Mr J Rantino, Lawyer, represented the Responsible Authority. Mr Rantino called evidence from Mr Graeme Butler, Architectural Historian and Ms Yvonne von Hartel Architect.

Mr M Townsend of Counsel, represented Samford and Staff Pty Ltd.

Mr Townsend called evidence from Ms J Katz, Town Planner.

Ms R Hansen and Mr D Iles, Town Planners, represented various owners/occupiers of dwellings in 416 Gore Street.

Mr M Dreyfus QC with Ms S Porritt, represented Mr William Henderson and others. Mr Dreyfus called evidence from

Ms Hannie Rayson Author Playwright and Fitzroy Resident

Mr I McP Pitt SC, represented the Applicant for Review. Mr Pitt called evidence from:

1 This is an application for review pursuant to Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 concerning the failure of the responsible authority to consider Application for Permit No. PL03/0504 within the prescribed time.

2 Subsequent to the lodgement of the application for review, the responsible authority formed the view that if it was in a position to determine the matter it would have refused the application on the following grounds:

1 The development is inconsistent with the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) in relation to issues of heritage, neighbourhood character, urban design and architecture and amenity.

2 The development is not of a scale and height that is keeping with the surrounding streetscapes.

3 The development will not achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that make a positive contribution to the public realm.

4 The development will detract from the heritage values of the area.

5 The development will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.

3 The proposal has been described in various statements of evidence. Part 3 of Ms Katz's evidence provides the most succinct description of the proposal which the Tribunal adopts as follows:

It is proposed to construct a 7 level building, containing 66 dwellings, atop two levels of car parking and office spaces (9 levels in total). Key features of the development are described below.

The existing building will be demolished, save for the perimeter walls. A variety of new openings will be installed in the walls facing Gore Street and Rose Street, including roller shutter grills and steel framed windows.

Above the two car parking levels the building will be setback from all boundaries of the site, except for the east boundary where there will be boundary wall for a length of 13m. At a minimum, the building will be setback 3m from the Gore Street frontage and 2.36m from the Rose Street frontage of the site. The setback from Gore Street will increase with the height of the building. The building will come to within 1.84m of the common boundary with No 434 Gore Street.

The building will be seven levels in scale above the top of the existing perimeter walls, with two levels contained behind and below the perimeter walls. When viewed from Rose Street, the building envelope above the perimeter walls will step up in scale from west to east (ie from Gore Street towards Smith Street) in a progression of 3 storeys, 4 storeys, 5 storeys and 7 storeys. The maximum height of the building, measured above Gore Street to the top of the lift over-run will be approximately 27.1m.

The dwellings will be a mix of one and two bedroom layouts, ranging in size between 51sqm and 100sqm. Each dwelling will be provided with private open space in the form of balconies or decks.

Two office spaces of 78sqm and 83sqm will be provided on the ground floor of the development, fronting onto Gore Street.

Carparking will be provided over two levels of the building, supplying a total of 107 spaces. Of these, 29 will be single spaces and 39 will be tandem spaces. Access to the car parking facilities will be via separate roller shutter openings on Rose Street and Gore Street.

The main residential entry into the development will be located centrally along the Rose Street frontage and will comprise an entry foyer and lobby contained behind the perimeter wall. A lift will service all floors of the development from the lobby.

The building will be constructed using precast concrete slabs with selected texture to the base levels and alucabond to the top two levels.

4 The subject site is located on the north-east corner of Rose and Gore Streets in Fitzroy. It has a 29.9m frontage to Gore Street and a 62.3m abuttal to Rose Street. The site is essentially rectangular, except for the northern boundary, which juts out into the rear of 434 Gore Street. The subject site has a total area of 1706sqm.

5 The subject site is presently occupied by a single storey, red brick industrial building with a saw tooth roof. The building is currently vacant.

6 Land to the north of the subject site at 434 Gore Street comprises a two storey Victorian building that has been converted for use as three dwellings. To its east of the three dwellings is a single storey former church hall facing Leicester Street, which is occupied as a theatre/rehearsal wall. The three dwellings and the theatre have a close relationship with each other. We were told that patrons of the theatre and performers utilize the large courtyard, the smaller service yards and some rooms conjoined with the dwellings. There is also a small outbuilding located on the Gore Street frontage abutting Leicester Street.

7 Further to the east of the theatre hall, and partly north of the subject site is a single storey brick building fronting Leicester Street, which has a relationship with 421 Smith Street.

8 Land to the east of the site is 421A Smith Street which is a single storey brick building with a retail frontage to Smith Street. We were told that it has been subdivided from the subject site in recent times.

9 Land to the south, on the opposite side of Rose Street is the eight storey former MacRobertson "Old Gold" chocolate factory building, which has been converted to apartments. This residential re-development involved conversion of the superstructure to residential use, adding two additional floors above the superstructure and extending some lower scaled industrial buildings on is eastern side to provide car parking, a small display area and new dwellings.

10 Land to the west, on the other side of Gore Street comprises single storey dwellings set behind modest front gardens.

11 Land to the south-west diagonally opposite the site is a two storey factory building erected in the late 50's/early 60's.

12 This part of Fitzroy is mixed in terms of zoning, land use and built form. Most buildings are in the order of one to three storeys in height, but there are exceptions, which were usually former industrial buildings converted to residential use. Some of these industrial buildings, such as No. 416 Gore Street, have had additions to their height and in some occasions breadth. Few if any appear in their original state although in most cases it is easy to discern the industrial origins.

13 The eastern side of Gore Street, whilst now being residential in land use terms, contains a substantially consistent hard-edge red brick built form reflecting each buildings previous industrial usage. Whilst 416 Gore Street is much higher and visually dominant it still provides continuity to the hard edge. This built form contrasts with the western side of Gore Street which has elements of a Victorian/Edwardian dwelling streetscape, post World War II industrial streetscape, and a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial building street scape, which collectively spans a period of in excess of 100 years.

14 In addition, there is the nearby Smith Street Commercial Precinct which has, by and large, single and two storey Victorian/interwar commercial and industrial streetscapes.

15 The subject site is predominantly within a Business 1 Zone (Clause 34.01) of the Yarra Planning Scheme. The purpose of the Business 1 Zone is:

* To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

* To encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complementary commercial, entertainment and community uses.

16 There is a small section of land which is zoned Mixed Use. The purpose of the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) is:

* To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed use function of the locality.

* To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.

17 A permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 of the Planning Scheme. The Tribunal was told no dwellings will be built on that part of the subject site which is within the MUZ, therefore a permit is only required for buildings and works on that part of the site.

18 The site is located within a Heritage Overlay Area HO334 (South Fitzroy Precinct). The relevant purposes of the Heritage Overlay are:

* To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.

* To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.

* To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.

19 A permit is required to externally alter a building (including demolition) pursuant to Clause 43.01-1. There are various Decision Guidelines to be considered and these include:

* The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.

* Any applicable heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.

* Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

* Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.

* Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

* Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.

The South Fitzroy Heritage Overlay Precinct is of outstanding significance. Comprising most of Melbourne's first true suburb, the Precinct contains an extraordinarily high density of low rise, predominantly nineteenth century street patterns, building stock and urban infrastructure, dating from the first phase of permanent development and covering almost all building types. Whilst many buildings are typical examples, many stand out as being individually significant, at either state, regional or local levels, for historic, aesthetic, technological and social reasons. Collectively the urban fabric sets the context which presents a microcosmic tableau of nineteenth century urban development and aspects of daily life ranging from the civic to the public, from the residential to the industrial, from the utilitarian to the commercial.

21 The subject site is also affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay (Clause 45.03) which addresses development of a sensitive use, such as a dwelling before construction. In this case either a statement or an environmental audit must be undertaken.

22 A permit is required under Clause 52.06 to reduce or waive the car parking requirements for dwellings as there are less than two car parking spaces provided per dwelling.

23 There are various State and Local policies of relevance in this application and these are contained in the following clauses:

* Clause 11.03 Principles of land use and development planning

* Clause 18 02 Carparking and public transport access to development

* Clause 21 03 (Key influences and issues - in particular 'Addressing Population Decline', 'Enhancing Community Identity', 'Managing the Development Boom', 'Facilitating Appropriate Urban Renewal')

* Clause 21.05 (Strategic Elements) - in particular Elements 1 (urban design framework), 2 (residential land use and development) 7 (heritage conservation)

* Clause 22.02 Development guidelines for heritage places

* Melbourne 2030 (Metropolitan Strategy), particularly policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 5.1, 5.2 5.4, 6.1, 8.1 and 8.8

24 At the review hearing the various parties representatives tabled and read from detailed written submissions. The Tribunal was provided with an array of information including photographs of the subject site, neighbouring properties, nearby properties and other residential developments/residential conversions in the South Fitzroy Precinct. It was provided with plans and elevations, details of the operations of the Eleventh Hour Theatre, plans of the residential development at 416 Gore Street, copies of permits relating to 434 Gore Street, plans and elevations of a recently submitted planning permit application on adjoining land at Leicester Street and various VCAT decisions including:

* Potts v Glen Eira CC (2003) VCAT 1129

* Melbourne City Council v Minister for Planning and Becton Corporation (2003) VCAT 1525

* Michael Yates & Co Pty Ltd v Stonnington City Council and Melbourne High School VCAT reference P3052/2003

* L Peters and others S Burstin v City of Caulfield 11 AATR

* Stanley Street Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC (2004) VCAT 928

* Juliano, Furletti & Scott and others v Melbourne City Council and Omiros Pty Ltd 1999/19285

* Ashland Enterprises Pty Ltd v Yarra City Council (2003) VCAT 87

* The Panel Report for Amendment C43 to the Yarra Planning Scheme

25 The Tribunal undertook an inspection of the site, the general locality, from within 434 Gore Street and one north-facing apartment in 416 Gore Street.

26 We hold a number of concerns about the proposed development which can essentially be broken into three categories.

1. Matters which we consider to be unacceptable and justify rejection of the proposal.

2. Matters of detailed design which in themselves are not fatal to an approval but collectively produce a less than satisfactory outcome.

3. Matters which could be improved upon by conditions on permit.

27 We consider the proposed development is an unacceptable design response having regard to the context of the development and various aspects of State and Local planning policies, and more particularly heritage and urban design issues.

28 Mr Pitt on behalf of the permit applicant, argued that the proposal is of contemporary architecture and provides a clear distinction between new fabric and historic fabric and maintains the facades of the building substantially intact. He argued the proposed building does not visually dominate either the Smith Street heritage place or the South Fitzroy heritage place, nor Gore Street or Rose Street, having regard to the scale and bulk of heritage and new built form in Rose Street. He claimed the project has had regard to the architectural diversity within both heritage places. Mr Pitt claimed the building accepts that there are a range of rhythms and spatial characteristics in common with the surrounding historic streetscapes. He claimed the new building avoids blank walls except to the east where it does not form part of the streetscape, can include further or altered fenestration if desired and has been designed in anticipation of redevelopment of the Smith Street properties.

29 Whilst the proposed new building is of contemporary design and applies materials and finishes which would not be confused with the existing heritage building fabric, we consider that insufficient attention has been paid to the impact the development on the neighbourhood. We consider the visual bulk and massing of the proposed new building would adversely affect the significance of the heritage places, and will not be sufficiently in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.

30 We consider Mr Hutson's evidence at Section 4.9.1 of his witness report was correct, where he stated:

The architectural form of the proposed design will put urban pressure onto Gore, Rose and Smith Streets. The four storey scale of the proposal at Gore Street while perhaps attempting to relate to 416 Gore Street is disproportionate with regard to other stock within the street. The setback of 3 metres will not substantially ameliorate the impact as the balconies and their solid wing walls encroach 900mm into this setback.

The form and treatment of the proposed building as viewed from Smith Street will appear as an imposing wall in its own right, an impression that will be enhanced by viewing the proposal in conjunction with the east elevation of the adjoining building to the south. This aspect of the proposal is poorly considered with regard to the blank treatment of much of this elevation.

31 We acknowledge the evidence of Ms Brady about the impact on the proposal on the South Fitzroy Heritage Precinct and the Smith Street Precinct, but we disagree with her summation that the proposal will not unduly impact on the presentation and appearance of the valued heritage buildings that has addressed Smith Street in this area.

32 From our observation we came to a similar conclusion to that of Mr Hutson that the proposed building when viewed from Smith Street will appear as a fairly large, solid mass, with limited articulation. We consider the proposed building will have an overpowering visual impact on the nearby Smith Street heritage precinct. Whilst the extension to 416 Gore Street is similar in height and form to the proposed building we do not consider that is a very good design solution to emulate, nor replicate. We note that the building extension behind 416 Gore Street responded to a different site context, and whilst parts of it appear to have responded to the adjoining higher form of the "Old Gold" chocolate factory building, other parts, and the upper eastern and northern elevations in particular, left us with a disappointing impression of an overwhelming utilitarian structure dominating the Smith Street Heritage Precinct.

33 This precinct has a high concentration of relatively low rise buildings, there are some higher buildings which serve as backdrop to both Smith Street and Gore Street. Whilst the height of the structure is lower than other buildings such as 416 Gore Street, its form and bulk, particularly when viewed from Smith street, will be a stark contrast to the lower built form around it. Even the older large industrial buildings, which serve as a backdrop have various forms of articulation and features which contribute to the context of the surrounding built form. This building fails to respond to the prevailing built form elements and seems to borrow some of the less favourable elements of nearby buildings, such as the rear of 416 Gore Street.

34 Mr Dreyfus raised a number of concerns about urban design to demonstrate the proposal has not adequately met the objectives in Clause 19.03-1. He relied on the evidence Mr Hutson who stated at Section 4.2 of his report:

The pattern for this precinct is one where 19th and early 20th century single storey houses share the area with multi storey industrial brick buildings predominately from the 19th century. The urban pattern is one of low scale buildings with larger scale buildings appearing as peaks above residential stock as typified by the houses to the west and east sides of Gore Street to the north of Rose Street. The existing urban context includes these four, five and six storey industrial buildings and is characterized by these buildings being scattered amongst the infill. In this regard the multi storey brick buildings do not overpower the lower scale built fabric as would be the case if large scale buildings were concentrated within the area. The proposed development seen in conjunction with the historic brick building at 416 Gore Sheet and the recent multi storey residential development adjacent to the east would be a consolidation of large scale structures that may dominate the existing context.

The four storey section of the proposed development is setback 3 metres from the Gore Street frontage. This scale, although lower than the eight storey section to the east portion of the site remains imposing with regard to the residential scale of the block between Rose and Leicester Streets within which it is situated.

35 Mr Hutson also stated in Section 4.4:

Views along Rose Street from both he east and the west will have large scale developments on both sides of the street if this proposal is constructed as submitted. The scale of the proposed development will, when coupled with the existing large scale buildings to the south side, from a canyon effect in the narrow width of Rose Street.

The proposed development will partially obscure views of historic building of 416 Gore Street. The setback of the development of 3 metres from the Gore Street frontage will result in a visual impact on the historic building from the north notwithstanding the stepping back of the proposal from eight storeys to four at the Gore Street frontage. The encroachment of sold fin walls to the sides of the balconies will reduce the effective visual set back to 2.1 metres along the Gore Street vista.

The views across the site from Smith Street will be largely blocked by the eight storey section of the proposed development. This vertical elevation in conjunction with the similarly scaled bulk of the recent development on the south side of Rose Street will create a wall effect that will give an impression of this portion of Smith Street being visually closed in to the west.

36 Mr Hutson also advised at Section 4.9.3 of his report:

The proposal is a large scale development with formal design approaches that have attempted to ameliorate the mass of the building. The use of different materials, stepping down of the form, light weight material to the upper two levels and plans that indicate undulations in the facade with glazed balconies are design responses used to break down the apparent mass of the proposal. Aspects of the formal design which work against the attempt to reduce the impact of the scale of the proposal appear to be the reliance on vertical elements to the prominent facades to Gore and Rose Streets. These vertical elements of fin walls to the balconies sides coupled with the mid way vertical split of the building part way along Rose Street emphasize the proposal's height and reduce the apparent set back of the building from both sheet frontages. Any horizontal aspect of the proposal which may have helped reduce the visual height of the building has been consumed by tire power of these vertical gestures.

The formal response of the east aspect of the proposal which wilt be seen from Smith Street is one of what appears to be a large scale building mass with a relatively blank elevation with balconies to the north arid south sides. This elevation seen in conjunction the adjacent blank elevation of the existing residential building that backs onto 416 Gore Street creates an unfortunate impression of a large visual barrier pressing onto the Smith Street.

37 Whist Mr Axford supported the proposal on the basis of its contemporary design, even he conceded that it would not win any architectural awards. We consider both Ms Brady and Mr Axford underscored the impact of the proposed building, and we disagree with Ms Brady's suggestion made in cross examination by Mr Dreyfus that it would be a modest building. We firmly differ with this summation as we consider this is quite a substantial building albeit in close proximity a larger heritage building which has dominated the South Fitzroy skyline for the past 80 odd years.

38 During the hearing there was substantial debate about whether the proposal met the policy basis in Clause 22.02 - Development Guidelines for Heritage Places. In particular, there was argument about whether the proposal should have been assessed under Clause 22.02-3.3 Additions and New Works: All Heritage Place or Clause 22.02-3.6 - Infill Development: All Heritage Places. Each section has a provision which requires that the design does not visually dominate an existing place or street in terms of size, height and bulk from the surrounding street. Whilst we consider that Clause 22.02-3.6 is the preferred sub-clause, even if we are wrong, the other clause addresses the same issue, that being the height, bulk and mass of this building; and as we have explained, we are not satisfied it has been adequately addressed.

39 We consider the subject site is one where a higher form of development can be expected having regard to policy direction in the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and more particularly in Melbourne 2030. We note both Mr Rantino and Mr Pitt made various references to recent VCAT decisions including Ashlyn Enterprises Pty Ltd v Yarra City Council[2003] VCAT 87.

40 In that case the Tribunal relied on an outstanding design as a factor in support of the proposal. Melbourne 2030 was also considered by some as a defining policy initiative which supported the development. However we are not comforted by the design response in this application to draw reliable parallels. We see a number of shortcomings with the proposed development; some can be addressed by conditions on permit, some are undesirable but others are more critical and require a revised design response having regard to our comments elsewhere.

41 Mr Pitt argued that there is an imperative in Melbourne 2030 for 620,000 new households by the year 2030, and some 250,000 are intended to be located in principal and major activity centres; which is equivalent to 2450 dwellings for each centre. We consider that whilst Melbourne 2030 underpins the thrust for a more compact and populous metropolitan Melbourne there is nothing to suggest that it should be at the expense of other policy directives, rather there is a need to balance the policy directions contained in it. Rejecting an application for 66 dwellings on a site of 1700 square metres in inner Melbourne does not necessarily mean the site is no longer a candidate site for a higher density form of residential development. A smaller or less intensive development which responded better to the urban design and heritage conditions of the area may achieve a more suitable balance in policy terms.

42 We may have relied more on Melbourne 2030 in a case where the issues were finely balanced but in this case we consider the design response, the urban design and heritage policy shortcomings make reliance on Melbourne 2030 as a defining point in this decision less critical.

43 There were matters raised by different parties expressing concern about particular aspects of the building. Some matters we acknowledged as less than desirable, but we consider items such as:

were all matters which we could quite easily have addressed by permit conditions.

44 In this regard, whilst we acknowledge there is a three dwelling development in the old priest's residence at 434 Gore Street, we note that these three dwellings are primarily oriented to the north. The primary living rooms of the dwellings face an attractive, landscaped yard. By comparison the rear, south facing yard is relatively narrow, substantially overshadowed to provide and seems provide service functions to both the dwellings and the theatre. Judging by the planning permit for the stair/landing at 434 Gore Street which was tabled at the hearing and our own observations, it also serves as an access way and a small car park.

45 In addition the southerly view from studies, studios and secondary bedrooms are confined to the rear brick wall and the distant view of upper levels of 416 Gore Street. In the context of the site the southerly views are secondary.

46 Similarly, concerns raised about acoustic privacy to the dwellings and the theatre/rehearsal hall, were overstated having regard to this inner suburban location and the zoning of the land. We note the subject site is zoned Business 1 and the purpose of the land encourages intensive development upon it. We also note conditions on permit for that theatre place an onus on the occupiers of that theatre to have regard to the nearby residential area (although there is nothing in the permit to say regard must be had for residents in the business area).

47 There were a number of issues we consider which whilst not fatal to the application, did provide an indication to us that too much emphasis had been placed on dwelling yield at the expense of residential amenity and a good design. Whilst in some instances these individual matters could, in the balance of all considerations, be acceptable, they seemed to contribute to an unfavourable (or mediocre) outcome.

48 We are concerned that there is only one pedestrian entrance to the site and the entrance is relatively obscure in the context of the locality. This entrance is relatively narrow, located on the southern side of the site, halfway along the Rose Street property alignment. Whilst its presentation and placement is not fatal to the application, we note the development proposes two vehicular access points. One of these access points will be to Gore Street, which, for all intents and purposes, serves as the frontage to the site. We consider that the tucking away the pedestrian entrance is an inferior design response, particularly when Gore Street is a much wider street. Gore Street has wider pedestrian paths, is tree lined and provides a better residential scale than the narrow, stark Rose Street.

49 Similarly we are concerned with the high proportion of south-facing living rooms/balconies. We were told the number of dwelling facing south totals 44% of the of the development. Once again whilst this is not completely fatal to the application, we note with interest that the south-facing balconies will have view sheds limited by the side fins. Also of note is that the primary viewing area of the highest portion of the south-facing dwellings will be to that of the rear extension of 416 Gore Street, which we consider is uninspiring. We do not consider, that the outlook to this rear extension to 416 Gore Street to be a strong selling point for the upper levels of dwellings facing south. So whilst it is understandable for some dwellings to have sole southerly outlooks, especially if distant views of metropolitan Melbourne are sought, but in this case there is not much to say about the outlook.

50 Having noted the strong vertical proportions of the building and the virtual walled appearance of the eastern elevation, we wonder whether the applicant gave sufficient attention to better stepping back and articulation of the eastern elevation. For example, if the building was lower and stepped away from its eastern boundary there may have been greater opportunities to provide living rooms and balconies with better solar access and improved outlooks. An example of this design response has been adopted by the Stamford redevelopment to the north of the subject site. Whilst we do not know if there are redevelopment plans for the property to the east at 421A Smith Street, its size/depth and position in a heritage precinct would indicate that redevelopment options, particularly for a high building, are limited.

51 There were concerns raised about the adequacy of car parking and in particular the high proportion of tandem car spaces and vehicular access. Mr Hunt summary of evidence was:

Based on the investigations and analyses summarised in this report, it is concluded that:

1 For residents, the proposed parking provision exceeds the parking requirement under the Yarra Town Planning Parking Policy by 7 spaces, and exceeds the anticipated parking demand based on ResCode by 38 spaces and empirical data by 27 spaces.

2. There is adequate capacity within the existing on-street parking reserves in the vicinity of the subject site to accommodate the anticipated off-site parking demands of residential and office visitors. It is noted that the proposed development will reduce the on-street parking supply on the east side of Gore Street by one space.

3. The design of the car parks and accesses generally satisfy the relevant requirements of the Yarra Planning Scheme and AS2890.1-1993 Parking Facilities Part 1: Off-Street Car Parking.

4. The proposed development is anticipated to generate one vehicle movement to the surrounding road network approximately every 2 minutes on average. This level of traffic is not significant Gore Street, Rose Street and their intersection have significant spare capacity to readily accommodate increases in traffic volumes as a result of new developments in the area, including the proposed development.

52 We consider his evidence to be sound. Whilst there may be a relatively high number of tandem car parking spaces this still does not deprive individual dwelling occupiers of an individual car space. Similarly we are satisfied that the street network can adequately cope with the traffic generated by 66 dwellings.

53 We are satisfied that the Gore and Rose Streets can cope with visitor parking for the proposed dwellings. We note there are various parking restrictions in this area, many of which seem to have been put in place to address employee parking during business hours and restaurant / entertainment patrons of the nearby Smith Street. We consider that if there are any minor problems these could be addressed by the responsible authority.

54 We are satisfied that the building can achieve appropriate ESD principles whether through the recommendations of Mr Talacko or through the recent changes to the Building Act.

55 There was criticism raised about the level of overshadowing of north facing dwellings at 416 Gore Street. Whilst we held some concern about the overshadowing of primary living rooms in the middle of the day at the equinox we consider it is not necessary to address this matter in detail because other issues, such as height, bulk and massing should ensure a lower built form and as a consequence overshadowing can be reduced. We would point out that some simple changes, such as deletion of the upper level canopies protruding above the south facing balconies would have a marked impact on reducing some overshadowing at critical times.

55 We are of the view that the scale and massing of the development failed to respond and respond to the heritage and existing urban fabric of the locality. Whilst acknowledging the imperative of relying on areas such as the review site to provide housing diversity and density, neither Melbourne 2030 nor any of the policy in the Scheme suggests that they should prevail over other considerations such as heritage and design.

56 Our consideration of the matter is restricted to assessment of the current proposal. Given the limited nature of this assessment, we do not profess to be in a position to make recommendations on the redesign of the proposal. However, we are mindful of the mixed scale of development of this part of Fitzroy, primarily between the larger, bulkier and taller industrial buildings against a background of finer single and double storey Victorian and Edwardian domestic architecture.

57 Judging by the application, the Stamford development proposal and other likely development pressures on industrial and commercial buildings in the precinct, we suggest the responsible authority would be greatly assisted if it prepared some detailed urban design guidelines for the area.

58 Such an analysis would assist parties in understanding the intricate fabric of this juxtaposition and interplay between industrial buildings and the finer grained domestic architecture, to establish how new development or adaptation of the larger industrial buildings can respect this texture, or under what circumstances `breakout' from such a texture can be contemplated.