Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2009-10-19|Before: Mr J, Ms J

Rush v Melbourne CC [2009] VCAT 2211 (19 October 2009)

Application under S.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time. Mixed Use Zone. Heritage Overlay. Design & Development Overlay. Clause 52.06 Car Parking. Clause 52.27 Licensed Premises. Demolition. Student Accommodation. Food and drink premises. Significance of the heritage place. Effect on the significance of the heritage place. State and Local Planning Policy Framework. Zone Purposes. Streetscape. Car parking, Traffic.

Leave is given to the permit applicant] to substitute for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

TP00, Site Plan Rev.A, TP02 Ground floor Plan Rev.A, TP03 Upper Ground Floor Plan Rev.A, TP12 Flemington Road Elevation Rev.A, TP13 Villiers Street Elevation Rev.A, TP15 North West Elevation Rev.A, Contextual Elevations Rev.A, Additional Information Rev.A.

The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
In permit application TP2008 - 803 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 75 Flemington Road, North Melbourne in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Attachment A. The permit allows:
- Use of land for the purpose of accommodation.
- Construct or extend a residential building.
- Construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.04-1.
- Demolish a building and construct a building, construct or carry out works.
- Reduce the number of car spaces required.

Mr Cicero called Mr D Bick, architectural historian and conservation architect, Mr P Barrett, architectural historian and heritage consultant, and Mr M Shepphard, urban designer.

Ms S Porrit of counsel instructed by B Ryan of MCC Legal.

Ms Porrit called Ms M Gould, conservation architect and Mr C Pryor, urban designer.

It is proposed to demolish a hotel currently known as the "Redback" and to construct a part nine and part ten storey building to be used primarily as student accommodation. A food and drink premises is proposed on the ground floor. A reduction in the provision of car parking is also sought (two on site spaces are proposed)

Application under S.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay (HO3 North & West Melbourne)

Clause 43.02 Design & Development Overlay (DDO30 Flemington Road South).

Clause 32.04-1 Use of land for the purpose of accommodation.

No permit is required to use the land for a food and drink premises as the site retains existing use rights as a hotel.

Clause 32.04-5 Construct or extend a residential building.

Clause 32.04-7 Construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.04-1.

Clause 43.01-1 Demolish a building and construct a building, construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.02-2 Construct a building, construct or carry out works.

Clause 52.06-1 reduce the number of car spaces required.

Clause 22.05 Heritage Places Outside the Capital City Zone.

Clause 22.17 Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone.

The site is located on the north west corner of Flemington Road and Villiers Street, North Melbourne. It has a frontage of 25 m to Flemington Road, 40 m to Villiers Street, and an area of approximately 1030 m2. The site exhibits an appreciable slope from the front (Flemington Road) to the rear. Little George Street runs along the rear of the site.

The site is currently occupied by the Redback Hotel which is a two storey building constructed in stages dating from the late nineteenth century but substantially altered and extended in the 1930's.

The site is located within a mixed use precinct comprising a variety of building types used for residential and commercial purposes. Single and double storey buildings abut the review site to the north along Flemington Road. These buildings include a D graded Victorian shop. A permit has been granted to demolish the single storey warehouse on the corner of Flemington Road and Harcourt Street and to construct an eight storey building. To the rear of the site on the western side of Little George Street is a large single storey commercial building currently occupied by the Red Cross. A three storey brick building occupies the site on the south west corner of Flemington Road and Villiers Street. The Royal Melbourne Hospital is located on the opposite side of Flemington Road.

Peter Rush applied to the Council for a permit to demolish the building on the site which is currently used as a hotel known as the Redback Hotel. It is proposed to replace that building with a part nine storey and part ten storey building to be used for student accommodation and a ground floor food and drink premises.
The Council gave notice of the application and received two objections to the application.
The Council failed to determine the application within the prescribed time and Mr Rush applied to the Tribunal for a decision on the application.
The Council ultimately resolved that it would have refused the application on the following grounds:
1. The building exceeds the maximum building height permitted by Schedule 30 (Flemington Road South) of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme and not reinforce the identified Built Form Outcomes of this DDO.
2. The development does not comply with the key elements of the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development as required by Clause 19.03 (Design and built form) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
3. The development contravenes the provisions of Clause 22.05 (Heritage places outside the Capital City Zone) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme as it relates to 'Demolition', 'Form' and 'Building height'.
4. The development contravenes the provisions of Clause 22.17 (Urban design outside the Capital City Zone) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme as it relates to Scale Context' Building height and 'Building bulk

5. The building represents an overdevelopment of the site

Ms Davis advised me at the start of the hearing that her client sought minor amendments to the proposal and that if conditions giving effect to those changes were incorporated into the application plans, she would withdraw from the hearing. Neither the Council nor the applicant had any objections to the proposed changes. I have included conditions to give effect to the required changes by the consent of the parties.
The primary issues in this case are about the heritage significance of the building and whether the significance of the heritage place will be adversely affected as result of the demolition of the building. The Council has also taken the view that the proposed replacement building exceeds the preferred height for the site and is not consistent with the new built form encouraged for this locality.
I have concluded that the demolition of the building will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. I have also concluded that, notwithstanding the existence of a heritage overlay, the site is located within an area in which the planning scheme encourages consistent, higher built forms and the development of a new built form character. A new building on this site is required to be consistent with the achievement of those objectives. I am satisfied that the design objectives of the Design and Development Overlay are met by the proposed building.
My reasons are set out below.

Will the demolition of the building adversely affect the significance of the heritage place?

The building on the review site is covered by Heritage Overlay Schedule 3. The overlay covers a relatively wide area encompassing North and West Melbourne. There is not currently a formally adopted statement of significance for the overlay area but I was referred to a proposed statement which the Council is seeking to have referenced in the planning scheme. The statement identifies the principal period of development contributing to the cultural significance of the heritage place as 1837 to 1914[1].
The building on the site is a C graded building under the Heritage Places Inventory. A C graded building is defined as follows:

'C' buildings. Demonstrate the historical or social development of the local area and /or make an important aesthetic or scientific contribution. These buildings comprise a variety of styles and building types. Architecturally they are substantially intact, but where altered, it is reversible. In some instances, buildings of high individual historic, scientific or social significance may have a greater degree of alteration[2].

The building is located in a Level 3 streetscape which is:

Level 3 streetscapes may contain significant buildings, but they will be from diverse periods or styles, and of low individual significance or integrity[3].

In considering an application to demolish a building the decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay require consideration of whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
The decision guidelines of the overlay are supplemented by the Council's local policy at Clause 22.05 which states that before deciding on an application for demolition of a graded building consideration must be given, as appropriate, to:
- The degree of its significance.
- The character and appearance of the building or works and its contribution to the architectural, social or historic character and appearance of the streetscape and the area.
- Whether the demolition or removal of any part of the building contributes to the long term conservation of the significant fabric of that building.
- Whether the demolition or removal is justified for the development of land or the alteration of, or addition to, a building.
In undertaking my assessment of this proposal I have been assisted by the evidence of three expert, heritage witnesses.
Mr Bick and Mr Barrett both concluded that the demolition of the building would not have a significant affect on the heritage place. It was Ms Gould's evidence however that the building is of individual local significance because it remains as an example of corner hotels which are scattered through Melbourne's inner suburbs and which are an important feature of the city's early development. While Ms Gould acknowledged that the building was substantially constructed in 1937, at a time which is outside the primary period of significance for the North and West Melbourne heritage overlay, but it incorporates part of a much smaller hotel which was constructed in the nineteenth century. More importantly Ms Gould considered that the significance of the building derives from it being a good example of interwar architecture with art deco embellishments, constructed during a time of austerity.
With respect to the remnant elements of the building which date from the nineteenth century, I am unable to conclude that these are sufficient to place the building from the period of significance referred to in the statement of significance.
In forming this conclusion I have been influenced by the evidence of Mr Barrett who undertook research into the building's history. Although Ms Gould disagreed with Mr Barrett's conclusions about the significance of the building, the history of the building provided by Mr Barret was not disputed. Mr Barret described the building as a complex of hotel buildings erected in stages from the second half of the nineteenth century. While records indicate that a hotel was trading from the site in 1854, Mr Barret could not confirm whether any fabric of this building remains. There is evidence that in 1897 a hotel with a splade corner built adjacent to Flemington Road and Villiers Street existed on the site. This building was significantly altered both internally and externally in the 1920's and further extensive alterations and additions were carried out in 1937. A considerable amount of Victorian fabric was removed at that time. The retained fabric was limited to the shell of the building including the Flemington Road and Villiers Street elevations and some timber roof framing.
Further works carried out in the later part of the twentieth century removed further Victorian fabric and considerably altered the interwar additions and alterations.
It was Mr Barrett's conclusion that there is no evidence of nineteenth century fabric remaining in the building beyond parts of the walls.
The alterations and additions carried out to the building during the twentieth century, and in particular in 1937, are very substantial. I agree with Mr Barrett that while part of the footprint and part of the fabric of the nineteenth century building remains, the 1937 building is not the original building. I am not persuaded therefore that the building derives from the period of significance (1837 to 1914).
The major component of Ms Gould's evidence was that the building is individually significant because of its interwar architecture and art deco embellishments. I note that this assessment of the building is not supported by the provisions of the planning scheme or the reference material which informs and supports the application of the heritage overlay. The site forms part of a precinct wide overlay and as such the building's significance must be assessed in terms of its contribution to that precinct. The site does not have an individual heritage overlay which would lend weight to Ms Gould's assessment that the building is individually significant.
Ms Gould's assessment that the building is individually significant at the local level was influenced by the fact that the works were carried out during a period of austerity during which little work of comparable value occurred. Ms Gould identified elements of the building including a "tower" element and other stylistic features which led her to conclude that the building is an unusual example of a streamlined Moderne building.
I disagree with that assessment. Mr Barrett and Mr Bick have demonstrated to my satisfaction that the works carried out in 1937 are a scaled down version of a more elaborate design by the architect P J O'Connor. The tower element for example was never constructed. In its "as constructed" form, it is little more than a raised parapet which falls well short of O'Connor's original proposal. The building has also undergone alterations and additions since 1937 including the lowering and enlarging of windows, the introduction of doors on the Flemington Road elevation and the removal of pressed cement signage. The upstairs bedrooms have also been removed and substantial alterations have occurred internally to the bar areas.
In my view the building is not an unusual, intact, or particularly good example of an interwar corner hotel building. Mr Bick in particular identified several other hotels of the period which are superior and represent more intact examples of the typology.
I was not presented with any evidence which would persuade me that the building has any social significance which would warrant its retention. Ms Gould's evidence on this point was largely based on her assessment of the role that corner hotels played as a social gathering place during the early years of the area's development. I am unable to find any reference in the statement of significance for HO30 or Council's policies which recognise this aspect of the area's development or seek to protect corner hotels generally or this hotel specifically because of their social significance.
The Council's policy at clause 22.05 also requires consideration to be given to the contribution the building makes to the character and appearance of the streetscape. Flemington Road in this location is identified as a level 3 streetscape and consistent with this relatively low grading, the graded buildings in the streetscape (7 out of 22 between Peel and Harcourt Street) are dispersed along the street and do not form part of a coherent or consistent heritage streetscape. The hotel is located at the edge of the heritage overlay and is somewhat segregated from those areas of North and West Melbourne which exhibit heritage features which are consistent with the statement of significance. This is not to say that there are no heritage buildings in the vicinity of the site (Ms Gould for example referred to the pre 1897 industrial buildings in George Street, and there are graded buildings in Flemington Road) but the area in general to the south and west of the site has experienced significant redevelopment during the latter parts of the twentieth century.
Having regard to the above I am satisfied that The demolition of the building will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place (being the area of North and West Melbourne covered by HO3) to any significant degree.

There are two components to the consideration of the design of the proposed replacement building. Firstly the heritage overlay requires me to be satisfied that the development does not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Secondly the site is affected by a Design and Development Overlay (DDO30) and I must be satisfied that the objectives of that overlay are also met.
I will deal with each component separately but I make the observation that there exists a clear tension within the planning scheme which is expressed through the application of both a heritage overlay and a DDO, both of which seek to achieve completely different outcomes. The purpose of the heritage overlay is to conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. The objective of the DDO is to provide opportunities for a consistent, higher built form at the western gateway to the city, and to provide an opportunity for the development of a new built form character.
The DDO30 sets a maximum height of six storeys (21 metres for residential uses and 24 metres for non residential uses). The building height can be exceeded provided it can be demonstrated that the development achieves the design objectives and built form outcomes[4] included in the schedule to the overlay, and local policy. The DDO30 gives limited or no direction as to how to deal with heritage fabric in this locality or in areas in which both overlays apply.
The local policy framework is similarly of little assistance in providing guidance as to the exercise of discretion where both overlays apply to the same land.
The balancing of conflicting policies and objectives is an integral part of decision making process in the planning system[5]. I am not convinced however that there is any merit in applying directly contradictory policies and overlay controls to the same parcel of land or location. I would have thought that sound strategic planning and policy development would have resolved issues about whether this location is to be conserved as a heritage precinct or developed as an area with a new built form character. Applying controls intended to achieve both outcomes for the same land cannot have been the intention when the planning process was reformed through the introduction of the Victorian Planning Provisions some 15 years ago.
Nevertheless I am required to assess the proposed building against the provisions of both overlays and the zone.
With respect to heritage considerations, Ms Gould's evidence was that the proposed building would have a bulk and form which is not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place. Beyond that however, Ms Gould's evidence focussed primarily on an assessment of the building against the design objectives and built form outcomes of the DDO.
Having determined that the demolition of the building is acceptable, the heritage considerations concerning the replacement building diminish significantly. This is because, as I have discussed previously, the site does not form part of a coherent or consistent heritage streetscape. The hotel is located at the edge of the heritage overlay and the area surrounding the site has undergone significant development over recent years. The identification of the site as part of a precinct in which a higher built form character is encouraged reinforces my view that the replacement building will not adversely affect the significance of the HO3 heritage place.
I have outlined above the design objectives and built form outcomes of DDO30. The proposal exceeds the maximum height by predominantly 3 and in part 4 storeys, or perhaps more importantly by 3.95 metres.
Ms Gould and Mr Pryor gave evidence to the effect that a building in excess of the maximum height would compromise the tree lined boulevard of Flemington Road, would not be consistent with the low scale pattern of development and would dominate existing development to the west. It was Ms Gould's evidence that the six storey height specified in the DDO30 reflected a desire to achieve a transition in building height from the higher built forms on the opposite side of Flemington Road to the lower scale of North and West Melbourne beyond the review site.
Mr Pryor also referred to the transitional role of the DDO30 area but referred to it in terms of a transition in building heights to the area to the south closer to the CBD which is affected by DDO44 (8 storeys) and the area to the west which is affected by DDO32 (North Melbourne Peripheral) which specifies a 14 m mandatory maximum building height. It was Mr Pryor's evidence that the proposed nine storey building would disrupt the height transitions encompassed within the planning scheme. Mr Pryor could not identify any justification for this building to exceed the maximum height.
I have concluded that the proposed building is acceptable for a number of reasons. Firstly the height control in DDO30 contemplates a building of up to 24 metres if it is a non residential building, but only 21 metres if it is a residential building. Because the review site is located in a Mixed Use Zone it is reasonable to contemplate either a residential or non residential use, or a mixture of both. In terms of assessing the impact of the height of the building and its ability to meet the design objective and built form outcomes specified in the overlay, I am unable to differentiate between a residential or non residential building. In my view the assessment of the impact of the height of the proposed is best carried out having regard to the height of the building rather than the number of storeys or the use to which the building is put.
In this proposal the floor to ceiling heights have been limited to 2.85 metres, enabling nine storeys to be achieved at an overall height of 27.95 metres. At that height, I agree with Mr Sheppard that the building is of an equivalent height to a building of six storeys with 4.0 metre floor to ceiling heights which the DDO30 contemplates.
A further factor which has influenced my decision is the existence of a recently granted permit for an eight storey office building at 97 Flemington Road. This site is located on the corner of Flemington Road and Harcourt Street, some 100 metres to the north of the review site. Upon construction the permitted building will have a height of 26.8 m. This site is also located within DDO30. A permit has also been issued for a building at 11 High Street to the south of the review site but also within DDO30. The approved building has a height of 22.3 metres.
I note that Mr Pryor did not refer to either of these approved buildings in his evidence and he acknowledged that he was not aware of the permit for the High Street site.
During the course of the hearing all witnesses referred to the height and scale of development on the opposite side of Flemington Road. In general terms these institutional buildings range in height up to 36 metres. There was disagreement between the witnesses as to the extent to which these buildings should influence my assessment of the current proposal. I have not relied on the height of those buildings in reaching my conclusions on the proposed building, beyond acknowledging that the DDO30 does encourage buildings of a lesser height than those on the opposite of the road. The proposal achieves that outcome and to the extent that the DDO30 seeks a transition from those higher buildings I am satisfied that has been achieved.
I am also satisfied that the proposed building is consistent with the transitional status of the precinct in terms of its interface with the area to the south and west which is affected by DDDO 32. I do not think that this building at a height of 27.95 metres will in any significant way be more dominant over the low scale area to the south and west than a building with a 24 metre height.
Overall it is my view that the area affected by DDO30 is undergoing change in its built form character in accordance with the outcomes encouraged by the DDO and the policy framework. This proposal will contribute to that process of change and will do so in a manner which is consistent with the recognition of the importance of Flemington Road as a boulevard entrance to the City, reflects the higher building forms in the area and contributes to a consistent building pattern and height.
I acknowledge that the proposed building could be reduced to a height commensurate with the maximum height specified in DDO30, but this would inevitably involve a reduction in dwelling yield. I have not been persuaded that there are any significant built form benefits to be achieved by reducing the height and/or form of the building which would compensate for the loss of the dwellings in the development.

It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit be granted.
In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit I have had regard to the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from these reasons.

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, including demolition, the applicant must submit to the Responsible Authority three copies of plans drawn to scale generally in accordance with the plans accompanying the application but amended to show:
- (a) Any windows shown on the northern boundary wall of the site will be non openable/fixed and opaque

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

The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Before the development starts, a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The owner must ensure that the materials and finishes as approved under this permit are incorporated into the construction of the building to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
As part of the consultant team an experienced architect must be engaged to oversee the design intent and construction quality to ensure that the design and quality and the appearance of the approved building is maintained.
Prior to the commencement of the use and development hereby permitted, the owner of the land must enter into and execute an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in which it shall be covenanted as follows:
- (a) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this agreement shall be registered with the Registrar of Titles and shall run with the land;
- (b) That the requirements contained in the agreement shall form part of any lease of the premises which the owner of the land under this permit may enter into with another party; and
- (c) The owner of the land under the permit shall pay the legal costs and be responsible for the preparation and registration of the said agreement.

The Section 173 agreement must specifically provide for the following:

(a) The accommodation provided on the subject land is to be used for the exclusive accommodation of students enrolled full time at a secondary or tertiary level educational institution and to be vacated within three months of completion of full time studies;

(b) The building to operate at all times in accordance with the Management Plan as required by Condition 4 of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Management Plan must establish a set of 'house rules' for the use, to be followed thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(c) The on-site car parking and bicycle parking spaces approved under this permit must at all times be managed in accordance with the Car and Bicycle Parking Management Plan as required by Condition 5 of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The on-site car parking spaces are only permitted to be used by the occupants/employees of the student accommodation, in accordance with the endorsed plans, and such spaces must not be subdivided, leased or sold separate from the facility for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

(d) The owner shall not rely on the presence of the fixed and opaque windows in the northern boundary wall as a basis for any objection, complaint or obstruction to the proposed development of any part of the land at 81, 83 and 85 Flemington Road.

Prior to the commencement of the use and development hereby permitted, a Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. 'When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit. The Management Plan must establish a set of 'house rules' for the use, to be followed thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must ensure that a suitably qualified full time manager with responsibility to oversee student behaviour permanently resides on the site and must detail the maintenance, cleaning, garbage storage and collection, supervision and security of the site.
Prior to the commencement of the use and development hereby permitted, a Car and Bicycle Parking Management Plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit. Management of the car and bicycle parking provided in association with the use must be in accordance with the plan or any approved amendment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must detail the means by which the on- site car parking and bicycle parking spaces approved under this permit will be allocated and managed and outline fees or charges associated with the use of the car park which must not deter usage of the designated spaces by residents of the accommodation.
A legally binding agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must be entered into between the land Owner(s) and the Council regarding projections over Flemington Road and Villiers Street exceeding 300mm over the street alignment. This Agreement must indemnify Council against any claims arising from the existence of these projections. The Agreement must require the Owner to maintain and keep in good repair all projections at its cost and to the satisfaction of Council whether or not the need for maintenance or repair of the structures arose from the act, neglect or default of the Owner. The Agreement must refute any future adverse possession claims over the space occupied by the projection. The Agreement must be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Engineering Services; the Manager, Sustainable Regulatory Services and the Manager, Governance Services. The Owner must pay all of Council's reasonable legal costs and expenses of this Agreement, including Land Titles Registration fees.
All projections over the street alignment must conform with the Building Regulations 2006, Part 5, Sections 505 to 514 as appropriate.
The projections must be drained to a legal point of discharge in accordance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The owner of the subject land must construct a drainage system, incorporating water sensitive urban design features within the development and make provision to connect this system to Council's stormwater drainage system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The Owner of the subject land must construct all necessary vehicle crossings and demolish all unnecessary vehicle crossings adjacent the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority the existing footpath/road levels in Flemington Road, Villiers Street or Little George must not be altered for the purpose of constructing new vehicle or pedestrian entrances.
Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority the approved works must not result in structures that encroach onto any Council street or lane.
This permit will expire if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
- (a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit;
- (b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit; and/or
- (c) The use is not commenced within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the date upon which this permit expires only if it receives a request in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

[1] Expert Witness Statement of David Bick presented to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal , 25 June, 2009

[2] Clause 22.05 Melbourne Planning Scheme.

[4] The built form outcomes in the schedule to the overlay are:

Development reflects the importance of Flemington Road and the approach to the Haymarket roundabout as a boulevard entrance to the City.
Development reflects the higher building forms in the area and contributes to a consistent building pattern and height.
Development does not visually dominate the area to the south-west.

[5] Refer to Clause 11.01 of the planning scheme.

Environment Act 1987

Building Regulations 2006

Rush v Melbourne CC [2009] VCAT 2211

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (48 paragraphs)

Rush v Melbourne CC [2009] VCAT 2211 (19 October 2009)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)