1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:

1. Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the application is amended by changing the description of the subject land to:

99 Canterbury Road and 2, 2A, 4, 6, 8 & 8A Armstrong Street, Middle Park

1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

TP01 Revision A Context and Locality Plan; TP02 Revision A Site Aerial; TP03 Revision B Site Photos; TP04 Revision B Neighbourhood Site Description and Design Response; TP04 Revision A Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan; TP10-2 Revision A First Floor Existing & Demolition Plan; TP11 Revision B Ground Floor Plan Proposed; TP12 Revision B First Floor Plan Proposed; TP13 Revision B Second Floor Plan Proposed; TP14 Revision B Roof Plan Proposed; TP20 Revision B South (Front) Elevation Proposed; TP21 Revision B East (Side) Elevation Proposed; TP30 Revision A Shadow Diagrams 22nd September - 9am; TP31 Revision A Shadow Diagrams 22nd September - 10am; TP32 Revision A Shadow Diagrams 22nd September - 11am; TP33 Revision A Shadow Diagrams 22nd September - 12 Noon; TP34 Revision A Shadow Diagrams 22nd September - 1pm; TP35 Revision A Shadow Diagrams 22nd September - 2pm; TP36 Revision A Shadow Diagrams 22nd September - 3pm; TP40 Revision B 3D Views

11.07.14 (TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04, TP10, TP10-2, TP11, TP12, TP13, TP14, TP20, TP21, TP40)

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority in relation to permit application no. 1146/2013 is varied.
2. A permit is granted in relation to land at 99 Canterbury Road and 2, 2A, 4, 6, 8 & 8A Armstrong Street, Middle Park. The permit will allow:
   • Demolition of a building on land in a Heritage Overlay;
   • the construction of a building and the construction and carrying out of works on land in the Commercial 1 Zone and in a Heritage Overlay; and
   • use of land in the Commercial 1 Zone for dwellings

• A reduction of the car parking requirement to zero.

1. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in the Appendix to these reasons.

Ms J Sharp of Counsel by direct brief. Evidence was called from Mr D Iles, Town Planner of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.

Partial demolition and the construction of a three-level building to the rear of the existing building to accommodate three dwellings (one single-bedroom and two, two-bedroom). No on-site car parking is proposed.

Application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Heritage Overlay - Schedule 445, Armstrong Street Commercial Precinct (HO445).

Cl. 31.02 & Cl. 34.01-1 (use of land in C1Z for dwelling).

Cl. 34.01-4 (construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works on land in C1Z).

Cl. 43.01-1 (demolition; construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works on land in HO445).

Cl. 52.06 (reduction of the car parking requirement).

Cl. 11.01, 11.04, 15.01, 15.03, 18, 21, 22.04, 34.01, 43.01, 52.06 and 65.

The review site is located on the corner of Canterbury Road and Armstrong Street in Middle Park. It is an irregular allotment of approximately 387 square metres. The frontage to Canterbury Road is 8.25 metres; the frontage to Armstrong Street is 28.34 metres. A two-storey commercial building dating from the Victorian era occupies the land and extends to all site boundaries, except the rear (south-western) boundary. Located along and within this boundary is a carriageway easement which is in the order of 900-950mm wide for the majority of its length. At ground level are a number of retail tenancies. At the upper level are offices and a dwelling.

An accompanied inspection of the review site, No. 98 Canterbury Road and the surrounding area was undertaken on the first day of the hearing.

1. The Port Phillip City Council has determined to grant a planning permit for the demolition of an existing outbuilding on the review site and the construction of a three-storey building to accommodate three dwellings. Two of the dwellings are to contain two bedrooms; the other is to have one bedroom. No on-site car parking is proposed.
2. Mr Phelan owns and occupies the adjoining residential property at 98 Canterbury Road. He has made this Application to the Tribunal for a review of the Council's decision. In summary, Mr Phelan considers that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the amenity of his property; the proposed use of the carriageway easement as the sole means of access to the proposed development is unacceptable; and the reduction of the car parking requirement to zero is not justified. In addition, he holds concerns regarding the proposed drainage of the development.
3. On the basis of the submissions and evidence, the key issues in this matter may be summarised as follows:
   • Is the development an acceptable response to the policy context?
   • Will the building have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential property?
   • Is the proposed use of the carriageway easement as the sole means of access to the development acceptable?
   • Is the proposed reduction of the car parking requirement justified?
4. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, I have decided to vary the Council's decision. My reasons follow.

Is the development an acceptable response to the policy context?

1. The review site is located within the Armstrong Street activity centre, which is recognised in policy as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre[2]. State planning policy encourages a diversity of housing types in and around activity centres and has an objective of building up activity centres as a focus for high quality development, activity and living for the community[3].
2. The Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.04-2 sets out the objectives and strategies in respect of the City's activity centres. Relevantly, according to this Clause, it is an objective that residential development within activity centres does not compromise the primary commercial and cultural roles of the centres. While Table 1 does not identify increased residential land use as an envisaged outcome for the Armstrong Street centre, the related strategy clearly contemplates that residential development will occur within the centre, albeit tempered by the heritage controls:

Ensure residential development in the Neighbourhood Activity Centres of Bridport Street / Victoria Avenue, Albert Park, Armstrong Street, Middle Park and Glen Eira Road, Ripponlea, respect the heritage scale and form of these centres, recognising that the heritage controls may limit the ability to develop at higher densities.

1. The proposed provision of dwellings on the review site is consistent with land use policies at both the State and Local level as they relate to activity centre planning. Indeed, the parties did not argue otherwise. The differences between the parties lie in the density, form and location of the proposed development.
2. Clause 21.05, Built Form, is also of relevance. An identified key issue is the need to carefully manage the demand for new residential development in Neighbourhood Activity Centres to ensure that the unique and valued character of each centre and the surrounding residential areas is protected and enhanced[4]. The strategies of this Clause refer to achieving a graduation in building scale and massing between new medium and high density residential development in activity centres and the low-rise scale of the adjoining residential areas. A transition in scale is to be provided, and development should not unreasonably affect the amenity of adjoining properties.
3. The proposal is for the construction of a three-storey building. It is located at the rear of the review site. As a consequence of the two-storey scale of the existing Victorian buildings on the land, which have a height that is similar to that of a contemporary three-storey development, the proposed structure will not be visible from either Canterbury Road or Armstrong Street. There will be no impact on the built form composition, scale or building profile of the activity centre as it is appreciated from within these key streetscapes.
4. Mr Barber, on behalf of Mr Phelan, expressed concerns regarding the appearance of the development from within Canterbury Place. This thoroughfare runs parallel to Canterbury Road, to the south-west of the review site. Unlike the neighbouring residential properties to the north-west, the review site does not have an abuttal to this street. Due to the low profile nature of the intervening structures, however, the proposed building will be visible from this aspect, albeit some 23 metres distant. The proposed development will have an overall height which is comparable to that of the parapets and roof ridges of the existing buildings on the review site. Against this backdrop, and in the context of the setback from Canterbury Place, the development will achieve an acceptable 'fit'. It will be neither dominant nor prominent, although it will be seen. It will be read as an element of the activity centre, with its scale reflecting that which characterises the commercial area.
5. From a heritage perspective, the Statement of Significance[5] refers to the intact streetscape of Victorian and Edwardian commercial buildings, which demonstrate cohesion through their common scale, materials and detailing. Reference is also made to the existence of 'more prepossessing' commercial buildings which include the three-storey Middle Park hotel, a former bank and a former motor garage. Nowhere in this Statement is there any indication that Canterbury Place is of recognised heritage significance within the precinct. It is a mixed streetscape principally comprising rear fences, garages, two-storey outbuildings and the sides of buildings which have frontage to either Nimmo Street or Armstrong Street. Amongst this prevailing development pattern are some examples of dwellings which have their frontage to Canterbury Place, but these add to the eclectic nature of the streetscape, rather than being a defining characteristic.
6. I have not been persuaded that the development will result in an unacceptable impact on the heritage context. It will be positioned in a location which is very much a 'back of house' environment, characterised by the utilitarian rear elevations of commercial buildings and their associated infrastructure. This includes exhaust flues, external stairs, various plant and equipment, and sheer walls that lack the embellishment displayed by the street facades. The building's contemporary architecture, in conjunction with its scale and proportions, will represent an acceptable addition to this context, appearing as a further built form element in this diverse streetscape. Its setback will ensure that it will be well recessed from the public domain, avoiding the building appearing prominent within its surrounds.
7. The proposal's relationship to the neighbouring residential area is an important consideration. Policy seeks to ensure that new development in commercial areas achieves an acceptable graduation or transition to adjoining lower-rise residential precincts. In this instance, the development will be constructed to the common boundary with Mr Phelan's property, which is within the General Residential Zone. It will be adjacent to an existing two-storey wall, also constructed to the boundary, beyond which it will project by 500mm. This projecting portion has a 650mm setback from the common boundary, creating a rebate. In terms of overall height, the development will be 1.45 metres higher than the existing boundary wall. I accept the Respondent's submissions and evidence that this height differential responds acceptably to the policy direction of achieving a transition in height. It is difficult for me to conclude otherwise. Policy does not seek to have new development in commercial areas match the height of buildings in the residential precinct, and anticipates that the development may be higher. That is what is proposed here. The design response successfully achieves a graduation in height in a manner that avoids the development appearing as a discordant or jarring element, or indeed one that is unsympathetic to its residential neighbour.
8. Notwithstanding the proposal's consistency with the built form policies in respect of the area's composition, consideration must also be given to the potential impact of the development on the amenity of Mr Phelan's property. I consider this issue in the following section of these reasons.

Will the building have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential property?

1. The two key amenity impacts identified in Mr Barber's submissions are those of overshadowing and visual bulk. Before turning to consider these issues, it is useful to set out the basis for their assessment under the provisions of the Planning Scheme.
2. As correctly identified by the parties, the development is not required to comply with Clause 55 (Two or more dwellings on a lot), given the site's location within the Commercial 1 Zone. Relevantly, however, reference to Clause 55 is included in the following decision guideline at Clause 34.01-8:

The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54 and Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement.

1. Accordingly, Clause 55 is relevant to the assessment of the proposal's effects on the Mr Phelan's property, whilst bearing in mind that the provisions of this Clause are to be used for guidance, rather than requirements which must be met.
2. Also relevant to this assessment is that Mr Phelan's land is located at the interface of a commercial zone and activity centre. It has been held by the Tribunal that the expectations of both residential and commercial landowners in terms of what constitutes an acceptable planning outcome in these circumstances must reasonably be tempered. Put simply, owners of the residential property cannot expect development in the adjoining commercial area to be of a form and nature that would be anticipated in an exclusively residential area. Conversely, owners of the commercial property cannot approach the development of their land as they would if the adjoining land were non-residential in use and included within the commercial zone. As expressed by the Tribunal in the matter of Buckerfield Architects v Boroondara CC[6]:
   1. ...I agree with Mr Bisset that in an interface situation such as this there are competing objectives on either side of the residential / commercial divide and that a proper planning outcome is one which balances those competing objectives taking into account all of the opportunities and constraints of the site and its neighbours. Inevitably compromises will have to be made to reach an acceptable outcome which satisfies those competing objectives. The commercial site cannot ignore that they have a residential abuttal; nor can a residential property expect the sort of residential amenity one would anticipate in an area wholly zoned for residential purposes.
3. With this as a background, I now turn to consider whether the development will have an unreasonable effect on the amenity of Mr Phelan's property.

1. A decision guideline at Clause 34.01-8 requires consideration of the overshadowing as a result of the building affecting land in the General Residential Zone.
2. The Objective of Clause 55.04-5 is to ensure that buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. The related Standard B21 establishes the parameters for the assessment of shadowing, these being the time of year (equinox); hours (9.00am - 3.00pm); and size of the area affected. Notably, in instances where a secluded private open space area does not receive sunlight in accordance with the Standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.
3. It is common ground that:
   • the development will cast shadow on the secluded private open space of 98 Canterbury Road between 9.00am and 10.00am at the equinox; and
   • the sunlight received by the courtyard of 98 Canterbury Road under the existing conditions does not meet the Standard.
4. Mr Barber's submission is that, given the above, the development should not deprive the courtyard of any sunlight. Ms Sharp submitted that the impact is minimal both in terms of the size of the affected area and the duration (which, I was told, is confined to the period of 9.00am - 9.50am). It was argued that this impact is not significant when consideration is given to the abuttal to a commercial area and the fact that Clause 55.04-5 is a decision guideline rather than a requirement. Attention was also drawn to the existence of a planning permit for the construction of a two-storey garage and studio structure at the rear of Mr Phelan's property. The siting of this building will result in it partly extending into the area which currently receives sunlight. This would have the effect of reducing the amenity able to be derived from the existing solar access, and would further limit the shadow impact.
5. I do not consider that the overshadowing of Mr Phelan's courtyard as a consequence of the development justifies the refusal of a permit or a modification to the building. For all intents and purposes, the impact is minor. I have not been persuaded that the loss of what was reasonably described as a 'sliver' of sunlight would have an appreciable effect on the amenity occupants will experience within this outdoor space. Notably, from 10.00am onwards, that is for the greater part of the day, the courtyard will be unaffected by shadow from the proposed building. For these reasons, and notwithstanding the non-compliance with the Standard, my conclusion is that the development will not significantly overshadow Mr Phelan's secluded private open space area.

1. The development's potential to present visual bulk to Mr Phelan's courtyard was the subject of detailed submissions. Mr Barber argued that the siting of the building does not comply with either Standard Bl7[7], in respect of the setback from the rear boundary and the rebate in the north-western corner of the land, or Standard B18[8] in respect of the proposed boundary wall. Again, the reference to these Standards is within the context of the decision guidelines specified in Clause 34.01-8.
2. The Respondent's submissions and evidence are that the non-compliance with Clause 55 is acceptable within the circumstances of the review site. It was submitted that the analysis of what constitutes an acceptable visual impact must be undertaken within the site's activity centre context and Commercial 1 zoning. While it was conceded that the proposed boundary wall height does not meet Standard B18, the siting of this part of the building against the existing boundary wall of 98 Canterbury Road means that it will have no (or minimal) impact on the amenity of that property. Further, it was argued that the 500mm protrusion of the addition beyond the rear building line of Mr Phelan's dwelling is minor, and the failure to comply with Standard B17 does not result in an unreasonable visual impact.
3. There is no question that the proposed building will be visible from Mr Phelan's rear courtyard space. However, having regard to the review site's location in a commercial area where relatively intensive development is contemplated by the zone provisions, the design response is acceptable. The overall height is 1.45 metres higher than the adjacent portion of the dwelling at 98 Canterbury, which achieves a reasonable graduation. The scale is acceptable in the activity centre context and adequately acknowledges the abuttal to a residential area. The benefit of the rebate provided at the north-west corner of the building is questionable. It does little to alter the appearance of the development as it presents to the courtyard. It is not a feature, however, which accentuates the impact, so I do not propose to delete it. Further, any change to the building arising from a minor increase in the rear setback to align it with Mr Phelan's dwelling is unlikely to have a perceptible benefit, given it is only a 500mm dimension. In reality, I expect that the approved two-storey garage/studio structure proposed at the rear of Mr Phelan's property will have a far more significant effect on one's experience of the courtyard space than the building on the review site. Further, as noted by the evidence, the outlook toward the north-west where there is a series of contiguous courtyard spaces associated with a row of dwellings will not be altered. Arguably, it is this aspect which would provide a higher level of amenity to the courtyard than the outlook toward the commercial area.
4. My conclusion that the visual impact of the development is not an unreasonable one is based on the site's location in the commercial centre, the 1.45 metre differential in height with Mr Phelan's dwelling and the minor protrusion of the building envelope beyond the rear alignment of this adjoining dwelling.

Is the proposed use of the carriageway easement as the sole means of access to the development acceptable?

1. The 0.95 metre wide carriageway easement, which extends along the rear of the review site, accommodates a walkway which is the sole means of access to the existing first floor dwelling on the review site. I was advised that, historically, this dwelling was accessed via a set of internal stairs connecting to the ground floor retail tenancy. A Planning Permit and Building Permit issued in 2011 authorised (amongst others) the removal of the internal staircase and the construction of an external stair as the access to the dwelling. This stair, in turn, can only be accessed from the walkway. At a point in time, therefore, a decision has been made by the Council that the walkway provides a satisfactory access for a residential land use on this property. The doorway into the rear yard area of the review site is located some 8 metres from Armstrong Street. The straight alignment of the walkway in this location ensures a clear line of sight from the footpath. A letter box with the number identification of '8A' is positioned within the walkway proximate to the Armstrong Street footpath.
2. Mr Barber's submission raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the sense of address this walkway will provide for the proposed dwellings, and its suitability for use during the construction process. The submission also referred to non-compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia in respect to the width of exits.
3. There is no evidence before me demonstrating that the walkway does not provide an acceptable sense of address for, or access to, the existing dwelling. It is clearly being used. The mailbox provides identification of the property address, and the entry into the yard is only a short distance from the footpath. I do not disagree that it is not an ideal arrangement, however, it is functional and appears to serve its purpose. As suggested by the evidence, it can be improved upon through the provision of lighting, and identification of the walkway as the means of accessing the development from Armstrong Street. It is also proposed to install a gate to provide security to the walkway. This is opposed by Mr Phelan on the basis that it would impede his lawful access along the walkway. The Respondent offered to remove the gate. Given that doing so will maintain the status quo, I have included a condition requiring the deletion of the gate.
4. I acknowledge the concerns regarding the compliance or otherwise of the access arrangement with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. This, however, is a matter for the relevant Building Surveyor at the time a Building Approval is being sought. The Applicant also advised that the Building Surveyor will assess the adequacy of the access for fire safety purposes, including whether an alternative access is required. I was not provided with any information to contradict this submission. Should the Building Surveyor deem that the proposed access is not satisfactory, then it may well be that the development cannot proceed in its current form.
5. It is apparent that the walkway will most likely impose constraints during the construction process. Again, of itself, this is not a planning consideration. The Respondent will need to achieve the necessary access for both construction workers and materials, if the development is to proceed. It is important, though, that the construction process is appropriately managed to minimise disruption to the occupants of adjoining properties and the surrounding area. To this end, I have included a condition requiring the submission and approval of a Construction Management Plan which, amongst others, will need to address the use of the walkway.

Is the proposed reduction of the car parking requirement justified?

1. It is not possible to provide any car parking on the land. There is insufficient area to do so and, critically, there is no vehicular access to the property. The Applicant seeks permission to reduce the Planning Scheme's parking requirement to zero.
2. Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the development attracts a car parking requirement of three spaces, as three dwellings are proposed and each has either one or two bedrooms. As less than five dwelling are to be accommodated within the development, there is no applicable visitor car parking requirement.
3. Mr Barber's submissions expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of an outcome where further demand will be placed on the available on-street car parking spaces within the locality. He asserted that, as the spaces within the activity centre are subject to time restrictions, occupants of the dwellings would seek out parking within the surrounding residential area. Reference was made to the Council's Sustainable Transport Strategy which, I was advised, is a reference document in the Planning Scheme. According to that Strategy, if all of the following criteria are met, then the parking rate for residential development can be reduced to 0.8 space per dwelling:
   • a location within or close (no more than 200m) to an activity centre;
   • no more than 200m walk to fixed rail or convenient/accessible/high frequency public transport;
   • areas where adjacent streets have Resident Permit protection;
   • generous provision of bicycle parking and storage;
   • within 400m of a full line supermarket (typically 1500 square metres or greater;
   • the development comprises small dwellings that are aimed at the lower end of the market;
   • the proponent accepts that no Resident Permits will be issued to future owners/occupiers.
4. In this instance, all the criteria are not met.
5. The Respondent's case rested largely on the site's location within an identified activity centre (which includes a supermarket), the proximity to the Middle Park light rail station (directly opposite in Canterbury Road), the relatively small size of the dwellings, and the physical inability to provide car parking on the land. A traffic report prepared by Traffix Group Pty Ltd was appended to Mr Iles' evidence. Although the author of that report was not called to give evidence, I can still nonetheless have regard to its findings, although it would have less weight than would otherwise be the case if it were presented as expert evidence.
6. In summary, that report concluded that the locational attributes of the site given the activity centre context and proximity to public transport and cycling paths, combined with the limited provision of long term parking in the immediate vicinity and the inability to accommodate parking on the land, mean that the reduction of the car parking requirement is justified. A further conclusion is that the proposal will have no material impact on the existing parking conditions in the area. I agree with these conclusions. The review site represents an appropriate opportunity to provide dwellings with no car parking as occupants will be well placed to access their various destinations be it for recreation, employment or services using alternative means of transport to the private car. I consider that the reduction of the car parking requirement is justified in this instance.

1. Mr Barber raised concerns regarding the proposed drainage of the development and the potential need to utilise the existing easement on Mr Phelan's property. As I understand it, the relevant drainage authority in this instance is the Council. It is a normal requirement that the development and the review site is drained to the Council's satisfaction. I have included a condition to this effect. The means by which this is to be done, and whether this will necessitate the use of the easement, is a matter to be resolved at the appropriate time. In the circumstances of this Application, it is not an issue which needs to be resolved before a Planning Permit can be issued.
2. I expressed some concerns regarding the daylight received by the bedrooms of Dwelling 1, which is located on the ground floor. Daylight access to these windows will be affected by the balcony of Dwelling 2 above, the existing deck at first floor level and by a proposed fence. A number of options to respond to this concern were suggested. I accept Ms Sharp's submission that this is most appropriately addressed through a condition which provides sufficient flexibility for a range of modifications to be considered to improve daylight to the windows.

1. For these reasons, I have decided to approve the development. I will vary the Council's decision and grant a permit, subject to conditions.

99 Canterbury Road, and 2, 2A, 4, 6, 8 & 8A Armstrong Street, Middle Park

• Demolition of a building on land within a Heritage Overlay;
• the construction of a building and the construction and carrying out of works on land in the Commercial 1 Zone and in a Heritage Overlay; and
• use of land in the Commercial 1 Zone for dwellings

• A reduction of the car parking requirement to zero.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority 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 drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans identified as TP04 Revision A Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan; TP10-2 Revision A First Floor Existing & Demolition Plan; TP11 Revision B Ground Floor Plan Proposed; TP12 Revision B First Floor Plan Proposed; TP13 Revision B Second Floor Plan Proposed; TP14 Revision B Roof Plan Proposed; TP20 Revision B South (Front) Elevation Proposed; and TP21 Revision B East (Side) Elevation Proposed, prepared by Cactus Architects but modified to show:
   • (a) an existing conditions and demolition plan for the first floor level;
   • (b) a redesign of the size and location of the bedroom windows of the ground floor dwelling, and modifications to the courtyard fence of this dwelling, to improve daylight access into the bedrooms;
   • (c) the location of mailboxes to meet the requirements of Australia Post;
   • (d) the location of rubbish storage facilities for each occupancy/tenancy on the site;
   • (e) appropriate identification of the new dwellings (and the existing upper level tenancies) at the wall of the building adjoining the laneway/ carriageway easement, or another appropriate location visible from Armstrong Street, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (f) the provision of lighting within the laneway/carriageway easement;
   • (g) the deletion of the gate at the entrance to the laneway/carriageway from Armstrong Street;
   • (h) incorporation of sustainable design features (refer to Condition No. 7 of this Permit);
   • (i) a coloured schedule (2 copies) of the materials, colours and finishes to be used on the main external surfaces, including roofs, walls, windows, doors of the proposed additions;
   • (j) all plant, equipment and domestic services (including air conditioning, heating units, hot water systems, etc.) which are to be located externally.

1. Before the development (including demolition) starts, a fully detailed 'demolition method statement' from a qualified structural engineer must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the statement will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The 'demolition method statement' must fully describe and clearly demonstrate that the construction methods to be used on site will ensure that the building fabric required to be retained on the endorsed plans approved under Condition 1 of the permit will be safeguarded during and after the demolition process has occurred. The demolition method statement may need to include reference to staging of demolitions on site in some instances. The statement must detail the necessary protection works required to retain individual walls, chimneys, flooring, roofing and other heritage features of significance during demolition.

1. Before the development (including demolition) starts, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Responsible Authority. The Construction Management Plan must include details of, but not limited to, the following:
   • (a) construction hours;
   • (b) control of construction noise to minimise impact on neighbouring properties;
   • (c) measures to maintain cleanliness in abutting streets;
   • (d) any impacts upon adjacent roads and footpaths and providing for adequate movement and circulation of vehicles and pedestrians adjacent to the land during the construction phase;
   • (e) use of the laneway/carriageway easement during the demolition and construction phase, and measures to minimise disruption to pedestrians;
   • (f) management of parking of construction worker vehicles (including construction machinery), management of site deliveries and traffic management;
   • (g) management of staging of heavy vehicles, site deliveries and unloading and lifting points with expected frequency, and traffic management in the vicinity, ensuring routes to and from the site minimise disruption to residential properties;
   • (h) works timetable;
   • (i) location of areas to be used for storage of materials, equipment and waste.

The development (including demolition) must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The development and colours, materials and finishes as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

1. Before the development is occupied, all new or extended walls on or facing the boundary of adjoining properties and/or the laneway must be cleaned and finished to a uniform standard. Unpainted or unrendered masonry walls must have all excess mortar removed from the joints and face, and all joints must be tooled or pointed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Painted or rendered or bagged walls must be finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts (other than demolition or works to remediate contaminated land) a Sustainable Design Assessment that outlines proposed sustainable design initiatives must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the Assessment will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the project must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives listed.

1. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, a Waste Management Plan based on the draft 'Best Practice Guidelines for Kerbside Recycling at Multi-Occupancy Residential Developments (Sustainability Victoria June 2006) must be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include reference to the following:
   • (a) The estimated garbage and recycling generation volumes for the whole development.
   • (b) The garbage and recycling equipment to be used and the collection service requirements, including the frequency of collection.
   • (c) The location of, proximity, screening of and space allocated both to the garbage and recycling storage areas and collection points.
   • (d) The path of access for both users and collection vehicles.
   • (e) How noise, odour and litter will be managed and minimised.
   • (f) That the waste and recycling bins are to be placed out for collection in Armstrong Street in front of the property line of the subject site.

The approved Waste Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The carriageway easement/walkway must remain unobstructed at all times.

1. All piping and ducting (excluding down pipes, guttering and rainwater heads) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. No plant, equipment or domestic services (including any associated screening devices) or architectural features, other than those shown on the endorsed plan are permitted, except where they would not be visible from a street (other than a lane) or public park without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) The development is not started within two years of the issued date of this permit.
   • (b) The development is not completed within two years of the date of commencement of works.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[5] Port Phillip Heritage Review Version 16, 2013

[6] [2004] VCAT 659