Mr N J Tweedie of Counsel, instructed by Hoeys Lawyers. He called the following witnesses:

• Mr Marco Negri, town planner; and
• Ms Robyn Riddett, heritage consultant.

Mr Joel Fredman, planning consultant of Fredman Malina Planning Pty Ltd.

Mr John Markham, in person and on behalf of Ms Ann Standish.

As shown on the plans considered by the Council, the proposal is for the complete demolition of the existing building and the construction of a five storey building to accommodate ground level office space and twelve (12) dwellings at upper levels.

The ground floor would be constructed boundary-to-boundary. It would accommodate a large office space on the corner of High Street and Walker Street; 24 resident car spaces, accessed from High Street and the carriageway easement (entry only); 3 undercroft car spaces for the office use, accessed from the carriageway easement; and entrance lobbies from High and Walker Streets.

On each of the first to third floors there would be 4 dwellings, with at least one balcony. A courtyard or light court would be provided to the two central dwellings on each level.

On the fourth floor there would be consists of 4 studios and roof gardens, associated with the dwellings on the third floor.

Application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of conditions in a permit that the responsible authority has decided to grant.

Application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of a decision of the responsible authority to grant a permit.

Clause 34.02-1: use of the land for the purpose of dwellings.

Clause 34.02-4: construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.01: demolish a building, construct a building, construct or carry out works and externally paint a building.

Clause 52.06-1: reduce the number of car spaces required by the table at Clause 52.06-5.

Clause 52.29: alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

Clause 52.34: vary, reduce or waiver the requirements relating to bicycle facilities.

State Planning Policy Framework; Clause 12 (Metropolitan development), Clause 14.01 (Planning for urban settlement), Clause 15.11 (Heritage), 15.12 (Energy efficiency), Clause 16.02 (Medium density housing), Clause 17.02 (Business), Clause 18.02 (Car parking and public transport access to development), Clause 18.03 (Bicycle transport) and Clause 19.03 (Design and built form).

Local Planning Policy Framework; Clause 21.05-1 (Sustainability), Clause 21.05-2 (Housing), Clause 21.05-3 (Urban Design), Clause 21.05-4 (Heritage), Clause 21.05-4 (Culture), Clause 21.05-5 (Economic Development), Clause 22.04 (Neighbourhood Character), Clause 22.08 (High Street Corridor Land Use and Urban Design) and Clause 22.10 (Residential and Mixed Use Development of Four or More Storeys).

The site abuts the east side Little High Street - a service road adjacent to High Street, Northcote. It is on the north corner of Walker Street. It has a frontage to Little High Street of 25.2m and a sideage to Walker Street of 38.7m, yielding an area of approximately 991m2.

The site is encumbered by a carriageway easement along the full length of the eastern boundary. The easement has a width of 3.6m at its connection to Walker Street and widens to 5.18m at its northern end.

The site is currently developed with a two storey industrial building that is vacant. The building is mostly built to the boundaries. Vehicle access is obtained via a crossover to Little High Street and from an extensive crossover along Walker Street that leads to an undercroft parking area.

The adjoining property to the north (22 High Street) is developed with double storey factory/commercial buildings, constructed to the shared boundary with the subject site. They have vehicle and loading access from both Little High Street and the carriageway easement. Further to the north, and extending to Cunningham Street, there is a substantial residential/home office development that is known as the 'North Edge Apartments', but referred to during the hearing as 'the Kennedy-Taylor building'. It presents to High Street as a converted double storey brick former industrial building with two storey contemporary additions, recessed slightly behind the original building. It has four storey components in the internal part of the site.

The adjoining property to the east (33 Walker Street) is developed with a single storey, double-fronted Edwardian dwelling that is elevated and set back 3.7m from the frontage. It has brick wall along much of the shared boundary with the subject site. Further to the east along Walker Street, as far as the rail line, there are single storey dwellings and a unit development.

On the south-east corner of Walker Street and the Little High Street there is the bluestone All Saints Church building and grounds, of significant heritage value.

The High Street reserve has street trees and war memorial features that form a historically significant avenue.

High Street is a multi-lane carriageway with a tram service. On its west side there are residential buildings - generally single storey period dwellings, but also a 4 storey apartment building.

1. Level Architekture applied to the Darebin City Council [the Council] to retain the ground level of the existing building, refit it as an office and car park and develop a four storey building above it with 12 dwellings.
2. In response to advertisement of the application, the Council received 7 objections. Issues raised included incompatibility with the heritage overlay and urban character, overdevelopment, excessive visual height and bulk, excessive density, visual dominance, inappropriate style to neighbourhood, poor interface to adjoining properties, traffic, overshadowing, overlooking, car parking demand and environmental audit required.
3. In response to concerns of objectors and the Council, amended plans were submitted. The amendments included complete demolition of the building, an expanded office tenancy, alterations to the car parking layout and increased upper floor setbacks.
4. The application was referred to VicRoads. The authority offered no objection, subject to conditions.
5. The Council adopted the recommendation of its reporting officer and issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, subject to numerous conditions - including a requirement for various amendments to the plans before they are endorsed.
6. Some of the objectors to the permit application lodged an Application for Review against Council's Notice of Decision (P1443/2008).[1]
7. The permit applicant lodged an Application for Review (P1623/2008) against part of a condition on the Notice of Decision. The contested condition relates to the requirement for screening on the east elevation.
8. Plans have been prepared that show the modifications accepted by the permit applicant.[2] They include the deletion of any vehicle access from Little High Street and a reconfiguration of the car parking; three commercial car spaces; the third floor set back a minimum of 9m from the eastern boundary[3]; and the fourth floor set back a minimum of 11m from the eastern boundary. The plans also show 3 dwellings (rather than 4) on the third floor and a penthouse (rather than studios and roof gardens) on the fourth floor.
9. After hearing all submissions[4] and evidence, and inspecting the site and surrounds,[5] I consider that the issues that require determination are:
   • Is a development of the proposed height and scale supported by the zone provisions and the policy framework of the planning scheme?
   • Is a development of the proposed height, scale and form appropriate in its physical context?
   • Is the proposed development acceptable in terms of the heritage values of the area?
   • Does the proposal contribute to unacceptable amenity impacts?
   • Does the proposal provide for adequate car parking?

Is a development of the proposed height and scale supported by the zone provisions and the policy framework of the planning scheme?

1. It is axiomatic that the proposed redevelopment of the subject site for residential purposes would further urban consolidation objectives in the State Planning Policy Framework. The subject site is very well-located for medium density housing given its close proximity to numerous modes of public transport,[6] commercial and community facilities and recreation reserves. The proposal would also add to housing diversity. In that regard I note that the proposed three-bedroom dwellings - with rooms of a generous size - are somewhat unusual in the local housing market.
2. Furthermore, there is specific support in the Local Planning Policy Framework [LPPF] for redevelopment of the subject site in the manner proposed.
3. Clause 21.05-2 encourages residential and mixed use development of four or more storeys on sites with specified characteristics. The include sites with 'existing buildings of a height and bulk substantially greater than the prevailing height and bulk in the immediate locality'; sites located on a Road Zone Category 1 or 2; sites 'with potential to provide a high level of amenity to residents of the development by virtue of the availability of attractive views or outlook'; and sites 'within comfortable walking distance (400 metres) of a railway station'.
4. The LPPF calls for better utilisation of land within the internodal areas of the High Street corridor and taking opportunities to revitalise vacant former industrial sites outside of the municipality's core industrial areas to residential uses.[7] As highlighted by Mr Fredman, those directions were the strategic basis for the rezoning of the subject site from Industrial 3 to Business 2 Zone.[8]
5. The High Street Corridor Land Use and Urban Design Policy - at Clause 22.08 - acknowledges the particular strategic importance of the High Street Corridor. The subject site is within the Westgarth South Precinct (Precinct 1) for which it is policy, inter alia:
   • To retain the predominantly low-rise residential, historically significant built form character and streetscape.
   • To encourage the redevelopment of the industrial sites on the eastern side of High Street between Walker and Cunningham Streets (Nos. 18-36 High Street, Westgarth) for a mix of commercial and residential uses, within the existing buildings or in new buildings of a similar form.
6. The latter provision specifically identifies the subject site as one where redevelopment is encouraged. As noted by Mr Tweedie, it is rare to have that level of specificity in a local policy.
7. While the parties generally agreed that the subject site is suitable for medium density residential redevelopment, there were divergent views on what form of development is appropriate.

Is a development of the proposed height, scale and form appropriate in its physical context?

1. It is fortunate that the Darebin Planning Scheme also provides particular guidance on the form of development that is expected. The policy at Clause 22.08 has Design Guidelines for all the precincts along the High Street corridor, as well as Design Guidelines for each precinct.
2. The general Design Guidelines are:

Where vehicular access to the site is obtained by a laneway, the laneway should be widened to 6 metres.

New development is required to have rear setbacks adjacent to residential properties in accordance with the Diagrams...[9]

Buildings with street frontage are to maintain a street wall height of

Where preferred building height is expressed as a number of storeys, the ground floor storey is expected to be up to 4 metres high and storeys above ground floor to be 3 metres high.

1. The Design Guidelines for Precinct 1: Westgarth South are:

On the eastern side of High Street between Cunningham and Walker Streets (Nos. 18-36 High Street, Westgarth):

• Buildings are to be built to the front boundary.
• Undercroft parking is not to be provided at the front of the building.
• Redeveloped or new buildings can exceed the height of the existing building by up to 7 metres, provided the additional storeys are set back from the ground floor frontage and use techniques (such as contrasting external wall materials) to make them visually recessive.

1. Before assessing the proposal in terms of those Guidelines, I note that Ms Foley also invoked the Precinct Guidelines for each precinct identified in the High Street Urban Design Framework (2005), both of which are reference documents at Clause 22.08. Ms Foley highlighted that the Vision for Precinct 1: Westgarth South includes:

...to remain a predominantly low-rise residential precinct on a broad tree-ed [sic] avenue, respecting and retaining its relatively intact, historically significant and valued Edwardian built from character and streetscape.

The industrial sites on the east side of High Street between Walker Street and Cunningham Street will house a mix of commercial and residential uses in the existing buildings or new buildings of a similar form.

The precinct is a major gateway to Darebin. However, the value of its built form precludes the opportunity to express this through 'gateway' buildings. Instead, the existing avenue of trees creates a gateway, which will be enhanced through further planting.

1. Ms Foley also highlighted that the Preferred Outcomes for the area between Walker Street and Cunningham Street is annotated as:

Rezone to B2 or MU to facilitate mixed business and residential uses in existing building or new building with up to 2 additional storeys set back from ground floor frontage.

1. Ms Foley argued that the Preferred Outcomes - or more specifically, the reference to limited additional storeys and their setback - 'should take precedence over the more general statements contained in the local planning policies'.
2. I do not accept Ms Foley's submission regarding the weight that should be given to the reference documents, or the implication that their application would mean that only a building of limited height is appropriate on the subject site. Rather, I agree with Mr Tweedie that the provisions of the planning scheme at Clause 22.08 are most relevant. As highlighted by Mr Tweedie, reference documents cannot limit or modify what is actually in the planning scheme. As explained in the relevant VPP Practice Note:[10]

Reference documents provide background information to assist in understanding the context within which a particular policy or provision has been framed...

Reference documents have only a limited role in decision-making as they are not part of the planning scheme.

1. I understand that Clause 22.08 was implemented with the High Street Urban Design Framework (2005) as background information. I agree with Mr Tweedie that to the extent that there is any difference between the reference documents and Clause 22.08, what must take precedence is what is in the planning scheme. Accordingly, the Design Guidelines at Clause 22.08-3 for All Precincts and Precinct 1 - that envisage 'a street wall height of 8-10 metres with upper levels set back' and that redeveloped buildings 'can exceed the height of the existing building by up to 7 metres' - take precedence over the statements in the reference documents referring to the vision of 'a predominantly low-rise residential precinct' and new buildings 'with up to 2 additional storeys set back from ground floor frontage.'
2. Furthermore, although the first dot point of the Precinct 1 policy at Clause 22.08-3 also refers to 'low-rise' built form, I accept Mr Tweedie's submission that it cannot be intended that such a provision should apply to the land on the eastern side of High Street (including the subject site) to which the Design Guidelines apply.
3. Before turning to an assessment of the proposal in terms of the Design Guidelines at Clause 22.08-3, I note that while many of them are phrased in terms of specific maximum heights of walls or overall building height, they are nonetheless still 'guidelines'. They are not absolute restrictions in the way, for instance, that there are maximum heights in some Design and Development Overlay provisions. There can be flexibility in their applicability to a specific proposal.
4. That said, I consider that the proposal generally accords with all of the Design Guidelines at Clause 22.08-3.
5. In relation to the Design Guidelines for All Precincts:
   • I agree with Mr Fredman that, technically, the proposed vehicle access is not to be obtained from a laneway. The rear 'laneway' is a carriageway easement that forms part of the subject site. In any event, I agree with Mr Fredman that it is not necessary to increase the width of the accessway to 6m in order to provide for appropriate manoeuvrability of vehicles to and from the car park and undercroft spaces.
   • The requirement to increase the eastern setback of the third and fourth floors (to 9m and 11m respectively) would lead to setbacks from a residential property that generally accord with the relevant diagram at Clause 22.08-3. It would result in a rear elevation with a high level of articulation and an appropriate stepping down to the single storey dwelling to the east. At a comparable height to the existing building on the subject site, the proposed building would have a greater setback. I agree with Mr Negri that the minor balcony projection at the third floor is acceptable.
   • Although the proposal does not maintain a wall height of 8-10m at the street frontages, I consider that the wall heights are acceptable in the particular context. As highlighted by Mr Fredman, the proposed 11m-high wall to High Street[11] adopts a similar height to the parapet height of the original Kennedy-Taylor building and the bluestone cladding detail aligns with the top of the All Saints Church steeple. The fourth floor is set back a minimum of 4.64m from the street boundary and would have limited visibility. The eventual redevelopment of the sites immediately to the north - as envisaged by Clause 22.08 - is likely to lead to a consistent building scale between Walker and Cunningham Streets. The proposed wall along Walker Street is also highly articulated. Above the ground level only the balconies extend to the boundary, the corners would have an open feel and the bluestone cladding in the centre of the south elevation would match the height of the church. In every respect the proposed building would provide a superior presentation to Walker Street than the existing building.
6. In relation to the Design Guidelines for the east side of High Street in Precinct 1 (Westgarth South):
   • The proposed building is built to the front boundary.
   • Unlike the two buildings immediately to the north, the proposal does not provide unsightly undercroft parking at the front of the building. The proposed offices would provide active building components along the Little High Street frontage and much of the Walker Street boundary.
   • The proposed building exceeds the height of the existing building by more than the 7m and the additional storeys are not all set back from the ground floor frontage. Nevertheless, I do not consider that those departures from the Precinct 1 Design Guidelines are unacceptable. The 7m figure is not a statutory limit and the only components at a height more than 7m higher than the roof line of the existing building are the proposed solar panel collectors. As noted above, techniques have been adopted to make the upper levels 'visually recessive'.
7. From the north west corner the proposed building would generally abut the northern boundary for the first 8.5metres, then be set back 1.8m. This would result in the presentation of a section of blank wall above the abutting industrial building to the north. I agree with Mr Fredman that that presentation is acceptable. Dwellings in the Kennedy-Taylor building with a southern outlook are approximately 26m from the subject site and the blank wall at the western end would 'invite' an attached form in any future redevelopment of the property abutting to the north.
8. I also accept Mr Fredman's assessment of the proposal in terms of the Design principles of Clause 19.03. In particular, I note that the proposed active commercial frontage would allow for surveillance over Little High Street and most of Walker Street; the pedestrian entries for the dwellings would provide an appropriate sense of address; there are no notable views/vistas which may be impacted upon; the proposed building would not unreasonably impact on sunlight/daylight to the public realm; and the proposed building would be of a reasonably high architectural quality.
9. Ms Foley was critical of the proposed materials. She argued that 'it is certainly difficult to discern any reference to the surrounding building stock in which brick and render dominate.' She called for less glazing and the use of materials more appropriate to an industrial area so that the building did not look like an office building.
10. While generally satisfied with the proposed materials, the Council has required the ground level 'to be finished predominantly in face brickwork' that is resistant to graffiti.[12] Although that requirement was not contested in the applicant's grounds of review, it was Mr Negri's evidence that it is 'not practically achievable, nor is it an appropriate design response given the desire to establish an active relationship to the street.' He was of the view that the 'the glass edge to the streets produces this active outcome' and the requirement for an amended treatment should therefore be removed. I agree with Mr Negri on this matter. However, the limited solid sections of the ground floor wall should be finished in face brickwork or a similar unpainted material.
11. Lastly, I note that Ms Foley highlighted that the subject site is located at an identified gateway at the southern entrance to the City of Darebin.[13] She submitted that there is a need to 'approach Gateway sites with special sensitivity' and 'any building on this site should not seek to draw attention to itself by virtue of its height, design and materials'.
12. As noted earlier, the High Street Study Precinct Guidelines (2005) refer to Precinct 1 (Westgarth South) as 'a major gateway to Darebin' and suggest that 'the value of its built form precludes the opportunity to express this through "gateway" buildings.' Rather, an enhanced avenue of trees is seen as creating a gateway. For whatever reason, that 'Vision' has not been transferred into the policy at Clause 22.08. In any event, I do not consider that the proposed building - despite being called "GATEWAY Apartments' - would represent a 'gateway building' that would challenge the significance of the boulevard or the Kennedy-Taylor building.

Is the proposed development acceptable in terms of the heritage values of the area?

1. Clause 21.05-2 states that residential or mixed use development of four or more storeys 'will not generally be supported' on sites located in a Heritage Overlay or adjacent to properties of recognised heritage value in the Darebin Heritage Review.
2. The Statement of Significance in the City of Darebin Heritage Review 2000 is, inter alia:

This section of High Street is short, commencing at the Merri Creek bridge in the south, where it changes direction to cross the river and terminating at Westgarth Street to the north. It has been laid out in the form of a grand boulevard. ...

On the east side, All Saints Church of 1860 is a dominant element being located on an appreciable rise....

The houses to the north, between Cunningham Street and Westgarth Street are representative small villas from the Federation period with a Victorian period house at Cunningham Street.

The premises of the Sutton Tool and Gauge Manufacturing Co. Pty. Ltd.[14] are aesthetically important as the largest building facing the street, recalling through its architectural treatment the growth of industry in the Municipality during the inter-war years......

1. The All Saints Church and Kennedy-Taylor building are both identified as historically significant, whilst the adjoining dwelling in Walker Street is marked as a 'Contributory Heritage Place'. Not surprisingly, the subject site (and the site adjoining to the north) has been identified as 'Not significant'.
2. I accept Ms Riddett's evidence that demolition of the existing building is acceptable and the proposed building would not detract or undermine the heritage significance of the High Street boulevard area, the All Saints Church or the Kennedy-Taylor building. As the proposed building is contemporary in style, it would be clearly distinct from the existing heritage fabric.

Does the proposal contribute to unacceptable amenity impacts?

1. The owner of the residential property to the east (33 Walker Street) is not a party to these proceedings. Nevertheless, concerns were raised about the potential impact of the proposed building on the amenity of that property.
2. A notable feature of the dwelling to the east is a brick wall (around 3.5-4m high) along much of the shared boundary with the subject site. The private open space of the dwelling is located away from the subject site and there are no windows directly facing the subject site. As part of a recent renovation, a number of skylights have been installed along the west slope of the pitched roof.
3. The additions at 33 Walker Street have resulted in the building effectively turning its back on the current development on the subject site. That relationship would continue with the proposed redevelopment of the subject site.
4. I accept Mr Negri's evidence that given the orientation of the subject site and the requirement for further setbacks at the third and fourth floors, the shadow cast by the proposed building over 33 Walker Street - at the Equinox - would be largely consistent with the shadow cast by the existing building.
5. It is apparent from section drawings tendered at the hearing[15] that proposed planter boxes and up-stands - outside the windows, or on the edge of the balconies - at the first and second floors, would effectively cut off any views down into the skylights of the dwelling at 33 Walker Street.
6. In relation to the upper levels, the Council has required the screening of habitable room windows and balconies to a height of 1.7m. Mr Fredman submitted that such screening 'is essential to ensure that residents of the north side of Walker Street between High Street and the railway line are able to continue to enjoy the privacy and amenity of their own properties.'
7. The applicant has contested that requirement for screening. It was Mr Negri's evidence that given the additional set backs such screening is not necessary. He highlighted that the sections indicate that proposed up-stands (of a height of either 1.1m or 1.3m) on the non-trafficable areas immediately to the east of rooms at the third and fourth floors would allow no overlooking.
8. Any views from the upper floors of the private open spaces of the dwellings to the east would be oblique and from a distance of at least 9m. In most cases the distance would be much greater. According to ResCode, only windows or balconies allowing direct views within a horizontal distance of 9m need to be treated. That requirement applies in this instance.[16]
9. While I appreciate that the residents to the east of the subject site may experience some perception of overlooking of their rear yards, the application of the ResCode standard suggests that the proposal would not create unreasonable overlooking. Furthermore, there are limited windows on the eastern side of the building at the third and fourth floors. They are associated with bedrooms and service areas, rather than living rooms. While I am satisfied that the inclusion of strategically placed up-stands would effectively address this issue, I note that Mr Negri highlighted the possibility of treating various windows[17] and the return section of the balcony at the front of the third floor without impacting on the internal amenity of the proposed dwellings. I adopt those suggestions.
10. Ms Foley submitted that the proposed building would present to the neighbours in the Kennedy-Taylor building 'as repetitive, uniform and bland' and an array of solar panels would be visible. However, given the separation distance, I do not consider that the proposal would have any adverse amenity impacts on the residents of the Kennedy-Taylor building.

Does the proposal provide for adequate car parking?

1. The proposal includes two dedicated car spaces for each of the proposed dwellings. That satisfies the requirement of Clause 52.06. Clause 52.06 does not require any visitor car parking.
2. Clause 52.06-5 specifies that 3.5 spaces should be provided for each 100m2 of net floor area for offices. Permission is required to reduce the number of spaces required.
3. During the hearing I was advised that that the Council and the applicant have agreed that the plans should be modified so as to provide 2 spaces within the car park for the smaller of the proposed offices and 3 spaces in the undercroft area for the larger office. The latter would be available to visitors outside commercial operating hours.
4. I am satisfied that a reduction to the car parking required for the offices can be justified. The subject site is well-served by public transport and a total of 9 new on-street spaces are to be provided as part of the proposed development.
5. I note that the relevant Council officers have endorsed the use of the carriageway easement as an accessway to the car park and undercroft spaces.

1. For the above reasons I find that the proposal would represent an acceptable outcome. Accordingly, I will direct the issue of a permit.
2. The conditions of the permit should generally be those included in the Notice of Decision. They have been modified to refect my findings. In particular, I note the following:
   • The requirement for amended plans should be based on the modified plans tendered at the hearing that show the plan modifications required by various conditions on the Notice of Decision.
   • Ms Foley submitted that the condition relating to an environmental audit should be expanded to require the implementation of any recommendations arising from a statement by an environmental auditor.[18] She proposed a detailed replacement condition, including the possible requirement for a Section 173 agreement. Mr Tweedie strongly objected to such a condition. I accept his submission that it is more appropriate to impose the condition in the Notice of Decision that is derived from the provisions of the Environmental Audit Overlay at Clause 45.03-1.
   • I agree with Mr Tweedie that the conditions relating to sustainable travel should not be included. While they address laudable objectives, the requirements are too onerous and not necessarily linked to the permit triggers.
   • I agree with Mr Tweedie that it is inappropriate to impose a condition requiring the development to be constructed and finished under the supervision of the design architects.
3. My order does not include the various 'Notations' suggested by the Council. Nevertheless, the Council may include such advisory information on the permit that it is directed to issue.

1. Before the use and development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans tendered at the hearing of Applications for Review P1443/2008 and P1623/2008 (identified as Drg Nos. A01- A15 (inclusive), dated 29 July 2008, prepared by Level Architekture) but modified to show:
   • (a) Reconfiguration of the car park arrangement - and any consequential modifications to the bicycle storage area and bin storage rooms - to provide:
     • (i) Twenty four (24) dwelling spaces in twelve (12) stackers, with two (2) spaces allocated to each dwelling;
     • (ii) Two (2) spaces for the smallest office, located at the west end of the car park in a stacker;
     • (iii) Three (3) spaces for the larger office, and visitors to the site, in an undercroft near the south-east corner of the building; and
     • (iv) The creation of nine (9) on-street angled car parking spaces in Walker Street.
   • (b) The location and details of up-stands adjacent to the windows and balconies on the east elevation.
   • (c) The windows of the walk-in robe and bathroom on the eastern side of the third floor with opaque glass to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level.
   • (d) The windows of the laundry, stair well and lobby on the east side of the fourth floor with opaque glass to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level.
   • (e) The return section of the balcony at the south-east corner of the third floor screened to prevent overlooking to the east and north-east.
   • (f) The door to the ground level car park to be of a style that will generate minimal noise on operation - ie. sliding mechanism or other appropriate type.
   • (g) The solid sections of the ground floor wall finished in face brickwork or a similar unpainted material.
   • (h) Details of all roof-top mounted plant and equipment. These items must be integrated into the design of the development and, with the exception of solar panels, suitably screened so as to not be visible from adjoining properties or the public realm.
   • (i) Initiatives resulting in plan changes in accordance with the Sustainability Statement at Condition 6.
   • (j) A comprehensive schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (including colour samples). External treatments/surfaces must be of a type that have low levels of reflectivity and require minimal maintenance.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.

1. The layout of the development and use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. This permit will expire if:
   • The development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit, or.
   • The development is not completed, or the use is not started, within four (4) years from the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

1. Prior to the issue of a building permit for any building or any works authorised by this permit, a development levy must be paid to Darebin City Council. The amount of the development levy for each charge unit must be calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Development Contribution Plan Overlay.
2. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority a sensitive use must not commence or construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use (other than to the extent required to conduct soil tests) must not commence until:
   • A certificate of environmental audit is issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environmental Protection Act 1970, or
   • An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 has made a statement in accordance with Part IXD of the act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use.
3. Before the development starts, a Sustainable Design Statement detailing sustainable design strategies to be incorporated into the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. The sustainable design statement must outline proposed sustainable design initiatives within the development such as (but not limited to) energy efficiency, water conservation, stormwater quality, waste management and material selection.

The development must be constructed in accordance with the requirements/recommendations of the Sustainable Design Statement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, a plan (and, if appropriate, documentation) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, demonstrating the arrangements for garbage and recyclable storage and collection, must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The plan/documentation must demonstrate the means by which garbage and recyclables will be stored on the site and must require that collection be undertaken by a private contractor. Garbage and recyclables storage and collection must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan/documentation to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor submitted to the Responsible Authority.
2. All dwellings that share dividing walls and floors must be constructed to limit noise transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia.
3. The design of habitable rooms of all dwellings adjacent to a road must limit internal noise levels to a maximum of 45 dB(a) in accordance with relevant Australian Standards for acoustic control (including AS3671-Road Traffic).
4. Boundary walls facing adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external /internal lighting system capable of illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and/or car parking space and all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, not more than one (1) communal television antennae or satellite dish may be erected on the site and individual antennae/dishes for individual dwellings/tenancies must not be erected.
4. Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The waste storage/collection area must not be used for any other purpose and must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition, and free from offensive odour, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Before the occupation of the development, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
   • (a) Constructed;
   • (b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
   • (c) Surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
   • (d) Drained; and
   • (e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.

1. Before the development is occupied, vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant crossing(s) or crossing opening(s) must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. At no cost to VicRoads, the developer shall be responsible for the removal/relocation of any services that may be required in accommodating the construction of the proposed crossover.
2. Worksite traffic management practices for all work undertaken with the State Arterial road network associated with the development shall be in accordance with VicRoads "Worksite Traffic Management (Roadworks Signing) Code of Practice which includes Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - 2002 "Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads".

[1] At the commencement of the hearing Ms Foley advised that one of those persons - Ms Bergin - no longer wishes to be a party.

[2] The plans are dated 29 July 2008 and marked 'Preliminary'.

[3] There is a balcony that projects marginally into the required setback.

[4] I have had no regard to a submission from Mr Markham received after the hearing. No leave was granted to make any further submissions.

[5] Including the rear of the property at 35 Walker Street owned by Mr Markham and Ms Standish.

[6] It is approximately 300m from Rushall and Westgarth rail stations, there are nearby bus routes and trams operate along High Street.

[7] As recommended in the Industrial Land Use Strategy.

[8] As part of amendment C10 to the Darebin Planning Scheme.

[9] The Diagrams are included in Clause 22.08-3 and the policy notes they are 'based on an extrapolation of Standard B17' (of ResCode).

[10] VPP Practice Note, 'Incorporated and Reference Documents', August 2000.

[11] To the top of the planter boxes and balustrade of the third floor.

[12] Required by Condition 1(f) of the Notice of Decision.

[16] The Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE, 2004) adopts the Clause 55 overlooking standards.

[17] The walk-in robe and bathroom at the third floor and the laundry, stair well and lift lobby at the fourth floor.

[18] After the hearing she forwarded a copy of the General Practice Note on 'Potentially Contaminated Land' (DSE 2005) of which I was already aware.