1. The site is located on the northwest corner of Rathdowne Street and Queensberry Street, Carlton. The site is irregular in shape, with frontages of 40.2 metres and 37.6 metres to Rathdowne Street and Queensberry Street respectively. The site has an overall area of about 1746 square metres, is relatively flat and not affected by restrictive covenants.
2. At the time of the hearing, the site was occupied by a two storey building originally constructed as part of St Andrews Gaelic Church complex. The building was given a "C" grading and located within a Level 1 graded streetscape under the Carlton Conservation Study[2]. Following the issue of a permit[3] for demolition works on 25 November 2008, the building has been demolished and the site is now vacant land.
3. Contextually the site is located about 400 metres north of Melbourne's CBD and within an area characterised by mixed use and development to the west of the REB and Carlton Gardens.
4. To the east are the Carlton Gardens within which sit the REB and Melbourne Museum. The REB has been afforded World Heritage status.
5. A two storey office building exists immediately to the north of the site while a 17 storey residential apartment complex, known a "Panorama on Rathdowne" exists on the southwest corner of the Rathdowne Street/Queensberry Street intersection. A two storey office building fronting Drummond Street exists to the west or rear of the site. These properties form part of the World Heritage Environs Area [WHEA][4] for the REB and Carlton Gardens.

1. The proposal involves the construction of a five storey building containing 49 apartment style dwellings over two levels of basement car parking.
2. Accommodation provided in the proposed dwellings ranges from smaller bedsit style apartments to one, two and three bedroom units. Open space is provided in the form of ground level courtyards, balconies and larger terraces.
3. The building has been designed in a contemporary architectural style. The lower level walls are to be finished in polished and textured precast concrete panels with the upper levels finished in a powder coated metal cladding.
4. The lower three levels of the building act as a podium, with the two levels above stepping back from the line of the lower levels toward the rear northwest corner of the site. The building has an overall height of 16.5 metres, with the podium level reaching 10.5 metres.
5. The podium levels are built to the southeast corner of the site and along the Queensberry Street frontage, except for setbacks created by courtyards and balconies. However, the two levels above are stepped back away from Queensberry Street frontage by nine metres. The setback to Rathdowne Street is modulated, ranging between three and five metres beyond the corner element, with similar setbacks at the upper levels.
6. Sixty one car parking spaces are provided within the two basement levels, with car access into the basements from Queensberry Street.

1. Under the planning scheme, the site is zoned Mixed Use. The use of the land for the purpose of "dwelling" does not require a planning permit. However, a permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot.
2. The site is also affected by the Design and Development Overlay [DDO][5], with the provisions of schedule 6 [DDO6] being applicable. Given that the council's sole ground of refusal asserts that the proposal fails to comply with the DDO, it is appropriate that we set out the more pertinent part of its details.
3. Under the DDO, a permit is required to construct a building and or to carry out works unless exempted by the schedule. DDO6 does not exempt the construction of the proposed building from the need for a permit.
4. In addition to planning policy, matters to be considered under the DDO include:

The design objectives of the relevant schedule to this overlay.

The provisions of any relevant policies and urban design guidelines.

Whether the bulk, location and appearance of any proposed buildings and works will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.

Whether the design, form, layout, proportion and scale of any proposed buildings and works is compatible with the period, style, form, proportion, and scale of any identified heritage places surrounding the site.

1. The design objectives to be achieved, as set out in DDO6, are:

To protect and conserve buildings and streetscapes of significance and to reinforce the built form character of the area as being essentially of low-rise buildings.

To maintain the human scale of the area and to ensure compatibility with the scale and character of the existing built form.

To ensure that any redevelopment or new development is compatible with the scale and character of adjoining buildings and the area.

1. DDO6 also sets out height limits for different areas. The site is partly within area 12, which covers the southeast portion of the site in an "L" shape along both street frontages, with area 14 located toward the northwest rear corner. A preferred maximum building height limit of 10 metres applies to area 12 while the height increases to 16 metres in area 14. A permit can be granted to exceed the maximum height limits; however, it must be demonstrated how the proposal will achieve the specified built form outcomes identified in the schedule.
2. The outcome to be achieved for area 12 is:

The low-rise built form of the area, which is predominantly 2-3 storey, is maintained to ensure that the existing Victorian character of the area is conserved.

Development of an appropriate scale to Cardigan Street is achieved, but in doing so maintains a comfortable relationship with the surrounding low-scale area[6].

1. Other relevant provisions are at clauses 52.06 [Car parking], 52.34 [Bicycle parking] and 65 [General decision guidelines].

1. After having considered the matters raised in the submissions, the details of the proposal and the relevant matters under the planning scheme and legislation, it seems to us that the key issues in this matter are:
   • Is the intensity of the proposed development acceptable having regard to the thrust of the planning scheme's policies and the outcomes sought under DDO6?
   • Will the proposed development adversely impact on the significance of the Royal Exhibition Buildings and Carlton Gardens?
2. While these are the key issues, there are a number of other matters that require some comment as they are relevant to the consideration of the overall merits of this proposal.
3. Firstly, there has been considerable confusion about the heritage value of the buildings which existed on the site. It seems that the site was erroneously identified as 97 Rathdowne Street under the Carlton Conservation Study. A "C" grading was applied to the buildings. There was no grading assigned to the 83-95 Rathdowne Street although clearly the buildings in question and given the "C" grading were on the site. The site is also not covered by the heritage overlay. It is unclear as to whether the removal of the heritage overlay in 2000 under Amendment C19 was intended or not. We understand that a recent request to the Minister for Planning to reapply the heritage overlay over the site has been unsuccessful.
4. While we appreciate the confusion over the heritage value of the buildings, the simple fact of the matter is that the site is not subject to the heritage overlay; the Heritage Council has found the buildings not worthy of inclusion on the Heritage Register, and the buildings have now been lawfully demolished. The proposal, as put forward to us at the hearing was that all buildings on the site would be demolished. This has now occurred.
5. Secondly, it is clear that the site provides a development opportunity. It is a relatively large parcel of land. Although irregular in shape, the majority of its overall area is within an almost square shaped component. It has two street frontages. All services and facilities are available. Further, the site is well positioned, in close proximity to Melbourne's CBD. All of these factors favour the site's potential to be redeveloped.
6. We accept that the site is subject to constraints. Its proximity to important heritage buildings is obviously significant. However, we do not agree with the proposition put forward in the Carlton Residents Association [CRA] submission that the site's context, its proximity to heritage buildings, the gardens and location within the WHEA, bring about a situation that there should be no development approval granted until final decisions are made as to the form of the strategy plan for the WHEA and any changes to planning controls that may arise from it are put into place. If it were intended that there be no approvals granted in the WHEA area until the strategy is finalised and implemented, then the scheme would have been amended to reflect this. But that is not the case. The planning scheme provides discretion for a permit to be granted. It sets out criteria for assessment. We are obliged to consider the planning scheme as it stands and to make a decision on the merits.
7. Thirdly, there was no real concern raised about the proposed use of the site for residential purposes. The site is zoned Mixed Use. The purpose of the zone contemplates residential use and development. "Dwelling" is an as of right use. The fact that the proposal seeks to facilitate a use that is entirely consistent with the purpose of the zone weighs in its favour.
8. Fourthly, it is relevant that the council did not raise any concerns about potential adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. While some objectors raised concerns about adverse amenity impacts, these were limited to the potential for overlooking to the west and traffic/car parking.
9. Mr Tovey was concerned about overlooking to the west. However, these concerns were allayed following discussions with Mr Canavan who suggested that the windows and/or terraces adjacent to the northwest corner of the site could be screened or modified to prevent opportunity for direct views into his property. Mr Canavan submitted that the changes could be implemented by permit conditions. Mr Tovey agreed that the changes put forward by Mr Canavan would overcome his concerns. Subject to these changes, we are satisfied that there is no unreasonable potential for overlooking. The plans are ambiguous as to whether there are balconies on at level 2 on the west side of Units 215-217. We have therefore phrased the conditions requiring screening in such a way that either the windows or balconies need to be screened to prevent direct views. If there are no balconies, then the windows should be screened. If there are balconies, then the provision of screens at the balustrade would be sufficient.
10. Concerns about the adequacy of parking and traffic impacts were raised in the written submission filed by the body corporate of the Panorama development to the south of the site. We do not share these concerns.
11. Parking requirements are set out at clause 52.06 apply. The requirement is for 2 spaces per dwelling. This requirement is not met; however, a permit can be granted to reduce the requirement. While the provisions of clause 55 do not apply given the height of the building, we accept the view expressed in the report by Cardno Grogan Richards that it would be reasonable to apply the car parking rate for dwellings set out in Standard B16 of clause 55. Sixty two spaces would be required if the rate at standard B16 is applied. The provision of 61 car parking spaces does not achieve exact compliance; however, the extent of the deficiency is very small. Given the site context on the edge of the CBD, we find the amount of parking to be acceptable.
12. The proposed use of the site will generate traffic. However, the volume that would be generated is relatively modest. The road infrastructure around the site is well developed and capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the proposal.
13. Fifthly, we note that no concerns were raised about internal amenity. On our assessment we are satisfied that the proposed dwellings will provide future residents with good amenity.
14. Having set out the above, we now turn to the key issues in dispute.
15. The first of these is whether the intensity of the proposed development is acceptable having regard to the thrust of the planning scheme's policies and the outcomes sought under DDO6.
16. Although the council accepts that the site is capable of being redeveloped, Ms Foley submitted that the intensity of development proposed is excessive and fails to respond appropriately to the direction given by the MSS. In this regard Ms Foley referred to clause 21.04 of the MSS which notes that the degree of opportunity for housing varies from area to area within the City of Melbourne, with some of the more stable areas like Carlton likely to experience minimal change. To preserve the valued characteristics of the City's neighbourhoods, MSS strategies include limiting housing and population growth in parts of Carlton.
17. It was also contended that the thrust of the MSS is to ensure that the height and bulk of new buildings responds to the prevailing neighbourhood and heritage character. In particular it was submitted that the low scale built form character of the area is to be respected. Further it was noted that the design objectives in DDO6 call for the essentially low rise built form character of the area to be reinforced.
18. Mr McGurn's assessment of the local policy context was not all that different. In particular, on reviewing several clauses within the MSS, Mr McGurn concluded that:

.....Clauses 21.04, 21.05 and 21.08-7 recognise that this area of Carlton is a stable area where, whilst residential development is encouraged, little growth is envisaged. Such growth must be consistent with the scale, bulk, height and character of the surrounding area and in particular, the heritage areas which seek the protection and enhancement of Victorian era dwellings. As such any new development must be cognisant of its surrounding character and fit within its context..... [7]

1. There can be no doubt that the planning scheme's policies, in both the state and local policy frameworks, support the redevelopment of this now vacant site for housing. The policies within clause 12 and 14.01 of the SPPF support the principle of urban consolidation and the provision of additional housing on sites near activity centres and good public transport services. Further, although the MSS clearly notes that this part of Carlton is a stable area with limited opportunity for new housing and growth, nonetheless, this does not mean that development opportunities that provide for new housing and some growth should not be taken up when they are presented. The local area map for Carlton in the MSS[8] clearly provides support for residential development.
2. Such support is however qualified on the basis that the new development should maintain the low scale character of the area. There are several objectives, strategies and passages within the MSS which continually restate and therefore reinforce the principle that the low scale nature of the area is to be maintained and/or respected.
3. Essentially, it is the council's contention that the height of the development is excessive and therefore fails to respect to low scale character which the MSS says needs to be maintained and respected. It is in this respect that it is contended that the development and use proposed for this site is too intense.
4. We do not agree with these propositions.
5. Planning policy sets the direction that guides use and development in a general way, with statutory controls like zones and overlays used as tools to implement the strategic intent of policy. The policy context in this case is amplified by the provisions of the DDO and the applicable schedule. It is difficult to escape the fact that the DDO contemplates a preferred maximum height of 16 metres over part of this site. Therefore, the understanding of the direction given by the MSS in terms of maintaining and respecting the low scale character of the area must embrace the height of development contemplated under DDO6. It would seem nonsense for a 16 metre height limit to be specified in DDO6 only for a proposed building of this height to be found to be contrary to policy.
6. Similarly, the understanding of what is contemplated under the design objectives and outcomes in DDO6 needs to embrace the height limits specified in the control itself.
7. It is true that area 14 over which the 16 metre height limit applies covers only part of the site. Part of the building intrudes into area 12 where a 10 metre limit is specified.
8. However, the proposal does not seek to develop a building of about 16 metres over the entire site. As we noted earlier, the building has been designed so that the lower three levels act as a podium, with the two levels above stepped back. We agree with Mr McGurn and Mr Rodda that this represents an appropriate response to the streetscape and general character of the area.
9. In coming to this conclusion, we take into account that it is not just the applicant's experts that have found the height and general massing of the proposed building to be acceptable. In documents tabled by Ms Foley, it is clear that the Council's Senior Urban Designer supported the original 6 storey version of the development, albeit that the maximum height specified in DDO6 was to be exceeded by over 3 metres in both areas 12 and 14, and the uppermost levels also coming closer to Queensberry Street than what is now proposed.
10. Further, the council's conservation consultant commented:

In short I concur with the views put forward by Mr Trethowan that the proposal is a responsible and considered design that is compatible with the key buildings of the area.......

....I note that the scale of the building is strongly supported by Council's Urban Design branch and this reinforces the view that it is a particular site where discretion can be exercised with regard to this aspect of heritage policy.

1. The council's town planner also recommended approval of the 6 storey proposal.
2. Overall, we are satisfied that the proposal has been designed to respond appropriately to planning policy and the provisions of the DDO. The proposal makes appropriate use of a vacant site in close proximity to activity centres and public transport. The design of the building reinforces the low rise scale of development through the lower podium levels, with the upper levels stepped back and finished in lighter materials and colours that reinforce their recessive nature. Although the maximum preferred heights under DDO6 are exceeded, in this case by 500mm, this is marginal and not significant. We also accept that the massing of the building over the site is acceptable having regard to the design objectives and outcomes specified in the DDO and its schedule.
3. The second key issue in this matter is whether the proposed development is acceptable having regard to its impact on the heritage values of the REB and the Carlton Gardens.
4. It was contended on behalf of the council and the objectors that the height, form and modernity of the proposed development is not appropriate given the proximity to the REB and gardens and that there would be adverse impacts on views toward the REB building, particularly from Queensberry Street.
5. It was submitted that the WHEA within which the site sits provides the context within which the REB and gardens are viewed. It was argued that new development must be sensitive to this. In particular, there was support for the proposition that development on the site should not exceed 10 metres as recommended in a report by Coomes Consulting for Heritage Victoria[9].
6. The World Heritage listing has given rise to the designation of the WHEA and the subsequent preparation of a draft strategy plan for this area. The draft strategy plan[10], prepared by Allom Lovell, suggests that the following description of the WHEA be inserted into the MSS:

The World Heritage Environs Area (WHEA) surrounds the World Heritage listed Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens, Carlton. The WHEA, which includes land within Carlton, Melbourne and East Melbourne, acts a "buffer zone" for the World Heritage property and provides a setting and context of significant historic character for the World Heritage property. The most sensitive area within the WHEA, in relation to the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens, is represented in the World Heritage Environs Area Heritage Overlay precinct.

1. The site is within the intended WHEA overlay precinct, which is an area of primary sensitivity. The strategy plan says that objectives for this precinct are framed to:
   • Protect and enhance views and vistas to the REB site.
   • Ensure that new development within the precinct has regard for maintaining the prominence and visibility of the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens within the immediate local context. This will enable the REB to remain a dominant building within the context, and retain its visual presence and landmark qualities which in turn reflect its role as an international exhibition building.
2. Objectives include:
   • Retaining the predominantly lower scale form of development in the precinct which provides a contrast to the dominant scale of the Royal Exhibition Building........
   • Protect direct views and vistas to the Royal Exhibition Buildings, dome and gardens from bordering/abutting streets; and other views and vistas to the dome available from streets within the precinct including Gertrude and Queensberry Streets..............
3. No changes to the current DDO provisions, including height controls, are recommended. The approach under the strategy plan is to apply a Heritage Overlay over the area within which the site lies. The WHEA was identified in a schedule to that overlay and proposals would require permission for development to be assessed under the provisions of clauses 43.01 and modified policies.
4. This approach is different to that adopted in the Coomes report to which we have previously referred which recommends that a 10 metre height limit be applied to the site.
5. We understand that there is debate as to which approach should be ultimately adopted. However, we do not consider it our role to decide which approach should be supported. Our task is to assess the impact of the proposal before us having regard to what is in the planning scheme which already provides substantial guidance in terms of what is to be considered This includes the context, protection of landmarks and views towards them, and to maintain and respect the low scale character of the built form in this area which creates the setting for the REB and gardens. The site's context in the area of greatest sensitivity also needs to be considered.
6. For reasons that we have previously set out, it is relevant to note that:
   • The site is now vacant, and therefore buildings protected under heritage controls have not been removed, and
   • The form of the proposed development is low scale and responds to the character of the area, albeit in a contemporary built form.
7. In terms of Rathdowne Street, we do not agree that the development has an unacceptable impact on the setting for the REB. The proposed building will clearly be read as part of the streetscape opposite the REB and gardens. It will not intrude on views towards the REB or gardens from Rathdowne Street.
8. In terms of the argument presented at the hearing, it is clear that the eastward views toward the REB from Queensberry Street were considered to be critical to the assessment of the proposal
9. In this regard we have been assisted by photomontages prepared by Orbit Solutions which show the impact of the proposed development from various points along Queensberry Street.
10. While it is clear that the proposed building will be seen, we agree with the views expressed by Mr McGurn that the impacts on the views of the REB are of a marginal nature and not significant. This is largely due to the design of the building which keeps the podium levels to about 10 metres in height, as generally as required by the DDO6 control as it stands, and provides a 9 metre setback to the two upper levels from Queensberry Street. The important elements of the REB, namely the dome and drum that give the building its landmark qualities, remain prominent.
11. This view was shared not only by the applicant's experts, but also the council's heritage consultant who stated:

While the building will affect some views to the Exhibition Buildings from within parts of Queensberry Street, the majority of such views will be retained and the strong role played by the Exhibition Buildings as a key element of the termination of Queensberry Street will be generally maintained[11].

1. It also needs to be said that the above advice was based on the impact of the earlier six storey proposal. The current proposal, with its reduced height and greater setback of the upper levels to Queensberry Street would have a much lesser impact.
2. We are also unable to agree with the submission that views out from the Exhibition Buildings observation decks would be compromised. We accept that the building will be seen; however, the views from the observation decks are broad. The proposed building would be a relatively minor element.
3. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the proposed development would not have unacceptable impacts on the REB, the gardens and the context.

1. Given our findings we have decided to set aside the council's decision. A permit is granted. The site is suitable for redevelopment for housing. The height, form and appearance of the building are appropriate having regard to the direction given by planning policy, the DDO and its schedule. We find that the proposed development would have minimal impacts on the appreciation of the REB and gardens and would not diminish their significance.
2. We have settled the form of the conditions taking into account the agreement reached with Mr Tovey and the submissions of the parties.

Construction of a five storey building over two basemen levels containing up to 49 dwellings and car parking and reduction in car parking required under clause 52.06 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme generally in accordance with the endorsed plans

1. Before commencement of the development hereby approved, 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 produced by Woods Bagot dated 18 June 2008 but amended to show:
   • (a) parking spaces adjacent to a wall, railing or columns that are not located in accordance with Figure 5.2 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 must be widened by 0.3m, in accordance with Clause 2.4.l(b)(ii) of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 to provide adequate room for convenient access/egress both of the vehicle into the car space and also the driver and passengers into the car;
   • (b) appropriate traffic control measures should be provided in conjunction with appropriate sight lines to minimise conflict between motorists within the internal car park facility as the internal ramps can only facilitate one-way movement;
   • (c) height clearances in all car park areas, including the ramps, should be shown on the plan and should comply with the requirements of AS2890.l (clear of any pipes, sprinklers etc);
   • (d) Screening of the northern half of the west facing windows and/or balcony at Level 2 for Unit 216 as appropriate to prevent direct views to the west;
   • (e) Screening of the west facing windows and/or balcony at Level 2 of Unit 217 as appropriate to prevent direct views to the west, and
   • (f) The balustrade to the terrace appurtenant to Unit 306 to be setback not less than 3.5 metres off the west boundary.

These amended plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall be the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The easement known as E-l must be removed from the title of the land prior to the commencement of any demolition, bulk excavation, construction or carrying out of works on the land.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a landscape plan and schedule, incorporating water sensitive urban design features, must be submitted for approval by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
   • (a) landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;
   • (b) the position, type and spread of all trees on the site and a schedule detailing the size and physical condition of each tree and, where appropriate, the steps to be taken to retain the trees in a satisfactory condition together with details of any proposals for the felling, topping or lopping of any tree;
   • (c) the location of buildings and street trees within three metres of the boundary;
   • (d) a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;
   • (e) details of surface finishes of retaining walls, pathways and driveways;
   • (f) location and type of irrigation systems to be used including the location of any rainwater tanks to be used for irrigation;
   • (g) details of any water-sensitive design features to be incorporated;

These landscape plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall form a part of the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The site shall be landscaped within 3 months of the completion of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the areas concerned must be subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Any trees in the adjoining streets must not be removed, lopped or pruned without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. All costs in connection with the removal/relocation or replacement of the trees, including any payment for the amenity value of a tree to be removed, must be met by the developer/owner of the site.
3. All garbage and other waste material must be stored in an area set aside for such purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. No garbage bin or waste materials generated by the permitted use shall be deposited or stored outside the site and bins must be returned to the garbage storage area as soon as practicable after garbage collection.
5. The waste storage and collection arrangements must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of the occupation of the development hereby permitted, all necessary vehicle crossings must be constructed and all unnecessary vehicle crossings must be demolished and the footpath, kerb and channel reconstructed, in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. The owner of the subject land will not be permitted to alter the exiting footpath/road levels in Rathdowne and Queensberry Streets, and Grosvenor Place for the purpose of constructing new vehicle or pedestrian entrances without first obtaining written approval of the Responsible Authority.
8. The owner of the subject land should construct a drainage system, incorporating water sensitive urban design, within the development and make provision to connect this system to Council's underground stormwater drainage system in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. The maximum permissible width of a vehicle crossover without a pedestrian refuge is 7.6 metres. Crossings wider than 7.6 metres should include pedestrian refuges a minimum of 2.0 metres in length at 7.6 metre maximum clear spacings.
10. The area(s) set aside for car-parking in the building must be restricted to the parking of vehicles by owners and occupiers of, or visitors to, the building.
11. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or bulk excavation, a detailed construction and demolition management plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. This construction management plan is to be prepared generally in accordance with the City of Melbourne - Construction Management Plan Guidelines and is to consider the following:
    • (a) public safety, amenity and site security;
    • (b) operating hours, noise and vibration controls;
    • (c) air and dust management;
    • (d) stormwater and sediment control;
    • (e) waste and materials reuse; and
    • (f) traffic management.
12. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
    • the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
    • the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

[1] As amended at the commencement of the hearing.

[2] The buildings on the site were erroneously identified as being at 97 Rathdowne Street in the study - refer "Building Identification Form".

[3] Building Permit No. BS18673/20080379.1

[4] World Heritage Environs Area for the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens was declared by the Governor in Council under Section 62A of the Heritage Act 1995 on 9 October 2008.

[6] Ms Foley acknowledged that the reference to Cardigan Street is clearly an error as this street is not located in the vicinity of the site.

[7] See paragraph 56 Evidence report of Mr S McGurn.

[9] This report was prepared under instruction for Heritage Victoria which is reviewing the draft strategy plan for the WHEA prepared by Allom Lovell.

[11] See Conservation Consultant Heritage Advice dated 15 February 2007