//
[7]
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/50
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-10-29
Original judgment source is linked above.
Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee Report
Planning Panels Victoria acknowledges the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung People as the traditional custodians of the land on which the project is proposed, and our office is located. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present.
Priority Project Standing Advisory Committee Report pursuant to section 25 of the PE Act
Building Future Homes Adaptation Guide Response Report, DX Architects, 11 November 2024 (Document 3o)
Clause 53.24 Development Standards Response, DX Architects, 11 November 2024 (Document 3n)
Permit application cover letter enclosing DTP Future Homes officer assessment report dated 8 November 2024 (Document 3e)
Update Response to Amended Plans, Glossop Town Planning, 27 August 2025 (Document 16)
Glaseden Property Pty Ltd ATO SCS Property Investment Trust
Planning Panels Victoria and by video, 18 August 2025
Planning Panels Victoria and by video, 23 September 2025
Glaseden Property Pty Ltd ATO SCS Property Investment Trust
Banyule City Council represented by Terry Montebello and Jessica Critchley-Roy of Maddocks Lawyers and Adrian Mariniello and Elizabeth Fleming of Banyule City Council
Glaseden Property Pty Ltd ATO SCS Property Investment Trust represented by Mark Naughton and Tristan Layton of Planning and Property Partners and Hew Gerrard of Glossop Town Planning and Bill Gibson of DX Architects
Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee Referral 49 [2025] PPV
The Proposal is to develop a three-storey apartment building comprising 17 dwellings with basement carparking at 125 Mountain View Parade, Rosanna under Clause 52.34 (Future Homes) of the Banyule Planning Scheme.
According to the Building Future Homes Adaptation Guide, 2023 (Adaptation Guide) the purpose of the Future Homes project is to "increase housing diversity through gentle density increases", facilitating "apartment developments that are world-leading in their design quality, liveability and sustainability". The purpose of the Adaptation Guide is to guide the successful adaptation of Future Homes exemplar designs, enabling access to a simpler and faster planning approval process.
Glaseden Property Pty Ltd ATO SCS Property Investment Trust is the Proponent for the Proposal. The Proponent filed an appeal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) (proceeding P137/2025) following the refusal of Banyule City Council (Council) to grant a permit on 12 February 2025.
The Minister for Planning (Minister) called in the matter from the VCAT and referred it to the Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee (the Committee) on 3 July 2025. The Minister asked the Committee to provide advice on whether a permit should be issued, and if so, what permit conditions should be imposed, with a particular focus on:
The Committee assessed the Proposal with regard to the referred matters, and as agreed by the Proponent, other issues raised by Council relating to the accessibility provisions in Clause 53.24 and several other elements of Adaptation Guide.
The Proponent and Council had different views on the Clause 53.24 mandatory provisions. The Committee favours the Proponent's interpretation of mandatory provisions and accordingly has:
This assessment is based on the Committee member's interpretation of the relevant planning provisions. The Committee members considering this matter are not legal members. If, when considering the Committee's report, the Department of Transport and Planning has a different view on the interpretation of mandatory provisions it may choose to seek legal advice on this.
Regarding the referred matters the Committee finds, subject to its recommendations, that the Proposal:
The Proposal also meets Clause 53.24-7.5 (Accessibility) and responds adequately to other sections of the Adaptation Guide raised by Council.
The Committee is satisfied the Proposal meets the requirements of Clause 53.24 (Future Homes) as it:
Overall the Committee is satisfied the Proposal will achieve net community benefit and support sustainable development, consistent with the Victorian planning objectives and Clause 71.02-3 of the Planning Scheme.
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Committee recommends the Minister for Planning:
The Minister for Planning (Minster) appointed the Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee (the Committee) on 14 June 2020. The purpose of the Committee is set out in its Terms of Reference dated 9 September 2023 to:
... provide timely advice to the Minister for Planning on projects referred by the Development Facilitation Program (DFP), or where the Minister has agreed to, or is considering, intervention to determine if these projects will deliver acceptable planning outcomes.
The Minister's letter of referral (dated 3 July 2025) advised she had decided to call-in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) proceeding P137/2025. The Minister referred the matter to the Committee to provide advice on whether a permit should be issued, and if so, what permit conditions should be imposed, with a particular focus on:
The members of the Committee that considered Referral 49 are:
The Committee was assisted by Georgia Thomas, Project Officer from the Office of Planning Panels Victoria.
Council and Proponent provided a summary of key issues before the Directions Hearing as follows:
The Committee sought the views of parties on the scope of its remit, in the context of its Terms of Reference and the Minister's letter of referral.
The Committee explained that while it is not tasked with making a full assessment of the Proposal, it had been asked to advise whether the permit should be issued and associated conditions, and considered it may also assess the issues raised by Council (which relate to other sections of the Adaptation Guide and accessibility provisions in Clause 53.24).
The Proponent and Council generally accepted the proposition advanced by the Committee, and Council advised it would focus on the particular issues identified in the referral.
The Committee has not assessed aspects of the Proposal beyond its task.
Roundtable discussions were held on Tuesday, 23 September 2025. The purpose of the Roundtable discussions was to explore unresolved issues relating to the matters referred to the Committee.
The Committee issued directions for Council to circulate without prejudice permit conditions before the Roundtable discussions and provided opportunity for the Proponent and Council to comment on these during and after the Roundtable.
The Committee has used the Proponent's version (Document 23) as its base document for its recommended permit conditions at Appendix B of this Report.
The Committee considered all relevant written material and submissions in relation to the application including:
All submissions and materials have been considered by the Committee in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report.
The Committee has assessed the proposal against the relevant Planning Scheme provisions and the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making).
Clause 20 of the Committee's Terms of Reference require it to provide a concise written report to the Minister for Planning. Table 1 provides details of where the requirements are addressed in this Report.
Table 1 Response to Terms of Reference - report requirements
20b A short summary and assessment of issues raised in submissions
20c A draft planning permit including relevant conditions from Section 55 referral authorities, or draft planning scheme control depending on the nature of the referral
20d Any other relevant matters raised during the Committee process
20e Its recommendations and reason for its recommendations
20f A list of persons or authorities/agencies who made submissions considered by the Committee
20g A list of persons consulted or heard, including via video conference
The property is located at 125 Mountain View Parade, Rosanna (formally Lot 20A on Plan of Subdivision 5794) (see Figure 1). It is located in the residential area approximately 720 metres from the Rosanna Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
The Proposal is to construct a three-storey apartment building comprising 17 dwellings and with basement carparking under Clause 52.34 (Future Homes) of the Planning Scheme (see Figure 2).
Figure 3 shows the neighbourhood and site description plan.
The Proposal comprises two distinct building modules arranged around a central courtyard linked by a series of staircases and landings. From the street, the development presents as a three-storey form featuring a series of east facing balconies, with a basement car park integrated into the site's natural slope. The second storey is further recessed.
The building is set back from the street, providing space for a front garden designed to accommodate tree planting.
Figure 3 Neighbourhood and site description plan
The Proponent provided Amended Plans (dated 21 May 2025) including:
In response to directions from the Committee it also provided:
The Committee has based its assessment and recommendations on the Amended Plans.
Table 2 Amended Architectural Plans (Rev G) summary of changes
Table 3 Amended Landscape Plans (Rev G) summary of changes
In describing the Proposal in the following chapters of this Report the Committee relies on the following documents:
The proponent filed an appeal with VCAT under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 [PE Act] ...following the City of Banyule's refusal to grant a permit on 12 February 2025. The matters raised by council which remain in contention broadly relate to visual amenity, design and sustainability. The permit application was subject to notice pursuant to section 52 of the Act, however, is exempt from the decision 2 requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Act.
The Secretary to the Department of Transport is a determining referral authority for the permit application pursuant to section 55 of Act and Clause 66.03 of the planning scheme and did not object to a permit being granted in its letter to the applicant dated 8 November 2024.
The following planning provisions apply to the land:
To facilitate apartment developments that incorporate exemplar designs approved under the Future Homes project.
To facilitate apartment developments that increase the density and diversity of housing to respond to Victoria's population growth.
To facilitate apartment developments that are exemplary in their design, liveability and sustainability.
The provisions of Clause 53.24 prevail over any inconsistent provisions in the Planning Scheme.
Clause 53.24 applies to an application under Clause 32.08-7 of the General Residential Zone (GRZ) relating to construction of two or more dwellings on a lot, if the following requirements are met:
If a referral is required under the GRZ in accordance with section 55 of the PE Act the referral authority must have considered the application within three months of the application being made to the responsible authority and it must have advised in writing it does not object.
The design response must address the development standards of clause 53.24 and the principles, objectives, requirements and targets of the Building future homes adaptation guide (Department of Transport and Planning, 2023).
The "responsible authority must not consider, and is exempt from considering" the municipal planning strategy and Planning Policy Framework, the purpose and decision guidelines of the GRZ, and decision guidelines in Clause 65. [1]
Before deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider the purpose of this clause.
(iv) Future Homes Adaptation Guide and other documents
The Adaptation Guide states that Future Homes is about developing apartments that are great homes, great neighbours and great for the environment by achieving eight objectives (see Table 4).
Is designed to respond to the needs of its residents
Has desirable homes with high-quality interior amenity, social spaces, natural light and a good outlook
Respects neighbours' amenity and enriches the street and surrounding public realm
Has apartments that are of a high-quality built standard, accepted by the community, adaptable to change, resilient, safe and family-friendly
Demonstrates how apartment living can exceed current sustainability requirements and be zero-carbon ready
Is adaptable and replicable on typical suburban lots in Victoria, meeting or exceeding planning, policy and environmental objectives
Respond appropriately to market expectations, regulation and construction viability
The Adaptation Guide includes a section for each of the first six objectives which includes a rationale, series of principles, mandatory requirements or performance targets and design consideration.
Figure 6 shows the Future Homes process and phases.
It notes that third party review rights are only applicable to Future Homes sites that are affected by overlays, and appeals can only be made in relation to those overlays.
The DTP Future Homes website[2] includes the exemplar designs and further guidance documents including:
Victorians have various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of the environment, economic wellbeing, various social needs, proper management of resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these needs and expectations by addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social wellbeing affected by land use and development.
The Planning Policy Framework operates together with the remainder of the scheme to deliver integrated decision making. Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
A DTP Officer Assessment Report was attached to the Permit Cover Letter (Document 3e) and letter of no objection (Document 3f).[3]
Following the Roundtable discussions the Proponent provided an updated letter of no objection from DTP, dated 11 September 2025, in relation to the Amended Architectural and Landscape Plans (Document 24).
The issue is whether the principles, objectives, requirements and targets of the Adaptation Guide are mandatory.
Clause 53.24-4 is expressed in mandatory terms in that it says something must be done. There is no discretion to grant a permit which does not address the principles, objectives and requirements and targets of the Adaptation Guide.[4]
It said the application does not meet the requirements of Clause 53.24-4 if it does not provide a design response that addresses both the:
Clause 53.24-7 provides that "a development must meet all of the following development standards." There is no room for deviation, and each subclause sets out a particular standard that must be met.
The Adaptation Guide contains 6 objectives, which are further broken down into a number of "planning elements" that set out specific guidance and standards. In order to comply with each of the planning elements, and therefore achieve the relevant objective, a proposal must respond to the principles and mandatory requirements, and should achieve the performance targets and design considerations.[5]
Council was of the view that if a development cannot deliver of each of the mandatory Development Standards and address all relevant required objectives of the Adaptation Guide no permit can be issued.
A reasonable assumption is that Clause 53.24 "exemplars" are not inconsistent with permissible Clause 55 development at least in broad terms. It would be a very curious and confusing thing if that were not the case.[6]
In its written opening submission, the Proponent submitted that:
Given that Council's Further Submissions have heavily relied on the assumption that the Building Future Homes Adaptation Guide (Adaptation Guide) in effect introduces mandatory requirements that must be satisfied, these submissions respond to this assumption.
The Proponent submitted the purpose of Future Homes was to streamline a planning permit application through the adaptation of designs that were already demonstrated as exemplary in design, liveability and sustainability. The assessment involves consideration of whether the 12 Development Standards of Clause 53.24-7 have been met. Planning Scheme overlay considerations must also be addressed.
The Proponent referred to the 'Future Homes process' in the Adaptation Guide, stating the Council's 'Decision' phase is intentionally limited to include formally assessing the proposal against Clause 53.24 (mandatory provisions and decision guidelines) and overlays, as well considering any objections.
The Proponent submitted that Council had erroneously elevated the status of the Adaptation Guide to a binding set of obligations. It said its primary submission was that the Clause 53.24 "contains the obligations to which permit applicants must apply" not any external material. The Adaptation Guide is a reference document that can be used to assist with complying with Clause 53.24.
The Proponent said the provisions require DTP to provide a letter of no objection following a comprehensive assessment of the proposal which:
in effect transfers the substantive permit application assessment to DTP. Any construction of Clause 53.24 that results, in effect, in two permit application assessments - one by DTP, and one by councils - is absurd and should be rejected.
It said, when permit applicants have worked with DTP to adapt a Future Homes design, Council's role is to review and approve the application, not to re-assess it.
The Proponent emphasised the Adaptation Guide is not an incorporated or background document, and does not form part of the Planning Scheme. It accepted that the Adaptation Guide is an "applied" document under the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 and that it must "address" it in accordance with Clause 53.24. However, this does not elevate its status.
It referred to the Macquarie Dictionary definition of "address" as "to direct to the ear or attention" or "to deal with (a problem, question, etc.)".
The Proponent submitted the Adap[ta]tion Guide Report[7] prepared by DX Architects addresses how the proposal responds to the Adaptation Guide.
The Committee favours the Proponent's interpretation of whether the principles, objectives, requirements and targets of the Adaptation Guide are mandatory.
The proposal and assessment must respond to and apply the requirements of Clause 53.24. Its development standards are mandatory and a proposal that fails to meet one or more of those provisions cannot be approved. Conversely, Clause 53.24-4 requires that a design response must "addresses the principles, objectives, requirements and targets of the Adaptation Guide". The Committee considers that the term "addresses" requires consideration and a reasoned response, not strict compliance with every objective, principle or target in the Adaptation Guide.
The Adaptation Guide therefore assists in assessing whether the mandatory development standards have been satisfied, but it does not elevate its performance targets or design considerations to mandatory status.
The Committee understands why there may be some confusion with interpreting and applying the mandatory provisions. It would assist if the drafting of Clause 53.24 could be refined, or further guidance could be provided to clarify the role of the Adaptation Guide. It would also assist if the Adaptation Guide could be updated to reflect new Clause 55 provisions where relevant.
The Committee observes that the absence of clear standards for adapting some elements of a Future Homes design, such as for site setbacks, presented some challenges in assessing whether the adaptation of the exemplar plan is acceptable (see Chapter 5.2). The Committee has applied its experience and expertise in assessing whether the outcomes are acceptable with consideration of best practice and with consideration of Clause 55 standards as a benchmark, in the context of the purposes and decision guidelines of Clause 53.24.
The Committee has discussed its overall assessment against Clause 53.24 in Chapter 7 of this Report. This assessment is presented on the basis of the Committee member's interpretation of the relevant planning provisions. The Committee members considering this matter are not legal members. If, when considering the Committee's report, DTP has a different view on the interpretation of whether the principles, objectives, requirements and targets of the Adaptation Guide are mandatory it may choose to seek legal advice on this.
The issues are whether the Proposal is acceptable having regard to:
Clause 53.24-7.4 (Environmentally sustainable design) states:
The Adaptation Guide seeks to achieve apartment development that exceeds current sustainability requirements and be zero-carbon ready.
The Adaptation Guide includes Section 6 - Sustainable which includes consideration of:
The Clause 53.24 Response Report states the Proposal complies with this requirement and refers to the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP).
The SMP assessed how the Proposal addresses relevant ESD planning provisions. It states that the Proposal meets the benchmarks set out in the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS), the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS) and STORM and includes a range of other features to enhance energy efficiency, lessen environmental impact and encourage sustainable lifestyles.
In summary it said the building meets current best practice for ESD if it is constructed in accordance with application and drawings and measures.
Table 5 Response to Section 6 - Sustainable
Summary of Adaptation Guide Response Report response
The development delivers sustainable outcomes, achieving a high energy rating for all apartments and incorporating energy efficient measures such as water re-use and a large solar Photovoltaic system, without reliance on fossil fuels.
The Proposal has a very small overshadowing impact on the existing solar system at 123 Mountain View Parade (for a short time of year during winter months until approximately 11am).
The building envelope is well insulated and high-performing to minimise reliance on active systems.
The one Performance Target is achieved, as the building utilises high performance glazing and the building will be sealed with a breathable building wrap and airtight seals.
The Updated Response to Amended Plans (Document 16) stated:
In relation to the potential overshadowing of existing rooftop solar the response noted that the performance target does not reference winter solstice (Clause 55.05-2 now appropriately refers to the equinox), and that there would be no overshadowing from 11am at the solstice.
A 30 kilowatt solar system is proposed with 15 degree angle from horizontal. The angle of the solar system was assessed as part of the SMP and has not been raised as a concern by the ESD Officer.
The SMP does not rely on external operable shading and is not required given the BESS score is 71 per cent. However:
However, additional shading could nevertheless be provided as a condition of permit subject to the consideration of any flow-on impacts.
As such the proposed development is exemplary in not only its design and liveable, but also its sustainability initiatives. It is not required to exceed any particular sustainability requirements, and Council's delegate report acknowledges that the proposed development achieves excellent sustainability outcomes with its BESS score. Any concerns regarding 'contingencies' to account for potential design outcomes during construction can adequately be protected by permit conditions.
Council's without prejudice permit conditions (Document 18) included conditions relating to (among others):
Council submitted the assessed Proposal achieves minimum compliance with the requirements of Clause 53.24-7.4 (Environmentally sustainable design).
The Proponent submitted (Document 21) that it accepted the Proposal must achieve the performance benchmarks in Clause 53.24-7.4. It said the application was accompanied by an SMP which found:
The Proponent said the Amended Architectural Plans did not change the number, layout or configuration of apartments and the SMP still applied.
The Proponent submitted that Council's concerns regarding potential variations following approval were without merit and:
...inconsistent with how ESD benchmarks are ordinarily addressed throughout standard the planning permit application process. To the extent Council's concerns cannot be alleviated in the permit application as currently before the Committee, the Proponent would consent to a permit condition requiring proof of compliance with the SMP at completion of the development.[8]
Council submitted that while the Proposal technically meets the provisions of Clause 53.24 it does not meet some aspects of the Adaptation Guide. It was particularly concerned the Proposal "falls short in relation to passive design, energy efficiency and solar access".[9]
It said the Proposal does not exceed current sustainability industry standards, as expected by the Adaptation Guide. It referred to Section 1.4 of the Adaptation Guide which states (Council emphasis):
Future Homes exemplar designs go above and beyond current planning rules by including mandatory requirements, as set out in the Future Homes provision at Clause 53.24 of the VPP [Victoria Planning Provisions] for:
These requirements cannot be varied.[10]
Council's concerns focused on two aspects of the Adaptation Guide as described in Table 6.
Table 6 Summary of Council's concerns regarding Section 6 - Sustainable
Adaptation Guide Section 6.1 - Environmentally Sustainable Design
Council submitted that three the principles and one performance target had not been achieved.
A. The development achieves excellent sustainability outcomes.
The Proposal achieves an overall BESS score of 71 which meets but does not exceed requirements. It sought a higher BESS score to allow for contingencies for any potential design variations during construction. It noted the National Building Code has been updated to require any new house to a minimum 7 start NatHERS rating.
D. The development's orientation and layout reduce the use of fossil-fuel energy and make good use of daylight and solar energy
The orientation and layout of the Amended Plans do not make good use of daylight. Eight of the 17 apartments have south facing living rooms, some north facing apartments are below ground level, and living rooms do not make appropriate use of daylight. No detailed daylight analysis was provided with the application, and the Winter Sunlight score of 0% indicates the criterion is not achieved. The Thermal Performance Rating for Energy is 50% - the minimum requirement.
G. The development optimises on-site renewable energy generation and is ready for net zero operation by excluding all fossil fuels on site
It is not clear whether this principle has been met, specifically whether the solar panel tilt is adequate given the south facing roof slope.
2. Living areas and private open space should face north, if practical. If being good neighbours (by reducing visual bulk and providing visual relief) is prioritised, south facing private open space can be acceptable if the apartment will have good solar access
Living areas and private open space should face north where practical. The current orientation is a poor design outcome and does not achieve this.
Section 6.2 - Energy Efficiency: passive systems
Council submitted that one principle and one performance target had not been achieved.
B. The development uses best practice passive design
The proposed development does not meet the mandatory principle of using best practice passive design. In particular, the building does not seek to provide external shading to east and west facing windows to reduce unwanted solar gains and reduce glare.
No further information was provided, however Council suggested conditions relating to window frames and airtight building requirements.
The Proponent proposed drafting and other changes to Council's without prejudice permit conditions (Document 18) to require (among other things):
The Proponent proposed to remove conditions relating to:
The Proponent sought the views of its ESD consultant on its proposed changes to the permit conditions. The ESD consultant advised:
Increasing from 10 to 15 degrees from the horizontal would be expected to result in an incremental improvement to solar energy generation compared with a 10-degree angle from horizontal.
The project achieves a 7.5 star average NatHERS rating and a BESS score above 70% without these measures so we view them as unnecessary.
An SMP in the planning stage cannot (and is not intended to) lock in detailed materials and construction specifications, as these will be determined as projects progress through detailed design and into the construction documentation phase.[12]
Council accepted many of the Proponent's proposed changes but objected to removal of the ESD and WSUD Drawing conditions, noting "these two are typically endorsed with architectural plans and should remain in Condition 1, particularly if the SMP is being done at the same time".[13]
In its final comments on the permit conditions the Proponent submitted:[14]
There was no dispute between the parties over whether the Proposal meets Clause 53.24-7.4. It does.
The issue in dispute was whether any changes during construction would impact the assessment against ESD ratings. The Proponent's proposed permit includes conditions, among others, for:
The Amended Architectural Plans do not alter the design and configuration of apartments as assessed by the SMP. The development must comply with endorsed plans or altered plans with consent of the responsible authority. Critically the amended SMP will form part of the permit, and a certification report on the installed ESD features will be provided. The Committee is satisfied this will adequately address any concerns the development when constructed will vary from approved ESD ratings.
These conditions are not supported. The Committee agrees with the Proponent these conditions are unnecessary and duplicate the requirements of other conditions. In the case of the WSUD drawing, it is appropriate for this to be provided before development commences.
The specific details of these conditions are discussed as relevant to the Adaptation Guide below.
The BESS rating for the building is 71 per cent, which is consistent with an excellence score (above 70 per cent). While Council expressed concerns with access to daylight, living room and private open space orientation, and passive design generally, fundamentally the building complies. It would not be unusual for an apartment building to have varied performance across the assessed categories. Critically the building overall, and individual apartments as relevant, comply with the specified benchmarks.
While these features are likely to increase the overall energy performance of the building, they are not required to comply with the Planning Scheme. The Proposal achieves a BESS score of excellence as it is above 70 per cent. For this reason the Committee does not recommend conditioning these requirements.
Regarding the appropriate tilt of the solar panels to maximise renewable energy generation, this was discussed during the Roundtable discussions with updated advice that the tilt should be 15 degrees from horizontal. This is reflected in the SMP (see Table 7).
System Size (lesser of inverter and panel capacity): PV1 30.0 kW peak
Orientation(which way is the system facing)? PV1 North
Inclination (angle from horizontal): PV1 15.0 Angle (degrees)
The Proponent proposed changes to the permit conditions to reflect this. The Committee supports the intent and has recommended drafting changes for certainty and clarity.
The Committee finds, subject to its recommendations, that the Proposal meets the requirements of Clause 53.24-7.4 (Environmentally sustainable design) and its response to the Adaptation Guide Section 6 - Sustainable is acceptable.
The Committee's recommended permit conditions are included in Appendix B.
5.2 Adaptation Guide Section 4 - Good Neighbours
The issue is whether the Proposal will be a good neighbour and respect the existing amenity of adjoining properties.
Clause 53.24 does not include any specific provisions about existing amenity or context, but requires a neighbourhood and site description, a design response and a landscape plan.
The Adaptation Guide seeks to ensure that Future Homes adapted designs will be good neighbours and respect the existing amenity of the adjoining properties. Section 4 - Good Neighbours provides guidance on these matters, including:
The Committee has summarised the key responses provided in the Adaptation Guide Response Report to Section 4 - Good Neighbours, as they relate to issues raised in submissions. This is set out in Table 8.
Table 9 Response to Section 4 - Good Neighbours
Summary of Adaptation Guide Response Report response
The development maintains the exemplar plan's core form, introducing a staggered and separated building form that complements rather than dominates the streetscape. It reflects contextually appropriate materials and landscaping creating open, engaging front yards. The design respects neighbouring privacy and amenity while enhancing the area's character and visual appeal.
Of the nine performance targets, only two are relevant. The response confirms that the development is oriented towards the front streetscape and that the street frontages are appropriately handled with pedestrian entrances, absence of blank walls and concealed carparking, although it notes that there is no front fence which is appropriate in the context.
The design mimics the exemplar plan's envelope, modified for site-specific height and storey limits. Perimeter landscaping and east facing balcony greenery offer screening and outlooks. The design uses the site efficiently with a front setback aligned to the required 7 metre minimum, enhancing functionality and visual appeal.
Of the seven performance targets, four comply. These include:
In regard to Performance Target 6, the side and rear setbacks are guided by the exemplar plan and limit the impact of the development on the amenity of adjoining neighbours, particularly the sensitive interface to the secluded private open space of the adjoining neighbour to the south.
The two other performance targets are not relevant.
Of the five performance targets, three comply. These include:
The two other performance targets are not relevant.
The development results in only minimal additional overshadowing on the neighbouring private open space.
Of the five performance targets, only the first is relevant. The performance target outlines that where sunlight to secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced at least 75% or 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September.
The Adaptation Guide Response Report states that the outcome will fall short of the 5-hour sunlight target, with 4 hours and 50 minutes of sunlight to the neighbour's secluded private open space. Full compliance would require complex changes impacting design and amenity. Given the minor shortfall and sufficient sunlight from 11am onward, the non-compliance should be considered acceptable.
The Updated Response to Amended Plans (Document 16) stated that as the Amended Plans do not alter the building itself, the design response with respect to Section 4 is unchanged from the original assessment. It reiterated the points in the Adaptation Guide Response Report.
The proposed development will be a good neighbour and respect the privacy and amenity of adjoining dwellings. In terms of relevant Principles from the Guide it -
Council's without prejudice permit conditions (Document 18) included conditions relating to (among others):
Council's submission drew on the overarching objective of Section 4 - Good Neighbours that "A Future Homes development respects neighbours' amenity and enriches the street and surrounding public realm". Council's concerns focused on three aspects of the Adaptation Guide as described in Table 9.
Table 10 Summary of Council's concerns regarding Section 4 - Good Neighbours
Adaptation Guide Section 4.1 - Relationship to the street and neighbours
Council submitted that four principles had not been achieved.
A. The development is a good neighbour and respects the privacy and amenity of adjoining dwellings
The proposed development does not adequately respect the amenity of adjoining dwellings. While acknowledging that Clause 55 does not apply, Council suggested that Standard B17 could serve as a point of reference to assist with evaluating amenity impacts of the Proposal on existing dwellings.
The Proposal would not meet the requirements of Standard B17 or Standard 20 and would have a direct amenity impact on the adjacent dwelling at 123 Mountain View Parade (to the south). This is primarily to the lack of a recessive upper floor form. Nor would it meet side and rear setbacks objectives in B2.3.1 or B2-3.2 in the recently amended Clause 55 (Town house and low rise code).
B. The development acknowledges existing character and context but does not seek to replicate it.
The Proposal does not acknowledge the existing character of the street.
D. The development has a positive street presence and supports a safe public realm.
The Proposal does not provide a positive street presence.
H. The development is inherently innovative, inclusive and sustainable
The Proposal is not inherently innovative inclusive or sustainable.
Adaptation Guide Section 4.2 - Building envelope
Council submitted that two 'mandatory' principles, one performance target, two design considerations, and one other consideration had not been achieved.
A. The building envelope and setbacks are tailored to respond to the site's characteristics and to manage the visual and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties
The proposed building envelope was not tailored or adapted to appropriately respond to the characteristics of the site or to manage the visual and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties, but rather used an 'off the shelf' plan.
Council the 60% site coverage was excessive, with no regard to the principle of managing visual and amenity impacts on adjacent properties and in this instance, pushes the envelope to the side boundaries rather than centralising the building's massing.
C. Front setbacks are guided by the predominant street setback typical along the length of the street and not by the two properties that directly adjoin.
The Proponent's Amended Architectural Plans propose a street setback of 7.05 metres which aligns with the lesser setback permitted under Performance Target 2. Council's interpretation of the Performance Target is that 7 metres represents a minimum standard only and may need to be greater in this context to appropriately manage visual bulk and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.
The proposed front setbacks are significantly forward of the predominant setback along Mountain View Parade. The prevailing setback is considerably more generous with an average of 10.9 metres along the west side and 8 metres along the east side. A reduced front setback will overwhelm the streetscape and create an 'outlier' building.
6. Side and rear setbacks should be guided by the development's ability to limit its impact on the amenity of the habitable room windows and secluded private open space of existing dwellings.
A building form should be influenced by its neighbours. Council referred to Clause 55 requirements as a benchmark (noting they are not determinative) stating the Proposal does not meet Standard B20 - North Facing Windows of the former Clause 55 and confirmed that the first floor north facing windows at 123 Mountain View Parade are habitable.
The amenity impacts on 123 Mountain View Parade include overshadowing of the Secluded Private Open Space and impacts to the amenity from the north-east facing window.
3. Consider providing a staggered front setback to respond to streets, where front setbacks are varied.
At least one of the two modules should be staggered or set back to better accord with the street.
4. Consider the setback of the existing dwelling on the site
The original dwelling had a front setback of 16 metres as compared to the proposed 7 metres.
The most appropriate way to adapt the design so respects its neighbours is with a staggered setback (setback of one of the two modules).
5. Side and rear setbacks need not comply with a predetermined formula or value but rather should allow for adequate daylight to existing windows including north facing windows, and they should limit overshadowing of adjoining dwellings.
The Proposal does not ensure adequate daylight to existing windows.
Adaptation Guide Section 4.4 - Light and overshadowing
Council submitted that one mandatory principle and two one performance targets had not been achieved.
B. The development allows adequate daylight and solar access to existing habitable room windows.
The Amended Plans do not ensure adequate daylight to existing habitable windows specifically in relation to the neighbour at 123 Mountain View Drive.
5. If a north facing habitable room window of an existing dwelling is within 3 metres of a boundary on an abutting lot, the building should be set back from the boundary for a distance of 3 metres from the edge of each side of the window 1 metre plus 0.6 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres plus 1 metre for every metre of height over 6.9 metres.
This Performance Target is translated from the former clause Standard B20 into the Adaptation Guide. Council confirmed that the Amended Plans don't meet this requirement because the building mass and envelope have not been adapted and don't adequately protect the amenity of the neighbour at 123 Mountain View Drive.
While Council acknowledged the Amended Plans include a street setback within the tolerance of Performance Target 2 in Section 4.2 Building Envelope and a primary frontage wall set back more than 7 metres, it maintained the design should be further adapted to better respect the adjoining dwellings. Council suggested that the most appropriate way to achieve this would be through an increased front setback. It said both buildings should be setback to create a more generous frontage. Alternatively, if only one building module was to be set back, it should be the southern module which is the module that is closer to the front property boundary and has the smallest setback.
Figure 7 Section D of Amended Architectural Plans
Figure 8 Section E of Amended Architectural Plans
Figure 9 Section C of Amended Architectural Plans
Regarding the front setbacks, the Proponent presented two options.
Option 1 would shift the front (eastern) alignment of both the north and south building modules back by 1 metre. This would result in:
Option 2 would leave the southern building as is and shift the front (eastern) alignment of the northern building at ground and first floor back by 1 metre thereby creating a more significant stagger. The second floor would stay as is. The setback would be absorbed into the building so no change to the rear or side setbacks. This would result in:
The Proponent did not support setting back the southern building module proposed by Council due to a range of potential complications.
the staggering should be to the south so the southern setback should be increased or as a fall back the setback of both building elements should increase. Only increasing the north does not alleviate Council concerns about the lack of transition.[15]
The Proponent's ESD consultant advised, regarding setting back the northern building:
From an ESD perspective this would not create any issues. We would expect to see some minor improvements to outcomes based on a potential increase in solar access in winter.[16]
The Proponent maintains the view presented at the roundtable that the building massing as currently proposed represents a satisfactory urban design outcome and that no change is required to front setbacks.
The Proponent has offered a one metre setback to the northern building to address Council's concerns and create a staggered appearance.
As discussed at the roundtable, increasing the setback to the southern building would require a reduction in the private open space of the lower level dwelling. Conversely, increasing the setback to the north building can be more appropriately managed through alterations to the internal layout.[17]
The overarching design issue is whether the Proposal will be a good neighbour. Submissions addressed a range of design issues such as privacy, amenity, character, building envelope, light and overshadowing through the lens of the Adaptation Guide. The two critical issues are the side setbacks and front setbacks. The Committee has addressed all related issues under these two headings.
While the exemplar building designs within the Future Homes Program are of high quality, the associated guidelines and planning provisions offer limited practical direction for siting buildings in specific contexts. Neither Clause 53.24 nor the Adaptation Guide provide specific dimensional guidance regarding side setbacks. While the standards in Clause 55 are not directly applicable to the assessment of the Proposal, the Committee has made reference to them as a useful benchmark in making its assessment.
There are segments of the building where the former and current Clause 55 setback standards would not be met. Specifically, on the northern face of the building around Section D and Section E and on the southern face of the building around Section E (see Figures 8 and 9). The issue is more problematic on the southern side of the building due to the aspect and the shadows cast by the proposed building. The impacts are reduced as the building extends westward and further into the slope, where former Standard B17 would be met.
To meet the Clause 55 standards, the building design would require modification to incorporate second storey side setbacks. During the Roundtable discussions, the Proponent advised that while it was technically possible to set back the second storey, it would be costly and complex due to associated challenges, including fire safety and water management which raise issues of feasibility.
In response to a question from the Committee about whether the overall building could be reduced by lowering it on the site, the Proponent advised that this would not be viable be as the basement is aligned with the road level and lowering it further would create drainage issues.
The Committee is satisfied the Proposal meets the following Adaptation Guide guidance regarding side and rear setbacks:
Performance Target 1 under Section 4.3: Light and Overshadowing states:
Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 percent or 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.
The additional overshadowing of the secluded private open space at the neighbouring property to the south results in the area receiving 10 minutes less than the required five hours of sunlight on the equinox, falling short of the 40 square metre minimum. The Committee agrees with the Proponent this is a minor deviation and is acceptable.
Ultimately, the Committee is of the view that the Amended Architectural Plans are acceptable as follows:
One of the overarching aims of the Future Homes Program is to enhance housing diversity by facilitating modest increases in density through a range of exemplar apartment designs. Apartment developments will inevitably differ in appearance from the context of existing detached housing. Accordingly, some degree of change including variations in front setback depth should be expected and is considered acceptable.
The proposed minimum front setback of 7.05 metres is acceptable under the Adaptation Guide. Specifically:
While existing front setbacks along Mountain View Parade are generally greater than the proposed setback, the 7.05 metre setback is still reasonably generous and adequate for a landscaped setting capable of accommodating tree planting. There is an additional 2.95 metre wide nature strip (between the footpath and property boundary) which contributes to the perception and experience of a more generous front setback.
Council's primary submission was that the entire building should be further setback. If one building were to be further setback, Council and the Proponent had different views about which building module it should be:
It is not clear whether Council's primary objective is on achieving a deeper overall front setback or creating greater articulation through staggered building forms. If the aim is to provide a more generous front setback, then shifting both buildings further back would be appropriate. However, if the intent is to introduce more variation in the building massing, then increasing the northern building's setback by one metre would address that objective.
Introducing more variation in the building massing will assist to soften the appearance of the building from the street by further recessing one of the modules. The Committee accepts the Proponent's suggestion that the northern building module be set back further by 1 metre, noting this was also supported by the ESD consultant for minor solar access gains. Overall the Committee considers this an improved outcome in the context of the purpose of Clause 53.24 to facilitate an apartment development that is exemplary in design and sustainability.
The issue is whether the Proposal meets Clause 53.24-7.5 (Accessibility).
At least 50 per cent of dwellings must be designed to meet all of the following accessibility design standards.
The Adaptation Guide seeks to ensure that apartments are designed with a high level of accessibility so they can accommodate a broader range of residents. It states that 50 per cent of dwellings achieve the accessibility outcomes aligned with Clause 53.24-7.5 (Accessibility).
The Clause 53.24 Response Report states that more than 50 per cent of dwellings fully comply with all aspects of this standard, including dwellings B-1A, G-2A, G-2B, G-2C, G-2D, F-2A, F-2B, F-2C and F-2D.
All apartments in the adapted design are accessible, with minimal ramping or gradients from street level to the basement level lift. Apartment accessibility is improved by removing the split-level apartments proposed as part of the exemplar plan.
Council submitted the Proposal does not comply with the mandatory development standard in Clause 53.24-7.5 (Accessibility) as less than 50 per cent of apartments meet specified design standards. Specifically, Council was concerned about apartment B-1A.
The report prepared by DTP and lodged with Council mistakenly stated that 8 of the 17 dwellings comply with the accessibility standard. This was in error, and in fact 9 of the 17 dwellings comply with the accessibility requirements.[18]
The Proponent submitted that 9 of the 17 apartments were accessible (more than 50 per cent) so the Proposal complied with the provisions. It had no concerns complying with a condition that requires at least 50 per cent of apartments to be accessible in accordance with the Clause 53.24.
The Committee accepts the Proponent's submissions that apartment B-1A is accessible and a condition confirming this can easily be complied with. The Committee has not undertaken its own assessment of the Proposal against Clause 53.24-7.5 (Accessibility).
Council's without prejudice permit conditions included a condition for apartment B-1A to comply with Clause 53.24-7.5 accessibility provisions. The Proponent proposed alternative wording that Council did not object to.
The Committee supports the condition and drafting proposed by the Proponent as follows:
Confirmation of compliance of Apartment B-1A with the Accessibility standard in Clause 53.24-7.5.
6.2 Adaptation Guide Section 2 - Responsive to Need
The issue is whether the Proposal's response to Section 2 - Responsive to need, and in particular Section 2.3 Parking: Cars, is acceptable.
The Updated Response to Amended Plans (Document 16) stated:
Within the basement car park provision is made for an EV (Electric Vehicle) charging port and the number of EV charging ports could be increased as a condition of permit. Within the basement car park allowance for 16 resident bicycle spaces is also provided, including again a charging point for electric bicycles. Further bicycle parking is also provided adjacent the accessway.
Council submitted the Proposal does not meet the following principles of Section 2.3 Parking: Cars:
It said the Proposal provides 22 car parking spaces when only 10 are required, and unnecessarily includes five visitor spaces, which entrenches use of private vehicles. It noted that Clause 53.42 only applies to sites located close to railway stations, where a mode shift is intended. In this context, Council considered the devoted to surplus car parking spaces could have been better used for deep soil planting and submitted the Proposal does not make provision for sustainable transport alternatives.
Council also submitted that Design Consideration 9 had not been met, as there was no provision for how car parking spaces can be used for other purposes or adaptive reuse.
During the Roundtable discussions the Proponent indicated a willingness to explore alternative uses for some of the car park spaces. The Proponent proposed permit conditions (Document 18) to:
Council's without prejudice permit conditions included a condition for the SMP to include:
EV charging infrastructure to include cabling back to the main switchboard has a minimum capacity of Level 2 (Mode 3) 11 kW, 16 Amp (3-phase) at each port with a load management system.
The Proponent proposed alternative wording as follows:
A notation that all car spaces will be "electric vehicle ready".
The Proponent said the electric vehicle condition does not need to be specific as the SMP will be to the satisfaction of Council.
It is appropriate for the basement level to provide bicycle facilities.
The Committee accepts the proposed reallocation of bike spaces for residents, as agreed between the parties. The Proposal exceeds the requirements for bike parking requirements, and it is appropriate for the basement level to provide bicycle repair facilities. This will be important for a development that encourages sustainable and active transport options as envisaged by the Adaptation Guide. The Committee's recommended permit conditions include these requirements (see Appendix B).
In terms of the future adaptive reuse of parking spaces, it is not yet possible to determine what these uses may be, as needs may evolve over time, including transition to electric vehicles (discussed below). The Committee does not have a view regarding the need or appropriateness of a pet wash facility on the basement level but accepts it is a condition agreed to by the Proponent and Council. Overall, the Committee considers the Proposal is acceptable, noting the potential for future alternative uses and adaptive reuse of parking spaces.
The Committee supports the condition for all car spaces to be electric vehicle ready, as proposed by the Proponent. This is appropriate in anticipation of electric vehicles becoming the norm during the life of the building. The Committee is satisfied with the wording proposed by the Proponent as it will ensure this is done, but provides some flexibility about how this is done, with the amended SMP to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The issue is whether the Proposal's response to Section 3 - Liveable is acceptable, specifically:
The Adaptation Guide Response Report stated the Proposal:
Council submitted the Proposal does not meet Section 3.1 Site and Building Layout principles C, D and E, or design consideration 4. The principles are:
Council said that due to the slope of the site, apartments G-2A and G-2C are primarily located below natural ground level. Apartment G-2C in particular, on the south side, has not been designed to optimise solar access and is unlikely to receive adequate sunlight during winter.
Council also said Design Consideration 4 had not been met, as there was no provision for operable shading to all east and west facing glazing.
Council submitted the Proposal does not meet the following principle of Section 3.2 Private Open Space:
It said apartments G-2C and G-2D do not have secluded private open space areas designed to optimise solar access. While the private opens space is on the north side of the apartment it is located between the buildings and will be in shadow for most of the day.
Council submitted the Proposal does not meet Section 3.3 Communal Open Space principles 2 and 4, or design consideration 4. The principles are:
Council also said Design Consideration 4 had not been met as the communal space was not separate from cars.
The Committee accepts the assessment provided in the Adaptation Guide Response Report that overall, the Proposal is acceptable with regard to orientation, and access to solar and daylight.
As discussed in Chapter 5.1, the Proposal satisfies the ESD benchmarks required by Clause 53.24-7.5. The Committee does not support a condition for operable shading as this is not required to meet the ESD benchmarks for the building.
The issue is whether the Proposal's response to Section 5 - Enduring is acceptable.
The Adaptation Guide Response Report stated that the Proposal includes landscaping throughout including providing climbing plants and new canopy cover.
Council submitted the Proposal does not meet the following principle of Section 5.2 Greening:
It said the Proposal responds poorly to design consideration 2, and while the Amended Landscape Plan somewhat resolves these concerns by providing screen planting to the side and rear boundaries, there is an inherent lack of space for genuine tree canopy planting.
Council's without prejudice permit conditions require:
The Proponent recommended some changes to the permit conditions stating:
The proposed landscaping was not the subject of detailed submissions. The Committee accepts the advice of the Proponent regarding the Landscape Plan condition, specifically in relation to the landscaping theme. It has removed the proposed species/planting arrangements from the permit conditions.
Regarding the Tree Protection and Management Plan, in the absence of further information about whether it is appropriate to protect all or specific trees, the Committee accepts Council's condition relating to this. It has, however, amended the drafting to provide some flexibility.
The Committee has retained the other elements of Council's proposed Tree Protection and Management Plan condition, but notes the drafting may be improved for clarity. DTP may choose to refine the drafting of this condition to ensure it is appropriate.
DTP issued a letter of no objection in relation to the Proposal (based on the original application and Amended Plans) (Documents 3e and 24).
As detailed in the original permit application cover letter (Document 3e), the planning permit application meets the application requirements and is eligible to be assessed. This was not in dispute and the application was accompanied by a:
The decision guidelines in Clause 53.24 (Future Homes) require the Proposal be considered against the purposes of the clause (see Chapter 3.2(iii)). With regard to the purposes Document 3e states:
Quite clearly the proposal increases the density and diversity of housing to respond to Victoria's population growth by providing increased housing through an apartment development which adopts a licensed and approved exemplar design. As the proposal meets the development standards of Clause 53.24-6, this proposal is one which can only be considered as exemplary in design, liveability and sustainability. This is confirmed by the Department of Transport and Planning's detailed assessment of the proposal and statutory 'no objection' referral response to the proposal
The Committee is satisfied the Proposal meets the provisions of Clause 53.24 (Future Homes) including the application requirements, Development Standards and decision guidelines. It:
Overall the Committee is satisfied the Proposal will achieve net community benefit and support sustainable development, consistent with the Victorian planning objectives and Clause 71.02-3 of the Planning Scheme.
The Committee finds, subject to its recommendations, that a permit should be issued.
The Committee recommends the Minister for Planning:
Issue planning permit P1135/2024 to construct a three-storey apartment building comprising seventeen (17) dwellings over basement car parking in a General Residential Zone under Clause 53.24 Future Homes, subject to the Committee's recommendations.
(i) Summary of response to referred matters and issues raised by Council
As discussed above, the Committee has based its recommendations on the Proponent's without prejudice permit conditions (Document 23) and has recommends changes to conditions as follows:
Council submitted the permit should contain conditions relating to flooding and drainage, stating the:[19]
In its final comments on the permit conditions the Proponent objected to the flooding conditions, stating:[20]
Further it said the drainage development plan conditions were not common and should not be applied, particularly where the Special Building Overlay does not apply.
Flooding was not a referred matter and was not explored through the Committee process. However, the Committee agrees with the Proponent that the conditions should not be included in the permit and can be managed through the building permit process as required.
The Committee did not have the benefit of detailed submissions on the drainage development plan condition. Given this, and Council's objection to its removal, this condition has been retained. DTP may however review the need for this condition and if retained, refine the drafting to ensure it is appropriate.
Council and the Proponent had different views on how waste management should be addressed:
The Committee agrees with the Proponent that the section 173 agreement is not necessary to secure compliance with the approved Waste Management Plan. The condition proposed by the Proponent states the approved Waste Management Plan will form part of the permit. This is appropriate and adequate.
The Proponent and Council agreed the expiry conditions should state:
In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a) The development is not commenced within three years from the date of permit issue;
b) The development is not completed within five years from the date of permit issue.
The Committee's permit conditions are amended accordingly (see Appendix B).
Existing section 173 agreement
The Proponent provided detailed submissions after the Roundtable discussions (Document 26 and 26b) requesting the Committee support removal of the existing section 173 agreement. It said:
Should the Minister decide to issue this permit, the Proponent intends to have this agreement removed from title to enable the proposed development to proceed. However, given this communication from Council, the Proponent is concerned that Council will use the existence of this agreement on title to delay matters, again. The Proponent should not be required to pursue further legal action at VCAT or otherwise to remove this agreement in circumstances where the Minister has recommended this permit be granted.[21]
This was not a referred matter and was not explored through the Committee process. The Committee however notes the Proponent's concerns and considers that DTP may seek to resolve this issue before issuing a permit for the Proposal.
The Committee has not undertaken a detailed review of drafting of the permit, but observes there is some potential to refine drafting to improve clarity. A review should be undertaken with consideration of DTP's Writing Planning Permits guide before a permit is finalised.
Accurate cross-referencing of conditions in the permit will need to be undertaken before the permit is finalised.
The Committee finds, subject to its recommendations, that a permit should be issued based on the permit conditions contained in Appendix B and any other changes or conditions as required by the Department of Transport and Planning.
The Committee recommends the Minister for Planning:
Issue planning permit P1135/2024 to construct a three-storey apartment building comprising seventeen (17) dwellings over basement car parking in a General Residential Zone under Clause 53.24 Future Homes, subject to the Committee's recommended permit conditions shown in Appendix B and any other changes or conditions required by the Department of Transport and Planning.
a) Notice of refusal (12 February 2025)
b) Planning Application Form (18 November 2024)
c) Certificate of Title (11 November 2024)
d) Council delegate report (12 February 2025)
e) Permit application cover letter (19 November 2024) enclosing DTP Future Homes officer assessment report dated 8 November 2024
f) Letter from DTP Director, Strategic Land Use Planning advising no objection to permit (8 November 2024)
g) Feature and Level Survey (26 February 2024)
h) Development Plans (13 November 2024)
j) Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Arbkey, 6 September 2024)
k) Sustainability Management Plan (EcoResults, 17 September 2024)
m) Waste Management Plan (EcoResults, 14 October 2024)
n) Clause 53.24 Development Standards Response (DX Architects, 11 November 2024)
o) Building Future Homes Adaptation Guide Report (DX Architects, 11 November 2024)
p) Council Request for Further Information (3 December 2024)
q) Applicant Request for Further Information response (16 December 2024)
r) Planning Property Report (12 February 2025)
s) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Response (12 February 2025)
Council response to Practice Note PNPE2 - Information from Decision Makers (31 March 2025)
Council first Practice Day hearing submissions (28 March 2025)
Applicant second Practice Day hearing submissions (5 May 2025)
Council second Practice Day hearing submissions (30 April 2025)
Applicant submissions regarding Amended Plans (18 June 2025)
a) Initiating Order (20 February 2025)
b) Procedural Orders (19 March 2025)
c) Practice Day Orders (28 March 2025)
d) Procedural Orders (24 April 2025)
e) Compulsory Conference (Interim) Orders (12 May 2025)
f) Practice Day Orders (29 May 2025)
g) Theo Karseras joinder application documents
h) Compulsory Conference (Interim) Orders (4 June 2025)
a) Architectural Plans Rev G
b) Landscape Plans Rev E
Glaseden Property Pty Ltd ATO SCS Property Investment Trust (Proponent)
a) Banyule Planning Scheme All Ordinance (part 2)
b) Banyule Planning Scheme All Ordinance (part 3)
c) Banyule Planning Scheme All Ordinance (part 4)
d) Building Future Homes Adaptation Guide
e) Future Homes Design A-EWG
f) Future Homes Design A-NSB
g) Future Homes Design A-NSG
h) Future Homes Design B-EWG
j) Future Homes Design B-NSG
k) Future Homes Design C-EWG
m) Future Homes Design C-NSG
n) Future Homes Design D-EWG
o) Future Homes Design D-NSB
p) Future Homes Design D-NSG
q) Future Homes Design Future Homes designs Website
r) Future Homes Website
Proponent's comments on without prejudice permit conditions
Council's response to the Proponent's without prejudice permit conditions
Email - final comments on permit conditions and attachments:
a) Correspondence from EcoResults (S Thompson) 9 October 2025
b) S173 Agreement correspondence
Email - tabling Office of the Victorian Government Architect report
a) Preliminary Office of the Victorian Government Architect report
The Committee's recommended version of the permit is based on the Proponent's without prejudice permit conditions (Document 23). Recommended changes are shown as:
The Committee recommends the drafting be reviewed and cross-referencing of conditions be checked before the permit is finalised.
Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee Referral 49
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Call-In - 125 Mountain View Parade, Rosanna
Property: 125 Mountain View Parade ROSANNA VIC 3084
Proposal: Construct a three-storey apartment building comprising seventeen (17) dwellings over basement car parking in a General Residential Zone under Clause 53.24 Future Homes
Construct a three-storey apartment building comprising seventeen (17) dwellings over basement car parking in a General Residential Zone under Clause 53.24 Future Homes.
a) The northern building set back from Mountain View Parade by an additional metre at ground and first floor levels; > > b) Solar PV Photovoltaic panels on the roof of both buildings positioned and angled to maximise solar gain consistent with the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) (see condition 7), no less than 15 degrees from horizontal tilted upright by a further 5 degrees; > > c) Reallocation of the five visitor car parking spaces in the basement to the general residential car parking provision and the removal of the "EV charging port" shown outside visitor car parking space 9 on the basement plan; > > d) The provision of a bicycle repair station on the basement level; > > e) The provision of a pet wash facility on the basement level; > > f) Confirmation of compliance of Apartment B-1A with the Accessibility standard in Clause 53.24-7.5; > > g) Details of all internal and external fencing and retaining walls, including height, location and material; > > h) Air conditioner units and hot water systems to be nominated on the plans and screened to minimise visibility from the public realm and neighbouring properties, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
j) Selection of the roof colour required to minimise the urban heat island effect with a maximum Solar Absorptance (SA) of 0.70; > > k) A schedule of external building materials, colours and finishes, including details of cladding and roofing materials; the schedule should be presented on a separate sheet and must include colour samples;
m) An amended Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 34of this permit; and > > n) An amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) in accordance with Condition 67 of this permit.
a) The use of an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system; > > b) The connection to the Council nominated Legal Point of Discharge; > > c) The specified flood level for the property; > > d) The integration, details and connections of all Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) features in accordance with the endorsed SMP and STORM report and include drainage details as a result of landscaping; > > e) A properly prepared design with computations for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed areas and sealed areas; > > f) The Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone of Trees #1-40 as identified in the submitted Arboricultural Report shown to be retained.
a) Any amendments required by Condition 1 of this permit; and > > b) Location, details and cross section drawings of all Water Sensitive Urban Design features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan and STORM report.
a) The management and maintenance of the Trees #1, #27, #29, #31 & #32; - #40 (unless otherwise approved by the responsible authority). > > b) A management regime for all trees during the demolition, construction and post construction phases of the development must cite, include and consider all Tree Protection measures condition as part of planning permit P1135/2024; > > c) A tree protection plan drawn to scale; > > d) All tree protection zones and structural root zones to be indicated on the plan; > > e) The design modifications and specific construction techniques set out in the Arborist Report by Arbkey, September 2024. > > f) The types of footings used within tree protection zones which must also be indicated on the plans; > > g) Details of how root systems of the trees to be impacted will be managed. This must detail any initial non-destructive trenching (if required) requirements regarding all excavations within Tree Protection Zones (TPZ's) and pruning of any roots required which must be undertaken by the project arborist; > > h) The location/design of tree protection fencing for retained trees, mulching/ watering requirements and TPZ areas where ground protection systems will be used;
j) All remedial pruning works that are required to be performed. Details of the pruning must reference Australian Standard AS4373:2007 Pruning of amenity trees, and include a detailed photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur. Any proposed pruning must also consider any scaffolding requirements for construction of dwellings/units, all tree pruning must then be carried out by a suitably qualified Arborist (Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Level 3, minimum) in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees, and must be restricted to the removal of no greater than 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority; > > k) Details regarding site access by vehicles, machinery and storage of any related building materials in relation to the TPZ of retained trees;
m) Supervision timetable and certification (sign off sheet) of all tree management activities undertaken by the project Arborist to the satisfaction of the responsible authority; and > > n) Written confirmation from the project Arborist that the tree management works undertaken are satisfactory and are in accordance with the approved Tree Management Plan must be submitted to the responsible authority, to its satisfaction.
a) Average rating of 7.5 Stars across the development with no unit achieving less than 6.5 Stars.
The Final NatHERS Star Rating Certificates must be provided at the completion of the development and at the request of the Responsible Authority.
a) NatHERS Star Rating Certificates for a representative sample of apartment types to illustrate an average rating of 7.5 Stars across the development with no unit achieving less than 6.5 Stars; > > b) A Green Travel Plan which demonstrates how the development supports sustainable transport alternatives to fossil-fuel-based cars; > > c) Design measures and minimum surface reflectance values to minimise the urban heat island effect for unshaded hardscape elements; > > d) A notation that all car spaces will be "electric vehicle ready"; > > e) An amended BESS Report including the credit from the Water Category, item 4.1 Building Systems Water Use or clarification of how the credit is applicable to be scoped out, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; > > f) The system type and energy efficiency of the proposed heating and cooling systems; and > > g) The system type and energy efficiency of the proposed hot water systems.
8.0 Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Drawing
a) All features nominated within the associated SMP and STORM Report identified under Condition 57, as follows: > > 1. The location and storage volume (Litres) of rainwater storage tank(s), pumps and connections to end-uses, such as toilets and laundry, as claimed; > 2. A roof plan demonstrating the portion of the roof diverted into the rainwater treatment/storage device; > 3. The location and type of any required other proprietary devices employed to improve the quality or reduce the loads of stormwater run-off from the site; > > b) A Maintenance Schedule for stormwater treatment devices such as rainwater tanks, toilet connections and raingardens, including responsibility, key serviceable components and frequency of maintenance; and > > c) Excerpt of STORM Report Rating Identifying a 100% pass mark.
9.0 Residential Reticulated Gas Service Connection
Note: Prior to the submission of the Construction Management Plan, please contact the Construction Management Assessment Officer to ensure the Plan is consistent with the Banyule City Council's General Local Law No. 1 2015.
a) The development is not commenced within four three years from the date of permit issue; > > b) The development is not completed within six five years from the date of permit issue.
[1] Clause 53.24-5 (Exemption from planning scheme requirements)
[3] The DTP Officer Assessment Report referred to an Office of the Victorian Government Architect internal referral report. The Committee sought a copy of this, which was provided by DTP after the Roundtable discussion (Document 27). DTP advised the report was jointly prepared by DTP and the Office of the Victorian Government Architect, was preliminary in nature and not based on current plans. The Committee has not placed any weight on this report.
[7] Document 3o, Adaption(sic) Guide Report, Dx Architects, 11 November 2024
[9] Document 17, Banyule City Council further submission, page 28
[10] Document 17, Banyule City Council further submission, page 22
[11] Document 3m, Waste Management Plan (EcoResults, 14 October 2024)
[12] Document 26a, Correspondence from EcoResults (S Thompson) 9 October 2025
[13] Document 25, Council's comments on without prejudice permit conditions
[14] Document 26, Proponent's final comments on permit conditions
[15] Document 25, Council's comments on without prejudice permit conditions
[16] Document 26a, Correspondence from EcoResults (S Thompson) 9 October 2025
[17] Document 26, Proponent's final comments on permit conditions
[18] Document 21, Proponent's opening submission
[19] Document 25, Council's comments on permit conditions
[20] Document 26, Proponent's final comments on permit condition
[21] Document 26, Proponent's final comments on permit conditions