REASONS WHY DECISION IS OF INTEREST OR SIGNIFICANCE

POLICY - interpretation or application of policy

Changes to NRZ purposes and transitional provisions.

Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and State and local policy concerning car parking, traffic and shift to other travel modes.

PRACTICE OR PROCEDURE - consideration of individual instance or systemic issues

ANALYSIS - exposition of how to asses an issue or matters to consider

Changes to NRZ purposes and transitional applications

APPLICATION - significant, interesting or unusual use or development; application of policy, provision or principle; or circumstances

The recently released Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 is predicting that Melbourne's population will increase from approximately 5 million to 8 million people over the next 33 years. An additional 1.6 million dwellings will be required to house the extra population.

State and local planning policies are already acknowledging the change that is required in the way in which people travel with Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and State policies referring to 20-minute neighbourhoods and greater reliance on walking and cycling. At the municipal level, Moreland has long been recognised as being at the forefront of encouraging less reliance on car based transport. For example, the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2010 includes a key principle that walking and cycling are the preferred modes of transport.

Our roads are already congested and will be unimaginably so if a 'business-as-usual' approach is accepted through until 2050. The stark reality is that the way people move around Melbourne will have to radically change, particularly in suburbs so well served by different modes of public transport and where cycling and walking are practical alternatives to car based travel.

A car parking demand assessment is called for by Clause 52.06-6 when there is an intention to provide less car parking than that required by Clause 52.06-5.

However, discussion around existing patterns of car parking is considered to be of marginal value given the strong policy imperatives about relying less on motor vehicles and more on public transport, walking and cycling. Census data from 2011 or 2016 is simply a snapshot in time, a base point, but such data should not be given much weight in determining what number of car spaces should be provided in future, for dwellings with different bedroom numbers.

Oversupplying parking, whether or not to comply with Clause 52.06, has the real potential to undermine the encouragement being given to reduce car based travel in favour of public transport, walking and cycling.

One of the significant benefits of providing less car parking is a lower volume of vehicle movements and hence a reduced increase in traffic movements on the road network.

Suggestions that a Permit Applicant in this proposal should be required to provide (two) electric cars is an unreasonable imposition. The provision of commercial car share schemes and peer to peer schemes (whether or not using electric cars) is best left to private operators as now occurs. If demand exists then one or more car share pods will be provided, but it is not something we would mandate as a permit condition.

However, caution should be exercised in relying on car pods as replacement for individual cars. Policy is seeking a shift from car based travel to public transport, walking and cycling. Although car share schemes may assist in reducing the number of privately owned cars in an area, they are still facilitating car based travel which is something that planning policy is seeking to discourage.

The NRZ1 was amended by Amendment VC110 gazetted on 27 March 2017. Whether by design or accident, Amendment C110 has been written in such a way that the previous limitation in Moreland of 4 dwellings per lot has been removed.

More importantly the changes to the NRZ purposes no longer include the following two purposes:

To limit opportunities for increased residential development.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

The remaining four purposes still remain. Apart from the first one which occurs in all zones and seeks to implement State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and another concerning non-residential uses, the other two seek to recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development and to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

Neighbourhood character is still an important consideration in the NRZ and it also appears throughout the objectives in Clause 55 (ResCode). However, the deletion of the two purposes cited above has lessened both the emphasis on neighbourhood character and on limiting increases in new dwellings. It has shifted the balance in favour of allowing more dwellings in recognition of the necessity to provide additional housing in order to meet the need for the projected 1.6 million new dwellings by 2050.

Although Tribunal decisions discussing transitional provisions were about the earlier NRZ transitional provisions in 2014, the key point to be taken from them all, and which remains relevant, is that a proposal must be an appropriate response to site context.

Moreland Planning Scheme; Application pursuant to Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 (NRZ1); Heritage Overlay (HO24); 59 two and three storey dwellings; 65 car spaces; Plan Melbourne 2017-2050; Minimal change area; Neighbourhood character; Height; Setbacks; Off-site amenity impacts; Traffic; Car parking; Landscaping.

Public Transport Victoria, Susan Robertson, Sally McIntyre, Judith Dixon, Melissa Cameron, Stuart Morgan, Michael Williams & Michelle Bennett, Calvin Hall, Michael Turner & Eleanor Frew, Lyn Denison, Rachel Knott, Pat Simkin & Patrice Knott, Vanessa Lourey, Joseph Rechichi, John Price, Deborah Gough & Mark Phillips, Marie & George Christakis, Artemis & Arthur Kirkinis, Steven Godden, Frank Earey, Shane Bertram, Mark Pennings & Sharon Muir

31-37 Stewart Street and 12-20 Hardy Street, Brunswick

Ronge v Moreland CC [2017] VCAT 550

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

TP0.01, TP01.01, TP01.02, TP01.03, TP01.04, TP01.05, TP02.01, TP02.02, TP02.03, TP02.04, TP02.05, TP02.06, TP02.07, TP02.08, TP03.01, TP03.02 and TP03.03, TP04.01 - TP04.07 inclusive.

1. In application P458/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2. In planning permit application MPS2015/269 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 31-37 Stewart Street and 12-20 Hardy Street, Brunswick in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
   • Partial demolition of existing buildings and construction of dwellings in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 (NRZ1) and Heritage Overlay 24 (HO24), and reduction in the provision of on-site car parking in accordance with Clause 52.06.

Mr Adrian Finanzio, SC and Mr Peter O'Farrell, Barrister instructed by Harwood Andrews Lawyers. They called expert evidence from the following witnesses:

• Mr Marco Negri, Town Planner of Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd.
• Ms Charmaine Dunstan, Traffic Engineer of Traffix Group Pty Ltd.
• Mr Andrew Partos, Landscape Architect of Hansen Partnership.

Mr Bryce Raworth, Conservation Consultant and Architectural Historian prepared a witness statement but with the agreement of parties at the hearing he was not called to present oral evidence or to answer questions.

Mr Calvin Hall for himself, Steve Godden, Frank Earey, Shane Bertram, Mark Pennings, Sharon Muir, Artemis & Arthur Kirkinis, Marie & George Christakis.

Partial demolition of existing industrial buildings and a dwelling, construction of 59 two and three storey townhouses along with associated car parking, communal open space and landscaping.

Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 (NRZ1).

Clause 32.09-6 (Construct two or more dwellings on a lot in NRZ1).

Clause 43.01-1 (demolish or remove a building and construct a building or construct or carry out works in HO24).

Clause 52.06 (reduce the statutory requirement for on-site car parking).

Clauses 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, 21.04, 22.01, 22.03, 22.06, 22.08, 32.09, 52.06, 52.34, 55 & 65.

The review site is a very large, irregularly shaped parcel of land with an area of 8,760 square metres. It has two street frontages - 44 metres to Stewart Street to the south and 77 metres to Hardy Street to the east.

The site contains a single storey dwelling facing Stewart Street, along with a large complex of single and double storey industrial buildings and car parking. Vehicle access to the industrial buildings is via a central crossover to Stewart Street. Multiple crossovers exist along Hardy Street.

Accompanied on the morning of the second day of hearing.

WHAT DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED FOR THE REVIEW SITE?

1. The review site is a large parcel of former industrial land in the middle of a long established residential area in Brunswick. The following Melway extract from Mr Negri's evidence statement provides a locational context for the site.

1. As shown on the substituted plans, the application proposes demolition of most of the existing buildings on the site except for some lengths of brick wall along the western, northern and eastern boundaries and a brick building facing the right angle bend in Hardy Street.
2. Except for two dwellings to be constructed within the retained brick building, the proposal involves the construction of 57 attached two and three storey townhouses, a large central communal open space, one undercover car space for each dwelling (although three have an additional cars space) and three visitor car spaces.
3. The majority of vehicular access is via a central driveway off Stewart Street. The central driveway also links to Hardy Street but this entrance is limited to emergency vehicle access. A secondary driveway along the eastern side of the site adjacent to 39 Stewart Street and 26 Hardy Street provides access from Hardy Street to 9 attached triple storey dwellings. The driveways also provide pedestrian access through the site and connect Stewart and Hardy Streets. In addition, another pedestrian path from Hardy Street provides access to the central communal open space and the central driveway. The site layout is depicted in the following ground floor plan.

THE MAJORITY OF PARTIES NOW CONDITIONALLY SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT

1. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Finanzio advised us that the majority of parties have reached an agreement with the permit Applicant to conditionally support the development. He tabled agreements signed by Susan Robertson, Judith Dixon, Melissa Cameron, Stuart Morgan, Michael Williams, Michelle Bennett, Michael Turner, Eleanor Frew, Lyn Denison, Rachel Knott, Pat Simkin & Patrice Knott, Vanessa Lourey, Joseph Rechichi, John Price and Deborah Gough.
2. A number of the signatories to the agreement attended the hearing. We explained that we are not obliged to give effect to the agreements and that we have to form our own view as to the merits of the proposal and to the matters agreed between the permit Applicant and the signatories. However, we did indicate that if a permit was to be granted that did not give effect to the matters agreed between the parties then, in the interests of procedural fairness, we would give those parties an opportunity to make submissions on the matters they have agreed. The permit we are granting does not alter the matters agreed and there is no necessity to provide opportunities for additional submissions from those parties.
3. We also record that although the front part of the site is within Heritage Overlay (HO24), no party sought to call Mr Raworth or ask questions about his witness statement. We note that the land affected by the HO24 contains a much modified dwelling at 31 Stewart Street along with an open carpark and industrial buildings at 33 to 37 Stewart Street and that the Tribunal in 2008[2] agreed with Mr Raworth that the existing dwelling makes no heritage contribution to the precinct and that the existing industrial buildings detract from the significance of the precinct.

1. Council still opposes the proposal despite the changes included on the amended, now substituted, plans. We record that Council staff recommended that Council support the application based on the earlier October 2016 plans, but that Council did not accept that recommendation. Council also opposes the development shown on the substituted plans. The application was originally refused on four grounds although Council no longer relies on the two grounds concerning transitional provisions. The remaining grounds of refusal concern the adverse impact of a reduction in car parking on residentially zoned on-street parking and the three storey scale failing to respect the prevailing fine grain double and single storey houses of Stewart and Hardy Streets (neighbourhood character and building height). Ms Hicks noted that the removal of roof decks has addressed part of Council's reason for opposing the application on neighbourhood character and building height grounds.
2. We note that Ms McIntyre remains the only resident of Connelly Street who still opposes the development. Her property is one of those on the eastern side of Connelly Street that abuts the western boundary of the site. Her main concerns are about the proximity, lack of articulation and the colours and materials of the row of attached double storey dwellings facing her rear boundary. She is also concerned about the overall layout of the development including response to neighbourhood character, inadequate landscaping, car parking, and traffic and whether the dwellings offer sufficient diversity (e.g. number of bedrooms, provide for ageing in place, and the amenity of the secluded private open space provided to the dwellings facing the rear boundary of the existing Connelly Street houses).
3. Mr Hall lives on the south-west corner of Connelly and Jones Streets and does not have a direct abuttal to the review site. However, he is concerned about future development on the review site and also represents landowners living east of the review site in Hardy and Stewart Streets. Their concerns primarily relate to the visual bulk and adverse amenity impacts of the three storey attached dwellings along the eastern boundary adjacent to the dwellings to the east. Mr Hall also made submissions about access, parking and the opening up of the laneway to the east which is located between the dwellings facing Hardy Street and those facing Stewart Street, and which currently terminates at the eastern boundary of the review site.
4. Although Ms McInytre and Mr Hall made submissions about procedural issues including the effect of transitional provisions, the transformation of the proposal and the manner in which the application has been processed by Council, we made our position clear at the hearing that the application benefits from the transitional provisions applying when the land was rezoned from General Residential to Neighbourhood Residential.
5. The fact that an application was refused by the Tribunal in 2008 is also of little relevance given the passage of time, changes to the Moreland Planning Scheme and the nature of the proposal now before us.
6. We also made it clear that the various iterations of plans since the application was lodged in March 2015 do not represent a transformation of the proposal but rather an ongoing refinement. Although the application has been 'in train' for over 2 years, we are not aware of and nor have we been persuaded that anything has occurred that is contrary to the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Although not relevant to this application, we also note that clause 61 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 allows the Tribunal to disregard failures to comply with the planning enactment or any other enactment if it considers it in the interests of justice to do so. The important point is that we are in a position to consider the planning merits of the latest iteration of the proposal and that Council and parties who still have concerns or objections have had the opportunity to be heard.
7. The permit Applicant rejects the criticisms made by Council, Ms McIntyre and Mr Hall. Whilst acknowledging the complex procedural history, Mr Finanzio submits that almost all of the respondents in this case have worked diligently and collectively to produce a planning outcome which they hope will secure the reality of change for this large, industrial site. The Applicant says that the agreement reached with most of the respondents represents both a good planning outcome, is clearly one open on a proper interpretation of the planning framework and that it reflects the express will of those people who are directly affected by the proposal. We note that both Ms McIntyre and Mr Hall praised the Applicant's ongoing engagement with residents. It is Mr Negri's expert opinion that despite being in a minimal housing growth area and Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), the physical and locational characteristics of the site provide an opportunity to accommodate a medium density development that has a sensitive response to neighbouring properties and well managed off-site amenity impacts.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR MELBOURNE IN THE COMING DECADES?

1. Melbourne is rapidly changing and the metropolitan area in future will be a very different place from the past or the present. On 31 March 2017, the new metropolitan planning strategy was released and changes made to all Planning Schemes in Victoria. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 in essence updates and revises Plan Melbourne released in 2014.
2. Underpinning the whole strategy is the necessity to accommodate a population which is projected to increase from approximately 5 million to 8 million people by 2050. Aside from population growth, listed key challenges are remaining competitive in a changing economy, providing housing that is affordable and accessible, keeping up with the growing transport needs of the city, and mitigating and adapting to climate change.
3. In summary, the strategies set out in Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 include an intention to constrain the outward spread of the urban area and to focus employment, services and development in national employment and innovation clusters, urban renewal precincts and activity centres linked by public transport.
4. It is anticipated that Melbourne will require an additional 1.6 million homes by 2050 and that the northern region, which includes Moreland, will need to accommodate approximately 175,000 to 180,000 new dwellings in established areas.[3]
5. Specifically there is an intention to locate medium and higher density development near services, jobs and public transport to support objectives concerning urban consolidation and housing choice. There is support for new housing in activity centres and other places that offer good access to jobs, services and public transport. There is still an intention to create 20-minute neighbourhoods to enable residents to walk, cycle or catch public transport rather than rely on longer trips and the use of private motor vehicles with benefits in reduced travel costs, traffic congestion and carbon emissions.[4]
6. Whilst many, if not most, of these strategies are not new, they emphasise that the whole metropolitan area will be subject to change, even outside urban renewal areas and activity centres which are to be the focus for higher density development. Large redundant industrial sites, such as the one we are considering in Stewart and Hardy Streets, cannot be quarantined from significant development simply because they are surrounded by single and double storey dwellings, mostly built in times past when Melbourne was facing different economic, social and environmental circumstances and different community expectations.
7. For example, it is hard to envisage any circumstances today where the existing industrial uses and buildings on the review site would be allowed to establish on a site surrounded on all sides by houses. But that was accepted half a century or more ago and is commonplace across suburbs such as Brunswick and Preston. It is no longer accepted. This is why, without exception, Council and all respondents acknowledge the benefits of redeveloping the review site for housing. The primary question in dispute is the intensity and form of that new housing.

WHAT DOES THE MORELAND PLANNING SCHEME SAY ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY?

1. We have made reference to the metropolitan wide strategic framework but we also need to have regard to relevant State and Local planning policies. Although there is often great attention given to local planning policies, we are also required to consider relevant State planning policies including those at Clauses 11 and 16 which were amended by Amendment C134 gazetted on 31 March 2017.
2. State planning policies are set out in Clauses 11 to 19. A short summary or snapshot of those of relevance to a residential development include the following:
   • Facilitate increased housing in the established areas to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods close to existing services, jobs and public transport.
   • Allow for a spectrum of minimal, incremental and high change residential areas that balance the need to protect valued areas with the need to ensure choice and growth in housing.
   • Deliver more housing closer to jobs and public transport.
   • Support new housing in activity centres and other places that offer good access to jobs, services and public transport.
   • Create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods that give people the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20 minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home.
   • Recognition should be given to the setting in which buildings are designed and the integrating role of landscape architecture.
   • Increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land.
   • Increase the proportion of new housing in designated locations within established urban areas and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield and dispersed development areas.
   • Encourage the development of well-designed medium-density housing which:
     • Respects the neighbourhood character.
     • Improves housing choice.
     • Makes better use of existing infrastructure.
     • Improves energy efficiency of housing.
   • Achieve and promote design excellence and have development respond to its context in terms of urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate.
   • Facilitate residential development that is cost-effective in infrastructure provision and use, energy efficient, incorporates water efficient design principles and encourages public transport use.
3. Local policies provide more specific guidance as to how these broader State level policies are to be implemented across Moreland. Local planning policy for housing at Clause 21.02 - Strategic Direction 3 identifies three different types of housing growth - significant, incremental and minimal - which are to be implemented by use of the Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Based on the NRZ now applying to the review site, it is within a minimal change area. In some clauses, change areas seem to be referred to as housing growth areas.
4. Clause 21.02 identifies the key issues and sets out a strategic vision for the municipality. It notes that:

...multi dwelling infill development will be allowed, but at a lower density to that otherwise achievable under ResCode (Clause 55). The emphasis in the NRZ areas is on the creation of an enhanced open and landscaped character, by providing increased private open space and landscaping.

1. Strategies for housing at Clause 21.03-2 and urban design, built form and landscape design at Clause 21.03-4 seek, amongst other matters, to:

7.1 Encourage minimal housing growth in the NRZ, designed to create an enhanced low density, open and landscaped character.

7.2 Encourage developments of 10 or more dwellings to provide a balance of 1, 2 and 3+ bedroom dwellings.

10.1 Ensure the overall siting and building envelope is based on a considered analysis of the site's context and features, including site size, shape and orientation.

10.2 Ensure site design, building frontages, design articulation and internal layout achieve a good interface with and surveillance of the public realm.

10.3 Ensure development is designed to contribute to a fine grain urban structure.

10.4 Ensure large sites provide a network of public streets, footpaths and lanes connecting through the site into the surrounding street and pedestrian network, as appropriate.

1. Neighbourhood character policy is at Clause 22.10 with specific policies for incremental and minimal change areas and areas zoned NRZ. There was considerable discussion about these at the hearing, particularly the relevance of the policy concerning development in rear yards. We are not persuaded that this specific policy is particularly relevant to the current application as it appears to be framed to deal with dual occupancies where a new dwelling is proposed in the backyard. But even if we are wrong, it is only one of many hundreds of policies and thousands of words that we need to consider in assessing the application. Likewise with policies concerning car and bicycle parking and vehicle access (Clause 22.03), heritage (Clause 22.06) and environmentally sustainable development (Clause 22.08).
2. The review site and surrounding land is now in the NRZ1. The NRZ1 was amended by Amendment VC110 gazetted on 27 March 2017. The amended NRZ includes transitional provisions which add another layer of complexity to the application, given it already benefits from the transitional provisions applying when the land was rezoned from General Residential Zone (GRZ) to NRZ in April 2015. Whether by design or accident, Amendment C110 has been written in such a way that the previous limitation of 4 dwellings per lot has been removed.
3. More importantly for our assessment of the application are the changes to the NRZ purposes which no longer include the following two purposes:

To limit opportunities for increased residential development.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

1. The remaining four purposes still remain. Apart from the first one which occurs in all zones and seeks to implement State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and another concerning non-residential uses, the other two seek to recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development and to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.
2. We accept that neighbourhood character is still an important consideration in the NRZ and it also appears throughout the objectives in Clause 55 (ResCode). However, the deletion of the two purposes cited above has lessened both the emphasis on neighbourhood character and on limiting increases in new dwellings. It has shifted the balance in favour of allowing more dwellings in recognition of the necessity to provide additional housing in order to meet the need for the projected 1.6 million new dwellings by 2050.
3. Although the Tribunal decisions[5] dealing with transitional provisions which were referred to by Ms Hicks and Mr Finanzio were about the earlier NRZ transitional provisions in 2014, the key point to be taken from them all is set out succinctly in Brandied Pty Ltd v Bayside CC[6]:

[29] What is required, as is the case with all medium density housing applications, is an appropriate response to site context. That is a common theme in all of the transitional decisions referred to previously and is something specifically acknowledged in the decision guidelines in the neighbourhood character policy at Clause 22.06-3.

1. Although there were suggestions in submissions that the three storey built form and the number (density) of dwellings is too high and beyond that reasonably expected in this neighbourhood and in the NRZ, we are not persuaded that the concept of providing a mix of 59 two and three storey dwellings on such a large site is a critical factor in deciding whether the proposal is acceptable. From a neighbourhood character perspective, it is instead the intensity of built form, its height, massing and visual relationship with surrounding development that determines whether the proposal is acceptable.
2. Unlike many medium density infill developments which are proposed on one or two lots in streets amongst existing dwellings, the review site is so large and mostly self-contained that it can create its own internal character. In making these comments we acknowledge that it must respond to what is occurring on abutting properties along the site boundaries, but we also accept that the development creates no unacceptable off-site amenity impacts when measured against the requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode), including compliance with the numeric standards used to assess off-site amenity impacts (B17 side and rear setbacks, B18 walls on boundaries, B19 daylight to existing windows, B20 north facing windows, B21 overshadowing open space and B22 overlooking).
3. In terms of neighbourhood character as perceived from the public realm, we are more concerned about how the development presents to Hardy and Stewart Streets. Although we discuss the individual site interfaces later in our reasons, the following extract from Planning Practice Note 43: Understanding Neighbourhood Character reinforces the idea that neighbourhood character is mostly about how a new development 'fits' within a street of existing houses rather than the consideration of a mainly self-contained development on a large site, physically removed from a street of established houses such as occurs in Connelly Street and to a lesser extent those in Stewart Street.

In most cases, a complete pattern of existing lots and development for about five sites or buildings up and down the street, across the street and behind the site in question should be sufficient to identify the features of the neighbourhood that should influence the design. However, sometimes it may be necessary to look further than this, depending upon the individual circumstances of the site and the neighbourhood. [7]

1. Based on our assessment of the development against the whole suite of relevant State and Local planning policies, we consider that the concept of constructing 59 double and triple storey dwellings is not inherently unacceptable or that it represents an overdevelopment of a very large, underutilised industrial site, surrounded by dwellings and with excellent access to public transport, two activity centres - along Sydney Road and Lygon Street - and close to a great variety of community and other services and infrastructure.
2. However, although in principle we support the development, it is also necessary to consider whether it is site responsive - how it manages the interfaces along the boundaries of the site.

1. The permit Applicant's submission made separate comment about each of the boundary interfaces. We consider this a practical and helpful way of understanding the different impacts along these boundaries and whether the design approach results in an acceptable outcome.

1. An existing brick factory wall, approximately 5.5 metres high, extends the length of this boundary, returning about 15 metres along the western boundary. To the north with a single storey dwelling at 10 Hardy Street. The Applicant intends to retain the wall. The owners of the property were not respondents to the appeal, but to all intents and purposes, the adjacent built form will not change for these residents and we consider that retention of the status quo represents an acceptable outcome along this boundary.

Western Boundary along the rear of properties facing Connelly Street

1. It is proposed to retain existing factory walls along this interface, with some infill and variation in height between 2 and 2.7 metres, as agreed with individual owners. With the exception of Ms McIntyre, all of the parties along this boundary have given conditional support for the development.
2. Ms McIntyre's property backs onto the site about halfway along this interface. At the moment on the review site there is a disused driveway and warehouse, set back about 6 metres from the boundary. Ms McIntyre made wide ranging submissions on a number of matters, but was primarily concerned with the impact the replacement of the existing warehouse with dwellings would have on her luxuriant rear garden.
3. We agree with the Applicant that the proposed built form will not create unreasonable shadow impact on the garden, and that her own vegetation, together with the proposed wall behind it, will largely obscure development on the subject site. The built form of the terraces along this edge of the site is heavily modulated, which means that more than half the upper elements in the view cone from her back veranda (if visible at all) will be set back in excess of 6 metres from her fence. Should Ms McIntyre remove her vegetation, this articulation will mitigate the visual bulk resulting from the built form, and the screening of all first floor windows will maintain the privacy of her garden. The Applicant indicated a willingness to modify the height and/or the material of the fence, and the colour of the upper storey of the dwellings behind her (Lots 20 & 21) should she so desire. Ms McIntyre submitted that we should decide what form the fence should take. We consider that maintaining some consistency in height and materials is desirable and support the fence as shown on the substituted plans. We consider that a fence of the proposed height and materials (i.e. 2.7 metre high brick fence) will limit the potential for noise transmission and minimise visual bulk and loss of privacy to Ms McIntyre's property.
4. The Applicant submits that the combination of setbacks, massing of the built form and proposed landscape treatment of this interface results is an improvement for all residents in Connolly Street, including Ms McIntyre. We agree that this interface has been acceptably resolved.

1. The Stewart Street frontage is occupied by the factory complex, plus a considerably altered interwar bungalow. This portion of the site falls within the Blyth Street heritage overlay precinct. Both buildings are to be demolished as part of the proposal. Council maintains that the replacement buildings fail to respect the existing housing in Stewart Street.
2. Mr Raworth was not required to give evidence at the hearing. However, in his evidence statement, he noted that the factory buildings are of no identified significance, and the contribution of the bungalow is undermined both by the 'visually intrusive modifications to its façade (and) the mixed quality of the streetscape...' He also noted that Council's heritage adviser had raised no objection to the previous or current proposals and that this one, in his opinion, has an improved presentation to Stewart Street. He stated that the proposed buildings are appropriately responsive to the scale, character and general urban fabric.
3. The presentation to Stewart Street reads as two pairs of solid attached dwellings, as do the adjoining terraces east of the site. They are separated from each other by a pedestrian/vehicular driveway, and from the adjacent pair of terraces to the east. To the west, adjacent to the site, a handsome interwar villa is substantially set back from the street. The design acknowledges this deep setback by both increasing the front setback of Lots 1 & 2, and by providing a setback of around 5 metres from the western boundary.
4. Mr Negri's opinion is that the proposal responds positively to Council's heritage policy[8] not only in terms of setbacks, but also in providing a façade height which complements the contributory buildings to the east, by visually recessing the upper storeys and in not attempting to mimic historic styles and detailing. We agree with him.

The eastern boundary between Stewart and Hardy Streets

1. The two most affected properties are those abutting the review site at 39 Stewart Street and 26 Hardy Street. Mr Hall represented these two owners at the hearing. Properties further east will not be directly affected by the proposal, although the new three storey townhouses will be visible.
2. The owners of these two properties are primarily concerned about the potential for overlooking of their rear private open space by the residents of the east facing units (Lots 52-58), and to the increase in use of the lane between their properties, currently blocked at the edge of the review site, but which the Applicant proposes to reactivate. The owners of 26 Hardy Street would also like the substation relocated. In addition they have traffic concerns which we discuss later in our reasons.
3. The terraces of the proposed east facing units are less than 9 metres from their boundaries. The owners of 39 Stewart Street and 26 Hardy Street are not convinced that the proposed planters to the terraces will prevent overlooking of their backyards. The owner of 28 Hardy Street has negotiated an increase of 160mm to the eastern edge of the planters to lots 55 & 56 in order to restrict the sight line to his backyard to above 2 metres. We consider that providing this addition to the planters on lots 53, 54, 57 & 58 will result in any potential overlooking of the rear yards of 26 Hardy Street and 39 Stewart Street to be appropriately restrained and within the parameters set out in Clause 55.
4. The owners of these two dwellings wish to retain a wall of a similar height as the existing wall/fence along their boundaries, approximately 2.5 metres. The owners of 26 Hardy Street are also concerned to protect their existing west facing windows, which are close to the boundary. These windows are currently approximately one metre from the high brick wall of the adjoining factory located on the eastern boundary of the subject site.
5. Having closely inspected this interface, we consider that a 2 metre high fence, coupled with the planting proposed along this boundary, will provide a more than acceptable interface. Further, the proposed location of the substation will provide a blank wall affording similar protection to the property as does the existing factory wall whilst its lower height will allow increased natural daylight to the property. In terms of existing neighbourhood character, the hard street edge of the substation as Hardy Street turns the corner recreates the current industrial built form on the site. As the plans do not provide details of the substation apart from a footprint, we will require the design of the sub-station enclosure to reflect the existing condition.
6. The two adjoining owners oppose the opening up to the west of the existing laneway located along the rear boundaries of the two properties, submitting that it poses a security risk and may encourage further traffic in the lane. We support the provision of pedestrian access through the review site. The proposed shared driveway along the eastern edge of this part of the site, with its landscaped edge is an appropriate provision. The ability for pedestrians to use the existing laneway will further enhance the permeability of this part of Brunswick, long inhibited by the previous factory complex. It will also enhance the security of the properties backing onto it by the casual surveillance resulting from increased use.

1. Without exception all parties along the north-south leg of Hardy Street now support the development. Council, however, maintains its objection to the height of the proposed built form. At 10.17 metres, the proposed triple storey dwellings exceed the NRZ 9 metre height limit. Council submitted that the Tribunal should give weight to protecting and enhancing existing character, saying that the proposal fails to respect the prevailing fine grain double and single storey houses in both Stewart and Hardy Streets. The Hardy Street interface is of particular concern to Council given its single storey context.
2. The Applicant submits that providing a residential streetscape in place of the current run-down industrial interface will enhance the character of the neighbourhood. The proposal before us depicts a landscaped setback. There is no individual vehicular access. By reinstating the continuous street edge, a condition typical of the neighbourhood is restored. Despite the 'front veranda' having been relocated to the rear of the dwellings, (we were told this was to address Hardy Street residents' concerns), the built form presents as a contemporary row of terraces, similar to those that can be seen throughout Melbourne's inner suburbs. The third level is set back, and the height not substantially above that of nearby Victorian terraces. Hardy Street is blessed by an attractive uniformity of dwelling types, double fronted opposite the subject site, and further north single fronted, all detached. The proposed attached terraces, similar in width to the single fronted houses further north in the street, will simply add another set of unified dwellings to the mix.

1. Mr Partos gave landscape evidence at the hearing. He had peer reviewed the landscape proposal and generally supported both the landscape concept and the species selection. His opinion is that the landscaping to the courtyards provided to the west bank of townhouses would provide acceptable residential amenity. Although these spaces are small, they provide room for an outdoor table and chairs, a garden bed and sufficient space to support a medium sized tree, providing a landscaped background to Connolly Street residents as well as some visual screening, one of Ms McIntyre's concerns.
2. He considers that the communal open area is a valuable green space for residents and their visitors, suggesting the incorporation of a barbeque and picnic table. We agree that it is a useful and well located space. However, noting from Mr Negri's evidence that the permeable area of the review site is around 90 square metres under that sought by Clause 55, we consider that this green space should be increased in size.
3. One way that this could be achieved is by extending the garden area southward to align with the northern edge of the garage to Lot 42 and reconfiguring Lots 7 & 8 into a single dwelling, in order to provide visitor parking on the south side of the roadway rather than the north. This arrangement would allow for the inclusion of a barbeque and table area within the open space area, and the addition of another large canopy tree.
4. As Mr Partos noted, the landscape plan should also allow for mailboxes and rubbish bin storage, if these facilities are not incorporated into individual dwellings. Good lighting should be provided to all pedestrian areas. These items should be included without loss of tree cover.

1. Mr Hall put forward a number of suggestions about the provision of solar panels and embedded network storage owned by the Owners Corporation. He also mooted the provision of two electric cars for the use of residents which we discuss later in our reasons. Whilst these are far sighted suggestions, they do not form part of the proposal before us, and matters pertaining to Owners Corporation arrangements are outside the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

1. Based on our assessment, we consider that the proposed development responds appropriately to its physical context. It will considerably improve the streetscapes of both Stewart and Hardy Streets, it increases the vegetation of this area of Brunswick and it has no unreasonable amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

ARE CAR PARKING AND TRAFFIC ARRANGEMENTS ACCEPTABLE?

1. We lastly deal with car parking and traffic, matters commonly raised in objections by neighbours, even when car parking complies with the rates set out in Clause 52.06. Responsible Authorities on the other hand more often accept the advice of their professional staff that on-site car parking is adequate and traffic impacts acceptable, despite not meeting the rates in Clause 52.06.
2. Such is the situation here, where Council's professional staff gave conditional support for the parking and access arrangements of the proposal. We agree with that assessment and support the car parking and access arrangements and are not persuaded that the traffic impacts are unacceptable.
3. We have already referred to what can only be described as the massive increase in Melbourne's population projected through until 2050. Our roads are already congested and will be unimaginably so if a 'business-as-usual' approach is accepted through until 2050. The stark reality is that the way people move around Melbourne will have to radically change, particularly in suburbs so well served by different modes of public transport and where cycling and walking are practical alternatives to car based travel.
4. State and Local planning policies are already acknowledging the change that is required with Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and State policies referring to 20-minute neighbourhoods. At the municipal level, Moreland has long been recognised as being at the forefront of encouraging less reliance on car based transport. For example, the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2010 includes a key principle that walking and cycling are the preferred modes of transport.
5. Parties also made reference to the Brunswick Major Activity Centre Integrated Transport Strategy 2013 (BITS) and the rates set out for car parking at section 4.5.2 and Table 4.1. The review site is not within the BITS area and it therefore has no direct relevance or applicability to the review site. However we make reference to it because of the dispute about the number of carspaces that should be provided for the 3 bedroom dwellings. Table 4.1 in BITS suggests that 3 bedroom dwellings should provide car parking at a rate of between 1 and 1.5. If there is to be a reduction for these dwellings, then Council and the respondents submit that the higher rate of 1.5 spaces should be adopted rather than the lower rate of 1 space.
6. The car and bicycle parking and vehicle access policy at Clause 22.03 restates Council's desire to encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport. Policy includes supporting reduced car parking rates in developments within and in close proximity to activity centres, with excellent access to a range of public transport options and with increased provision of bicycle parking above the rates specified in Clause 52.34.
7. Although there was some debate at the hearing as to whether the review site has excellent or just very good access to public transport, compared to much of the metropolitan area this part of Brunswick not only has conveniently walkable access to multiple public transport modes, but it is also within easy walking distance of activity centres and other facilities. We record that we travelled to and from the site by train and on foot when meeting parties for the accompanied site inspection, and that at least one other representative travelled by bicycle. We consider this is a small demonstration that travelling by public transport, walking and cycling are practical travel options for future residents living on the review site.
8. The proposal provides one car space for each dwelling, save for 3 dwellings which are provided with two spaces each. Clause 52.06 would require each of the 3 bedroom dwellings to be provided with 2 spaces. The result of only providing 1 space for the 3 bedroom dwellings is a shortfall of 50 spaces. Three visitor car spaces are provided centrally within the site, against a requirement for 11 spaces.
9. Although Ms Dunstan undertook a car parking demand assessment, as called for by Clause 52.06-6 when there is an intention to provide less car parking than that required by Clause 52.06-5, we found the whole discussion around car parking of marginal value given the strong policy imperatives about relying less on motor vehicles and more on public transport, walking and cycling. Census data from 2011 or 2016 is simply a snapshot in time, a base point, but we are not persuaded that such data should be given much weight in determining what number of car spaces should be provided in future, for dwellings with different bedroom numbers. Policy tells us the future must be different. We consider that oversupplying parking, whether or not to comply with Clause 52.06, has the real potential to undermine the encouragement being given to reduce car based travel in favour of public transport, walking and cycling.
10. We have previously made reference to the car parking rates for 3+ bedroom dwellings set out in Table 4.1 in BITS. We consider that providing parking at the higher rate, although still less than that required by Clause 52.06, is inconsistent with those planning policies which are seeking a shift in transport mode away from cars. We also agree with Ms Dunstan that the rates in Table 4.1 are not meant to be fixed in time, and that there is a clear intention that:

The proposed range of car parking rates reflects a balance between long term mode shift objectives and short term implementation requirements, noting that in future the minimum rate may be reviewed downwards to further encourage mode shift.[9]

1. One of the significant benefits of providing less car parking is a lower volume of vehicle movements and hence a reduced increase in traffic movements along Stewart and Hardy Streets, and other local roads. It is also important to remember that the traffic movements will be primarily cars, rather than the mix of cars and trucks which would have formerly accessed the site. Because the existing buildings are significantly underutilised or empty, we consider it would be unfair to compare the existing relatively light traffic movements to the site with those projected when the site is developed for housing. Traffic movement data included in Ms Dunstan's evidence suggests current daily movements in Stewart Street will increase by 312 from the current estimate of 860 - 1,430 vehicles per day. Hardy Street will experience an estimated additional 72 vehicle movements per day. Unfortunately we do not have data for daily vehicle movements when the industrial buildings were fully utilised, but we are confident that freight vehicles would once have represented a greater proportion of vehicle movements to and from the site than will be the case with dwellings.
2. Although Mr Hall raised concerns about the inconvenience to existing residents that may occur because of overflow parking in nearby streets, we note that on-street parking is managed by Council and that it has various tools with which to ensure that the development does not contribute to on-street parking congestion. We therefore do not agree that the permit Applicant should be required to undertake post development surveys of traffic and parking, given Council's road management role and the ability to respond to issues as required.
3. To the extent that Mr Hall submitted that the permit Applicant should be required to provide two electric cars, we consider this is an unreasonable imposition and we agree with Ms Dunstan that the provision of commercial car share schemes and peer to peer schemes (whether or not using electric cars) is best left to private operators as now occurs. It is apparent from the data contained on page 20 of Ms Dunstan's evidence statement that there are approximately 12 car share pods within 500 metre of the review site. If demand exists then one or more car share pods will be provided, but it is not something we would mandate.
4. We also sound a word of caution about relying on car pods as replacement for individual cars. Policy is seeking a shift from car based travel to public transport, walking and cycling. Although car share schemes may assist in reducing the number of privately owned cars in an area, they are still facilitating car based travel which is something that planning policy is seeking to discourage.

1. On balance we consider that this proposal does achieve a net community benefit in the terms set out in Clause 10.04:

Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of 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.

1. However, achieving that net community benefit does not mean that there will not be a very significant change to the appearance and character of the existing site. Development of the review site for any type of housing will significantly change the existing character but we consider there will be significant amenity benefits to nearby neighbours in replacing the existing industrial buildings with dwellings.
2. Housing in this well serviced location will also, in its own small way, assist in achieving planning policies aimed at focussing additional housing in established well serviced urban areas, close to activity centres and public transport. Redevelopment of this large, underutilised industrial site for housing will also improve the amenity of the surrounding residential area by removing a land use that has the potential to cause, or continue to cause, conflict with adjoining residential properties. A residential development of 59 dwellings also contributes to the achievement of a 20 minute neighbourhood, with less reliance on cars and a shift to public transport, walking and cycling.
3. Having regard to all the above, we will therefore set aside Council's decision and issue a permit with conditions.

1. In reviewing Council's draft conditions we have made a number of changes/additions to them to reflect matters discussed at the hearing and in our reasons. We have also slightly amended the time limit condition to reflect the wording used by the Tribunal.

31-37 Stewart Street and 12-20 Hardy Street, Brunswick

Partial demolition of existing buildings and construction of dwellings in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 (NRZ1) and Heritage Overlay 24 (HO24), and reduction in the provision of on-site car parking in accordance with Clause 52.06 in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans described as TP01.01-01.05, TP02.01-02.08, TP03.01-03.03 and TP04.01-04.07 prepared by Rothe Lowman, Project No 215462 REV J but modified to show:
   • (a) Each façade to comprise no more than 20% concrete and coloured render.
   • (b) Reconfigure Lots 7 & 8 into a single lot/dwelling and relocate the 3 visitor car spaces to the south side of the roadway to part of the area previously occupied by Lots 7 & 8.
   • (c) Extend the communal open space southward to align with the northern edge of the garage to Lot 42 and adjust the alignment of the roadway to accommodate the enlarged communal open space. The additional communal open space area is to include an additional large evergreen canopy tree.
   • (d) The provision of outdoor furniture such as BBQ, tables or play equipment in the communal open space.
   • (e) The southern visitor bicycle area with a frontage to Stewart Street to dimension the four bicycle spaces at least 2.4 metres long and 1.7 metres deep.
   • (f) The internal dimensions of the garages at least 6 metres long by 3.5 metres wide, in accordance with Clause 52.06-8 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
   • (g) The visitor car parking spaces 4.9 metres by 2.6 metres adjacent to a 6.4 metre wide accessway.
   • (h) The garage door to dwellings D1 Lot 40 and D2 Lot 41 a minimum of 4.2 metres wide.
   • (i) The single and double garage doors at least 2.8 metres and 5 metres wide, respectively, as required by the Australian Standard for Off-Street Parking (AS2890.1).
   • (j) The vehicle crossing from Hardy Street (providing access to dwellings H Lot 51 to H Lot 59) 3.2 metres in width.
   • (k) The vehicle crossing providing the main access from Stewart Street 5.8 metres wide.
   • (l) One bicycle parking rack be provided in each garage on the end wall or a side wall near either end in a manner that accords with the specifications in Bicycle Victoria's Bicycle Parking Handbook.
   • (m) At least 6m3 of storage to each dwelling.
   • (n) Provision of a new 2 metre high paling fence along the boundary with 39 Stewart Street and 26 Hardy Street.
   • (o) The colours and materials of the electricity substation to reflect the colours and materials of the existing warehouse building in this location.
   • (p) The location of letterboxes for dwellings on Lots 3-24 at either public road frontage for all dwellings that do not have frontages to Stewart Street or Hardy Street.
   • (q) The planter boxes on the terraces of Lots 53, 54, 57 and 58 are to be provided with a 160mm extension to 1410mm above terrace level, as proposed on Lots 55 and 56.
   • (r) A screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:50 which details the screen associated with first floor windows of dwellings on Lots 3-26. This diagram must include:
     1. All dimensions, including the width of slats and the gap between slats.
     2. All side screens.
     3. How compliance is achieved with the standard of Clause 55.04-05 (overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.
   • (s) Initiatives contained within the amended ESD report (condition 6) including:
     1. Outdoor clothes lines.
     2. Bicycle racks or spaces.
     3. Solar Hot Water systems as per SMP and BESS report.
     4. Location and capacity of photovoltaic system as per BESS report.
     5. Location and capacity of rainwater tanks as per SMP and STORM report.
     6. Raingardens as per STORM report.
     7. Double glazing for living areas and bedrooms to be annotated on plans/elevations.
     8. Adjustable shading for East, North and West facing glazing to be shown on plans as per SMP.
   • (t) Any amendments required by condition 13 (Waste Management Plan).
   • (u) Any amendments required by condition 15 (Access Plan).

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

1. There will be no roof decks anywhere within the approved development.
2. The roof from of the approved townhouses must not, once constructed, be altered in any manner so as to create a roof deck, entertainment area or any other manner of habitable area.

1. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy amount for the development is $319.33 per 100 square metres of leasable floor space and the Development and Community Infrastructure Levy amount for the development is $283.18 per dwelling. In accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, these amounts will be indexed annually on 1 July.

If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following:

(a) For a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit for the development hereby approved; or

(b) Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision.

When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.

1. Prior to the commencement of any development works, an amended landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:
   • (a) Any amendments required by condition 1 of this permit.
   • (b) Identification of any existing tree(s) and vegetation proposed to be removed and retained. Vegetation retainment must include strategies for the retainment (i.e. barriers and signage during the construction process).
   • (c) The provision of canopy trees within the front setback(s) to assist in the integration of the development within the existing streetscape.
   • (d) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Extensive hard surfaces are not supported. The adoption of porous/permeable paving is encouraged.
   • (e) Integration of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) features (eg. raingardens, bio-swales etc) if contained within a Sustainable Design Assessment.
   • (f) Following completion of the development the areas designated as garden areas on the endorsed landscape plan must be maintained and used as garden areas.
2. The landscape plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works, including installation of automatic irrigation, must be completed in accordance with the approved and endorsed Landscape Design Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The areas designated as landscaped areas on the endorsed Landscape Design Report must thereafter be maintained and used for that purpose.
3. Prior to commencing works, an Arborist must be engaged to review trees on adjoining sites, and provide recommendations in regards to undertaking tree protection works on trees likely to be affected by the approved development.
4. The developer must undertake tree protection works in accordance with the recommendations made by the project Arborist.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Sustainable Design Assessment must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The amended SDA must demonstrate best practice environmentally sustainable design and address the following:
   • (a) BESS Energy inputs with amended Solar PV system size.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the amended ESD Report and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

1. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Design Assessment report may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of occupation or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the ESD Report approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the ESD Report have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan. The report must include the final NatHERS certificates for the dwellings issued for building permit.

1. Prior to approval of the amended plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must include, but not limited to the following:
   • (a) A description of ease of disposal for residents that does not disadvantage recycling.
   • (b) Confirmation that educational material will be displayed in the waste bin storage area explaining what material can be recycled and where to place Other Waste items (including cardboard, hard waste, polystyrene, batteries, paint, chemicals, etc).
   • (c) Calculations showing the amount of garbage and recycling expected to be generated;
   • (d) A statement of whether the garbage, and recycling will be collected by Council or a private collection, stating the size of bins, frequency of collection and hours of collection.
   • (e) Include a plan showing the location of the bin storage area on the site and details of screening from public view.
   • (f) Include a dimensioned plan showing the storage area is sufficient to store the required number of bins in a manner that allows easy access to every bin.
   • (g) Detail the ease of taking the fully loaded waste bins to the point of waste collection.
   • (h) State where and when the bins will be placed for waste collection.
   • (i) Confirm that the bins will be removed from the street promptly after collection.
   • (j) Include a plan showing where the waste trucks will stop to service the waste bins and state whether No Parking restrictions will be required for the waste trucks to access that space (e.g. 6 am-midday, Wednesday).
2. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations contained in the endorsed Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Waste Management Plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an Access Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified access auditor to assess any plans and provide advice/recommendations on access and mobility issues to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Plan must provide for, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) All dwellings marked type J (18 in total) to be accessible.
   • (b) The provision of tactile indicators.
   • (c) The use of contrasting paving or surface materials to assist the vision impaired.
   • (d) At least 10% of the total number of dwellings to be specifically adapted to provide access for all, including bathrooms and toilets.
   • (e) Emergency exits, particularly above the ground floor.
   • (f) Car parking.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Disability Access Plan and associated notated plans will form part of this permit.

1. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Access Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Access Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.

Environmental Assessment and Auditing Requirements

1. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works pursuant to this permit either:
   • (a) A Certificate of Environmental Audit for the land must be issued in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and provided to the Responsible Authority; or
   • (b) An Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a Statement in accordance with Section 53Z of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use and development that are the subject of this permit and that statement must be provided to the Responsible Authority.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, the buildings and works and the use(s) of the land that are the subject of this permit must comply with all directions and conditions contained within the Statement.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, prior to the commencement of the use, and prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, and prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit under the Building Act 1993, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the Statement have been satisfied.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, and any condition of that Statement requires any maintenance or monitoring of an ongoing nature, the Owner(s) must enter into an Agreement with Council pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required, the Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of the permitted use, and prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988. All expenses involved in the drafting, negotiating, lodging, registering and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority, must be met by the Owner(s).

Prior to any remediation works being undertaken in association with an Environmental Audit, a Remediation Works Plan, prepared in consultation with the appointed Environmental Auditor, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must detail only those remediation works, excavation works as well as any proposed structures such as retaining walls, necessary to facilitate the completion of the environment audit. Only the works detailed in the Remediation Works Plan, approved by the Responsible Authority, are permitted to be carried out prior to the issue of a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit.

1. Prior to the occupation of the development, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the occupation of the development, the garage doors must be automatic and remote controlled.
3. Prior to the occupation of the development, any vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
4. Prior to the occupation of the development, any existing vehicle crossing not to be used in this use or development must be removed and the kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
5. Before the occupation of the development, lighting above ground level is to be installed and maintained on the land to automatically illuminate pedestrian access to the rear dwelling(s) between dusk and dawn with no direct light emitted onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Prior to the occupation of the development all telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Note: Please contact Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
8. The stormwater run-off from the accessway must not flow out of the property over the public footpath to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. The level of the footpath must not be raised to improve vehicle access to the garages unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
10. The owner must provide an advanced replacement street tree in an appropriate location in a nature strip nearby in accordance with the Moreland Street Landscape Strategy for each street tree removed for the vehicle crossing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11. The dimensions, placement and numbering of the letterboxes must comply with the Australia Post - Letterbox Security and Specification as published on its website to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must be entered into between the Owners of the land and the Responsible Authority in a form satisfactory to the Responsible Authority providing for:
   • (a) Unrestricted public pedestrian and bicycle access through the pedestrian link from Stewart Street to Hardy Street along the eastern site boundary for 24 hours a day (364 days of the year).
   • (b) The owners of the land to indemnify the Moreland City Council against any claims associated with the use of the pedestrian link between Stewart and Hardy Streets within the site.

The agreement must be registered on title. The owner must pay the reasonable costs of the Responsible Authority in relation to the preparation, execution and registration of the agreement on title.

1. This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
   • (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.

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

[1] We have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[2] E R Ronge & Co Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2008] VCAT 1491.

[5] Bayside Property Projects Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 958; Verbuk v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 967; The Town Hall Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 1146 and Whitefeather Group Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 1193.

[6] Brandied v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 1361.

[7] Planning Practice Note 43: Understanding Neighbourhood Character (The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2015.

[9] Brunswick Major Activity Centre Integrated Transport Strategy 2013 - Page 18.