//
[141]
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/32
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-06-25
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Applicant is seeking to amend the Development Plan to facilitate an amended development on the subject land.
The changes proposed to the indicative built form as part of the application include:
In terms of land use, the amendments propose to clarify that residential use above ground floor can be contemplated.
Other changes are proposed to the Development Plan which seek to change or update the text to reflect the changes sort of the built form, and changes made to have regard to the time that has elapsed since the latest approved development plan in August 2021.
The Permit was issued on 24 April 2020, allowing the use and development of the subject land for a residential hotel, office, and bar, along with a reduction in car parking requirements.
The approved development plans (Decision Plans) included an eight to nine storey residential hotel containing 168 rooms, with a ground-floor bar located on the southern portion of the subject land. A five to six storey office building was proposed on the northern section. A total of 227 car parking spaces were to be provided across two to three basement levels.
An extension of time was granted on 10 May 2024, extending the Permit's commencement date to 24 April 2026, with completion required by 24 April 2028.
The Applicant indicated that the Permit has not yet been acted upon primarily due to shifts in market and economic conditions, particularly the significant decline in demand for office space and residential hotels as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 4 Artist impression of approved development (viewed from Plenty Road)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 4 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Applicant is seeking to amend the Permit to facilitate an amended development proposal.
Figure 5 Artist impression of proposed amended development (viewed from Plenty Road)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 5 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Table 2 identifies the planning context relevant to the Proposal.
The subject land is in the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). The purposes of the MUZ are to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework and:
The subject land is affected by the Development Plan Overlay (DPO).
The Purpose of the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) is:
Schedule 1 to the DCPO outlines the Darebin Development Contributions Plan, comprising payable levies for the provision of infrastructure.
The amendments to the existing Planning Permit require permission pursuant to:
(i) What is the decision making context to consider the changes?
The Development Plan was approved in accordance with DPO1. DPO1 sits under Clause 43.04 of the Planning Scheme that identifies the purpose of development plans is to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. The clause sets out that:
Requirements for a development plan, as set out in DPO1, include that the development plan "should address the elements of the North East Corridor Strategic Plan relevant to the site".
Guidelines for consideration of a development plan in section 2.0 of DPO1 also direct that the responsible authority should consider whether the development plan is consistent with the North East Corridor Strategic Plan (NECSP).
The issue is whether the proposed amendments to the Development Plan are strategically justified and adequately address elements of the NECSP.
Council considered the Development Plan is required to, but does not, accord with the NECSP. Council took the Committee to page 31 of the NECSP which discusses "development form, density and character" for Larundel Urban Village (the relevant development area):
Higher density development is welcomed in the mixed-use area, however it must be scaled to respect the tree lined character of Plenty Road and height of adjacent development. As a guideline, this should be no higher than three storeys alongside Plenty Road, and two storeys elsewhere, as indicated on the Framework Plan. Development in the mixed-use area must also be laid out to retain and respect the tree-lined character of Plenty Road and within the site itself.
Council submitted the that while the height of nearby development does offer a level of support for buildings of scale in Precinct 1B, the increased height is not sought in conjunction with generous setbacks and landscaping as occurs elsewhere along Plenty Road. The basis of Council's objection was the combination of the increased height with the reduced setback, landscape and design quality expectations.
Mr D'Amico, who gave planning evidence for the Applicant, said:
More generally, Mr D'Amico considered the proposal enjoys strong strategic support. He said the proposal advances a wide range of urban consolidation initiatives that sit at the forefront of the policy agenda. This includes:
The NECSP was adopted by Council over 26 years ago in 1998, and relies on metropolitan policy from 1995 and 1996. While it recognises key redevelopment sites and seeks to guide future development in a coordinated and integrated manner, it is clearly out of date and at odds with current day planning policy.
For example, the specific words and text within the NECSP, particularly pages 29 to 31 in a section headed "Larundel Urban Village" includes direction for two-storey development for most of the Development Plan area and three storeys along Plenty Road. This is difficult to correlate with the broader strategic planning and physical changes that have occurred in the area over the 26 years since the strategy's adoption.
The subject land is now designated within an Area of Urban Intensification in the Strategic Framework Plan and is in a Substantial Housing Change Area in the Strategic Housing Framework Plan at Clause 02.04. The scale of built form now envisaged for the area responds to the physical context, where higher density developments have emerged along Plenty Road and are expected to continue based upon the strategic policy directions and planning controls. For example, Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17 has been applied to extensive parts of Plenty Road and seeks to facilitate higher residential densities through lot consolidation and contemplates six storey buildings.
However, the NECSP has some relevance in the Committee's consideration because it is a required consideration of DPO1.
The Committee adopts the reasoning of the Tribunal in Deal (LG) Pty Ltd v Darebin CC [2020] VCAT 966 where it considered a previous amendment to the Development Plan sought by the Applicant and grappled with the issue of whether the proposed amendment adequately addressed elements of the NECSP:
The DPO1 requirements for a development plan only state that 'the Development Plan should address the elements of the North East Corridor Strategic Plan'. It does not direct that the Development Plan must be only in accordance with the corridor plan. The 'guidelines for consideration of a development plan' in the DPO1 schedule include one guideline that 'the responsible authority should consider whether the development plan or permit application is consistent with the North East Corridor Strategic Plan'. This is one consideration among a number, with the other key relevant consideration being 'whether the location, bulk, height and appearance of any proposed buildings or works will be in keeping with the character of the area'. The character of the area, and the drivers of the character of the area have changed since the NECSP was adopted by the council in 1998.
Ultimately, while the NECSP is out of date, the Committee is satisfied the amended Development Plan will continue to adequately address its elements. Importantly, the NECSP includes a Vision which is flexible enough to allow for changes to occur over time. The Vision acknowledges that the area needs to integrate with the more sensitive heritage area to the north-east of the Development Plan area and Plenty Road should therefore anticipate higher built form than the rest of the Development Plan area.
The amended Development Plan will continue to support the intensity of built form that the NECSP seeks along Plenty Road, with the majority of the activity centre comprising two- to three-storey developments that respect the heritage buildings in the area.
More generally, the proposed changes have strong strategic support. There is a renewed emphasis at both state and regional levels that residential development should use land already earmarked for urban development, rather than growing outwards. The subject land, while still undeveloped, has a unique opportunity to better advance the current policies in the Planning Scheme.
The subject land is well-suited for higher density housing. It abuts a major road, with access to the central business district, public transport, and cycling and walking paths. The apartment typology will ensure there are increased housing choices for a wider range of household types and income levels within a well-serviced and established residential setting.
The matters of the suitability of the proposed change in land use, the height and density of the proposed development, and whether a pedestrian and cycling link should continue to be provided are discussed later in this report.
(i) What does the approved Development Plan specify?
The Development Plan establishes an envelope for future built form in Precinct 1B through a variety of statements and images.
In terms of height for the Plenty Road Frontage, the Development Plan (page 45) states:
The Plenty Road frontage has the potential to support a preferred maximum building height of nine (9) stories having regard to local context considerations, including the site's relationship to surrounding development.
This maximum height is represented throughout the document in text, rendered views and diagrams. The clearest representation of the heights is in Section E-E on page 43a, which shows an increasing height from north to south with Building B at five to six storeys and Building A at seven to eight storeys (Figure 6).
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 6 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
(ii) What changes are proposed to the Development Plan?
The amended Development Plan proposes to increase the maximum building height to ten storeys:
The Plenty Road frontage has the potential to support a preferred maximum building height of ten (10) stories ...
This amendment is generally propagated throughout the document in text, rendered views and diagrams. The clearest representation of the heights is in Section E-E on page 43a, which shows an increasing height from north to south with Building B at seven to eight storeys and Building A at nine to ten storeys.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 7 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The issue is whether it is appropriate to increase the preferred maximum building height from nine to ten storeys for Building A and from seven to eight storeys for Building B.
Council generally supported the increased height with caveats that the setbacks, landscaping, form and building separation must also be addressed.
The height of nearby development does offer a level of support for buildings of scale in Precinct 1B, but increased height is not sought in conjunction with generous setbacks and landscaping as occurs elsewhere along Plenty Road and within the Land for apartment development (as approved not yet constructed to the north). The basis of Council's objection is the combination of the increased height with the reduced setback, landscape and design quality expectations.
Council referred to its delegate report[6] which assessed the amended proposal and said:
While the height of the built form of the proposal is not entirely inconsistent with the mix of character in the surrounding area, it clearly fails to strike any balance, reaching the upper limits of what is envisaged to occur on the La Trobe site, pushing beyond what is found elsewhere along the Plenty Road corridor and substantially exceeding anything within the Development Plan area. When substantial built forms are found in the surrounding area they feature generous setbacks and landscaping and maintain the tree-lined character of the streets. No development anywhere in the surrounding area has so substantial a built form with such minimal landscaping.
Ms Roberts, who gave urban design evidence for Council, supported the increase in height as long as building separation and the need for the built form to step with the topography of the subject land is addressed.
Ms Bell, who gave urban design evidence for the Applicant, supported the increase in height. In relation to Building A she considered:
The Committee acknowledges Council's broad support for the increased building height, albeit with specific caveats.
The Committee observed that the proposed maximum height increases for both buildings are generally consistent with recent developments and policy along Plenty Road, including:
Taller residential buildings with limited upper-level setbacks or podium separation on major roads are an emerging urban form. This can be seen in recently developed sections of Plenty Road, Doncaster Road, and Bell Street. This arrangement, whilst sometimes dramatic in outer suburban locations, has advantages in acoustically shielding neighbourhoods and giving major roads a sense of containment. This containment, if combined with careful design of the road reserve section and large canopy trees, can create a pleasing boulevard experience in spite of high traffic volumes.
The Committee is aware that additional height may have wind and shadow impacts on adjacent properties and the public realm, and this impact will be considered as part of the massing and detailed design of the amended Permit.
The Committee observes that the increased number of storeys together with the reduced residential floor-to-floor height results in a height increase of about 1.5 metres for Building A. The Committee agrees with Council and Ms Roberts that height in isolation is not the substantive issue, but considers that the acceptability of greater height is contingent on the quality of the ground plane and contribution to a desirable larger urban scale outcome.
(i) What does the approved Development Plan specify?
For the 'Plenty Road Frontage' of Precinct 1B, the development plan states at section 4.4.2:
A varied ground level setback of between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 metres from the title boundary along Plenty Road is proposed. The varied setback will create a sense of place, and sense of arrival to the Polaris Town Centre, particularly at the corner of Main Street and Main Drive. The title boundary is setback 4m from the Plenty Road kerb.
The Plenty Road setback frontage (along precincts 1B and 2D) has been designed with the view to creating a setback rhythm of buildings coming forward to mark urban corners and buildings setback in between to further accentuate these landmarks. The Plenty Road setback of Precinct 1B varies between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 metres from the title boundary. Refer Figure 49b for details. This will prevent a hard, continuous edge along Plenty Road. Buildings sit proudly forward (ie in Precinct 1B) and others are recessed (ie in Precinct 2D) with appropriate landscape treatments to accentuate their attractiveness in this frontage.
Ground level front setbacks from Plenty Road for buildings located within Precinct 1B vary between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 metres.
A reduced front setback at the 'corner' locations within Precinct 1B creates a sense of place and a sense of arrival to the new Main Drive of the Polaris Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
For the 'Main Drive Frontage', section 4.4.2 includes:
The Main Drive frontage of Precinct 1B will have a continuous landscape treatment along the length of the boundary to create a sensitive interface with the adjoining use and development across Main Drive
(ii) What changes are proposed to the Development Plan?
For the 'Plenty Road Frontage' of Precinct 1B, the development plan states at section 4.4.2:
A varied ground level setback of between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 3 metres (easement) from the title boundary along Plenty Road is proposed. The varied setback will create a sense of place, activation and sense of arrival to the Polaris Town Centre, particularly at the corner of Main Street and Main Drive. The title boundary is setback 4m from the Plenty Road kerb.
The Plenty Road setback frontage (along precincts 1B and 2D) has been designed with the view to creating a setback rhythm of buildings coming forward to mark urban corners and buildings setback in between to further accentuate these landmarks. The Plenty Road setback of Precinct 1B varies between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 3 metres from the title boundary. Refer Figure 49b for details. This will prevent a hard, continuous edge along Plenty Road. Buildings sit proudly forward (ie in Precinct 1B) and others are recessed (ie in Precinct 2D) with appropriate landscape treatments to accentuate their attractiveness in this frontage.
Section 5.3.5 proposes to replace 5.5 metres with three metres, and states:
Ground level front setbacks from Plenty Road for buildings located within Precinct 1B vary between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 3 metres.
For the 'Main Drive Frontage', the text changes in section 4.4.2 include:
The Main Drive frontage of Precinct 1B will should have a continuous landscape treatment along the length of the boundary to create a sensitive interface with the adjoining use and development across Main Drive. This excludes the corner with Plenty Road which is to have a zero setback.
Section 5.4 proposes to replace "reduced" with "zero", and states:
A reduced zero metre front setback at the 'corner' locations within Precinct 1B creates a sense of place and a sense of arrival to the new Main Street of the Polaris Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
Council opposed the proposed changes to the setbacks. It submitted that these changes would diminish existing provisions to ensure future development on the site is appropriately aligned with both its immediate surroundings and the broader area. Council emphasised the need for generous setbacks and landscaping, consistent with what is found elsewhere along Plenty Road. A key concern of Council's was that the reduced setbacks would see a reduction in the landscaping treatment along the length of the Plenty Road and Main Drive boundaries.
Ms Roberts opposed the change in setbacks. She drew on the Application Plans to identify that the reduced setbacks have resulted in:
Mr D'Amico noted that the MUZ supported boundary to boundary construction at street level and a stronger street wall would better activate the frontage.
In response to Ms Roberts' concerns regarding the proposed ramps being located outside the title boundary, the Applicant prepared an updated ground level plan[7]. This demonstrated that it is possible to locate the ramps within the title boundary despite the reduced setbacks proposed.
The Committee summarises the Development Plan requirements for the Plenty Road frontage as follows:
The setback is designed to be flexible, as indicated by the stated range, and visual references in the Development Plan suggest that a three-metre setback rather than the full 5.5 metres may be suitable. For instance, Figure 57 of the Development Plan (also shown as Figure 8 below) depicts a three-metre setback from the Plenty Road boundary for Building B.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 8 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Plenty Road frontage of Precinct 1B can be divided into two distinct parts (see Figure 9):
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 9 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The northern section of the frontage benefits from a wider verge, and the amended three-metre setback would result in an overall distance of approximately seven metres from the kerb to the building envelope. Importantly, the proposed setback will enable well-integrated building entries and landscaping that will enhance the interface between the building and ground level, improving the visual amenity of the lower ground walls and reinforcing a positive pedestrian experience. This spatial arrangement should provide a meaningful buffer between the roadway and the building, supporting a good quality public realm outcome. The Development Plan also indicates that this verge is intended to accommodate canopy tree planting.
The Committee is satisfied that this approach in the northern section gives practical effect to the Development Plan's intent to avoid a hard, continuous edge and instead foster a softened, landscaped frontage. Requiring a wider 5.5-metre setback is unlikely to deliver any meaningful additional benefit, while having the clear disadvantage of reducing the developable building envelope at the most constrained part of the site, undermining both design flexibility and development potential.
In the southern section, the amended setback range of zero to three metres provides sufficient flexibility to achieve the intended "setback rhythm of buildings coming forward to mark urban corners." Unfortunately, this area presents a harsh and constrained interface. Determining the appropriate extent of a three-metre versus zero-metre setback in this section can only be meaningfully assessed in the context of a specific, detailed proposal that effectively responds to the site's challenging conditions while aligning with the aspirations of the Development Plan.
However, the Committee does not support the addition of the word "easement" to the relevant text.
The Applicant proposed to replace "will" with "should" in relation to the provision of a landscape strip along the Main Road frontage.
The verge is relatively wide on the corner of Main Drive and Plenty Road but narrows to about three metres between the curb and site boundary closer to the corner of Galileo Gateway (see Figure 10).
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 10 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Committee considers that a continuous landscape treatment is necessary along this part of Main Drive and does not support changing "will" to "should". This is because the Development Plan aims to:
As discussed in Chapter 4, there is also a minimum width shared path within the Main Drive road reserve abutting the title boundary that necessitates the setback of the building line to provide a suitable clearance.
The issue is whether it is appropriate to require a mid-block pedestrian and cyclist link through Buildings A and B.
(ii) What does the approved Development Plan specify?
Figure 41 of the Development Plan shows a mid-block pedestrian link:
Figure 11 Detailed view of Figure 41 of the Development Plan
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 11 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Figure 42 of the Development Plan showed a mid-block pedestrian link:
Figure 12 Detailed view of Figure 42 of the Development Plan
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 12 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
(iii) What changes are proposed to the Development Plan?
The Applicant proposes to delete the mid-block link in Figures 41 and 42 of the Development Plan (and any other consequential changes throughout).
Figure 13 Figure 41 of the proposed Development Plan
Figure 14 Figure 42 of the proposed Development Plan
The Development Plan specifies a precinct wide strategy for pedestrian and cycle movements. This includes identification of a public pedestrian and cycle link through the Site, between Buildings 01 and 02, connecting Galileo Gateway and Plenty Road. Section E-E of the Development Plan indicates that the link would be clear to the sky and ramped.[8]
A pedestrian and cycle connection through the Site is also specified in the NECSP.
A ramp providing pedestrian and cycle access is not included in the approved plans, nor is any alternative connection through the Site.
Due to the slope across the site, it is not practicable to construct a ramp with a compliant grade as indicated in the Development Plan.
Ms Bell supported the deletion of the mid-block link, citing the impracticality of constructing a compliant ramp, the absence of a clear desire line or legible connection through the Woolworths car park to the Copernicus Crescent, and the fact that the most direct pedestrian route is via Main Drive.
Mr Maina, who provided traffic evidence on behalf of Council, objected to the removal of the link on transport grounds. He referred to Figures 41 and 42 of the Development Plan, which show the link as part of the pedestrian and cycle network. Mr Maina also cited the Larundel Urban Village Framework Plan in the NECSP, which includes the link annotated as an "enhanced pedestrian and cycle route."
Mr Farran, traffic expert for the Applicant, initially appeared unaware that the approved Development Plan could be interpreted as requiring the link. However, in oral evidence, he supported its deletion and presented a comparative plan of pedestrian route distances from the Main Drive/Plenty Road intersection to the stair accessing the supermarket's upper parking deck. The existing informal shortcut across the site, evidenced by a "goat track", measures approximately 40 metres. The route via Main Drive is about 80 metres, while a route via the proposed mid-block link would extend to approximately 120 metres.
The Applicant submitted that the approved Development Plan does not include or require a mid-block link and referred the Committee to Figure 84 (Figure 15 below), which shows no indication of "public access across private land." The Applicant also noted that while a public access link was shown in the original 2009 Development Plan, it was removed at some time prior to the Plan's approval in 2021.
Ms Roberts opposed the removal of the link, citing concerns regarding building mass, the reduced separation between buildings, and diminished pedestrian permeability. In response to questioning, Ms Roberts stated that Objective 1.1.1 of Urban Design for Melbourne should be afforded some weight when considering appropriate block length and perimeter definition.
Council acknowledged that the Decision Plans do not include a mid-block link due to the level change between the loading dock and Plenty Road. However, Council submitted that pedestrian access through the subject land was still possible, for example by entering the bar on Plenty Road and exiting at Galileo Gateway.
The Committee considers that Design for Melbourne, Objective 1.1.1, offers clear and practical guidance regarding block dimensions and the circumstances under which a mid-block link may be necessary. Objective 1.1.1 recommends block dimensions with a long side of between 120 and 240 metres and a perimeter of around 600 metres. The Committee observes that the subject block is approximately 160 metres in length with a perimeter of around 375 metres, which falls well within these recommended parameters. Furthermore, Objective 1.1.1 advises that new pedestrian paths should extend from existing ones; the Committee observes that no existing mid-block path currently exists along Plenty Road.
During a site inspection, the Committee observed an informal track diagonally crossing the vacant site from the Plenty Road/Main Drive intersection to the base of the stair accessing the Woolworths supermarket's upper parking deck. This track represents the most direct route and has been in use for several years. No other informal paths or traces of routes, such as from the nearby bus stop, were evident.
The Committee also notes that the Larundel Urban Village Framework Plan within the NECSP includes a link designated as an "enhanced pedestrian and cycle route." However, since 1998, the subdivided and constructed road and block layout has diverged from this plan in several respects, including:
Given these significant changes, the Committee places limited weight on strict adherence to the link as shown on the Larundel Urban Village Framework Plan.
The relevance of the pedestrian link depicted in Figure 41 of the Development Plan, and its apparent discrepancy with Figure 84, was extensively discussed during the hearing. The Applicant noted that Figure 84 originally indicated a "public path through private land" in the 2009 version of the Development Plan, but that this link was removed prior to the approval of the 2021 version. The Committee considers that Figure 84 takes precedence over Figure 41, as it is a larger-scale drawing and specifically addresses public paths through private land. Furthermore, the discrepancy is likely explained by the intentional removal of the path, while Figures 41 and 42 were inadvertently left unchanged.
The Committee acknowledges that, according to the Decision Plans, it may be possible for members of the public to enter the bar on Plenty Road and exit at Galileo Gateway. However, it is unlikely that this route would be frequently used or provide significant convenience as a public thoroughfare. It would not cater for cyclists. The Applicant noted that the permit does not include a Section 173 agreement or similar condition to secure or protect a public access route. Council advised that the pedestrian crossing shown on the Council-owned portion of Galileo Gateway in the endorsed plans for the Polaris Shopping Centre has not been constructed, and Council has not enforced the obligation to deliver this crossing.
The Committee found Mr Farran's comparative analysis of pedestrian distances via Main Drive and a potential mid-block link to be informative. His assessment demonstrated that the route via Main Drive and Galileo Gateway is slightly shorter and therefore, by this measure, more convenient than the mid-block path. On this basis, the Committee concludes that the omission of the mid-block link does not significantly inconvenience the most likely foot traffic.
Providing pedestrian choice is an important principle. A mid-block link would offer the advantage of allowing some pedestrians, such as those walking from the bus stop to the supermarket stair, to avoid the less favourable environment along the southern frontage of Plenty Road. However, access to the bus stop from the supermarket is more likely to occur via Copernicus Crescent, which is a comparable distance but avoids stairs and crossing a car park, while also providing greater opportunities for passive surveillance.
The Committee considered the relative weight of various provisions, urban design guidance, and approvals as follows:
The Committee also assessed the mid-block link on its merits:
On balance, the Committee finds that although a mid-block pedestrian and cyclist link is desirable to a limited extent, its omission is acceptable and consistent with previous approvals.
Various changes are sought throughout the Development Plan to remove the requirements to retain "existing trees" and replace this with the requirement to retain "high retention value" trees only.
The issue is whether it is appropriate to amend the Development Plan to require the retention of "high retention value" trees only.
Council did not support the changes and highlighted the following section of its delegate report which was critical of the impact of the changes to the development plan:
As noted in previous sections, the character of the surrounding area is heavily influenced by the strong presence of existing mature trees and new planting. This is particularly the case in residential areas. The proposed amended Development Plan will create a substantial contrast between the corner site and the rest of the Development Plan area, a contrast which has no support in the policy.
It is also notable that the Development Plan appears to seek the removal of the last of the six medium retention value trees on the site. The arborists review of these trees have not at any stage recommended their removal. It is notable that the Arboricultural Report which was accompanying the planning application D/10/2020 reviews the remaining tree, a Grevilia robusta. The report comments that "new tree planting could compensate for its removal" but the subsequent permit amendment application D/10/2020/A does "not propose a deep soil area or an extent of canopy cover", with just two small trees proposed on the subject site. Even the planting of those trees is contingent on removing the bus stop.
The Development Plan encourages the retention of "high retention value" trees on the site, as well as other existing trees where practical. However, the proposed changes aim to remove the broader requirement to retain existing trees where possible and instead focus solely on the retention of trees classified as having "high retention value."
The Committee notes that the proposed change is intended to allow the removal of the remaining trees on the subject land.
These remaining trees include a poorly formed Pin Oak, two small Flowering Pears located at the Plenty Road and Copernicus Circuit intersection, and a native Silky Oak to the south. These trees are of low value, poorly positioned, and isolated. They are unlikely to contribute meaningfully to the future landscape or be suitable for integration into a new design.
Clause 2.0 of DPO1 states that when considering an amended development plan, consideration should be given to:
Whether any proposed landscaping or removal of vegetation will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings the streetscape or the area.
The existing trees do not align with the character of the adjacent parkland, nearby street planting, or established specimen trees. Their retention is likely to constrain future development while offering limited benefit.
The proposed Development Plan provides an opportunity to replace these trees with new plantings that:
The Committee finds it is appropriate to amend the Development Plan to remove reference to existing tree retention and replace this with the requirement to retain "high retention value" trees only.
The issue is whether it is appropriate to amend the Development Plan to clarify that residential land uses (as opposed to only residential hotel and student accommodation uses) are permitted in Precinct 1B?
(ii) What does the approved Development Plan specify?
A development plan vision statement (page 33) is "A place that is well integrated with its surroundings in both use and form".
For the 'Plenty Road Frontage' of Precinct 1B, the development plan states:
It is envisaged that the Plenty Road frontage of Precinct 1B may be developed with mixed use commercial/retail use and development. ... Sensitive uses, such as residential but excluding residential hotel and student accommodation, are not considered to be appropriate along this frontage and are discouraged.
The images within section 4.4.2 depict "office/commercial" land use for Building B and "retail/food and drink premisses/commercial" for the ground level of Building A with "commercial/residential" shown at upper levels.
Section 4.2 "Design response" is also relevant, most relevantly 4.2.2 "Exposure to Traffic Noise":
The Development Plan responds to the high exposure and traffic noise from Plenty Road by locating uses along that edge that are appropriate in this situation. Commercial, office and retail showroom uses are proposed to take advantage of the high exposure offered, but not be sensitive to traffic noise and volumes. The location of residential uses and buildings along the Plenty Road frontage will have landscaping to ameliorate traffic noise. The character along the Plenty Road frontage will respond to the difference between Precinct 1 and Precinct 2, with the latter having buildings set back and within a park-like setting, and the former having buildings in a more urban format, set closer to the road reserve. Built form will be contemporary and where appropriate, iconic in appearance, befitting the gateway status of Plenty Road.
(iii) What changes are proposed to the Development Plan?
Precinct 1B is a mixed use precinct which encompasses the Polaris Neighbourhood Activity Centre, a new main street, shop-top housing, food and drink premises, retail, commercial, office use, residential use, hotel use and development of a civic plaza. These uses will be supported by non-retail uses such as the new community centre also to be located within Precinct 1B. The existing heritage buildings within this precinct are to be retained and either repaired or reconfigured to accommodate a suitable use.
For the 'Plenty Road Frontage' of Precinct 1B, the amended Development Plan states at 4.4.2:
It is envisaged that the Plenty Road frontage of Precinct 1B may be developed with mixed use commercial/retail use and residential use development. ... Sensitive uses, such as residential buildings but excluding residential hotel and student accommodation, are not considered to be appropriate along this frontage and are discouraged where measures are taken to mitigate potential amenity impacts eg acoustic attenuation.
The images and sections within 4.4.2 have been updated to depict a 'residential' land use for at the upper levels of both Buildings 1B-01 and 1B-02.
The design guidance at 4.2.2 'exposure and traffic noise' is proposed to be amended to read:
The Development Plan responds to the high exposure and traffic noise from Plenty Road by locating non-sensitive land, eg retail, food and beverage, uses along that edge at ground level that are appropriate in this situation. Commercial office and retail showroom uses are may be proposed to take advantage of the high exposure offered, but not be sensitive to traffic noise and volume. The location of Rresidential uses and buildings along the Plenty Road frontage will have landscaping may need to be acoustically attenuated to ameliorate traffic nose. This should be determined by an acoustic engineer and address the relevant provisions of the planning scheme eg Clause 58 BADS. The character along the Plenty Road frontage will response to the difference between precinct 1 and precinct 2 with the latter having buildings set back and within a park-like setting, and the former having buildings in a more urban format, set closer to the road reserve. Built form will be contemporary and where appropriate, iconic in appearance, befitting the gateway status of Plenty Road.
Council relied on the following sentence that appears in section 4.4.2 of the Development Plan under the heading "Plenty Road Frontage":
...sensitive uses, such as residential but excluding a residential hotel and student accommodation, are not considered to be appropriate along this frontage and are discouraged...
Council submitted that when the Development Plan is read as a whole, the sensible interpretation of that sentence, which cannot be isolated from the rest of the Development Plan, is that residential land use other than a residential hotel or student accommodation at ground level is discouraged.
Council relied on the evidence and analysis of Ms Roberts. It was Ms Roberts' view that the change in land use contemplated should:
...go hand in hand with an analysis and supporting guidelines that consider the impact of that change on pedestrian, cycle and vehicle movements, the different amenity requirements for the new land use and the different massing and materiality that can be achieved by the new land use.
The Applicant drew the Committee's attention to the following text in the Development Plan (page 40) for Precinct 1B:
Mixed Use Neighbourhood Activity Centre providing retail/commercial, office, supermarket, food and drink premises (take away food premises), restaurant, cafes, residential (shop top housing, student accommodation, apartments, residential hotel) and civic community centre, plaza land uses...
The Applicant submitted that this is entirely consistent with the vision for Precinct 1B as it appears at section 4.4.2 of the Development Plan. It also noted that under the heading 'Neighbourhood Activity Centre' the Development Plan says:
the Mixed Use Precinct identified under the Lancaster Gate Development Plan (2001, amended 2007) is referred to as Precinct 1B under the Development Plan. Precinct 1B is to be a vibrant mixed use precinct containing a new Polaris Neighbourhood Activity Centre...
The Committee is comfortable that, when read as a whole, the Development Plan has always contemplated residential land uses in the form of apartments above ground level retail/commercial uses. If one were to interpret the discouragement of residential uses as extending to residential use above ground floor, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with other parts of the Development Plan, which contemplate shop top housing and apartments in the precinct. In any event, the text uses the word "discouraged" which cannot be read to mean "prohibited".
The clarification of residential land uses will continue to align with the mixed use objectives of Precinct 1B and the Mixed Use Zone, a purpose of the zone being to:
Provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed use function of the locality.
Whilst a hotel use is no longer being pursued as part of the permit application, the residential use will ensure that the development remains a genuinely mixed-use development, with a range of non-sensitive and active land uses at ground level and residential apartments at the upper levels above.
The amended Development Plan includes a new section 3.4 Emerging Built Form (page 29):
Since the PDP was approved in 2008, the surrounding built form context has undergone change, in line with the objectives of planning policy and relevant planning controls.
Developments proximate to Polaris have been developed with larger built form include (but are not limited to) 1091 Plenty Road, Bundoora, and La Trobe University.
1091 Plenty Road, Bundoora comprises an 8-9 storey building. It is noted that 1091 Plenty Road, Bundoora is affected by the DDO17. Polaris is not affected by the DDO17 and/or by any mandatory height controls.
La Trobe University, to the south/south-east of the Subject site, is proposed to be developed as a Health and Community Precinct with six 10-storey buildings (of up to 35 metres in height) in line with: Clause 21.04, Schedule 1 to the Public Use Zone; the built form guidelines of the La Trobe University Structure Plan; the Darebin Housing Strategy 2013 (Revised 2015). This new precinct is part of a broader vision La Trobe University has for its underutilised land, which will transition the area to a more intense employment and higher density residential development precinct.
It also includes the addition of a new paragraph to 4.4.2 Precinct 1B (page 42):
Precinct 1B of Polaris interfaces with existing and areas that are proposed to be developed with higher density buildings. To Plenty Road, Precinct 1B interfaces with buildings ranging from 6-8 storeys as encouraged by local policy. Across Main Drive, the La Trobe University land has been designated for buildings ranging up to 10 storeys, as per the schedule to the Public Use Zone.
The Development Plan was approved in September 2008 and in the subsequent 16 years there has been substantial change in the built form context. The addition of section 3.4 Emerging Built Form is an important amendment to the Development Plan given the larger period of time since it was first approved and the incremental changes to both the urban framework and strategic planning context. The Committee supports the recognition of recent intensification of development and planned development as relevant emerging built form.
The Development Plan at Section 4.2.2 Exposure to Traffic Noise states:
The location of residential uses and buildings along the Plenty Road frontage will have landscaping to ameliorate traffic noise.
The location of Residential uses and buildings along the Plenty Road frontage will have landscaping may need to be acoustically attenuated to ameliorate traffic noise. This should be determined by an acoustic engineer and address the relevant provision of the planning schemes eg Clause 58 BADS.
Ms Roberts did not support this change. She acknowledged that while landscaping does not reduce noise transmission, it can improve the perception of noise, reduce air pollution, and mitigate the urban heat island effect.
Ms Bell supported the proposed change. She noted that the amendment to the Development Plan removes references to landscaping as a method for acoustic mitigation and instead introduces a requirement for buildings to be acoustically attenuated by a qualified engineer. Mr D'Amico agreed.
The Applicant agreed with Ms Bell and submitted that landscaping provides no acoustic attenuation and the proposed amendment would prove a far superior outcome.
The Committee agrees that landscaping and tree canopy provide little or no measurable noise reduction. Therefore, effective noise attenuation should be achieved through physical means, as recommended in the acoustic report and required under Clause 58 of the Planning Scheme.
Approve the amended Development Plan in accordance with the Applicant's Final Day version, but:
a) delete the reference to "easement" in the description of the 'Plenty Road Frontage' of Precinct 1B (page 44)
b) amend the following sentence in section 5.4 to:
A reduced zero front setback at the 'corner' locations within Precinct 1B creates a sense of place and a sense of arrival to the new Main Street of the Polaris Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
The Main Drive frontage of Precinct 1B will should have a continuous landscape treatment along the length of the boundary to create a sensitive interface with the adjoining use and development across Main Drive. This excludes the corner with Plenty Road which is to have a zero setback.
The issue is whether the proposed height and massing of the two buildings is appropriate.
Ms Roberts and Ms Bell found common ground that the increase in building height was acceptable. However, in relation to built form massing, they disagreed. Ms Roberts noted the reduced skyline variation and expression of the topography and considered that the buildings should step up or down with the land to avoid a homogenous "wall" of development. Ms Roberts said that the visually dominant and imposing form was contrary to the DPO1 requirement to be "in keeping with the character of the area".
Ms Roberts also had issues with the ground level pedestrian "link" proposed between both buildings. She said:
In order to avoid a potential 'wall' along Plenty Road the requirement outlined in the DDO and the existing Development Plan for an access link that is visible at eye level and includes canopy landscaping should be delivered. This link has been removed in the proposed amended development plan, both as a cycle link and as a pedestrian link. The issue here is multifaceted. The link shown (and still shown in the amended development plan sections as clear and at ground level) delivers the opportunity for increased site permeability for pedestrians and cyclists, increased built form articulation by clearly breaking the site into two, it allows for built form to address the typography and help avoid basement tops and resulting blank walls protruding out of the ground and allows for canopy landscaping between the forms contributing to the locations valued landscape character.
While I accept that the need for a link for increased public pedestrian and cycle permeability may not be essential given the land use on the opposite side of Galileo Gateway, all the other factors remain examples of good site-responsive urban design and should be sought by the amended Development Plan and delivered in any planning permit.
Ms Bell supported the proposed design and considered that the buildings would sit comfortably within the wide Plenty Road corridor. She focused on the Development Plan's direction that the north and south ends should be landmarks, and believed this was achieved through the rounded corners, taller height compared to nearby buildings, and high visibility from the street.
She considered the varied street wall design and upper-level setbacks successfully created a human-scale feel. While the gap between buildings is slightly narrower than what is shown in the Decision Plans, she considered the reduction to be acceptable.
The Committee notes that the overall height of the buildings in the Application Plans has increased by one storey for Building A and two storeys for Building B. The Committee agrees with the urban design experts that the increased height is acceptable in its context.
In terms of the height difference between the two buildings, it has reduced from 4.5 metres in the Decision Plans to 3 metres in the Application Plans (see Figure 16). The Committee acknowledges Ms Roberts' concerns about the impact of this change on the variation and articulation of the skyline. This plays an important role in preventing the development from appearing as a continuous, monolithic wall. However, the location of the building cores limits the ability to increase height at the north and south ends.
Figure 16 Proposed and approved building envelopes
When viewed obliquely from Plenty Road (see Figures 17 and 18), the varied setbacks and changes in the parapet line create an articulated skyline, avoiding the appearance of a single wall. The architects have also introduced height and silhouette variation through the use of parapet and non-parapet sections to differentiate the building 'blocks'. While this is all supported, the Committee recognises that achieving no parapet, no roof build-up, and no fall may be difficult in practice. There is a risk that, for practical construction reasons, even the modest height variation between the two buildings could be reduced, resulting in buildings that appear as flat-topped slabs, particularly when viewed from across Plenty Road or from more distant vantage points like Bundoora Park. Overall, the Committee considers the massing acceptable, but notes that careful attention during design development is needed to ensure this articulation is not eroded.
In comparing the Application Plans with the Decision Plans, the Committee notes that the clear separation between the buildings has been reduced from approximately 13 metres to 8.6 metres - about a one-third reduction. The approved Development Plan encourages the creation of a "viewing corridor" from Plenty Road to existing buildings on higher ground. While this is a commendable idea, the Committee's review of the plans and aerial imagery confirmed that no existing buildings actually fall within this corridor.
Despite the reduced gap, the Committee finds that the variation in building height, colour, and alignment at this location helps to mitigate any monolithic appearance. Although the narrower gap is not ideal, it is considered acceptable.
Figure 19 Proposed and approved Plenty Road building façade
The Application Plans propose a mid-level bridge link and an enclosed ground-level link between Buildings A and B. The Committee understands these links are intended to allow residents to access communal facilities in either building. However, as use of the mid-level bridge still requires the use of lifts, it offers only limited added convenience.
The Committee notes the Applicant's comment that the development is currently designed as a single build-to-rent property, though this may change in terms of ownership or operation. The Applicant also indicated they are "not wedded to the bridge".
The Committee observes that the rendered view does not support Mr D'Amico's assertion that the mid-level bridge link is visually transparent or maintains a clear visual separation between the buildings. In fact, the combination of the bridge link and the reduced gap significantly diminishes the expression of two separate buildings. Given its limited practical benefit and the further reduction in visual separation between the buildings, the Committee considers the addition of the mid-level bridge to be unacceptable.
The ground-level link also reduces the visual break, but provides a necessary and reasonable weather-protected connection for residents accessing communal facilities. The Committee believes that the visual openness of this link, and the overall separation between the buildings, can be improved through design refinements and demonstrated using view line analysis. The Committee supports Council's proposed condition requiring this and has included it in its preferred permit.
The northern and southern block ends will be prominent on approach. These locations are not in the middle of a continuous street wall and so can be similar or consistent in height to surrounding development and still be distinctive. In combination with the curved glass balustrade on these corners, these ends are to an acceptable degree "landmarks".
4.2 Building setbacks and pedestrian and cyclist amenity
The issue is whether the building setbacks and pedestrian and cyclist amenity are acceptable.
The NECSP states (Section 7, Larundel Urban Village):
An attractive pedestrian and cycle environment should be created along Plenty Road, linking bus and tram stops to the mixed use area and to routes into the development'.
In relation to the Plenty Road Frontage of Precinct 1B the Development Plan (amended) states:
A varied ground level setback of between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 3 metres (easement) from the title boundary along Plenty Road is proposed. The varied setback will create a sense of place, activation and sense of arrival to the Polaris Town Centre, particularly at the corner of Main Street and Main Drive. The title boundary is setback 4m from the Plenty Road kerb.
The Plenty Road setback frontage (along precincts 1B and 2D) has been designed with the view to creating a setback rhythm of buildings coming forward to mark urban corners and buildings setback in between to further accentuate these landmarks. The Plenty Road setback of Precinct 1B varies between 0 metres and approximately 5.5 metres from the title boundary. Refer Figure 49b for details. This will prevent a hard, continuous edge along Plenty Road. Buildings sit proudly forward (ie in Precinct 1B) and others are recessed (ie in Precinct 2D) with appropriate landscape treatments to accentuate their attractiveness in this frontage.
Ms Roberts did not support the ground level setbacks. She said:
Ms Bell observed that the Development Plan seeks to establish strong built edges to define the urban block and emphasise urban corners by bringing buildings forward. While she acknowledged that the Plenty Road frontage presents a "harsh" interface, she raised no concerns or recommendations regarding the zero setback along Plenty Road, noting that she did not perceive it to be problematic.
Building A is positioned along the boundary perimeters to create a street wall at the south-western portion of the site. This creates a strong pedestrian scaled edge that demarcates the 'gateway' to the Polaris Town Centre (see Figure 32) while the upper levels are recessed to provide further articulation to the built form and to manage its overall scale.
Mr D'Amico noted that the MUZ supported boundary to boundary construction at street level and a stronger street wall will "activate the frontage".
The Application Plans generally align with the ground-level setbacks outlined in the amended Development Plan. For the reasons discussed in Chapter 3.3, the Committee considers a three-metre ground-level setback along the northern section of the Plenty Road frontage to be appropriate. In most respects, the proposed ground-level setback is consistent with the Decision Plans, with the exception of the southern section of the Plenty Road frontage.
The Committee's attention is drawn to the role of the Plenty Road footpath within the broader pedestrian and cycle network, as well as its importance in supporting pedestrian amenity. The footpath provides a key connection between the tram super stops, the bus terminus, and the activity centre. It will also serve pedestrians crossing to Bundoora Park, those using the nearby bus stop, and residents or visitors accessing buildings from the Plenty Road frontage. The proposed development includes 253 apartments and provides reduced car parking, making it reasonable to expect a significant number of pedestrians will rely on this footpath, with no realistic alternative available. Cyclists are expected to use the carriageway.
The Decision Plans show the building envelope setback in this southern section. This unenclosed area includes landscape, stairs, ramps, and decks. The setback here ranges from zero to about 0.6 metres, 4.7 metres, and 7.2 metres. The result is a better pedestrian amenity than the Application Plans, which show a zero setback in this section, at the expense of a weaker recessive corner.
The Committee supports the Development Plan's intent to create a "rhythm of buildings coming forward to mark urban corners and buildings set back in between to further accentuate these landmarks." A continuous mid-rise street wall at the southern end of the site effectively defines the entry to the activity centre and provides a clear sense of arrival. The generous curb-to-building zone and short length of the zero setback enhance accessibility to the retail frontage.
However, as the frontage continues north, the building edge along Plenty Road becomes increasingly problematic. Over an extended distance, the pedestrian zone is constrained between the building façade and a guardrail, while remaining fully exposed to traffic noise, pollution, and weather, with no landscape relief or active frontage. The Committee considers this condition to represent the type of "hard, continuous edge along Plenty Road" that the Development Plan explicitly seeks to avoid.
The challenge is to strike an appropriate balance between achieving street activation and clearly marking the urban corner, while avoiding an unacceptable frontage condition. The Committee acknowledges that introducing street trees along the guardrail would require the public footpath to extend into the subject land, effectively necessitating a road widening or land acquisition, which would be difficult and potentially unfeasible.
The most straightforward and effective change would be to apply a three-metre setback along the Plenty Road frontage, with the exception of the southernmost 23 metres, which would retain a zero setback (see Figure 21). This arrangement offers a balanced response that will enhance pedestrian amenity while allowing for corner activation and visual prominence. Specifically, it:
Figure 21 Ground level and level 1 - Application plans (with Committee mark-up)
The ground level setback could include (like in the Decision Plans):
Building setbacks to accommodate pedestrian and cyclist paths are discussed in Chapter 4.7.
The issue is whether the proposed landscaping treatment is appropriate, including both tree removal and deep soil planting.
Clause 2.0 of the DPO1 sets guidelines for the consideration of permit applications, including:
Whether any proposed landscaping or removal of vegetation will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
The Development Plan includes the following landscape design standards at section 4.7.4:
All areas of the precinct must be landscaped, with particular attention to a high quality frontage.
Landscape schemes should provide amenity by provision for summer shade, screening and windbreaks and green spaces of pedestrian retreat.
The NECSP discusses 'development form, density and character' for the Larundel Urban Village:
Development in the mixed-use area must also be laid out to retain and respect the tree-lined character of Plenty Road and within the site itself.
The landscape proposed in the Decision Plans and Application Plans is very similar, however some changes are proposed. The Application Plans propose:
Council was very critical of the proposed development with respect to landscaping. Council submitted that this development differs from that shown in the Decision Plans given the residential use. It submitted that apartments have specific and different requirements under the Planning Scheme and therefore an increased focus on landscaping is required. Council submitted:
Ms Roberts objected to the proposed reduction in landscaped area, citing concerns relating to climate change, urban heat island effects, and biodiversity. As part of her evidence, she presented site and contextual photographs illustrating the existing pedestrian environment along Plenty Road. One particular photograph, showing the three-metre landscaped setback at 1078 Plenty Road, was discussed during cross-examination. Ms Roberts acknowledged that while large canopy trees could not be accommodated within a three-metre setback, small to medium canopy trees could be successfully incorporated. She expressed the view that a continuous landscaped setback along the full length of the Plenty Road frontage would represent an appropriate and beneficial outcome. Ms Roberts noted in conclusion:
In summary, I do not support the lack of landscaping, in particular canopy trees, proposed by the development. It does not reflect the existing character of the area, the preferred character of the Plenty Road corridor outlined in the NECSP nor support good amenity in the changed land use.
Ms Bell acknowledged a reduction in the landscaping and said:
As compared to the Approved Scheme, the Amended Plans propose a reduction in ground level planting within the Site along the Plenty Road frontage. This is considered acceptable given the competing intent of the PDP 2021 to provide activated frontages to Plenty Road.
Mr D'Amico referred to the "pockets" of landscaping proposed at ground level and said they will create some soft green edges and reflect a similar level of planting areas proposed as part of the previous approval. The provision of street trees along Plenty Road, Main Drive and Copernicus Crescent will create, he said, a softer edge to the built form and enhance the Plenty Road corridor.
Given the narrow depth of the subject land (approximately 21-30 metres) and its extended frontage along Plenty Road (approximately 150 metres), landscape considerations have primarily focused on the inclusion of street trees and their contribution to pedestrian amenity.
The Committee recognises that street trees are essential to pedestrian amenity and align with the long-standing, uncontested objectives of the NECSP.
The success of the landscape design, pedestrian experience, and site presentation is dependent on the Applicant obtaining approval from the Relevant Authority to plant trees within the verge and road reserve. In relation to the Plenty Road frontage, the Applicant sought input from a landscape architect and confirmed that canopy trees could be planted within the easement (E-1) in the event that approval from the road authority could not be obtained. Furthermore, the Applicant accepted a condition requiring that, if approval to plant trees in the road reserve along Plenty Road is not granted, all such trees must instead be planted on-site between the building and the Plenty Road frontage. The Committee supports this approach.
Extending the three-metre setback along the southern section of the Plenty Road frontage would allow for the planting of additional small to medium canopy trees. This setback could be fully landscaped or incorporate hardscape features, such as terraces and steps, similar to those found at the mid-block.
In its Final Day Permit, Council proposed changes to the condition requiring a Landscape Plan. Council proposed to add requirements including:
The Applicant opposed the changes and submitted that Council's proposed condition introduced significant new landscaping which is not required as part of the existing planning permit.
The landscaping treatment proposed in Council's condition is generally consistent with that shown in the July 2023 John Patrick Landscape Plan. The Committee therefore supports Council's proposed condition, with some changes, as shown in the Committee's preferred version of the Permit.
The Committee acknowledges Council's condition that tree species be selected to avoid root damage to footpaths within and surrounding the development. However, the Committee agrees with the Applicant's view that it would be impractical to control root growth to the extent envisioned by this condition. If such a standard were applied broadly, it would significantly limit, if not preclude, the planting of trees near footpaths across suburban Melbourne.
The issue is whether the extent and type of active frontage and passive surveillance proposed is appropriate.
Ms Roberts objected to the arrangement of levels and the effect on active frontage, in particular at the Building A frontage to Plenty Road:
... the level change is too great to have a direct relationship with the public realm and with floor to floor height of 3 metres (as compared to the bar of the decision plans with a more dramatic 5.6 metre height), along Plenty Road is a communal room with a floor level approximately 1.19 metres below the footpath levels dramatically reducing any passive surveillance opportunities with no landscape buffer, above this there are two formal lounges also built to the hard boundary with no landscape outlook and 2.31 metres above ground and further north in Building 1B-12 is retail showroom and terrace similar to the decision plans. Additionally the change in land use has also resulted in the removal of the clear link through the two buildings which is now physically and visually blocked by the residential lobby.
Ms Bell supported the level of activation achieved by the proposal. She acknowledged the extent of retail uses and residential foyers, as well as the challenges posed by site levels in providing direct access along all frontages.
Ms Bell noted the presence of largely blank walls and projecting basement elements, but also identified some opportunities to introduce additional direct access points. To enhance activation and improve the interface with the public realm, she recommended the following measures:
The Committee notes that the majority of the ground level comprises glazed frontages serving either residential foyers and facilities or retail spaces. The site's only vehicle access point is from the relatively level Galileo Gateway, which effectively establishes the main ground floor level.
Given the narrow width of the subject land and the significant fall along Plenty Road, it is challenging to align internal floor levels with the adjacent footpath along this frontage. Building B includes approximately 850 square metres of ground-floor retail space, with access provided from Copernicus Crescent and potentially from Galileo Gateway. Due to the slope of Plenty Road, this retail area becomes elevated toward its southern end.
Despite this elevation and partial disconnection from the Plenty Road footpath, the Committee considers this retail space to be viable. Its proximity to nearby parking, continuity with existing retail to the east, and high visibility support its potential to activate the street frontage. Furthermore, the presence of this retail will contribute positively to passive surveillance of the public realm.
The retail frontage at the corner of Main Drive and Plenty Road requires ramps to connect to the footpath due to changes in level. This retail space is somewhat isolated and lacks convenient parking. Despite these limitations, retail or another active use at this location is appropriate and will contribute to a degree of street activation along the pedestrian route to the Plenty Road tram stop. Additional passive surveillance and a sense of occupation are expected to be provided by the apartment located on this corner.
Approximately 240 square metres of residents' communal space presents a frontage of about 33 metres to Plenty Road. However, its potential to contribute meaningfully to activation and passive surveillance is significantly compromised as:
Introducing the three-metre setback along Plenty Road will help address and improve these limitations.
Along Galileo Gateway, the frontage includes residential foyers and a short section of slightly elevated apartments. This configuration will provide an adequate level of activation and passive surveillance. The Committee supports Ms Bell's recommendation to introduce stairs to these elevated apartments, allowing for direct street access, which would further enhance engagement with the public realm. The Applicant included a condition to this effect in its Final Day Permit which the Committee supports.
During its inspection, the Committee observed that some existing retail frontages within the centre suffer from reduced visual interest due to vacant tenancies and full coverage of shopfront glazing with stickers. This diminishes the quality of the streetscape. The Committee considers that this impact can be mitigated by limiting the extent of window coverage, and this requirement is addressed through a condition in the Committee's preferred version of the Permit.
Overall, the Committee considers the proposed level of activation and passive surveillance to be acceptable.
The issue is whether the articulation, materials and details are appropriate.
Ms Bell highlighted the positive use of the podium design along the Plenty Road frontage. She noted that the use of recesses, colour, and materials helped to create the appearance of separate tower elements, which reduced visual bulk. She described the architectural style as simple, contemporary, and consistent with the Development Plan.
Both urban design experts recommended that blank walls at ground level be reduced or improved by enhancing materials and landscaping. The Applicant accepted this recommendation and included a condition in its Final Day Permit requiring the articulation of blank walls.
The Committee notes the Applicant's intention to express four differentiated blocks to avoid the appearance of a monolithic slab. Each block is given a particular colour and material palette, balustrade and balcony edge detail, and corner expression. The "reddish brown", white, grey and charcoal colour palette is appropriate with darker breaks that reinforce the vertical rhythm of the apartment elevations. The alignment of the blocks and limited parapet variation to a degree supports this expression. Overall, the expression is generally successful and acceptable. Further variation of the parapet height and alignment of the blocks, and a wider gap, would be a desirable outcome during further design development.
The Committee is guided by the Development Plan (Section 4.7.2 Building Design Standards) and notes the requirements:
The architectural style at Polaris is intended to represent a high quality mixed use development.
Buildings should demonstrate excellence of design and attention to construction quality.
Exposed blank walls on the boundary of a lot, and all exposed basement walls, are to be finished to the same standard as the rest of the building, and also to minimise the potential for graffiti or other vandalism. The visual impact of a large expanse of wall is to be reduced in scale by architectural treatment and/or use of colour. The design statement of blank walls should be avoided and be treated to ensure an attractive and visually appealing presentation.
The design and appearance of active frontages and activated edges should aim to achieve a high level of pedestrian amenity and engagement through a combination of uses, entrances, windows/glazing and other appropriate design details and treatments.
A varied palette of materials is to be used to ensure a visually rich environment. Materials and finishes are to be robust.
The Committee finds that much of the information required to assess compliance with the Development Plan is either missing or incomplete. Specifically:
These issues should be addressed in the plans submitted for endorsement and evaluated against Section 4.7.2 of the Development Plan to avoid a poor long-term outcome and amenity. The Committee has recommended a series of permit conditions to address these matters in the Committee's preferred version of the Permit.
The Committee agrees with Ms Bell's recommendations regarding changes to the balustrade material, and improved presentation of the blank walls at ground level incorporating landscape, material and texture, artwork or a combination.
At the request of the Committee, the Applicant prepared a Wind Impact Assessment (WIA)[9]. It broadly supported the proposal with some recommendations.
Section 2.4 of the WIA states (with Committee emphasis):
The assessments provided in this report have been made based on experience of similar situations in Melbourne and around the world. As with any opinion, it is possible that an assessment of wind effects based on experience and without experimental validation may not account for all complex flow scenarios in the vicinity.
Vipac recommends a scaled wind tunnel test or CFD simulations be conducted in the detail design stage to quantity the wind conditions and determine the proper wind controls wherever necessary.
At ground level, the site is exposed to direct winds from the northeastern, north, northwestern, west and southwest sectors channelling along Plenty Road. The building is oriented such that adverse impacts from corner acceleration of northerly winds is expected at ground level. The development is taller than the surrounding buildings and so is exposed to winds from all directions at the upper levels.
The WIA recommends conducting either scaled wind tunnel testing or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Given the likelihood that such testing may lead to design changes, the Committee believes this testing should occur prior to the endorsement of plans to avoid piecemeal or reactive mitigation measures.
The Committee supports applying the "Standing" and "Walking" wind comfort criteria in non-public areas, given their discretionary use. However, it considers that wind conditions will significantly affect the functionality of outdoor dining areas and, by extension, the success of ground-level activation and passive surveillance. For spaces such as the mid-block terrace on the Plenty Road frontage, where food and drink may be served, the Committee considers the "Sitting" comfort criterion to be appropriate.
The Application Plans include shadow diagrams that indicate a minor overshadowing impact on the townhouses located to the south of the site. In response to questions from Council, Mr D'Amico said he considered the level of overshadowing to be acceptable within the context of an activity centre. He noted that the shadowing would occur for only one to two hours and would not affect the primary outlook of the townhouses. The Committee agrees.
In activity centres and along main roads, it is reasonable to expect some trade-off in internal amenity in exchange for the benefits of access to services and facilities. The Committee has already determined that the introduction of residential use on the subject land is appropriate, particularly given the demand for diverse and affordable housing. Concerns about proximity to Plenty Road and commercial service areas are mitigated by the location's context and potential views, such as those toward Bundoora Park.
Noise impacts can be managed through insulation and glazing, and variations in apartment outlooks are acceptable. The proposal meets Clause 58 requirements for internal amenity (including daylight, ventilation, and balcony space), and any wind or noise concerns are being appropriately addressed through permit conditions.
While minor internal overlooking exists, it is minimal and sufficiently mitigated by design. Overall, the proposal delivers an acceptable level of internal and external amenity for future residents in an activity centre setting.
The statutory requirements and proposed car and bicycle parking provisions are set out in Table 3.
Both traffic experts agreed that the provision for parking is acceptable given the high provision of bicycle parking, access to public transport and the subject land's location in an activity centre adjacent to La Trobe University and Bundoora Park.
The Committee agrees that the subject land is well located to encourage sustainable transport consistent with the Strategic direction in Clause 02.03-7 (Transport) and Section 4.11 of the Development Plan.
The provision of parking is below the residential rates set out in the Integrated Transport Plan prepared by Ratio Consultants in 2009 for the Development Plan, which were based on the standard rates in the Planning Scheme. However, the Development Plan allows the opportunity to review parking rates over time. There has been a substantial shift in the provision of parking since that report was written, particularly for parking around developments that are located in activity centres with good public transport access. The high level of bicycle parking will offset the low car parking provision and the balance will encourage the use of sustainable transport in accordance with policy directions.
Both experts recommended the car park layout be modified to include an accessible parking space for retail uses to accord with the requirements of the national construction code. The Committee agrees and considers that an accessible space should be provided close to each of the two lift cores in both Building A and Building B in line with what is provided for in the Decision Plans.
The car parking layout in the Decision Plans is considerably different to the layout in the Application Plans. The Decision Plans include a circular two-way ramp continuing down to Basement level 2. Disabled parking is provided at both lift cores. The Application Plans have a split-level design with two parallel ramps either side of a bicycle storage room which cars must circulate around to reach the next level (refer Figure 22). The Application Plans include four convex mirrors to assist sight lines on Basement 1 and a further three mirrors are provided in Basement 2. The basement plans also include a large number of storage boxes, including some over parking boxes.
On the street, the car park and loading access as proposed in the Application Plans is similar to that in the Decision Plans. Both plans have a porte cochère and indented parking bays on Galileo Gateway, although the Decision Plans show three indented bays outside the office (northern) building, compared to one indented space in the Application Plans.
The Decision Plans show a proposed two metre wide footpath along Galileo Gateway. The buildings appear to be set back from the footpaths, albeit marginally along Main Drive, but the distances are unclear. The Decision Plans do not show the current three metre shared path along Main Drive to the east of Galileo Gateway, which presumably did not exist at the time those plans were drawn.
During the hearing the Committee raised concern regarding sight lines within the car park.
The car park is designed with a series of split levels and relies on the internal ramps for circulation. Cars destined to all but 26 car parking spaces in the northern end of Basement 1 and garbage collection trucks will need to circulate around the bicycle storage areas to reach lower levels of the car park, including the southern end of Basement 1 (see Figure 23). It is important they can do so safely and efficiently to avoid conflict.
The design as proposed does not allow two cars to pass as they travel around the bicycle storage area due to the right angled bends created by the walls of the bicycle storage areas causing vehicles to sweep wide as they turn. There is a reliance on the four convex mirrors to see around the two bends and give way to vehicles entering each ramp from the opposite direction.
Figure 23 B89 & B99 swept path analysis in Basement 1
Source: Traffic Impact Assessment, WGA (13 July 2023)
On entering the car park a vehicle cannot turn right off the entry ramp to continue down into the lower basement areas if another vehicle is already on the ramp coming up from the lower half of Basement 1. With two right angle bends to negotiate, drivers would not have sufficient vision, noting also the split floor levels, to see exiting vehicles entering the next section of ramp.
This proposed change to the Application Plans is reflected in condition 1 of the Applicant's Final Day Permit.
The Committee agrees that removing the solid walls around the bicycle storage areas will improve sight lines for cyclists egressing the storage areas. However, with bicycles hanging in the cage and with the level changes and angle of vision, the Committee is not convinced adequate sight lines can be provided to the ramp. The design of the circulation on Basement 1 and down to Basement 2 should be redesigned to allow two-way movement around what is in effect a circular ramp. This could be done by providing four metre internal radii on the corners around the bicycle storage areas, more consistent with what was provided in the Decision Plans.
The Committee also notes that the Building B lift lobby entry abuts the circulation aisle in the car park and visibility splays are required to ensure pedestrians do not step out in front of cars and, more critically, waste collection vehicles that need to reverse past the lift lobby.
There are also a number of parking spaces against the waste room walls in Basement 1 that should be provided with visibility splays to enable them to safely exit the parking bays.
The Committee notes that some storage boxes in the basement have limited accessibility and this should be reviewed. This includes the boxes near the motorcycle parking spaces on Basement 1 and those behind the tandem parking spaces, noting the recommendation of Mr Farran to allocate the tandem spaces to the commercial uses.
The Decision Plans included a single loading bay (catering for small rigid vehicles up to 6.4 metres) at ground level located between the two buildings.
All have restricted height clearance due to the building overhang.
The Application Plans show the internal loading dock is designed for the swept path of a medium rigid vehicle. However the floor to floor height over the loading dock area is only 3.1 metres (reduced from 5.01 metres in the Decision Plans). The ground to floor height of the indented bay on Galileo Gateway is greater at around 4.26 metres.[10]
This is contrary to the traffic experts' advice that the indented space on Galileo Gateway is required for loading for the retail/showroom space in Building B.
The traffic experts differed in their views on the appropriate design vehicle for loading. Mr Farran considered a small rigid vehicle to be suitable, while Mr Maina advocated for a medium rigid vehicle. However, both experts agreed that the on-street loading bay could be designed to accommodate a small rigid vehicle. A small rigid vehicle typically measures up to 6.4 metres in length and requires 3.5 metres of headroom, whereas a medium rigid vehicle can be up to 8.8 metres long and requires 4.5 metres of headroom.
Both experts agreed that the loading facilities should be designed in accordance with the Australian Standard AS2890.2 for the relevant design vehicle.
Regardless of the choice of design vehicle, the Application Plans will need to be altered to accommodate the extra height clearance of trucks. The Applicant updated condition 1 (in its Final Day Permit) to ensure that a height clearance of:
The Committee agrees with Mr Maina that the internal loading dock for Building B should be designed to accommodate a medium rigid vehicle. While tenants of one- and two-bedroom units may typically use small rigid vehicles when moving, larger tenants, bulk furniture deliveries, and commercial services may require larger vehicles. Since vehicle size cannot always be controlled, planning for medium rigid vehicles is considered appropriate. The Applicant ultimately accepted this position as is reflected in its Final Day Permit.
With respect to the indented bay on Galileo Gateway, the Committee considers that given the size of the development, two bays should be provided:
The loading bay should be designed to accommodate a small rigid vehicle and may also function as a shared drop-off bay, serving as overflow capacity for residential deliveries. This provision of two bays is a reduction from the three bays shown in the Decision Plans.
As discussed in Chapter 3.4, the Development Plan requires clear pedestrian and cyclist networks around the subject land. Figure 41 in the Development Plan sets out a pedestrian network along Plenty Road, Galileo Gateway and Copernicus Crescent. Figure 42 shows cycle routes along these roads and on Main Drive.
The traffic experts expressed differing views regarding cyclist provisions and footpath widths. Mr Maina considered that the footpath along Plenty Road should be designed as a shared path, given that the route forms part of the principal bicycle network. He recommended setting the building back to provide greater clearance from the guardrail along the edge of the Plenty Road carriageway.
Mr Farran considered that the Plenty Road cycling route is intended to be on-road and did not support the need for a shared path.
The Committee notes that no shared path has been provided along Plenty Road north of Copernicus Crescent, adjacent to the Dan Murphy's building, and that the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) has not required a shared path as a condition of approval. Accordingly, the Committee agrees with Mr Farran that a shared path on Plenty Road is not necessary to satisfy the Development Plan requirements for this cycling route.
Along Galileo Gateway, Mr Maina recommended a two metre wide shared path, whereas Mr Farran considered a 1.5 metre wide footpath to be sufficient. The Applicant accepted the provision of a two metre wide footpath and this is reflected in condition 1 of the Applicant's Final Day Permit.
While local streets can generally accommodate on-street cycling, Galileo Gateway presents a constraint, as it operates as a one-way street for approximately two-thirds of its length. This restricts cyclists from riding southbound from Copernicus Crescent to access entry points on Galileo Gateway, or exiting southbound from Building B. To deliver the cycling route in accordance with the Development Plan, a shared path is therefore required.
With respect to its width, a two metre shared path is the absolute minimum standard for local access, consistent with Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A[11]. This should be supplemented by a minimum 0.5 metre clearance to the building line at ground level, especially given the path's location along the kerb, which limits its effective width. This clearance should be accommodated through low high quality landscaping.
Council supported a two metre path along Galileo Gateway, however considered that the path should abut the kerb of the street for the length of the boundary[12].
The Committee does not agree that the path should abut the kerb of Galileo Gateway where indented parking is located outside Building B. The footpath should be located between the building and the indented parking so motorists are not reversing into spaces across the footpath. This is different to the drop off (porte cochère) area for Building A which allows vehicles to cross the footpath in a forwards direction on entry and exit.
An existing shared path runs along Main Drive. To the southeast of the subject land, the path is three metres wide; however, along the subject land's boundary, it narrows to two metres due to constraints imposed by a low retaining wall at the edge of the road reserve and a level change down to the carriageway. In accordance with the Austroads guidelines, the building line adjacent to the shared path should be set back by at least 0.5 metres to provide adequate clearance for cyclists at ground level. Again, this clearance should be accommodated through low landscaping.
Council submitted that the Development Plan references the Ratio Consultants 2008 Integrated Transport Plan and that that document has not been updated over the intervening 15 years. Council commissioned Mr Maina to assess the traffic impact considering more recent changes to the area and current approvals.
Mr Maina's traffic modelling assessed three scenarios:
Mr Maina's modified 'existing' conditions model indicated that the Plenty Road/Main Drive intersection currently operates, and is expected to continue operating, at a degree of saturation of 0.97 during the AM peak hour and 0.60 during the PM peak hour. He advised that the proposed change in use would alter the morning peak hour in/out traffic split, adversely impacting the intersection. His modelling showed that with the amended development, the intersection would operate at a degree of saturation of 1.0 - an increase from 0.99 under the approved development. He considered both levels to be unacceptable.
In contrast, Mr Farran considered that the proposed uses would reduce peak hour traffic generation compared to the approved development, resulting in approximately one vehicle movement per minute. He concluded that this level of traffic would not materially affect the operation of the road network.
The Committee agrees that the evidence from both experts indicates the amended scheme would not have a material impact on the road network.
Issue amended Planning Permit D/10/2020/A subject to the conditions shown in Appendix D.
Clause 71.02-3 of the Planning Scheme requires a responsible authority considering a permit application to take an integrated approach, and to balance competing objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.
Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The Responsible Authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the decision guidelines of this clause.
Clause 65.01 requires the Responsible Authority to consider, as appropriate:
The issue specific chapters of this Report provide the objectives of the key planning scheme provisions that are relevant to the issues.
Council's Officer Delegate Report (Document 3.61) provides a helpful summary of the permit application requirements and referral requirements for the proposal under the Planning Scheme. It also provided a summary of referral authority comments and responses, and a chronology of the permit application. The Committee has been assisted by these in its deliberations.
The matters required to be considered by the Committee have been discussed at length in the issue specific chapters of this Report.
The Committee's discussion of the conditions is contained in Appendix D.
On balance, the Committee considers that a permit should be granted. The Proposal, with conditions, provides:
The Committee directed the Applicant to circulate a Day 1 version of the Permit before the Hearing, and a Final Day version following the conclusion of the Hearing. The Applicant circulated:
Council also circulated a Day 1 Permit (D25) and a Final Day Permit (D46). The Final Day Permit included incorporated changes in response to evidence and submissions.
A final recommended version of the Permit is included in Appendix D. The Committee's recommended version is based on the Applicant's Final Day Permit with the Applicant's changes accepted.
This chapter addresses specific drafting issues not already resolved or discussed throughout the report.
Council proposed wholesale changes to the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) condition. As a comment to its tracked change, Council said:
Given the risk that the deep apartments on the southern end of the building need to be redesigned with differing balcony and habitable room layouts, Councils considers those should be approved and inform Condition 1 Plans prior to their endorsement.
The SMP from the applicant raised 17 issues in internal referral, including 2 which may require the redesign of the layout (IEQ issues of daylight and cross-ventilation), as such a fresh SMP is appropriate to address the extensive issues as well as the full changes associated with Condition 1.
Council did not raise any issue with the deep apartments at the southern end of the building or the requirement for a new SMP at the Hearing.
In any event, if a SMP submitted pursuant to this condition is not satisfactory to Council, it will not be approved. The Committee therefore prefers the Applicant's drafting.
Council sought a permit condition which introduced seven specific requirements to be included in a revised Waste Management Plan (WMP), as well as instructions about waste collection activity in response to matters raised in its internal referral[13]. The Applicant said that the extra wording was overly complicated and unnecessary.
It is not uncommon for specific requirements to be included in a condition such as this, noting the construction management plan itself has 16 requirements. The requirements proposed by Council are clear and should assist in revising the report to Council's satisfaction. However, the Committee considers the requirement that all bins be shown to scale on the endorsed plans can be simplified, noting Condition 1 requires the plans to be updated to reflect the WMP.
In addition, the Committee does not consider it necessary to include the paragraph relating to how the storage and collection must occur.
Council proposed a lengthy amendment to the condition requiring an acoustic assessment in its Final Day Permit. The changes proposed require the development to be designed so that noise from nearby non-residential activities and traffic does not negatively affect the habitable rooms (like bedrooms and living rooms) or other areas used for passive surveillance (such as balconies or windows facing public spaces).
The previous hotel and office design did not have balconies and balustrades obscuring the view of the street, and so achieved direct passive surveillance from lower level workspaces, bedrooms and living rooms. The proposed amendments would result in many portions of the surrounding footpath not being visible from lower level habitable rooms as they are obscured by balconies. The only way to address this potential substantial reduction in passive surveillance is by ensuring the balconies are able to be made tolerable for spending reasonable lengths of time.
The Applicant submitted that the requirements of the condition are vague, appear to be unfinished, and are unnecessarily onerous. The Committee agrees and considers Council's additions unnecessary. Council's proposed change was not identified during the hearing process through Council's Day 1 Permit which meant the Applicant and Committee were unable to question the experts in relation to the proposed changes. The Committee however supports an amendment to the preamble of the condition. The Acoustic Assessment could demonstrate the need for changes to the layout, and as such should be approved before plans are endorsed under Condition 1 of the Permit.
The final paragraph of the condition should be deleted given compliance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 is no longer the appropriate measure.
The Committee acknowledges the provision of affordable housing is a significant community benefit. A condition requiring an affordable housing contribution can only be applied if voluntarily agreed by the Applicant, consistent with the Applicant's submissions.
The Committee supports including a requirement to deliver a percentage of all housing as affordable housing, with flexibility in the way the obligation is delivered, and supports the proposed contribution of affordable housing at five per cent with a market discount rate of 30 per cent.
The condition as proposed by the Applicant will realise an appropriate amount of affordable housing to the community consistent with government direction, while helping to address this significant societal issue and contribute a net community benefit.
In its Final Day Permit, Council proposed adding a Streetscape Works Plan requirement through a section 173 agreement. The Applicant submitted:
The condition appears reasonable however the requirement for a Section 173 Agreement is unnecessary and our client does not see why there should be a requirement for the ongoing payment of the expenses for the maintenance of works and landscaping that might form part of the public realm. The usual practice where public works are required under a permit condition is for the developer to assume a maintenance responsibility for a period of 12 months following completion. The Permit Applicant accepts the responsibility for that period of time (12 months) and would be agreeable to a condition requiring same.
The Committee agrees with the Applicant and considers a section 173 agreement unnecessary, but recommends the permit conditions are updated to ensure the land owner retains maintenance responsibility for 12 months in line with usual practice.
Standing Advisory Committee appointed pursuant to Part 7, section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to advise the Minister for Planning on referred priority planning proposals.
a) Delegate Report (1056-1070 Plenty Road)
b) Request for Further Information (1056-1070 Plenty Road) (2 October 2023)
c) Planning Permit (8-16 Main Drive) (20 December 2021)
d) Traffic Letter (8-16 Main Drive) (9 July 2021)
e) Architectural Plans (8-16 Main Drive) (19 February 2025)
f) Traffic Impact Assessment (8-16 Main Drive) (28 May 2019)
g) Amended Permit (5 Nova Circuit) (12 November 2018)
h) Endorsed Plans (Polaris Lot 8) (May 2020)
j) Amended Planning Permit (1086-1138 Plenty Road) (12 November 2018)
k) Endorsed Amended Plans (30 May 2022)
m) Darebin Planning Scheme
n) DTP Referral Response (1056-1070 Plenty Road) (5 October 2023)
o) Letter to Affected Properties (1056-1070 Plenty Road) (1 November 2023)
a) Attachment 1 - DDO17
b) Attachment 2 - Schedule to Public Use Zone
c) Attachment 3 - Updated Planning Permit in tracked changes
d) Attachment 4 - Village Precinct Development Plan
e) Attachment 5 - Current Endorsed Plan for 1056-1070 Plenty Road
f) Attachment 6 - Updated Proposed Ground Floor Plans
Development Plan - Appendix - Integrated Transport Plan (July 2009)
Deal (LG) Ply Ltd v Darebin CC [2020] VCAT 966
Alshara Investments Ply Ltd v Whittlesea SC [2024] VCAT 1190
Parklea Berwick Ply Ltd v Casey CC [2024] VCAT 287
Warwick Concrete Company Ply Ltd v Whittlesea CC [2024] VCAT 678
Good Design Guide for Buildings in Flood Affected Areas
Burnley Maltings Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2021] VCAT 337
Directions regarding final preferred version of Development Plan
DTP Correspondence with Council regarding Development Plan amendment and Planning Permit amendment (27 August 2024)
Ground and Level 1 floor plans with additional dimensions
Letter to VCAT enclosing application for review (19 November 2024)
Application for review attachment - Polaris Development Plan
Application for review attachment - Application to amend Development Plan
Application for review attachment - Amended Development Plan (Lot S9 pages)
Application for review attachment - Combined Development Plan Plans
Application for review attachment - Development Plan Amendment Report Lot S9
Application for review attachment- VicPlan Planning Property Report
Application for review attachment - Council meeting agenda (9 September 2024)
Application for review attachment - Council meeting minutes (9 September 2024)
Application for review attachment - Letter from Council refusing application to amend Development Plan
Letter to VCAT enclosing application for review (20 November 2024)
Application for review attachment - Delegate report
Application for review attachment - Refusal to grant a permit
Application for review attachment - Application to amend permit
Application for review attachment - Cover Letter to Council (31 August 2023)
Application for review attachment - Acoustic Report (2 August 2023)
Application for review attachment - Better Apartment Design Standards Assessment (31 August 2023)
Application for review attachment - Landscape Plans (July 2023)
Application for review attachment - Planning Submission (31 August 2023)
Application for review attachment - Sustainability Management Plan (July 2023)
Application for review attachment - Title, plan, caveat and owners corporation reports (28 August 2023)
Application for review attachment - Traffic Impact Assessment (13 July 2023)
Application for review attachment - Waste Management Plan (30 June 2024)
Application for review attachment - Amended architectural plans
Application for review attachment - Response to Council RFI
Letter from Head, Transport for Victoria advising no objection to granting a permit (5 October 2023)
Letter from Head, Transport for Victoria declining to participate in VCAT proceeding (9 December 2024)
Council letter enclosing PNPE2 documents (20 January 2025)
Appendix A - Council meeting minutes resolving to refuse application
Appendix C - DealCorp application to amend PDP and permit
Appendix E - Officer report within committee meeting agenda
Council letter enclosing PNPE2 documents (18 December 2024)
Appendix G - Section 47 Other Documents
Appendix H - Neighbourhood and site description (within planning report)
Head, Transport for Victoria statements of grounds
Head, Transport for Victoria statement of grounds (P1296/2024, 9 December 2024)
Head, Transport for Victoria statement of grounds (P1297/2024, 18 December 2024)
Council practice day hearing submission for P1296/2024 (31 January 2025)
Council practice day hearing submission for P1297/2024 (31 January 2025)
DealCorp practice day hearing submission for P1296/2024 and P1297/2024 (24 January 2025)
Compulsory Conference (Interim) Orders (18 February 2025)
Historical VCAT orders referenced during VCAT proceedings
P1705/2008 Deal Corporation Pty Ltd v Darebin City Council (25 November 2008)
P1276/2013 Deal Corporation Pty Ltd v Darebin City Council (4 July 2013)
P918/2013, P1273/2013, P1274/2013, P1275/2013 Deal Corporation Pty Ltd v Darebin City Council (21 October 2013)
P2183/2016 Deal (LG) Pty Ltd v Darebin City Council (15 December 2016)
P295/2019 Deal Corporation Pty Ltd v Darebin City Council (18 October 2019)
P229/2020 Deal (LG) Pty Ltd v Darebin City Council (11 September 2020)
P1705/2008 Deal Corporation Pty Ltd v Darebin CC (25 November 2008)
P918/2013 Deal Corporation v Darebin CC (4 July 2013)
P2183/2016 Deal (LG) Pty Ltd v Darebin CC (15 December 2016)
P295/2019 Deal Corporation Pty Ltd v Darebin CC (18 October 2019)
Appendix D Committee preferred version of the Permit
Note: this is based on the Applicant's Final Day Permit with the Applicant's changes accepted.
Lot S9 and Common Property No. 1 on Plan of Subdivision No. 640935V (1056-1070 Plenty Road, Bundoora)
Buildings and Works associated with a Section 2 use
Reduce the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing:
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. The Landscape Plan may only be varied with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed. Prior to the occupation of the development or each stage, whichever is relevant, the road reserve landscape works must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The LMP may only be varied with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
When approved, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. No alterations to the WMP may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Plan submitted for endorsement must be coordinated with the WTMS
The Agreement must include terms that provide for the manner in which the Affordable Housing Contribution is to be made, including when and how the contribution is to be made.
The Agreement must specify that the Affordable Housing Contribution will be delivered by one or a combination of the following methods, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
For the purposes of the above requirements and Agreement:
This requirement does not apply to affordable housing sold or leased to a Registered Housing Agency.
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. An endorsed copy of the plan must form part of this permit.
Before the development starts, application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to register the section 173 agreement on the title to the land under section 181 of the Act.
The owner must pay the costs of the preparation, execution and registration of the section 173 agreement, including the Responsible Authority's costs and expenses (including legal expenses) incidental to the preparation, registration and enforcement of the agreement.
[10] Floor to floor heights: Loading Dock: RL 97.90 - RL 94.80 = 3.1 m; Indented bay RL 100.9 - RL 96.64 = 4.26 m.