Pursuant to section 55 of the Act, Council forwarded a request to the Applicant by letter dated 19 January 2004, which sought further information. The Applicant responded by submitting amended plans. As the applicant did not provide all the information requested, a further request was forwarded to the Applicant on 4 March 2004. This further information was provided by the Applicant on 11 March 2004. This further information was provided by the Applicant on 11 March 2004.

The proposal was advertised and, as a result of the advertising, Council received nine (9) objections. A summary of the concerns expressed is as follows:

On 20 May, 2004, the Applicant commenced this proceeding.

16 A six storey building with two levels of basement car parking is proposed. The building will contain forty eight apartments and six ground floor retail tenancies. Further details regarding the proposal are contained in the plans for the proposal and in the submissions presented by the various parties and expert witnesses. These materials are attached to the Tribunal file.

Will the Proposed Built Form fit into the character and streetscape context

17 During assessment of the proposal the Yarra City Council, the plans were referred internally to an Urban Designer. The Urban Designer's response was summarised in the Delegation Report dated 22 June 2004 and attached to the Tribunal file as follows:

* The proposal introduces a building height that is totally new to the streetscape of Victoria Street;

* The site's relatively large size, multiple frontages, regular configuration, in addition to its location within an activity centre, all are factors that maximise its development potential and in fact make it a strategic site suitable for major redevelopment in the form of higher density mixed use development;

* This does not necessarily mean totally ignoring the particular context of the site. The proposal should endeavour to achieve development that is respectful and responsive to the context. A development that fits in the existing streetscape;

* The proposal could reach five (5) storey provided that the upper levels are generously set back from all frontages to minimise their visibility at street level and ensuring that no overshadowing is caused to the streetscape of Victoria Street;

* Recessing the upper levels together with careful massing modulation and façade articulation should assist in minimising the perceived bulk of the proposal;

* The use of a wide range of colours has added to the clutter;

* The overall composition form, façade detailing and design seems to be an overstand; and

* The proposal hardly shares any common/uniform lines, alignments or details with the exisitng streetscape or neighbouring buildings.

18 The site is located in a Major Activity Centre as identified in Direction 1 "A More Compact City", Melbourne 2030. The initial consideration in these reasons relates to the context of the proposal and whether the built form will fit into the context of the activity centre given the planning policy context and the character of the area.

19 Mr Montebello provided the Tribunal with the relevant section of the Character Study for the area containing the review site. The character description appears to focus largely on a consistent area of built form, and in particular weatherboard cottages, in the residential areas. Mr Czarny did not emphasise this description in his report but stated that he had conducted research and some consultation (from a shop front and by other means) in relation to a draft strategic study for the Victoria Street activity centre which includes the review site. As a result of his study he has formed views about the built form, character and future planning of the centre.

20 At the time of the hearing, the draft work being conducted by Mr Czarny had not been through the initial stages of Council adoption, a formal process of exhibition, submission and Panel review that are usually required for inclusion of a reference document or an amendment in the Planning Scheme. In these circumstances, as submitted by Mr Canavan and Mr Montebello the draft document can be given little statutory weight in these proceedings.

21 A Panel process has however been completed with respect to Amendment C50, which contains proposed guidelines for built form over three storeys. Given the stage of the Amendment process the guidelines are considered to be seriously entertained within the meaning of the Planning and Environment Act and will be referred to in more detail in these reasons.

22 Mr Czarny was of the view that the traditional main street building heights should generally be retained at the street frontage ("street wall") along Victoria Street. He was also of the opinion that the future character could include the connection of the individual buildings subject to heritage overlays along Victoria Street between Hoddle Street and Church Street. Mr McGurn provided a plan showing the location of the properties with heritage overlay control in Victoria Street and the distribution is not intense in the vicinity of the review site.

23 During the inspection the Tribunal noted that the built form opposite or to the south of the review site has reasonably consistent two "traditional" (Mr Czarny's term) storey hard edge to Victoria Street while there is a backdrop of public housing towers providing a more robust sense of scale. On the north side of Victoria Street, where the review site is located there is a more broken pattern. The built form to the east of the review site is set back from the street at ground level. The review site forms a wide gap relative to the general subdivisional and built form pattern along Victoria Street and is now vacant. The two to three storey height of the commercial building immediately to the north can be seen. To the north along Nicholson Street the heritage warehouse at the intersection of Nicholson Street with Mollison Street can be seen rising to a height of approximately four modern storeys above the three storey apartment blocks. To the west of the site and across Nicholson Street there is a hotel / bar then vacant retail frontage with an opening breaking the street wall to Victoria Street and providing vehicle access to land behind.

24 When inspecting the site and surrounds the Tribunal noted the variety of styles and colours of the built form and, when combined with the high level of activity in Victoria Street, Mr Emmanouilides use of the words vibrant and chaotic can be understood. Across a laneway, to the east in Victoria Street, is a single storey building set back from Victoria Street with wide arched windows and features on poles above the roof. To the west and across Nicholson Street there is an hotel with a corner feature, but this is not a consistent pattern around the staggered intersection of Lennox and Nicholson Streets with Victoria Street. The heterogeneous nature of built form and style is evident in the immediate vicinity of the review site. On the Friday lunchtime period of the Tribunal's inspection there was additional activity and colour as there were a number of Police vehicles around the boundaries of the site and a gentleman was being led away in handcuffs.

25 Mr Emmanouilides noted the past approval for a 17m high development to the west of the subject site. The permit for that development has been extended a number of times and was due to expire during the hearing. Regardless of whether or not that permission is maintained there are other height references in close proximity to the review site. These references include the following:

a. the three to four storey building, with the uppermost level stepped back rather than a corner feature, located diagonally opposite the subject site.

b. mid twentieth century three storey apartment buildings in Nicholson Street

c. the large heritage factory /warehouse building on the east side of Nicholson Street (HO 40 or former Denton hat factory at the corner of Mollison and Nicholson) with a height greater than modern three storeys and a higher chimney

d. high rise public housing towers to the south of main street business premises in Victoria Street, clearly visible from the site and adding a very robust sense of scale to the subject portion of the activity centre.

e. While many of the heritage buildings in Victoria Street are two storey some (eg 375 Victoria Street and adjoining buildings) have parapet and floor to ceiling heights making them higher than other existing two storey built form on the main street.

f. Structures above parapet height in the immediate vicinity such as a satellite dish, a sky sign (at the corner of William Street in the immediate vicinity) and the flagpole feature on the bar/office building to the west of the site across Nicholson Street.

26 The objectives of guideline 2, Building Height and Silhouette, in the seriously entertained Clause 22.09, are as follows:

To ensure that the height of new development respects the prevailing heights and context of the area;

To integrate the height of new development at street level with the heights of existing buildings

To recognise that some sites can accommodate taller buildings

To ensure new roof forms respect any prevailing roof forms in the area (as identified in the Site Analysis Plan and Design Response) and contribute to the skyline silhouette.

To ensure that the height and form of new development maintains, and where needed enhances, the amenity of adjacent residential uses.

To ensure that the height of new development does not adversely impact the scenic qualities and visual character of the Yarra River Corridor.

To ensure that new roof forms respect any prevailing roof forms in the area and contribute to the skyline silhouette

27 Mr Czarny referred to the confined streetscape, the subtle projections of higher built form, the consistent "elevational plane", the sensitive context, the potential for linking the heritage buildings in Victoria Street and the need to retain the traditional "street wall" with upper levels being recessive. Mr Czarny also noted that the built form on the northern side of Victoria Street, in the location including the review site, is more disjointed than that on the south side. Mr McGurn and Mr Emmanouilides were of the opinion that the street context is quite robust, heteregeneous, vibrant and chaotic. Having inspected the site and surrounds and considered the expert reports the Tribunal is of the view that the streetscape context cannot be considered as highly sensitive and coherent. It accommodates highly contrasting and to some extent discordant elements of form, scale and style and the result is one of vitality but not of coherent built form character.

28 In his report Mr Czarny provided diagrammatic representation of the parapet heights of existing built form with the proposed built form at the review site blocked in to the streetscape. The Tribunal considers that this representation is only partly indicative of the "fit" of the proposed built form and that the three dimensional context needs to be considered. Looking at the layout of buildings in plan view it can be seen that the existing built form to the east is set back approximately 6m from the frontage. Immediately to the east of the review site the "street wall" effect is interrupted significantly due to the combined effect of a 4m laneway adjacent to the review site and the set back of the single storey built form. Starting at the east end of the Victoria Street elevation the proposed built form rises to four storeys (approximately three "traditional" storeys). The south east corner of the building would take a step up from the closest two traditional storey built form (or "street wall" height) to the east. Due to the modern ceiling heights of the proposed first to third floor, this change would be an increase in height in the order of one traditional storey. The height of the western end of the "street wall" on the south elevation would then rises in part to five storeys (a lesser height in traditional storeys). The proposed articulation and the corner location (with a gap provided by the road reserve between built form to the west of Nicholson Street) assist in accommodating the change in height between the bar/office building and the proposed development. The built form would step back partly to the fifth level and more substantially to the sixth level. Given these factors and that the proposal would replace a large "hole" in the streetscape, within a robust built form context, the overall change in height is considered reasonable.

29 The ground floor would have a zero setback and form a hard edge or "street wall" function, with canopies above providing weather protection and also reinforcing the pedestrian or active street frontage level in the public realm. The Tribunal notes that the "street wall" above the ground floor does not form a hard edge in a single plane. The overall articulated effect, using angled elements, colour and voids can be seen on the photomontages provided by Mr Emmanouilides at the hearing. The Tribunal considers that the appearance of the proposed built form is one of addressing the street's vibrancy through an interpretative approach rather than conforming to a strict rectilinear approach at the "street wall". This is considered appropriate as there is not a consistent hard edged wall adjacent to the site and, even in heritage areas, an interpretative approach to bulk and form can be acceptable. The elements forming the "wall" to the street would be higher than the traditional two storey "street wall, but this approach is considered appropriately responsive given the design detail of the building, the size of the site, the ground floor treatment replacing a gap in the active streetscape and the relatively moderate increase in height sought.

30 Immediately adjacent to the building, from the pedestrian perspective on the north side of Victoria Street and east side of Nicholson Street, the upper levels of the proposed built form would be difficult to see particularly when immediately adjacent to the building given the canopies and the required angle of view. The sight line diagrams and photomontages indicate that the views of the upper levels from Nicholson Street west side, and from the laneways and the rear of the dwellings to the northeast would be quite restricted. A clear view of the overall development would be obtained from opposite the south side of Victoria Street, and particularly from diagonally opposite as shown on Mr Emmanouilides' photo montages. Although the fifth level would be visible on the corner, the effect would not be one of five traditional storeys and this level would be set back in part. The uppermost or sixth level would be substantially set back from all site boundaries. It is nevertheless acknowledged that the building would have something of a stronger architectural presence in the streetscape than that of existing built form in Victoria Street in this location. There would be some increase in scale, but nevertheless one that is reasonable within the context which includes the height references and streetscape character described earlier in these reasons. It would not of course be expected that the highest housing towers in the vicinity would be replicated in new built form but these higher structures do add a robust inner urban element to the urban design context.

31 The site is a large one relative to the majority of those in the vicinity along Victoria Street. While seeking to ensure respect for and integration with the prevailing heights of built form, the design guidelines of seriously entertained amendment C50 as set out above include discretion in terms of accommodating some change. There is also recognition that some sites, and in particular large corner sites such as the review site, can accommodate taller buildings.

32 The urban design context in this instance can be described as including mixed styles, colours and forms and having some heritage buildings but along the entire Victoria Street activity centre, which stretches from Hoddle Street in the west to the Yarra River in the east, there are relatively few buildings subject to heritage control. As such it is doubtful that, in terms of architectural style, even an interpretative approach is warranted. Due to the proposed folding, or "concertina" effect along the southern elevation of the proposed building, the façade would not appear as an entirely solid form but there would be a reasonably strong corner element in the form of a graphics panel and a more visible fifth level at the south western or Nicholson/Victoria Street corner of the site. This is a location where a "proud corner" was recommended by Mr Czarny. In this case the Tribunal notes that, rather than using a rectilinear approach, individual angled elements are balanced by others within the overall composition and in this particular lively context the corner form is considered appropriate.

33 In relation to the guidelines of proposed policy for built form of more than three storeys the Tribunal concludes that the proposal would be consistent with relevant objectives and guidelines as follows:

i The contribution of an active business streetscape and "street wall" at ground level on a previously existing Petrol Filling Station site that would have broken up the centre through wide vehicle crossings and an open apron seen from Victoria Street

ii The recognition that the review site is a larger corner site which can accommodate a taller built form and that the proposed increase in height of built form will be able to be absorbed into the relevant streetscapes in Nicholson Street and Victoria Street. The site is unusual in that it has a wide frontage, street or lane frontages on all four sides and a relatively large area compared with other lots in the vicinity along Victoria Street. The locale has not been recognised in the Planning Scheme as having particular heritage or design value. These attributes make the site appropriate for an increase in height above that of the existing built form as recognised in the referral response of the responsible authority's Urban Designer. The proposed change in height would be reasonably moderate and respectful given the varied character, the design of the building and the height context.

iii An appropriate interpretative response to the subdivisional pattern and streetscape rhythm has been achieved through the spacing of vertical elements as described by Mr Emmanouilides.

iv The site is one where there would be no significant amenity impacts subject to conditions for screening of balconies to units in relation to the residential property across the laneway to the north east.

v The proposed built form is considered likely to reinforce the identity and image of the City of Yarra as a municipality of innovation and high urban design and architectural quality due to the balanced but lively contemporary composition in a context of heterogeneous styles in a vibrant activity centre.

34 In relation to other aspects of the proposed policy:

i Proximate roof forms in the activity centre are shown on an oblique photograph taken from the high rise housing towers south of the site and provided by Mr Canavan. These roof forms vary too widely to be repeated and no heritage or design overlays apply to the site. The guideline with respect to roofs is not considered relevant to the review proposal.

ii The Tribunal is of the view that the proposed colours and materials can be absorbed and will positively reinforce the colourful attributes of the robust environs where there is no cohesive pattern of heritage /traditional colours and materials.

35 The general consistency with the design objectives and guidelines, and the existing conditions weigh in favour of the moderate increase in height for the "street wall" built form abutting Victoria Street and Nicholson Street. As shown in the sections, the fifth and sixth storeys would be stepped back and gradated from the east and north east such that a respectful change in the height of built form would be achieved. The higher elements above three storeys are considered appropriate given the size of the site, the lack of a direct residential abuttal, the proposed articulation and the positive contribution that the continued business frontage would make to the activity centre.

36 The Tribunal is not saying that the proposed height would always be accommodated in the subject activity centre as conditions relating to particular sites and the nature of built form may well differ in other parts of Victoria Street. Given that the centre extends over a number of large blocks with a variety of built form, it is considered likely that the context will vary. In this case however the review site is a large vacant corner site in part of a designated major activity centre, with very good access to public transport, in a location that has not been identified as highly sensitive in the Planning Scheme.

37 This case differs somewhat from that considered in ABU v Kingston cited by Mr Montebello. In that case there was a more compact seaside centre and no backdrop of inner urban and high rise built form. Also there was immediately abutting built form of consistent height. In this case the review site is in an activity centre that extends over a number of major blocks and the subject streetscape is much more fractured in terms of built form. Victoria Street is a major urban activity centre and traffic artery. In addition, Victoria Street is much closer to the heart of the metropolis with its agglomeration of infrastructure and economic activity that has an interdependency with greater population density. The subject location is not one of those strips where there is highly connected built form or a continual heritage overlay area along the relevant blocks. As such, and given the land size and corner location, it is considered that a more substantial change in the intensity of built form can be entertained than that for the site considered at Mordialloc.

38 With respect to potential overshadowing, Clause 19.03 encourages a balance of potential impacts on the public realm rather than a prohibition on any impact. In relation to sunlight the following objectives are included:

_ Enjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a desirable balance of sunlight and shade.

_ This balance should not be compromised by undesirable overshadowing or exposure to the sun.

39 The urban designer's comments (in response to the responsible authority's internal referral) sought "no overshadowing of the streetscape". The public footpaths of Victoria Street on the north side are already partly shaded by two storey buildings and some parts of the northern and southern footpaths are shaded by canopies. In the proposed development there would be canopies over the footpaths adjacent to the proposed building. These can provide shade in summer and protection from the elements (wind and rain) and this is considered to be a positive contribution to the public realm in a location previously occupied by a petrol station. As described in this case by Mr Emmanouilides, it is intended to include glazed sections in the canopies to allow for some penetration of sunlight. An opportunity for significant impacts on the public realm would be created through the incorporation of the active retail / business floor areas at ground level. In the past a petrol filling station was located on the site and there was limited contribution to the active streetscape of the Victoria Street activity centre.

40 There are existing canopies reducing sunlight penetration into the premises on the south side of Victoria Street. Mr Czarny stated that, at the equinox, shading would extend to the south side of the tramlines in Victoria Street and that in winter the shadows would extend to the footpath on the opposite side of the street. Mr McGurn acknowledged that there would be some shading of the public realm in winter but was of the view that this shading would be reasonable as it would be quite transitory. In any event the site analysis and design response requirements of proposed Clause 22.09-3 require shadow diagrams for 22 September. For the greater part of the year sunlight in the public realm would be largely unaltered by the proposed built form. The Tribunal is of the view that the shading of the public realm is unlikely to be unreasonable given that it would occur for a limited time of day, during the winter when pedestrians are less likely to congregate outside and when there are a number of cloudy days.

41 The design would provide vehicle access from the side street, rather than interrupting the "street wall" and the footpath along Victoria Street. Active street frontages and some shelter for pedestrians would be provided thereby improving pedestrian amenity compared with the previous petrol filling station on the site.

42 The Tribunal is of the opinion that, overall, the review proposal is likely to make a particularly positive contribution to the public realm in terms of the following objectives of proposed Clause 22.09-3:

* Reinforce the strategic importance of the City's main roads through carefully managing built form, urban design treatments and traffic/pedestrian interfaces

* Enhance pedestrian amenity and attract activities at street level, where appropriate

* Create a positive interface between the private domain and public spaces.

43 As stated by Mr McGurn the review site faces commercial property in all directions except for a limited outlook across a laneway to residential property to the northeast. While no objectors were party to the application for review, and a number of balconies have setbacks that exceed Rescode standards, both Mr McGurn and Mr Montebello raised some concerns regarding the potential for overlooking toward residential properties to the northeast of the review site. Conditions will require additional screening of balconies facing the rear of the residential properties across Little Nicholson Street to the north east of the review site.

44 The seriously entertained Policy and Design Guidelines for Development Above Three Storeys contains parking guidelines recommended by the City of Yarra. A copy of the relevant Panel Report was provided to the Tribunal. The Panel commented that, compared with Clause 52.06, there is a lack of provision for dispensation of spaces in the proposed policy. The Panel recommended that clause 8.2, parking for non-residential development (such as the retail component in this review), should be deleted as the reference to a local parking policy that is not included in the Planning Scheme was considered inappropriate.

45 Mr Montebello submitted that the Yarra Town Planning Parking Policy would require 38 spaces for the retail use. The local parking policy is not formally included in the Planning Scheme and Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme provides for parking dispensation. Mr Symons expressed the view that 3 spaces per 100m2 was a conservative provision for the retail component of the proposal and that a lower rate could be appropriate. The retail floor space will be reduced slightly in relation to requirements for widening the lobby or entry corridor to the lift serving the apartments. The Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to grant a waiver of parking such that a rate of 29 spaces applies to the retail/commercial floor space given the following:

a. Mr Symons' evidence that 3 spaces per 100 square metres is conservative in relation to the retail floor area proposed;

b. Mr Symons' survey showing that there were on street parking spaces available between 10am and 7pm;

c. the centre based or shared nature of parking in the vicinity;

d. the excellent access to and availability of public transport (tram and train) close to the review site, and

e. the availability of on street spaces which will result from the closure of the vehicle crossovers associated with the former petrol filling station on the site

46 Mr Symons stated that the architect is able to modify the basement car park access ramp so that the top section can be 5.5 metres wide as recommended by the Responsible Authority without reducing the number of car spaces.

47 Mr Montebello was of the view that the residential component of the proposal consisted of 48 dwellings with numbers of bedrooms as follows:

48 Mr McGurn broke down the apartments by numbers of bedrooms as follows:

49 It was Mr Symon's evidence that the Yarra View Apartments, which have similar public transport to that serving the review site, required only one car space per dwelling. Mr Symons referred to a survey at Yarra View Apartments in River Street Richmond where a peak occupancy rate of 0.97 was observed. That apartment complex contains 2 X1br, 26 X 2br and 7 X 3 BR apartments.

50 Mr Symons described the proposed dwellings as small residential apartments, which would typically only require one parking space each for residents and visitors alike as indicated by surveys at Yarra View Apartments in River Street Richmond.

51 Concern was expressed that areas labelled "dining" in some apartments would result the potential for these units to be used as 3 bedroom dwellings with resultant impacts on car parking requirements. The Tribunal will require a modification of these areas to a size appropriate to a store or computer desk area in the relevant apartments.

52 On-street parking will be created due to the closure of wide crossovers associated with the previous petrol filling station use. It was Mr Symons evidence that these spaces could be shared between visitors to the apartments and patrons of the proposed commercial uses. There would also be opportunity for sharing of the undercroft and on street spaces (both existing and those created through the closure of crossings) between visitors to the apartments and to the business uses on the ground floor. Given Mr Symons evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that dedicated visitor spaces are unnecessary.

53 Mr Symons was of the view that some of the new kerbside spaces could be designated as Loading Zones during the morning to facilitate deliveries to the shops and then revert to general public parking in the afternoon and at night. The Tribunal considers this to be an appropriate means of addressing loading requirements given that dedicated loading bays appear to be relatively rare in the vicinity.

54 Mr Montebello submitted that appropriate integration of bicycle storage had not been indicated on the plans. Mr McGurn was of the view that storage of bicycles could be accommodated at the front of parking spaces. The planning permit conditions will include a requirement for appropriate bicycle storage in the resident parking areas.

55 Pedestrian safety at the proposed vehicle entry was raised by Mr Montebello in his examination of Mr Symon's evidence. The Tribunal concurs with Mr Symons view that this is unlikely to be a major problem given the more limited number of pedestrians in Nicholson Street compared with those in Victoria Street and also given the general urban nature of the environs where blind corners are quite common at laneways and driveways

56 The Tribunal is of the view that the "dining areas" should be reduced to smaller floor areas appropriate for use as storage areas or studies and be relabelled accordingly. As a result of the reduction in internal apartment space an increase will be made to the size of lobbies adjacent to the lifts on the relevant floors as suggested by Mr Czarny.

57 Mr Czarny was of the view that the access to the lifts was not appropriate in terms of an entry to the building. The entry, which includes two sets of doors, is set in and the 17m distance from the inner entry doors to the lifts is not considered unreasonable in terms of accessibility as there would not be significant changes in level (perhaps one step up from the pavement). The distance would result in some privacy at the lifts from the retail frontages along Nicholson Street and the short journey could be made more interesting with glazing treatments as suggested by Mr Emmanouilides. The Tribunal is however of the view that the widening of the lobby close to the lift, in the manner suggested by Mr McGurn, would result in an appropriate entry with room for facilities such as letterboxes and a couch for those waiting to meet others. A condition of permit will require widening of the entry adjacent to the lifts.

58 The Tribunal notes that a building permit would require appropriate energy efficiency construction techniques such as insulation. Mr Montebello noted the extensive glazing on the sixth level. The Tribunal considers that this is a limited situation and that north facing glazing, can result in energy savings during a Melbourne winter. Mr Emmanouilides stated that appropriate glazing, such as comfort glazing would be used on these windows and a condition of permit will require specification of glazing materials. The Tribunal notes that there are other appropriate energy efficient design features such as multi storey construction, solar roof panels and double entry doors. Overall it is considered the design process has had reasonable regard for objectives in relation to energy efficiency aspects of environmental sustainability.

59 The proposal will also involve the removal of potentially contaminated soil as required in relation to the Environmental Audit Overlay and this provides an opportunity for benefit in relation to environmental objectives of the Planning Scheme.

Potential Location of Additional Households in the City of Yarra

60 The subject site is located in the Victoria Street activity centre which has been designated as a major activity centre in Melbourne 2030. With respect to the subject activity centre, Mr Czarny was of the view that additional households could be accommodated in built form of higher intensity behind the properties fronting Victoria Street. The intention was to maintain the scale of the "main street". This view was supported in Mr Czarny's report by a copy of part of a diagram showing a possible way of redeveloping a car-based activity centre for increased housing density. The diagram was from Melbourne 2030 p32. The Tribunal has had the opportunity to view the whole diagram. While the diagram may provide guidance for centres with main streets that are highly cohesive and have large car parking areas, the subject site is a large vacant site in an activity centre. The streetscape has not merited a design or heritage control in the Planning Scheme nor has there been a formal consultative process with respect to the suggested retention of the existing scale of the "street wall". The review proposal would a continuation of the traditional activity centre through retail frontage at ground floor where no such linkage has existed due to the use of the site for a petrol filling station. As there are substantial differences between the context of the activity centre shown in the diagram and the subject location, the Tribunal considers that it does not have a high level of applicability to the review under consideration. The development of a fully consulted structure plan for inclusion in the Scheme could well suggest appropriate locations for additional housing behind the Victoria Street activity centre, however the current formal Planning Scheme policies do not direct more intensive housing away from main street locations in the subject major activity centre.

61 Mr Canavan emphasised the social and economic benefits of accommodating additional households within the UGB, including the difficulties to be faced in reaching housing targets, given past and present trends in the construction of medium density housing. He also highlighted the heritage constraints in activity centres, other than the subject Victoria Street centre, in Yarra. The Tribunal considers that the development and land uses proposed would assist in maintaining the vibrant character in the activity centre and assist in achieving the Yarra Planning Scheme's economic objectives by bringing additional households and providing opportunities for additional customers of the centre. These benefits are considered to weigh in favour of the proposed land uses in the subject location and, as set out earlier in these reasons, the proposed development design would result in reasonable respect for the relevant built form character.

62 The Tribunal will order that a permit is granted and direct that a permit issue subject to conditions.