1. Leave is granted for this application to be withdrawn and the application is withdrawn.

1. The applications for review are disallowed. The decisions of the Responsible Authority dated 21 November 2006 are affirmed.
2. No permits are to issue.

Mr C Canavan QC and Mr P O'Farrell of Counsel, instructed by Best Hooper Solicitors, who called the following expert witnesses:

• Ms G McKenzie, Consultant Planner of Collie Pty Ltd, and
• Mr H Turnbull, Consultant Traffic Engineer of Traffix Group Pty Ltd.

Mr J Rantino, Solicitor of Maddocks Lawyers, who called Mr C Sfetkidis, a Civil Engineer employed by the Council, as a witness.

Mr C Georgiou for the Macedon Square Traders Association Incorporated, and Mr T Small.

1. These were applications under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by the Permit Applicants for review of a decision of the Manningham City Council ("the Responsible Authority") to refuse to grant permits.
2. Application for Review No. P2963/2006 concerned Permit Application No. PL06/017669 which was to remove an existing carriageway easement over land at 291-293 Manningham Road, Council owned land, and to create an easement over Council land in favour of the Permit Applicant.
3. Application for Review No. P2968/2006 concerned Permit Application No. PL06/017480 which was to construct a double storey building over a basement car park for use as a shop (liquor store) including a reduction of car parking, altered vehicle access and signage.
4. Application for Review No. P2972/2006 concerned Permit Application No. PL06/017666 which was to remove an existing car parking easement in favour of the Council on the subject land and create a car parking easement in favour of the Council on the land.

1. Notice was given by letter dated 21 May 2007 that it was intended to seek leave to withdraw Application for Review No. P2963/2006. There was no objection to this withdrawal. Leave is granted for this application to be withdrawn.
2. The Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant filed revised plans with the Tribunal for Permit Application No. PL06/017/480, the subject of Application for Review No. P2968/2006.
3. The revised plans include the following changes:
   • Relocation of the vehicle access to the basement car park, to be from Macedon Road.
   • Relocation of the loading bay to north - west corner of the building.
   • Siting of three car spaces parallel to the northern site boundary adjoining the right of way off west side of Macedon Road.
   • Reduction in the mezzanine floor area and location of plant equipment in the north east corner of the building (over new access to basement).
4. There being no objection the application for Permit No. PL06/017/480 and the application for review were amended by substituting the revised plans by Tony Vella Architecture Drawing Nos. TP01-060005 to TP04-06005, all Revision F dated February 2007 pursuant to Clause 64(2) of Schedule 1 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.
5. There being no objection Mr T Small and the Macedon Square Traders Association Inc represented by Mr Georgiou were joined as parties pursuant to Section 127(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

1. The proposal in Permit Application No PL06/017480 is described as follows:

The core features of the amended application for a liquor store are as follows:

• a single storey building with mezzanine and basement levels;
• the building height, will range from 6.98 metres at its south-east corner to 11.4 metres at the north-west corner;
• the building is to be constructed of colour pre cast concrete panels with colourbond profile steel cladding;
• a liquor store comprising 885 square metres net floor area at ground level and 233 square metres net floor area at mezzanine level;
• the mezzanine level comprises a staff room and amenities and store area;
• 38 car spaces at basement level (including a disabled car space);
• 3 car spaces parallel to the north side of the building;
• 10 car spaces on the west side of the building;
• the building is to be setback 1.5 metres from the eastern boundary, between zero and 1.7 metres from the southern boundary, 4.4 metres from the western boundary and approximately 2.6 metres from the northern boundary;
• a loading bay is located at the north-west corner of the site and covered by a canopy;
• pedestrian access to the store would be via an entry at the southern end of the building via a ramp;
• feature canopy above entry to store;
• access to the basement car park would be via Macedon Road to the east;
• pedestrian access from the basement car park would be via a lift or stairs which take the pedestrian directly inside the store;
• advertising and direction signs;
• removal of an existing crossing from Manningham Road to the middle of the site.

By way of observation, the plans also indicate significant works to the Council land to the west, the core features being:

• removal of an existing median strip and three trees;
• changing crossover to south-west corner of the Council land from entry only to entry and exit;
• changing crossover to south-east corner of the Council land from exit only to entry and exit; removal of 5 car spaces next to the north-west corner of the subject site;
• provision of 2 car parking spaces at the southern end of the centre aisle in the car park on Council land.

1. The proposal in Permit Application No. PL06/017666 is described as follows:

The core features of the application for creation and removal of the car parking easement as amended involve:

• Removal of the existing car parking easement from the northern portion of the subject land; and
• creation of two car parking easements, in favour of council over a 4.4 metre wide strip of land on the western side of the land.

1. The subject land is on the north-west corner of Manningham Road and Macedon Road. The frontage to Manningham Road is 29.57 metres and the area is 1406 square metres. It is presently occupied by a service station which on our observation is not operating except for a mechanic servicing and repairing vehicles.
2. There are three vehicle crossovers to the subject land, two from Manningham Road and one from Macedon Road.
3. There is a Council car park on the northern section of the property behind the service station building which accommodates 20 car spaces. This car park is accessed by a right-of-way to the north of the subject land which runs off Macedon Road. There is a 35 car space Council car park on Council owned land abutting Manningham Road and the west boundary of the subject land. It serves the Senior Citizens Community Centre which is to the west of that car park, and the Macedon Square Shopping Centre. This car park provides unrestricted car parking and also spaces with a 4 hour parking restriction.
4. There are three easements affecting the subject land. These are a 2.44 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement along the western boundary, a 2.44 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement along the northern boundary, and a 16 metre wide car parking easement in favour of the Council on the northern side of the service station building, which accommodates the Council car park, referred to in paragraph 15 above.
5. There are five established trees on the north side of the service station building within the Council car park area and there is a significant plane tree east of the site within the road reserve.
6. There is a large sail structure over Macedon Road which we were told was part of an overall beautification scheme for the Macedon Road Shopping Centre.
7. There is a Safeway Service Station on the opposite north-east corner of Manningham Road and Macedon Road.
8. It was submitted by the Council with respect to the easement containing the car park on the north part of the subject land:

Council has refused to grant a permit on the basis that it will adversely affect the efficiency and convenience of car parking within Macedon Square Shopping Centre.

Before considering the merits of the application, it is relevant to consider the history and nature of the easement which is proposed to be removed from the subject site.

The easement was created on 26 September 1969. The instrument of creation of easement indicates that the then owner of the land granted the easement to Council in consideration of the sum of two dollars paid by the Major, Councillors and citizens of the City of Doncaster and Templestowe (Council). The creation of easement states that it transfers and grants to Council:

...the full and free right and liberty to and for it and them and it and their servants agents workmen ratepayers and others to go and pass and repass and to use as a Road and/or as an area for the parking thereon of vehicles at all times hereafter and for all purposes and either with or without horses or other animals carts or other carriages through over and along ALL THAT piece of land delineated and coloured brown on the map endorsed hereon being part of Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision No. 36617...

It is evident that the creation of this easement was part of a package of initiatives taken by Council at the time to improve car parking for the shopping centre. It was funded by a separate rate scheme contributed to by the traders and involved the construction of the Council car park to the west of the subject site as well as construction of the car park on the subject site.

1. The subject land is in a Business 1 Zone under the Manningham Planning Scheme. Manningham Road is in a Road Zone 1 and the Council car park to the west, which is Council owned land, is in a Public Use Zone 6. Land on the south side of Manningham Road is in a Residential 1 Zone.
2. The primary use of the land is proposed to be "shop" which is a Section 1 use in the zone provided the combined leaseable floor area does not exceed any amounts specified in the Schedule to the zone. There are no amounts specified for a shop, a permit is therefore not required for use of the land for a shop.
3. A permit is required to construct a building or carry out works in the Business 1 Zone (Clause 34.01-4).
4. A permit is required to construct or carry out works on the Council land in the Public Use Zone Schedule 6 as the works are not in association with a Section 1 use in that zone (Clause 36.01-2).
5. Clause 52.02 provides that a permit is required before a person proceeds under Section 23 of the Subdivision Act 1988 to create, vary or remove an easement. A permit is therefore required to remove the easement on the northern portion of the land and to create an easement over the Council land to the west.
6. Clause 52.06-1 provides that a new use must not commence until the required car spaces have been provided on the land. The car parking requirement is determined by the rate set out in the Table at Clause 52.06-5 which specifies a car parking rate of 8 car spaces to each 100 square metres of leaseable floor area. The leaseable floor area is 1118 square metres and the proposed use would generate a requirement of 89 car parking spaces. The proposal involves 51 car spaces, and accounting for the existing car spaces that would be lost there would be 33 additional car spaces. A permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement.
7. Bicycle parking is the subject of Clause 52.04, which provides for a shop with over 1000 square metres of leaseable floor area one space to each 600 square metres for employees and one space to each 500 square metres for customers. This would generate a requirement for four bicycle spaces, being two for employees and two for customers.
8. Clause 52.07 sets out requirements for loading bays and the proposed loading bay is to be 7.2 metres wide and 12.585 metres long.
9. A permit is required to carry out alterations to access to a Road Zone Category 1 pursuant to Clause 52.29. The proposal includes removal of an existing crossover from Manningham Road. The revised plans also change access to Manningham Road to add two additional car parking spaces in the centre aisle of the Council car park. VicRoads raised no objection subject to conditions.

Application for Review No. P2968/2006 Permit Application No. PL06/017480

1. The Grounds of Refusal were:
   1. Council does not consent to the creation of a carriageway easement over Council owned land in favour of the subject site, because it would encumber the land into the future, restricting Council's ability to use or develop the land.
   2. Given that Council does not support the creation of the necessary carriageway easement, there is no legal vehicle access available to the proposed basement car park of the building
   3. Council does not support the removal of the at grade public car park, because it will adversely affect the efficiency and convenience of car parking with Macedon Square Shopping Centre.
   4. The proposed building has inadequate setbacks and is an overdevelopment of the site.
   5. The inadequate setbacks to Macedon Road and the building height will obstruct the vista from Manningham Road to the Macedon Square Shopping Centre, reducing the centre's visibility.
   6. The proposal will exacerbate traffic congestion within the precinct.
   7. The proposal provides inadequate 'at grade' car parking which will lead to an increase in overflow parking to adjoining residential areas.
2. Maddocks Lawyers, for the Responsible Authority, advised by facsimile dated 4 June 2007 as follows:

Given your client seeks to substitute amended plans in respect of planning application PL06/017480 (i.e. the development application), Council has reviewed its grounds for refusing that application. It no longer seeks to rely upon ground 2 in its Notice of Refusal.

However, it does seek to rely upon the following additional grounds:

1. The proposal will result in the loss of 20 car parking spaces which are publicly available. It is acknowledged that 15 car parking spaces will be created at ground level on the western and northern sides of the proposed building and 5 car parking spaces will be made available within the basement of the proposed building, However, in order to gain access to 13 of those spaces, specifically, 13 of the spaces on the western side of the building, users will necessarily need to traverse Council land. Council considers this to be unsatisfactory given that:
   1. there is no legal entitlement for users of the subject land to traverse Council land (i.e. there is no carriageway easement on the Council land in favour of the subject land) and, therefore, if Council ever developed its land those spaces would no longer be publicly available;
   2. if Council wishes to ensure public access to those spaces is always provided for, Council's ability to develop its own land is by all practical implications heavily restricted.

Therefore there is effectively a loss of 11 car parking spaces.

1. The car parking easement in favour of Council on the subject land continues to be used and required and it is no answer to this to be making provision for car parking elsewhere on the subject land.
2. The development would result in a poor urban design outcome.
3. The development does not provide any meaningful opportunity for landscaping.

Application for Review No. P2972/2006, Permit Application No. PL06/017666

1. The Grounds of Refusal were:
   1. Council does not support the removal of the at grade public car park, because it will adversely affect the efficiency and convenience of car parking within Macedon Square Shopping Centre.
   2. Council does not consent to the creation of a carriageway easement over Council owned land in favour of the subject site, because it would encumber the land in the future, restricting Council's ability to use or develop the land.

Application for Review No. P2968/2006, Permit Application No. PL06/017480

1. The Grounds of Application for Review were:
   1. The proposed development is appropriate for land in the Business 1 Zone and will not constitute an over development of the site.
   2. The proposed development is in accordance with State and Local Planning Policy.
   3. The location of car parking for the permitted use is appropriate and will not adversely affect the efficiency and convenience of parking at the Macedon Square Shopping Centre.
   4. The proposal will not exacerbate traffic congestion within the 'precinct'.
   5. The location of a carriageway easement over the adjoining public car park, to allow access to parking on the subject land, will not unreasonably restrict its use in the future which is for parking created under a separate rate scheme for the use of traders and their customers.
   6. The proposed development incorporates sufficient on site parking so as not to contribute to overflow parking into adjoining residential areas.
   7. The proposed development will enable a retail use to establish that will make a positive contribution at an entry to the Macedon Square Shopping Centre.
   8. Approval of the development will enable an existing carriageway easement over the adjoining public car park to be removed, improving its efficiency and convenience for users.

Application for Review No. P2972/2006, Permit Application No. PL06/017666

1. The Grounds of Application for Review were:
   1. The removal of the easement over the rear of the subject land will not adversely affect the efficiency and convenience of car parking within the Macedon Square Shopping Centre.
   2. The creation of a carriageway easement over the adjoining Council owned land at 293 - 297 Manningham Road, will not unreasonably encumber it having regard to its use as a public car park which was established under a Separate Rate Scheme.

1. It was common ground the development of the liquor store can only proceed if a permit is granted for the removal of the existing car parking easement on the northern portion of the subject land. There is also the need to create two car parking easements in favour of the Council over a 4.4 metre wide strip of land on the western side of the subject land.
2. The proposal also depends on works to be carried out on the Council owned car park to the west of the subject land as set out in paragraph 11 above.

1. As set out at paragraph 20 above the easement was created on 26 September 1969 in favour of the Council, its ratepayers and others to 'use as a Road and/or as an area for the parking thereon of vehicles'. Since that time, this area of land has been used as a car park for use by the traders and shoppers of the Macedon Square Shopping Centre with contributions by the traders in the form of a Special Rate Scheme regarding the forming and up keep of the area.
2. The applicant is proposing to remove this easement which would result in the loss of 15 car spaces and to replace those car spaces in several locations, including the basement of the new building and along the north and west sides of the new building.
3. Both the Council and traders who benefit from the easement oppose the removal. The traders were of the view that replacement parking in the basement would be impractical and inconvenient. As a number of the traders commence work from as early as 4am there would need to be 24 hour access provided to the basement car park. The applicant was of the view that this could be readily accommodated.
4. Not only was the Council concerned at the loss of the 15 car spaces, which it considered, were not being replaced in an appropriate location. It was also of the view the necessity for an easement to be created over its land to the west to allow access to the proposed 10 car spaces along the western side of the building could in the future severely restrict any potential development the Council may wish to undertake on this land.
5. The applicant submitted it would be agreeable to entering into a section 173 agreement that would require it to provide the 10 car spaces in another location, should development occur on the Council land, thereby removing access to those car spaces. The Responsible Authority was of the view this was impractical and would not be able to be satisfactorily accommodated particularly in a nearby location where built form and parking was at a premium.
6. It was the submission of the Council that the easement over the northern part of the subject land was part of a package of initiatives taken by the Council. At the time, it was created to improve car parking to the shopping centre. It was funded by the Special Rate Scheme contributed to by traders and also included the construction of the Council car park to the west.
7. The car park on the easement is available for parking at all hours. It would be replaced in part by parking in the basement under the proposed liquor store building. Whatever arrangements are made for access for persons other than staff and customers of the liquor store the basement car park would be less convenient than the current at grade parking on the easement.
8. Generally easements are created as private property rights between two landowners. This particular easement creates a public interest in that the beneficiaries of the easement are not only the Council but also its ratepayers and others. A number of the Tribunal decisions in relation to the removal or variation of an easement relate to the removal or variation of such individual proprietary rights. In this particular instance, due to the persons who benefit from this easement the removal of the easement has a public interest element.
9. As noted by the Tribunal in Focus Vision Pty Ltd v Nillumbik SC[1] there are no guidelines for the Tribunal to refer to in determining whether an easement should be removed. In Focus Vision, the Tribunal refused the removal of the easement, which allowed one property owner to pass over an adjoining property. The Tribunal was of the view that some guidance could be ascertained from the matters referred to in relation to restrictive covenants in sections 60(2) and (5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. These sections refer to financial loss, loss of amenity, loss arising from change to the character of the neighbourhood and material detriment likely to occur to beneficiaries if a restrictive covenant is varied or removed. This view was accepted by the Tribunal in Jordan & McMahon v Stonnington CC[2], where it was considered 'there needs to be a good reason for the extinguishing or modifying an existing proprietary right' in fact a 'compelling reason'.
10. The Tribunal in Jordan referred to an early determination of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal in K J Barge & Associates v Prahran City Council & Body Corporate -Strata Plan 1235[3] which posed two questions to assist in the consideration of removal or variation of an easement:

Does the current use of or the current state or condition of the dominant and servient lands (tenements) indicate a need or requirement for the continued existence of the easement; and

Would the owners of the dominant land suffer any material detriment in their use and enjoyment of that land if the easement was removed or varied?

1. The loss of the car park area containing 15 car spaces will result in a significant impact on the traders and shoppers to the Macedon Square Shopping Centre. This is considered to have a significant detrimental impact to the users of this area. Whilst in the short term 15 car spaces are being provided, they are being provided not in one location but in several locations. One area being within a basement car park which is not as freely accessible as are the current car spaces with accessibility dependent on the largesse to a certain extent of the owner and operator of the liquor store. Even if a condition were imposed requiring free 24 hour access to the basement car park if such a condition was not honoured it would have a detrimental impact on the traders.
2. The traders have also contributed financially through the Special Rate Scheme to the upgrade of the area for the parking of vehicles. The current use of the car park that on inspection and following surveys on 5 February 2007 and 28 April 2007 indicates it is well used is evidence there is a need for the continued use of the area. The removal of the car park to allow the development of the area for a building to be built to the boundary is not in our view a good reason for the easement to be removed.
3. The 10 spaces on the western side of the building are dependent on the creation of an easement over Council land and their longevity is dependent on future development of that land. Unless there is no other outcome that is considered appropriate then the creation of an easement over another's land not in the same ownership as the applicant should not be so encumbered.
4. Access to the applicant's land is readily available from both Manningham Road and Macedon Road as well as from the rear right of way adjoining the northern boundary. There does not appear to be an overwhelming reason why car parking for the proposal cannot be accessed from anyone of these locations. There is no need to access car parking for the proposal over other land not owned by the applicant.
5. There is no 'compelling reason' why the easement, which is clearly used by a significant number of the traders and public on the northern portion of the subject land, should be removed. If this easement is not removed then there is no evident necessity for an easement to be created over land not in the ownership of the applicant.

Works on land not under the control of the Permit Applicant

1. We acknowledge a permit can be granted for works on land not under the control of the Permit Applicant and contrary to the wishes of the owner of that land. The works proposed include the removal of an existing median strip and three trees; the provision of 2 car spaces at the southern end of the central aisle in the Council car park; removal of 5 car spaces and changes to the crossovers to the Council car park.
2. In our view to determine to grant such a permit requires a significant need to be demonstrated that this would not be detrimental to the current or future use of the land upon which the works are proposed. Consideration also required to be given to the views of the owner of the land on which the works are proposed. In this case, it could be said that the works are not significant in the context of how the land is currently used as a car park. The proposed works merely redefine the car park as well as provide for replanting of trees along the western boundary of the car park.
3. We consider the requirement that works be carried out on the Council car park, particularly with respect to relocation of two car spaces, suggests the proposal is an overdevelopment of the subject land. The works do not necessarily enhance or improve the existing car park, but they do allow the applicant to use the adjoining land for two additional car spaces, which it is unable to provide for on its own land.
4. It was submitted that the location and nature of the proposed car parking is a more efficient use of the Business 1 land and is justified by the tangible benefits the proposal will confer on the activity centre. In this respect we consider, whilst the use of the land for a shop is supported by the policies within the planning scheme and could assist in some respects in revitalising the centre, this does not outweigh in our view the importance the use of the northern portion of the land by the traders and shoppers is to the overall operation of the centre. Given that parking in the area is not restricted, this enables the traders to utilise this area for parking whilst leaving other areas of parking available for shoppers.
5. Whilst the particular liquor store may bring additional people to the shopping centre, from the surveys provided to us, it appeared a majority of people who visited similar stores in other locations did so only to visit the particular store. There was nothing to indicate that such visits had resulted in increased activity for other nearby shops. We are therefore not sure that this will have a major flow on effect on other parts of the shopping centre to justify requiring changes to the existing car parking configurations.
6. The applicant's proposal would result in a reduction of at grade car spaces from the present 51 to 46. We consider that in the context of this community shopping centre that such a reduction will have a significant impact even if some spaces are to be relocated into a basement. We expect that the persons wishing to shop in the liquor store will use the basement car park, as this will provide convenient access for the loading of purchased goods, we however do not consider that requiring the traders to park in the basement will be as convenient in terms of the way they use the existing car park.
7. We are unable to conclude that there is a compelling reason to remove the easement on the northern portion of the land. To us there appears to be a requirement for the continued use of the easement and to remove it would be detrimental to the traders and shoppers who currently benefit from the easement. As there is no need to remove the easement on the northern portion of the land, we see no reason why an easement is required to be created over the Council land.

1. The proposed development has a statutory parking demand of 89 car spaces. The applicant seeks a reduction in this number. The proposal is for 38 car spaces in the basement with access from Macedon Road, three parallel to the north side of the building and 10 car spaces on the west side of the building, a total of 51 car spaces. 2 spaces are proposed on the centre parking aisle in the adjoining Council car park to the west. Whilst it was the view of Council's Civil Engineer Mr Sfetkidis that the number of car spaces proposed is sufficient for the proposed development, the Responsible Authority considered the likely traffic impacts created by the proposal would be detrimental to the overall operation of the shopping centre.
2. Mr Sfetkidis was of the view the location of the access to the basement car park from Macedon Road was problematic. Opposite this access is access to the Safeway Service Station. This service station creates a build up of traffic in Macedon Road when it serves discount petrol. Certainly, at such times queuing of vehicles back towards Manningham Road as well as into the shopping centre is evident with drivers often doing illegal manoeuvres either to access the service station or to avoid the traffic queue for the service station.
3. Mr Turnbull was of the view access to and from the basement car park would not create any significant impacts on Macedon Road or the right of way to the north. He acknowledged there is some traffic congestion at the times of discount petrol but did not consider that the location of the proposed access to the basement would have any worsening impact on the existing congestion.
4. Mr Turnbull based on a survey conducted at the Tooronga First Choice Liquor concluded this site would generate 100 peak hour trips between 5pm - 6pm on a Friday. It was his view that 67% of the traffic will come from Manningham Road and the remaining 33% from Macedon Road and the right of way. He expected 27 vehicles to exit the basement and turn right with 3 turning left.
5. Based on Mr Turnbull's analysis the number of car spaces proposed is appropriate for the proposal and access to and from the basement car park is unlikely to increase the existing congestion that occurs at particular times in Macedon Road.

1. We acknowledge that the proposed liquor store requires a relatively large area to be viable and in this instance, virtually all of the area of the subject land is required. We acknowledge the existing building on the subject land whilst smaller in scale than the proposed building is of poor quality.
2. We were told that the centre is underperforming and unattractive and the site is a strategic gateway that will provide a modern, attractive and vibrant replacement to the current rather drab service station. The shops located internally in the square suffer from a lack of visibility from Manningham Road with only a narrow entry via Macedon Road. We noted the recent installation of a sail at this entry point
3. Ms McKenzie referred us to the Design and Development policy in clause 22.01, which envisages that new developments will have active street frontages and may have a two to three storey built form. Visual interest and active street frontages are encouraged in buildings fronting main roads. In our view, the built form of the building to almost each boundary will result in a relatively imposing structure that will not contribute to the entry to the shopping centre along Macedon Road.
4. The building is to be set back 1.5 metres from the east boundary, to Macedon Road, and between zero and 1.7 metres from the south boundary, to Manningham Road. This does not allow for any reasonable form of landscaping that could contribute to the softening of the built form. We acknowledge that clause 22.01-3 encourages some hard edges but we do not consider the proposed 7 metre high, 15 metre long pre-cast concrete feature wall fronting Macedon Road and the large expanse of Colorbond steel cladding on the wall fronting Manningham Road will contribute to the area. Nor will the design of the front of the building to Manningham Road provide for the active street frontage or visual interest sought in the policy.
5. In our view, the proposed building is not well articulated. The buildings minimal setback to Macedon Road will accentuate the narrowness of this section of Macedon Road when approaching from Manningham Road. Although Macedon Road widens out just north of the subject land it is the narrower section of Macedon Road that forms the entry to the shopping centre. We do not consider the built form will contribute to the entry to the shopping centre. Nor do we consider the rear of the building integrates with the shopping centre itself, rather the bland built form of the building turns its back on the shopping centre.
6. We acknowledged that the built forms of the shops internal to the shopping centre are to the boundary and generally two or three storey in height. We do not however consider that at the entry point to the shopping centre the built form should be as hard edged. We consider that the height and bulk of the building as it fronts Macedon Road and Manningham Road is not a good urban design outcome and will not provide an attractive and vibrant building at the entry to the shopping centre.

1. We consider for the reasons set out above the proposal is an overdevelopment of the subject land and results in a poor urban design outcome. Because of the limitations of the subject land it is necessary for the proposal to be viable to carry out works and have easement rights over land not in the same ownership and to remove a long standing easement. We consider for the reasons above the decisions of the Responsible Authority should be affirmed and no permits should issue.

[1] [2003] VCAT 1393 (7 July 2003)

[2] [2004] VCAT 2008

[3] [1992] 10 AATR 345