on the limited supply of unrestricted on-street parking in nearby streets, which is consistently in high demand from train commuters and other users.
3. I find that the reduction in the number of car parking spaces to be provided on the site is acceptable.
4. The existing permit allows a parking reduction of five spaces. The proposal requires the same reduction. The difference between the car parking reduction for the permitted development and what is proposed is the number of dwellings that will not have a car parking space. While only one dwelling in the permitted development does not have a car parking space, four dwellings in the proposed development will not have a car parking space.
5. Even though the nature of the car parking reduction is to change, I am not persuaded that the impact of the car parking reduction is not the same. There is no traffic evidence before me to persuade me that the nature of the car parking reduction will change the impact on the demand for on street parking or the capacity for any such demand to be accommodated in the surrounding street network. I just have the Council's assertions that it is unacceptable for parking shortfalls on one site to 'push out' into other streets.
6. The proposal for a reduction in five car parking spaces will rely on the existing on street parking and alternative transport modes to the same extent as does the existing permitted development.
7. The site has excellent access to shops, services, and public transport, within the Clayton Major Activity Centre. This is an ideal location for residents to not be reliant on owning a car for transport.

1. The Council has raised concerns regarding various details of the plans and the design of the proposal.
2. These relate to overlooking, internal views, noise impacts, design detail, landscaping, private open space, storage, waste management, site services, and energy efficiency/Environmentally Sustainable Design.
3. Some of these issues have been resolved by the substitution of the amended plans for the application plans. The Council proposed draft permit conditions to address some of the matters. These conditions were discussed on a without prejudice basis at the hearing. While it is not necessary for me to document all my reasons for not including many of the permit conditions proposed by the Council or for changing the drafting of some of the permit conditions, for the benefit of the parties I make the following comments.
4. The Council is seeking for an additional landscaping strip adjacent to the rear boundary, next to the rearmost car parking space. I am not persuaded this is necessary. This landscaping strip will be at the interface with a lane and the rear of commercial properties which is used for car parking and loading bays. Landscaping is not a feature of this rear service lane. In any case, the landscaping would be screened from view by the high fence to be constructed along the rear boundary.
5. The Council is seeking a condition regarding attenuating the noise impacts from the bank of four air conditioners at ground level along the southern side of the building. I am not persuaded by the Council that this is necessary. These air conditioners are set back from the side boundary with the adjoining property to the south and are not opposite or near to a habitable room window in the dwelling on that land.
6. The Council wants a condition on the permit to require sections of render to be included in the front facade to break up the extent of red brick. I am not persuaded this is necessary. I am satisfied that the materials and finishes in the building facade are acceptable in the site's context. I note that the materials and finishes are not dissimilar to those in the nearby apartment building at 6-8 Belmont Avenue.

1. After the hearing I identified that in the draft permit conditions, the description of what the permit allows includes an incorrect reference to the permit requirement under the car parking requirements at clause 52.06. This order uses the correct reference to clause 52.06-3.

1. For the reasons given above, an amendment to the permit is granted, subject to conditions.

Construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the Residential Growth Zone - Schedule 3.

Construct a front fence within 3 metres of a street where:

• the fence is associated with two or more dwellings on a lot; and
• the fence exceeds the maximum height specified in clause 55.02-8;

Reduce the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.

1. Before the development starts, a copy of plans drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Taylor Reynolds Architects dated 3 July 2025 (drawings numbers TP01(B) - TP13(B) ), but modified to show:

(a) the bedroom windows of apartments 1.01 and 1.03 to be screened in accordance with standard B2 of clause 55 (as it existed in the Monash Planning Scheme immediately prior to the approval date of Amendment VC267);

(b) any changes required by the Waste Management Plan in accordance with condition 14;

(c) any changes required by the Sustainable Design Assessment report, in accordance with condition 16;

(d) the metal cladding on the upper level to be a non-reflective material or similar to the satisfaction of the responsible authority; and

(e) details of the pedestrian gate within the southern side setback area.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. All common boundary fences are to be a minimum of 1.8 metres above the finished ground level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fence heights must be measured above the highest point on the subject or adjoining site, within 3 metres of the fence line.

1. Before the development starts, a landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd dated February 2025.

1. Before the occupation of the buildings allowed by this permit, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All stormwater collected on the site from all hard surface areas must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties or the road reserve.
2. The private on-site drainage system must prevent stormwater discharge from the/each driveway over the footpath and into the road reserve. The internal drainage system may include either:

(a) a trench grate (minimum internal width of 150 mm) located within the property boundary and not the back of footpath; and/or

(b) shaping the internal driveway so that stormwater is collected in grated pits within the property; and/or

(c) another Council approved equivalent.

1. All stormwater collected on the site is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. The design of any internal detention system is to be approved by Council's Engineering Department prior to drainage works commencing. Further information regarding the design of the on-site detention system is provided in the notes section of this permit.
2. The nominated point of stormwater connection for the site is to the north-west corner of the property where the entire site's stormwater must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Council pit in the laneway outside rear boundary to be constructed to Council Standards. If no pit exists, or the existing pit is either non-standard or in poor condition a new pit must be constructed to the Council standards.
3. Any works within the laneway must ensure the laneway be reinstated to Council standards.

1. The existing redundant crossing is to be removed and replaced with kerb and channel. The footpath and naturestrip are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.
2. Approval of each proposed crossing, and a permit for installation or modification of any vehicle crossing is required from Council's Engineering Department.
3. Engineering permits must be obtained for new or altered vehicle crossings and new connections to Council pits and these works are to be inspected by Council's Engineering Department. A refundable security deposit of $1,500 is to be paid prior to the drainage works commencing.

1. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans required under to Condition 1, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must provide details of a regular (including recyclables) collection service for the subject land and be prepared in accordance with the Multi-Unit and Commercial Developments Waste Management Plan Guide for Applicants (City of Monash). The plan must include the following:

(a) the method and location of collection of all waste from the land;

(b) waste volume calculation and total waste generated per waste stream;

(c) frequency of waste collection and permitted collection times;

(d) plans showing the location of bin storage areas, required bin storage equipment and features, number of bins and location of temporary bin storage at collection point(s);

(e) provision of bin cleaning equipment, washing facilities and sewer disposal within the waste storage area;

(f) the type and size of private waste vehicles (if the waste collection service is to be undertaken by a private company);

(g) details of who will be responsible for taking out and returning bins to the collection point (if collection is proposed to be undertaken from the street).

1. The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Concurrent with the Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the Sustainable Design Assessment will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SDA assessment is to ensure the maximum NatHERS annual cooling load in Clause 55.07-1 Energy Efficiency (Standard B35) of the Monash Planning Scheme is achieved.

1. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development has not started before two (2) years from the date of issue.

(b) The development is not completed before four (4) years from the date of issue.

1. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months of the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; or within 12 months of the permit expiry date, where the development has lawfully started before the permit expires.

[1] The submissions 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] For example, clause 16.01 Residential development