Design and Development Overlay Schedule 38 ('DDO38') - Alexandra Parade

Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 ('DCPO1')-

Clause 34.02-1 -permit required to use the site for a warehouse,[1] as the subject land is within 30 metres of a residential zone.

Clause 32.04-4 - permit required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.02-2, - permit required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 52.05, - permit required to construct or put up for display advertising signs.

The site is located on the north side of Alexandra Parade. It has an irregular shape and an approximate area of area of 2,447 square metres.

The site is currently occupied by a building that is constructed to its south, west, north and north-east boundaries. The building is set back from Hilton Street, with the setback occupied by at-grade car parking.

To the south is Alexandra Parade, with three lanes of traffic in each direction and a central grassed median strip, all in a Transport Zone 2.

24A Alexandra Parade abuts the western portion of the review site's northern boundary and is occupied by a storage yard with a weatherboard building along its eastern boundary. Abutting its eastern boundary are 3, 5 and 7 Hilton Street.

3 Hilton Street abuts the east portion of the review site along its north boundary and west boundary. It contains a two-storey commercial building that is partially constructed to its site boundaries with an open area to Hilton Street used for car parking.

5 Hilton Street is a single storey warehouse building that is partially constructed to its site boundaries. It abuts the subject site's east boundary.

7 Hilton Street is a single storey residential dwelling located in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone ('NRZ') and affected by the Clifton Hill West Heritage Overlay (HO317) with a 'non-contributory' grading. It abuts the subject site's east boundary.

1. This is an application for a review of the Yarra City Council's ('Council') failure to grant a permit for the construction of an eight-storey building, for the use of land as a self-storage facility, and construction and putting up for display of business identification signage.
2. Subsequent to the lodgement of the application Council formed the position that it opposed the proposal for following reasons:[3]

(a) The proposed building does not provide an appropriate transition to low rise residential development to the north of the site.

(b) The building fails to provide appropriate massing, design and façade composition, and is not responsive to the prevailing or preferred future character or site's location on a key boulevard.

(c) The proposed signs are excessive and will dominate the building and create visual clutter, contrary to the objectives of Clause 52.05 of the scheme.

1. The respondents support Council's position. They are also concerned about amenity impacts, traffic, safety, car parking and lack of need.
2. Before the hearing, the applicant prepared and circulated amended plans of the proposal in an attempt to address Council's concerns. There being no objection from any party, at the commencement of the hearing we amended the planning permit application by substituting the amended plans for the permit application plans.
3. The key changes from the application plans shown on the amended plans include:[4]
   • Re-arrangement of the architectural drawing package /page layouts.
   • At Level 2, increase setback from the north-east corner by 3m x 6m, thereby providing a setback from the eastern title boundary of 3.65m and from the northern title boundary of 7.4m.
   • At Level 3 (and above), adjustment to roof associated with the above-mentioned increase in setback.
   • At Levels 5-7, additional glazing introduced to the eastern corner façade to Hilton Street.
   • At Levels 6-7, increase in setback from the north-east corner by 9m thereby providing a setback from the eastern title boundary of 12.6m and from the northern title boundary of 12.4m.
   • Introduction of powder coated aluminium façade feature battens to elevations in various colours.
   • Light grey colour metal cladding above podium to levels 4 and 5.
   • Sign 2 reduction in size from 10.5 x 5.9m to 8.5m x 5.9m.
   • North elevation, additional glazing introduced to the eastern corner along Hilton Street. Updated shadow diagrams based on the amended setbacks.
4. Having considered the amended plans, Council and the respondents maintain that a permit should not be granted.
5. The applicant submits that the proposal is an acceptable planning outcome. Mr Twite says, in summary:[5]
   • There is strategic policy support for the proposed use and development within the Yarra Phillip [Sic] Planning Scheme.
   • The proposal provides a high degree of compliance with DDO38's quantitative measures, with only minor variations sought to its height its north-eastern interface along Hilton Street'.
   • It is appropriate to the physical context of the site and responds to the existing varied and emerging character of the surrounding area.
   • The design and built form of the proposal responds to the site's size, use and emerging character of the area.
   • It achieves appropriate amenity outcomes for nearby residential properties proximate to the Commercial 2 Zone.
   • The proposal will not cause undue amenity impacts in respect to noise, traffic, waste, emissions.
   • The proposed business identification signage is acceptable for the site's location along Alexandra Parade and will not cause undue visual clutter to the streetscape and surrounds.
6. Based on the submissions and evidence, we have identified the key issues for determination in this case as:
   • Is the proposal an acceptable built form outcome?
   • Is the proposed signage acceptable?
   • Will there be any unacceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining and nearby properties?
   • Will there be an unacceptable access, traffic and parking impact?
   • Will the proposal unacceptably impact views of the Shot Tower?
7. Having considered the submissions and the evidence, the relevant policies and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme ('Planning Scheme'), and assisted by our inspection, we have determined that the proposal before us is not acceptable on matters related its design. Therefore, we have determined to affirm the Council's decision. Our reasons follow.

1. The proposal is described in Mr Twites evidence statement as follows:[6]
   • Ground level:
     • ground level storage units.
     • vehicle entry from and exit to Hilton Street and exit to the western side boundary laneway.
     • five car parking spaces and five loading bays of various sizes to accommodate loading and unloading of vehicles larger than cars or small vans.
     • three stairways and lifts in close proximity to the car parks and loading bays.
     • administrative offices (ancillary to the storage).
     • building services and waste storage and collection areas.
   • Floors 1-7:
     • storage units, 3 lifts and stairs to each floor.
2. The total internal floor area is 13,490 metres squared. The building comprises a four level podium wrapping around the Alexandra Parade frontage and reduces to 3 levels in Hilton Street and the unnamed lane to the west of the site. Above the podium, a setback from Alexandra Parade of 6.37 metres is maintained for the height of the building. Setbacks from the side and rear boundaries vary between 3.0 metres and 7.48 metres.
3. External materials vary and include ground-level concrete walls with different coloured metal cladding with applied battens above.
4. Operational details proposed are as follows:[7]
   1. Self-storage facilities will be accessible 24 hours/day, 7 days/ by customers. Office contact hours will be 9:00 am - 6:00 pm Monday -Friday and 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Saturdays.
   2. Maximum staff at any one time will be 3 staff (one site manager and 2 administrative staff who will only be on-site during the above office contact hours.
   3. Outside of normal business hours access to the facility will only be via a security pass made available to paid customers. In this circumstance customers will have access to the site so that they can enter, park, load or unload and access their hired storage unit(s) and then depart.
   4. Contractual requirements will ban the storage of hazardous goods and materials.
5. Three signs are proposed, comprising:
   • Two internally illuminated business identification signs both measuring 8.5 metres x 5.9 metres (50.15 metres squared each) on the front façade of the building displaying the business name, logo and related business information.
   • An internally illuminated 'Reception' sign measuring 9.0 metres x 1.4 metres (12.6 meters squared adjacent to the Hilton Street vehicle accessway.

1. The site is within the Commercial 2 Zone ('C2Z'). It is also affected by Development Contributions Plan Overlay - Schedule 1 ('DCPO1'), Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 38 (Alexandra Parade) ('DDO38')[8] and Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 2 (Main Roads and Boulevards) ('DDO2').
2. The Heritage Overlay (HO317) Clifton Hill Western Heritage Precinct abuts part of the site (at the north-east corner, at 7 Hilton Street) and also applies to land further east along Alexandra Parade. 7 Hilton Street is graded as 'not contributory' to the Clifton Hill Western Heritage Precinct.[9]
3. The C2Z includes the following relevant purposes:[10]
   • To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
   • To encourage commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated business and commercial services.
   • To ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive uses.
4. Clause 34.02-2 states that a use must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, including through the:
   • Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land. Appearance of any building, works or materials.
   • Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.
5. Relevant decision guidelines at clause 34.02-7 include:

General

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
• The interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas.

• The effect that existing uses may have on the proposed use.
• The drainage of the land.
• The availability of and connection to services.
• The effect of traffic to be generated on roads.
• The interim use of those parts of the land not required for the proposed use.
• If an industry or warehouse, the effect that the use may have on nearby existing or proposed residential areas or other uses which are sensitive to industrial off-site effects, having regard to any comments or directions of the referral authorities.

• The movement of pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicles providing for supplies, waste removal, emergency services and public transport.
• The provision of car parking.
• The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and landscaping of land adjoining a road.
• Defining the responsibility for the maintenance of buildings, landscaping and paved areas.
• The availability of and connection to services.
• Any natural or cultural values on or nearby the land.
• Outdoor storage, lighting, and stormwater discharge.
• The design of buildings to provide for solar access.

1. Clause 34.02-8 states that the requirements with respect to signage are at clause 52.05 and the C2Z is in Category 1.
2. The subject site is located within the DDO2. The relevant purposes of the DDO include:[11]

To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

To identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development.

1. Relevant decision guidelines at clause 43.02-6 include:
   • The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
   • The design objectives of the relevant schedule to this overlay.
   • The provisions of any relevant policies and urban design guidelines.
   • Whether the bulk, location and appearance of any proposed buildings and works will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, the streetscape or the area.
   • Whether the design, form, layout, proportion and scale of any proposed buildings and works is compatible with the period, style, form, proportion, and scale of any identified heritage places surrounding the site.
   • The layout and appearance of areas set aside for car parking, access and egress, loading and unloading and the location of any proposed off street car parking.
2. Clause 1.0 of schedule 2 to clause 43.02 includes the following design objectives:

To recognise the importance of main roads to the image of the City.

To retain existing streetscapes and places of cultural heritage significance and encourage retention of historic buildings and features which contribute to their identity.

To reinforce and enhance the distinctive heritage qualities of main roads and boulevards.

To recognise and reinforce the pattern of development and the character of the street, including traditional lot width, in building design.

To encourage high quality contemporary architecture.

To encourage urban design that provides for a high level of community safety and comfort.

To limit visual clutter.

To maintain and where needed, create, a high level of amenity to adjacent residential uses through the design, height and form of proposed development.

1. Clause 6.0 of schedule 2 to clause 43.02 includes the following decision guidelines:
   • The contribution of the proposal to the streetscape.
   • The design, height and visual bulk of the development in relation to surrounding land uses and developments.
   • The design, height and form of the development in relation to the built form character of the street.
2. Clause 1.0 of schedule 38 to clause 43.02 includes the following relevant objectives:

To ensure development responds to the heritage character and varied streetscape of Alexandra Parade by supporting:

• a new mid-rise character (ranging from 3 to 10 storeys) behind a consistent street wall to the west of Emma Street on the south side and west of Hilton Lane on the north;
• .....
• .....

To ensure development retains view lines to the Clifton Hill Shot Tower (municipal landmark) and maintains the prominence and integrity of corner heritage buildings.

To ensure development maintains the prominence of the existing heritage street wall and fine-grain heritage character through recessive upper levels and a façade composition and articulation that complements the prevailing character.

To encourage development designs that promote pedestrian activity and passive surveillance, contributes to a high quality public realm, and avoid overshadowing of footpaths on the opposite side of streets, central median of Alexandra Parade and public spaces.

To ensure development responds to sensitive interfaces by ensuring the overall scale and form of new development provides a suitable transition to low scale residential areas and protects these properties from an unreasonable loss of amenity through visual bulk, overlooking and overshadowing.

1. Schedule 38 of clause 43.02 also includes the following built form requirements:

2.3 Street Wall Height Requirements

Street wall heights should not exceed the heights specified in Maps 1 or 2, as applicable and as stated below.

Infill development should match the parapet height of the adjacent heritage building to the width of the property boundary or 6m, whichever is the lesser.

Development should achieve a continuous street wall with no front setback to a street, unless the site is a heritage building and a front setback already exists.

The street wall on corner buildings should continue the main frontage street wall height for a minimum of 8 metres to the side street, with a transition in height to match the rear interface where required.

Development of non-heritage buildings on street corners should provide a corner splay at minimum of 1 x 1 meter [sic] along the site's corner boundaries.

Development should retain the visual prominence of:

• the heritage street wall in the vistas along the street; and
• heritage fabric of the return façades of heritage buildings on corner sites.

2.4 Upper Level Front and Side Setback Requirements

Upper levels above the street wall of heritage buildings should be set back by a minimum of 6 metres.

Upper levels above the street wall of sites immediately abutting land subject to the Heritage Overlay should be set back by a minimum of 6 metres.

Upper levels above the street wall of non-contributory buildings on the northern side of Alexandra Parade and along Cecil Street, Council Street, George Street, Gore Street and Smith Street should be setback by a minimum of 6 metres.

Upper levels above Noone Street should be of limited visibility from the opposite footpath.

Upper levels above all other non-contributory sites should be setback by a minimum of 3 metres.

Upper levels above secondary street wall should be set back by a minimum of 3 metres, unless specified otherwise.

Upper levels should:

• be visually recessive from main frontages and side streets to ensure development does not overwhelm the heritage streetscape and minimise upper level bulk;
• be set back from the street wall below to ensure that upper level additions as seen from the public realm do not detract from the character of the streetscape when viewed directly or obliquely along the street; and
• contain upper level setbacks above the street wall within a maximum of two steps (including the setback above the street wall below as one step) to avoid repetitive steps in the built form.

Projections such as building services and architectural features (other than shading devices, mouldings etc.), balconies and balustrades should not protrude into a setback.

2.5 Overall Building Height Requirements

Development should not exceed the heights shown on Maps 1 and 2, as applicable.

Architectural features may exceed the building height.

Service equipment/structures including balustrades, unenclosed pergolas for communal areas, shading devices, plant rooms, lift overruns, stair wells, structures associated with pedestrian access, green roof areas and other such equipment may exceed the height provided that:

• the equipment and/or structures do not cause additional overshadowing of private open space to residential land, opposite footpaths, kerb outstands etc.
• the equipment/structures are no higher than 2.6 metres above the proposed building height; and
• the equipment/structures occupy less than 50 per cent of the roof area (solar panels¬ excepted).

2.6 Interface Requirements

Development on a rear boundary should not exceed the maximum heights in Table 1.

11.2m - Where there is an existing laneway

8m - Where there is no laneway

Upper levels above a rear boundary wall should be set back from the rear boundary and be contained within a 45 degree setback envelope. The envelope's angle is to be measured perpendicular to the adjoining residential site's boundary, taken from the centre of the boundary. This does not apply to a Commercial 1 Zone and/or Mixed Use Zone interface.

Upper level setbacks above the rear boundary wall should be contained within a maximum of two steps (including the setback above the boundary wall below as one step) to avoid repetitive stepping of individual levels.

Development should respond to existing secluded private open spaces by setting back at upper levels to create a sense of separation, minimise overshadowing and reduce building bulk.

Development should not visually dominate adjoining residential sites, including where separated by a laneway.

2.7 Overshadowing

Development should meet the objective of Clause 55.04-5 Overshadowing for adjoining land within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and/or General Residential Zone, including where separated by a laneway.

New development should not overshadow:

• the central median of Alexandra Parade at 12pm on 22 September;
• the footpath on the western side of any street (3m from property boundary, including the street) at 10am and eastern footpaths (3m from property boundary, including the street) at 2pm on 22 September;
• any opposite kerb outstands, seating and/or planting areas (as applicable), between 10am and 2pm at 22 September.

New development should not overshadow properties fronting Hilton Street, from the first floor upwards between 10am and 2pm on 22 September.

2.8 Common Boundary and Building Separation Requirements

Where development shares a common boundary within the overlay and/or adjoins a Commercial 1 Zone and/or Mixed Use Zone outside of the overlay, upper level development should:

• be set back a minimum of 4.5m from the common side boundary, where a habitable window or balcony facing the common boundary is proposed on the subject site or exists on the adjacent property; and
• be set back a minimum of 3m from the common side boundary where a commercial or non-habitable window facing the common boundary is proposed on the subject site or exists on the adjacent property (including the Commercial 2 Zone).

Where the common boundary is a laneway, the setback is measured from the centre of the laneway.

Where development consists of multiple buildings and/or separate upper levels, upper level development should:

• be set back a minimum of 9m from each other, where a habitable window or balcony is proposed; and
• be set back a minimum of 6m from each other where a commercial or non-habitable window is proposed.

2.9 Building Layout Requirements

Internal layout of commercial and residential units should show how they can be adapted over time, including demonstrating how commercial and residential units can be combined or divided without major structural remedial works.

Ensure shop front widths are not reduced to the extent they become commercially unviable.

Buildings in the Commercial 1 Zone and/or Mixed Use Zone should:

• be designed to accommodate commercial activity at the ground and first floor levels; and
• incorporate floor to floor heights suitable for commercial activity of at least 4 metres at ground and first floor level, where heritage elements are not a constraint.

2.10 Façade Design Requirements

.....

Development should achieve active frontage design at ground level to create a pedestrian-oriented environment and passive surveillance towards the public realm.

Development façades should:

• relate to the vertical and horizontal proportions of the existing, varied retail, commercial and residential character, as applicable.
• create a suitable ratio of solid and void elements;
• create visual interest through the arrangement of fenestration, balconies and the application of architectural features such as external shading devices, window sills etc.;
• avoid overly busy façades that rely on a multitude of materials and colours;
• maintain existing openings and the inter-floor height of a heritage building and avoid new floor plates and walls cutting through historic openings;
• avoid highly reflective glazing in openings of heritage buildings;
• encourage the retention of solid built form behind retained heritage façades and avoid balconies behind existing openings;
• be simple and not compete with the more elaborate detailing of the heritage building(s) on the subject site or an adjoining site;
• avoid large expanses of glazing with a horizontal emphasis, except to ground floor shopfronts; and
• ensure projections such as balconies, building services, architectural features (other than shading devices, mouldings etc.) do not intrude into a setback and not dominate the façade.

Building services and service cabinets should be located away from the primary street frontage and should be designed and located so they complement the street frontage and character and appearance of the building.

Development should avoid blank walls visible to the public realm, including on side street frontages.

Blank side walls in a mid-block location which are visible permanently or temporarily from adjoining residential sites and/or the public realm should be designed to provide visual interest to passing pedestrians through colour, texture or finishes.

2.11 Access, Parking and Loading Areas Requirements

Pedestrian access to buildings should be achieved via streets and avoid primary access from laneways. Where pedestrian access from a laneway is appropriate, it should include a pedestrian refuge or landing.

Ensure pedestrian entrances are clearly visible, secure and have an identifiable sense of address.

Residential and commercial pedestrian entrances should be distinguishable from each other.

The common pedestrian areas of new buildings should be designed with legible and convenient access, with hallway and lobby areas of a size that reflects the quantity of apartments serviced and which can be naturally lit and ventilated.

Resident and staff bicycle parking should be located and designed to be secure and conveniently accessible from the street and associated uses.

Vehicle access should be achieved from laneways or side streets (in that order of preference).

At the intersection of laneways and footpaths, development to non-heritage buildings should provide a minimum 1 x 1 metre splay to ensure pedestrian safety.

Car parking should be located within a basement or concealed from the public realm.

Development should not provide additional vehicular access from Alexandra Parade.

Vehicle ingress and egress into development, including loading facilities and building servicing, should be designed to ensure a high standard of pedestrian amenity and limit potential conflict between vehicle movements and pedestrian activity.

Development with redundant vehicle access points should reinstate the kerb, line-marked parking bays, and relocate any parking signs.

Development with laneway access may require a ground level set back in order to achieve practicable vehicle access. Between ground level and first floor, a headroom clearance of 3.5m minimum should be achieved.

Ensure access to service laneways is maintained in order to facilitate commercial use of the properties fronting Alexandra Parade.

Properties on the inside corner of bends in laneways or at intersections between two laneways should provide a minimum 3m x 3m splay to facilitate vehicle access.

1. Clause 6.0 of the schedule to DDO38 includes the following relevant decision guidelines:
   • whether the requirements in Clauses 2.2 to 2.11 are met;
   • whether the design of the streetscape interface makes a positive contribution to an active, pedestrian-oriented street environment and/or public realm;
   • whether the design of development fronting Alexandra Parade adds to the high-amenity boulevard setting;
   • whether development retains the prominence of the Clifton Hill Shot Tower in the precinct;
   • whether heritage buildings retain their three-dimensional form as viewed from the public realm, including the opposite side of the street;
   • whether a strong sense of separation between upper levels and street walls is achieved when viewed from the opposite side of the street;
   • whether the development delivers design excellence, including but not limited to building siting, scale, massing, articulation and materials;
   • whether upper side and rear setbacks are sufficient to limit the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings;
   • the shadowing impacts of the development on opposite footpaths and public spaces are minimised;
   • whether the development mitigates negative wind effects;
   • the cumulative impact of development on traffic and parking in the nearby area, including on the functionality of laneways; and
   • whether the layout and appearance of areas set aside for vehicular access, loading and unloading and the location of any proposed car parking is practicable, safe and supports a pedestrian-oriented design outcome.
2. Clause 15.01-1S, Urban Design includes the following relevant objectives and strategies:

Objective

To create urban environments that are safe, healthy, functional and enjoyable and that contribute to a sense of place and cultural identity.

Strategies

Require development to respond to its context in terms of character, cultural identity, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate.

Ensure development contributes to community and cultural life by improving the quality of living and working environments, facilitating accessibility and providing for inclusiveness.

Ensure the interface between the private and public realm protects and enhances personal safety.

Ensure development supports public realm amenity and safe access to walking and cycling environments and public transport.

Ensure that the design and location of publicly accessible private spaces, including car parking areas, forecourts and walkways, is of a high standard, creates a safe environment for users and enables easy and efficient use.

Ensure that development provides landscaping that supports the amenity, attractiveness and safety of the public realm.

Ensure that development, including signs, minimises detrimental impacts on amenity, on the natural and built environment and on the safety and efficiency of roads.

Promote good urban design along and abutting transport corridors.

1. Clause 15.01-1L, Urban Design includes the following relevant strategies:

• Support development that creates new public spaces to serve the needs of residents, workers, traders and visitors.
• Encourage developments to incorporate public art.

• Minimise the potential for development, particularly taller buildings, to create adverse wind conditions in the public realm at street level through building siting and design.

• Support development that provides weather protection of the public realm (including footpaths and plazas).
• Projections over a public realm
• Discourage development that projects (including internal floor space, balconies and garage doors) into or over a public realm (including a laneway). This does not apply to verandahs/awnings for weather protection and architectural features particularly in commercial areas.

Development adjoining land in a Heritage Overlay

• Ensure development provides a transition from any adjoining building with an individually significant or contributory heritage grading, having regard to height, street wall height, setbacks, building form and siting.
• Ensure development is sympathetic and respectful design response that does not dominate an adjoining heritage place.
• Ensure appropriate materials and finishes complement the area which do not detract from the fabric of the heritage place.
• Ensure development adopts a street wall height to the street frontage that is no higher than an adjoining heritage building with an individually significant or contributory grading.

Laneways

Promote development abutting a laneway that:

• Provides a safe and well-lit environment for users of the laneway.
• Reflects the character of the laneway.
• Respects the scale of surrounding built form.
• Retains bluestone laneways.
• Locates primary pedestrian access to the street rather than a laneway, where street access is available.
• Provides clearly identifiable, accessible, well-lit and safe pedestrian entries with a sense of address to a laneway.
• Separates pedestrian entries from vehicle entries.
• Provides a ground floor setback from the laneway, where the laneway is too narrow to provide safe access for vehicles and pedestrians.
• Avoids light spill into adjacent private open spaces and habitable rooms.
• Enables all essential services to be provided to the development.
• Retains the public access function of the laneway.
• Provides windows and balconies to facing laneways to enhance surveillance but do not unreasonably overlook neighbouring private open spaces or habitable rooms on the opposite side of the laneway.

Support development that re-establishes laneways through the development site where such links were part of the historic street pattern.

Support development that creates new laneways and pedestrian links that are well integrated with the existing street pattern and improve permeability of sites.

Discourage development that:

• Obstructs existing access to other properties in a laneway.
• Overwhelms the character of a laneway.
• Would result in the use of a laneway for refuse storage.
• Results in garage doors protruding into the laneway.
• Requires multiple vehicle manoeuvres to enter or exit the site.

Boulevards

Support development along Alexandra Parade, Queens Parade, Victoria Parade and Hoddle Street that:

• Maintains the landscaped character comprising avenue trees along Alexandra Parade, Victoria Parade and the south end of Queens Parade.
• Improves the landscape character of Hoddle Street.
• Provides a scale that reflects the context of the boulevard.
• Improves the pedestrian environments and the public realm along boulevards.
• Creates quality building design and reinforces the importance of the boulevard.

Provide a transition in built form between the boulevards and their low-rise, small-lot hinterlands and any low-rise existing residential areas along the boulevards.

Development adjacent to a public open space

.....

1. Clause 15.01-1L-01, Signs includes objectives, strategies and policy guidelines. The objectives and strategies are shown below. The relevant policy guidelines will be referred to as required later in this decision.

• To encourage signs that make a positive contribution to their host building and the surrounding area.

• Are consistent with the character of the area.
• Respect the amenity of the area.
• Are proportioned and designed to complement the host building and site.
• Preserve active frontages.

• Perpendicular to a structure or building above the first floor.
• Reflective.
• Erected on the roof of a building.
• Erected on vacant or derelict buildings.

1. Clause 15.01-2S, Building design includes the following relevant objectives and strategies:

Objective

To achieve building design and siting outcomes that contribute positively to the local context, enhance the public realm and support environmentally sustainable development.

Strategies

Ensure a comprehensive site analysis forms the starting point of the design process and provides the basis for the consideration of height, scale, massing and energy performance of new development.

Ensure development responds and contributes to the strategic and cultural context of its location.

Minimise the detrimental impact of development on neighbouring properties, the public realm and the natural environment.

Improve the energy performance of buildings through siting and design measures that encourage:

• Passive design responses that minimise the need for heating, cooling and lighting.
• On-site renewable energy generation and storage technology.
• Use of low embodied energy materials.

Restrict the provision of reticulated natural gas in new dwelling development.

Ensure the layout and design of development supports resource recovery, including separation, storage and collection of waste, mixed recycling, glass, organics and e-waste.

Encourage use of recycled and reusable materials in building construction and undertake adaptive reuse of buildings, where practical.

Encourage water efficiency and the use of rainwater, stormwater and recycled water.

Minimise stormwater discharge through site layout and landscaping measures that support on-site infiltration and stormwater reuse.

Ensure the form, scale, and appearance of development enhances the function and amenity of the public realm.

Ensure buildings and their interface with the public realm support personal safety, perceptions of safety and property security.

Ensure development is designed to protect and enhance valued landmarks, views and vistas.

Ensure development considers and responds to transport movement networks and provides safe access and egress for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

Encourage development to retain existing vegetation.

Ensure development provides landscaping that responds to its site context, enhances the built form, creates safe and attractive spaces and supports cooling and greening of urban areas.

1. Clause 15.01-2L, Building design includes the following relevant strategies and policy guidance:

• Design development to:
• Reflect and respond to streetscape elements, including:
  • Pattern of development.
  • Building spacing.
• Provide separation between buildings to facilitate access to daylight, sunlight and an outlook, while preventing direct overlooking into adjacent secluded private open spaces and habitable room windows from, to and within the development.
• Make a positive contribution to the streetscape through high quality architecture and urban design.
• Discourage blank or unarticulated walls.
• Use articulation or massing or change of surface treatment or a combination of these to minimise visual bulk and integrate with the surrounding character.

Ensure the height of new buildings respond to the building height requirements set out in the planning scheme, adjoining development building height or where there are no specified building height requirements, have regard to the physical and strategic context of the site.

Ensure that development reflects the predominant low-rise character of the area, except in the areas below where mid-rise should be directed:

• Major and neighbourhood activity centres as shown in the Strategic Framework Plan in clauses 02.04 and 11.03-1L.
• Employment, commercial and industrial areas as defined in clauses 02.01 and 11.03-1L.
• Major regeneration areas as shown in the Strategic Framework Plan in clause 02.04.
• Boulevards as defined in clause 02.03.
• Major regeneration areas as shown in the Strategic Framework Plan in clause 02.04-1:
  • Alphington Paper Mills site.
  • Gas Works site in Fitzroy North.
  • South-west Cremorne (land south of Gough Street).
• Appropriate locations along the following boulevards which are outside activity centres:
  • Alexandra Parade.
  • Hoddle Street.
  • Victoria Parade.

• Contributes to a high-quality built form.
• Demonstrates architectural design excellence.
• Provides a transitional scale to the buildings in adjoining low-rise neighbourhoods to protect amenity and discourage visual bulk.
• Improves movement through the site.
• Provides active frontages at street level.
• Contributes to an improved public realm.

Building setbacks

Buildings should align with the street at ground level unless for the provision of public open space or landscaping.

Development should incorporate setbacks that:

• Reflect the general pattern of front, side and rear setbacks in the streetscape, particularly on the same side of the street.
• Limit excessive tiered building profiles on street and laneway frontages and encourage use of contextual materials and finishes at upper levels.
• Provide space for soft landscaping including the planting of canopy trees, where appropriate.

• Hard paving (other than footpaths and driveways) in the front setbacks in residential areas.
• Recessed undercroft parking at ground level.
• Car parking, basement access and ventilation shafts.
• Balconies and building services.

Walls on boundaries

Ensure walls on boundaries minimise adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining residential properties through unreasonable overshadowing of private open space, visual bulk or loss of daylight to habitable room windows.

Site coverage

Encourage site coverage of new development that does not exceed a maximum site coverage of 80% of the site area, unless:

• The pattern of site coverage in the immediate area is higher than 80%; or
• There is a need to cap the site to deal with contamination.

Internal amenity

Provide a high-quality environment for building occupants, including internal spaces, access to private open space, daylight and ventilation.

• Encourage developments to provide:
• Lighting of common spaces.
• Passive surveillance of common spaces.
• Landscaping that maximises sightlines.

Impact of development on adjoining properties

Discourage impacts on existing adjoining development through:

• Unreasonable overshadowing of secluded open space and loss of daylight to habitable room windows.
• Visual bulk.
• Overlooking and excessive screening.
• Noise from building plant and equipment.
• Loss of on-street car parking from excessive crossovers.

Roof form

Design development to reflect or complement the dominant roof form of the surrounding area.

Materials

Encourage a simple palette of durable materials that respond to the streetscape character through type, colour, finish and contrast.

Encourage anti-graffiti materials and treatments at ground level.

Discourage detriment to nearby properties when using reflective materials.

Landscaping

Encourage trees and vegetation planting to increase their canopies and coverage to contribute to an urban forest.

Support landscaping (including planting in deep soil, planter boxes, green walls and green roofs) which:

• Promote the on-going health of trees and vegetation that has been retained on site.
• Respect the landscape character of the area where there is a prevailing character.
• Integrate with the building design.
• Use materials, treatments and plants that are permeable, durable and resistant to adverse environmental conditions.
• Retain existing mature trees where possible or incorporate suitable replacement planting where mature trees are removed.
• Include indigenous plants.
• Maximise internal sight lines to provide for pedestrian safety.

Discourage landscaping in new development which uses existing or potentially invasive weed species.

Pedestrian access

Provide separate vehicular and pedestrian access.

Provide clearly identifiable, accessible, well-lit and safe pedestrian entries with a sense of address to a street.

Align entries at ground floor level with the street level to assist with universal access.

Provide weather protection for entries.

Frontages

Provide active frontages in commercial areas.

Design ground level street frontage of new development to provide a high level of pedestrian amenity and visual interest and contribute to strong ground floor relationships and high-quality outcomes.

Orient development to the street, and to both streets for a corner site.

Discourage dominant car parking, garage doors and driveways.

.....

Carparking, loading facilities and outbuildings

Encourage carports, car spaces, external car stackers, garages, loading facilities and outbuildings to be:

• Setback behind the front building line to appear visually recessive when viewed from the street (excluding verandahs, porches, bay windows or similar projecting features).
• Located at the rear of a building, in an area of lower pedestrian activity, where appropriate.

Require car parking, including basement car parking and external car stackers, to incorporate high standards of design and amenity.

Maintain the prominence of pedestrian entries.

Minimise the number of garage doors facing a street.

Discourage open, ground level multi-space car parks.

Discourage blank walls of car parks visible from the street.

Provide legible and safe vehicular entries.

Conceal the view of cars at ground level and on upper levels of multi-deck car parking through design treatment.

Conceal the view of car stackers from the public realm through design treatment.

Minimise noise from deliveries through appropriate design, location and management of loading bays.

Service equipment

Ensure that service infrastructure is appropriately sited and incorporated into the design of new buildings which has limited visibility from the public realm.

Allow plant rooms, lift over-runs and other features of this nature to exceed the height of a building where:

• Less than half the roof area is occupied by the equipment (except solar panels).
• No additional overshadowing is created.

Policy guidelines

Consider as relevant:

Overshadowing:

• Avoid additional overshadowing of Darebin Creek and Merri Creek between 11am and 2pm on 22 June and avoid additional overshadowing of public open space adjacent to the Yarra River, Darebin Creek and Merri Creek.
• Unless specified elsewhere in this scheme, ensure development avoids overshadowing of public open space between 10am and 2pm on 22 September.
• Unless specified elsewhere in this scheme, ensure development allows direct sunlight between 10am and 2pm on 22 September to any part of the:
• Footpath on the southern side of streets orientated east-west in activity centres as defined in clause 11.03-1L.
• Opposite footpath on streets orientated north-south in activity centres as defined in clause 11.03-1L.

A site analysis plan for non-residential development that addresses:

• In relation to the subject site:
  • Site shape, size, orientation, slope (contours) and location and type of any easements.
  • Levels of the site and the difference in levels between the site and surrounding properties.
  • The location and heights of existing buildings on the site.
  • Solar access to the site.
  • Shadows cast by any existing buildings between 9am and 3pm on 22 September.
  • Location and botanical name of significant trees.
  • Fence heights, styles and location.
  • Views to and from the site.
  • Street frontage features such as poles, street trees, kerb crossovers and pedestrian access points.
  • Any other notable features or characteristics of the site.
• In relation to adjacent properties and the broader neighbourhood:
  • The location and heights of buildings on adjacent properties.
  • The use of buildings on adjacent properties.
  • The location of secluded private open space and habitable room windows of adjacent residential properties which have an outlook to the site within 9 metres.
  • Solar access to adjacent properties.
  • The pattern of development of the neighbourhood, including details regarding widths of adjacent footpaths and roadways, and street planting.
  • The built form, scale and character of surrounding development including front fencing.
  • Architectural styles of surrounding buildings.
  • Location of any nearby places of cultural heritage significance.
  • Land (such as streets/ laneways and public parks) where natural surveillance is desirable.
  • The location of local shops, public transport services, public open spaces (including any pedestrian and cycle links to these facilities) situated within walking distance of the site.
  • Any other notable features or characteristics of the neighbourhood.
• How the development responds to the site analysis.
• Whether new buildings and works are consistent with the scale, bulk and character of the area.

1. Clause 15.01-2L-01, Environmental sustainable development includes an objective to achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development from the design stage through to construction and operation and includes strategies with respect to the following:
   • Energy performance;
   • Integrated water management;
   • Indoor environment quality;
   • Transport;
   • Waste management; and
   • Urban ecology.
2. Clause 15.01-2L-02, Landmarks includes an objective to maintain the visual prominence of and protect primary views to Yarra's valued landmarks. The Shot Tower at 94 Alexandra Parade (to the east of the review site) is listed a key landmark. Relevant strategies include:

Maintain primary views to landmarks identified in Table 1.

Site, scale and set back new development to minimise encroachment of views to the identified significant elements of landmarks in Table 1.

Provide adequate setback and building separation to maintain clear sky between the identified significant elements of the landmark in Table 1 and new development.

Minimise light spill from new development to reduce the visual prominence of identified illuminated landmark signs at night.

1. Clause 17.01-1S, Diversified economy includes an objective to strengthen and diversify the economy. Relevant strategies include:

Protect and strengthen existing and planned employment areas and plan for new employment areas.

Facilitate regional, cross-border and inter-regional relationships to harness emerging economic opportunities.

Facilitate growth in a range of employment sectors, including health, education, retail, tourism, knowledge industries and professional and technical services based on the emerging and existing strengths of each region.

Improve access to jobs closer to where people live.

Support rural economies to grow and diversify.

1. Clause 17.02-1S, Business includes an objective to encourage development that meets the community's needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services. Relevant strategies include:
   • Plan for an adequate supply of commercial land in appropriate locations.
   • Ensure commercial facilities are aggregated and provide net community benefit in relation to their viability, accessibility and efficient use of infrastructure.
   • Locate commercial facilities in existing or planned activity centres.
2. Clause 52.05, Signs includes the following purposes:

To regulate the development of land for signs and associated structures.

To ensure signs are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.

To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.

To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the C2Z, signs are identified as being in Category 1 of Clause 52.05. Category 1: Commercial Areas is the least controlled ('Least Limitation') sign category. Decision guidelines are provided at clause 52.05-8 as follows.

• The character of the area including:
  • The sensitivity of the area in terms of the natural environment, heritage values, waterways and open space, rural landscape or residential character.
  • The compatibility of the proposed sign with the existing or desired future character of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
  • The cumulative impact of signs on the character of an area or route, including the need to avoid visual disorder or clutter of signs.
  • The consistency with any identifiable outdoor advertising theme in the area.
• Impacts on views and vistas:
  • The potential to obscure or compromise important views from the public realm.
  • The potential to dominate the skyline.
    • The potential to impact on the quality of significant public views.
    • The potential to impede views to existing signs.
• The relationship to the streetscape, setting or landscape:
  • The proportion, scale and form of the proposed sign relative to the streetscape, setting or landscape.
  • The position of the sign, including the extent to which it protrudes above existing buildings or landscape and natural elements.
  • The ability to screen unsightly built or other elements.
  • The ability to reduce the number of signs by rationalising or simplifying signs.
  • The ability to include landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parts of the sign structure.
• The relationship to the site and building:
  • The scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, proportion and any other significant characteristics of the host site and host building.
  • The extent to which the sign displays innovation relative to the host site and host building.
  • The extent to which the sign requires the removal of vegetation or includes new landscaping.
• The impact of structures associated with the sign:
  • The extent to which associated structures integrate with the sign.
  • The potential of associated structures to impact any important or significant features of the building, site, streetscape, setting or landscape, views and vistas or area.
• The impact of any illumination:
  • The impact of glare and illumination on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
  • The impact of illumination on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the area.
  • The potential to control illumination temporally or in terms of intensity.
• The impact of any logo box associated with the sign:
  • The extent to which the logo box forms an integral part of the sign through its position, lighting and any structures used to attach the logo box to the sign.
  • The suitability of the size of the logo box in relation to its identification purpose and the size of the sign.
• The need for identification and the opportunities for adequate identification on the site or locality.
• The impact on road safety. A sign is a safety hazard if the sign:
  • Obstructs a driver's line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an adjacent property.
  • Obstructs a driver's view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background that may reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.
  • Could dazzle or distract drivers due to its size, design or colouring, or it being illuminated, reflective, animated or flashing.
  • Is at a location where particular concentration is required, such as a high pedestrian volume intersection.
  • Is likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device, because it contains red, green or yellow lighting, or has red circles, octagons, crosses, triangles or arrows.
  • Requires close study from a moving or stationary vehicle in a location where the vehicle would be unprotected from passing traffic.
  • Invites drivers to turn where there is fast moving traffic or the sign is so close to the turning point that there is no time to signal and turn safely.
  • Is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing.
  • Has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway.
  • Could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

• The effect of the proposed major promotion sign on:
  • Significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines.
  • The visual appearance of a significant view corridor, viewline, gateway location or landmark site identified in a framework plan or local policy.
  • Residential areas and heritage places.
  • Open space and waterways.
• When determining the effect of a proposed major promotion sign, the following locational principles must be taken into account:
  • Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner that complements or enhances the character of the area.
  • Major promotion signs are discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways.
  • Major promotion signs are discouraged within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways.
  • Major promotion signs are discouraged where they will form a dominant visual element from residential areas, within a heritage place or where they will obstruct significant viewlines.
  • In areas with a strong built form character, major promotion signs are encouraged only where they are not a dominant element in the streetscape and except for transparent feature signs (such as neon signs), are discouraged from being erected on the roof of a building.

1. Clause 52.06 sets out car parking rates and car park design requirements. The car parking requirement for a store is 10% of the site area. A permit is not required under this clause as the application proposes an area in excess of the 10% requirement at clause 52.06.

DRAFT AMENDMENT C271 AND PROPOSED PERMANENT DDO38

1. In part, Amendment C271yara proposes to introduce DDO38 into the Planning Scheme on a permanent basis. Council's submission provided a description of changes between the existing interim DDO38 and proposed permanent DDO38 contained in Amendment C271yara. They say:[12]

4.4 DDO38 is an interim control, which has a current expiry date of 30 June 2025. The proposed permanent DDO38 (Proposed Permanent DDO38) is part of Draft Amendment C271, which was adopted by Council on 6 December 2022. Draft Amendment C271 is on exhibition, from 18 November 2024 to 24 February 2025.

1. The applicant submits:[13]
   1. At its meeting of 6 December 2022 Yarra City Council resolved to seek consent from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit draft Amendment C271 or to apply to the Minister for Planning under section 8of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, for authorisation to prepare and exhibit the Amendment. Amendment C271 seeks to implement permanent DDO controls including DDO38. The Minister for Planning gave conditional consent for exhibition of draft Amendment C271 subject to a number of conditions on 2 July 2024.
   2. Amendment C271 has not yet commenced exhibition and is not a seriously entertained planning proposal.
2. Whilst the amendment has been exhibited as stated in Councils submission, the amendment is still in its early stages. Therefore, we have given Amendment C271 limited weight in our consideration of the proposal.

IS THE PROPOSAL AN ACCEPTABLE BUILT FORM OUTCOME?

1. Council submits the proposed building does not provide an appropriate transition to low-rise residential development to the north of the site.
2. Mr Holdsworth agrees with Council. His evidence is that the proposed eight storey building is excessively large and dominant in its setting. He notes that the gentle slope to the south increases the visibility of any taller buildings along Alexandra Parade when viewed from the north. For this reason, his opinion is that the proposal should meet the specified height limits.
3. The applicant asserts that the scale of the proposal has been designed to respond to the surrounding context and the height and setback parameters set out in DDO38. It says that whilst the presentation of the building is robust, it sits in a robust environment and is an articulated modern design providing a degree of activation and surveillance, as sought by the Planning Scheme.
4. DDO38[14] includes definitions and requirements that apply to many elements of the proposal. These include requirements with respect to street wall height, upper-level front and side setbacks, overall building height, interface, overshadowing, common boundary and building separation, building layout, façade design, access, parking and loading areas. These are detailed in an earlier section of the reasons.
5. The proposal does not exceed the maximum building height specified in DDO38 with the exception of the north-east corner as indicated on Mr Twite's marked up drawing shown below. He notes that the building heights are discretionary.

1. The proposal exceeds the preferred height along the northern abuttal with 3 Hilton Street and the northern most part of its Hilton Street frontage. DDO38 specifies a preferred height of 24.0 metres/ 6 storeys in this location whilst a height of approximately 30.0 metres/ 8 storeys is proposed.
2. In terms of street wall height, DDO38 nominates a preferred height of four storeys (16.0 metres) to Alexandra Parade, wrapping around the corner to Hilton Street for a length of approximately 35.0 metres which then reduces to a preferred street wall of three storeys (12.0 metres) to Hilton Street. The proposal acceptably meets the street wall height requirements.
3. DDO38 requires[16] upper levels above the street wall of what are described as 'non-contributory' buildings, outside heritage zones along the northern side of Alexandra Parade to be set back by a minimum of 6.0 metres from Alexandra Parade and 3.0 metres from Hilton Street, above 11.2 metres. The proposal provides for a setback of approximately 6.0 metres above the street wall to Alexandra Parade and 3.0 metres above the street wall to Hilton Street.
4. A relevant objective at DDO38 is to ensure development responds to sensitive interfaces by ensuring the overall scale and form of new development provides a suitable transition to low scale residential areas.[17] Similarly, decision guidelines seek consideration of whether 'the development delivers design excellence, including but not limited to building siting, scale, massing, articulation and materials' as well as whether upper side and rear setbacks are sufficient to limit the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.
5. The 'transition' in height sought by DDO38 is a graduated reduction in preferred heights from south to north along Hilton Street from 36.0 metres / 9 storeys to 24.0 metres/ 6 storeys and 11.2 metres. The west portion of the site abutting the lane has a preferred height that varies from 36.0 metres / 9 storeys to 32.0 metres/ 8 storeys. The proposal's height varies from 11.7 metres to 30.48 metres.
6. The proposed 30.3 metre building height proximate to the north-east corner of the site exceeds the preferred 24.0 metres/ 6 storeys height specified at DDO38. We find that this height is acceptable in this location. The sites to the north, 3 and 5 Hilton Street, are occupied by commercial buildings in the C2Z with preferred heights of 24.0 metres/ 6 storeys and 11.2 metres / 3 storeys respectively pursuant to the provisions of DDO38.
7. The height of the lower commercial built form on these sites albeit lower, combined with the separation they provide between the proposal and the land to the residential land to the north and east assists to affect a transition to the lower scale residential areas. Further, the 3.0 metre setback of the upper levels above the podium, which has a height of approximately 11.7 metres, will articulate the north elevation and moderate the impact of the building mass when viewed from the north.
8. The building massing generated by the configuration of the site results in a 'L' shaped building when viewed from the north which we accept will be highly visible. We acknowledge there will be a juxtaposition between the proposal and the existing lower scale of the commercial buildings located at 3 and 5 Hilton Street, the open yard at 24A Alexandra Parade and the dwelling located at 7 Hilton Street. However, such a juxtaposition is to be expected in locations where DDO38 contemplates and provides for a change of this magnitude.
9. The 11.7 metre height of the northern end of the podium abutting 3 Hilton Street exceeds the maximum height of 11.2 metres nominated for the rear boundary wall in DDO38.[18] We find the relatively minor exceedance in height of 0.5 metres adjacent to an existing commercial building to be acceptable as it will not be visually dominant in the context of the backdrop provided by the upper levels of the building and the commercial built form in the foreground.
10. The site to the north of the subject site at 24A Alexandra Parade is occupied by a two-storey non-residential building and large uncovered concrete area that appears to be used for storage. This site has a preferred maximum building height of 20.0 metres/ 5 storeys pursuant to the provisions of DDO38. Whilst the site has not been developed in accordance with DDO38, the relevant provisions provide an indication of the possible scale of future development. In any event, the proposal's rear boundary wall height of 10.9 metres along its abuttal with 24A Alexandra Parade acceptably meets the relevant provisions of DDO38 that seeks a transition in height from south to north.
11. On this basis, even if there is no future development of 3 and 5 Hilton Street and 24A Alexandra Parade we find the transition in height to the lower scale residential area is acceptable, albeit there will be a significant contrast between the height of the proposal, the intervening commercial development and residential area to the north. For these reasons, we find that the proposal is consistent with the midrise character sought by the relevant objective at DDO38[19] and that it provides an acceptable built form transition from Alexandra Parade to the residential land located to the north.
12. However, we consider that the proposal as presented at the hearing does not satisfactorily respond to the relevant objectives at DDO38[20] that seek to encourage development designs that promote pedestrian activity, passive surveillance and a high-quality facade design that avoids blank walls visible to the public realm, including on side street frontages. Neither does the proposal before us satisfactorily respond to design objectives that seeks excellence in design and high-quality contemporary architecture and urban design that provides for a high level of community safety and comfort. Further, the proposed signs do not limit visual clutter.[21] Matters related to signage will be discussed later in this decision.
13. The external fabric of the proposal needs to be redesigned if the proposal is to be an acceptable response to the Planning Scheme, and we note that issues like pedestrian activity and surveillance will need to be addressed as part of any redesign.
14. Council submits the proposal fails to provide appropriate massing, design and façade composition and 'is not responsive to the prevailing or preferred future character or the site's location on a key boulevard'. They also say the design and composition of the façade is not responsive to the prevailing or preferred future character nor to the site's location on a key boulevard. It also says that the proposed signs, discussed below, will dominate the building and create visual clutter.
15. DDO2 applies to a depth of approximately 35.0 metres from the Alexandra Parade frontage (south boundary). Relevant design objectives seek to recognise the importance of main roads to the image of the city and to reinforce, encourage high quality contemporary architecture and limit visual clutter.[22]
16. Relevant decision guidelines at DDO2 include the contribution of the proposal to the streetscape, the design, height and visual bulk of the development in relation to the surrounding land uses and developments, and the design, height and form of the development in relation to the built form character of the street.[23]
17. DDO38 contains objectives which seek to ensure that development responds to the heritage character and varied streetscape of Alexandra Parade by supporting a new midrise character behind a consistent street wall and retains views to the Clifton Hill shot tower. It encourages development that promotes pedestrian activity and passive surveillance, contributing to a high-quality public realm and avoiding overshadowing of the central median of Alexandra Parade.[24]
18. Mr Holdsworth, whilst focusing chiefly on what he saw as interface issues to the north, acknowledged that the interface with Alexandra Parade was also an important one. He describes Alexandra Parade as one of two grand boulevards which add a rare quality to the urban landscape due to their width, extensive medians and rows of mature trees. His evidence is that they represent 'an era of town planning foresight that is rare and valued, defined as in part by the buildings that line it'.
19. He sees the future character of Alexandra Parade as a key issue, with 'relevant policies and strategies designed to generate buildings of a high architectural and urban design that make a positive contribution to the character and quality of the place'. His opinion is that the substituted plans fail to achieve the high standard of architecture and urban design warranted by the site's location on a major boulevard.
20. Mr Nott submits the amended design remains inconsistent with the streetscape and the neighbourhood character and the finishes and colours selected are inappropriate. He says that a simpler façade with less dominant signage could improve the design outcome. He references the new sports building in Smith Street which utilises similar materials as a nearby example of an acceptable outcome. Alternatively, he submits that buildings such as the CUB building in Abbotsford or the RMIT building in Swanson Street provide examples of well-designed extremely robust built form, as do the nearby historic warehouses in the City of Yarra.
21. Mr Nott's examples are apposite. The addition of battens to a multicoloured Colorbond façade and the inclusion of ad hoc fenestration is an inadequate response that fails to recognise the importance of achieving a standard of design which could be regarded as acceptable when assessed against the Planning Scheme.
22. In contrast, the applicant asserts the proposal is an appropriate response to the physical context of the site and that the design responds to the existing varied and emerging character of the surrounding area. Mr Twite's evidence is the design response will provide a good quality architectural outcome. He says the modifications made to the external materials and finishes in the amended plans by changes to the colours and addition of projecting battens to the façade, together with an increase in the extent of glazing now 'provide a considered more refined architectural response' when compared to the initial scheme.
23. Acknowledging the Planning Scheme's reference to activation of the street and improvement to pedestrian amenity, he says it cannot be expected in all locations and in his opinion the degree of activation is commensurate with the zoning of the proposal. He notes this part of Alexandra Parade is not a particularly pedestrian-friendly environment. His evidence is that an uninterrupted 48.0 metre building frontage to Alexandra Parade is a scale that can be readily accommodated along an arterial road, that the 'simple and contemporary' detailed design responds to new developments in the area and is an obvious improvement when compared to the existing conditions. We disagree.
24. Response to context is fundamental in determining whether a proposal is an acceptable planning outcome. In a case such as this, where the review site is located in an area that is undergoing transformation, the commercial zone is intended to accommodate uses which support residential and other services. In this context, as land use, a large self-storage facility is appropriate.
25. Such buildings are of necessity of robust built form. It is legitimate that they reflect their use. Such buildings should not be expected to echo remnant residential built form in an area in which is in transition. The design of buildings in such areas will inevitably change in the future and the Planning Scheme specifically seeks a high-quality design outcome. We agree with the applicant that DDO38 provides specific support for significant change and intensification of the existing built form. However, this does not mean the design of the proposal should be limited to meeting the height and setback requirements of DDO38.
26. Planning schemes are based on an 'acceptable' rather than an optimum or ideal outcome. It is policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme that articulate what is acceptable for a particular site. In this regard context has a very important role to play. The existing built fabric in the area, most of which could perhaps be fairly described as 'tired' and 'bland', contributes little to the public realm or to the boulevard of Alexandra Parade in the way of activation and visual interest. Mindful of the Planning Scheme's reference to design excellence this proposal has the opportunity to demonstrate an outcome which responds to the desired future built form. The proposal has failed to acceptably respond to the Planning Scheme's vision and expectations.
27. Alexandra Parade is nominated as one of Yarra's boulevards. The applicant asked the Tribunal rhetorically if this designation meant that Council equated the characteristics of this portion of Alexandra Parade with those of St Kilda Road. Whether or not Council does, the Planning Scheme's aspirations are for change and enhancement in this location. Parameters of the desired change in the design of built form are articulated with a high degree of specificity - a new midrise built form of three to 10 storeys is envisaged.[25] The façade design requirements list design elements that could contribute to a high architectural quality.[26] We were taken to several examples where the design of nearby buildings has responded to the Planning Scheme's aspirations, including the new Smith Street sports centre and the commercial development (the Foundry) approved on the corner of Smith Street and Alexandra Parade.
28. We also note that clause 15.01 - 2L includes relevant policy guidance which seeks development that makes a positive contribution to the streetscape through high-quality architecture and urban design. Blank or unarticulated walls are discouraged. The use of articulation, massing or change of surface treatment or a combination of these is encouraged, to create visual interest and to assist integration with the surrounding character.
29. Clearly such a large-scale design uplift cannot be achieved by a single building, but we note that the recent approvals to which we were referred indicate that the potential for an elevation of design quality has been recognised and acted upon in these commercial buildings.
30. Our conclusion is that, as the area develops over time, proposals will take advantage of their locational and other attributes whilst also acceptably responding to the guidance provided for development in the Planning Scheme. The proposal as it currently presents is not an acceptable response. It will manifest an outcome which does not reflect the guidance provided in the planning scheme.
31. The applicant's images support Council's criticism that the façade composition and general design is not responsive to the preferred future character or to the site's location on a key boulevard. It's assertion that the signs dominate the building and create visual clutter is justified. The proposal before us uses materials in a utilitarian manner and incorporates dominant signage that creates visual clutter. Further, the applied multicoloured batten/fins which have attempted to provide some relief from the utilitarian expansive side and rear blank façades are unsuccessful in this ambition. The battens/fins appear flimsy, disjointed, and tokenistic. Rather than contributing to an improvement in design quality, the proposal looks cumbersome, awkward and unremarkable.
32. The design does not respond positively to its context, having regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme that encourage high quality contemporary architecture, urban design that provides for a high level of community safety and seek to limit visual clutter.
33. The treatment of boulevards in Yarra, of which Alexandra Parade is one, is identified as an important area of design in the Planning Scheme.[27] Relevant objectives[28], design objectives and decision guidelines[29] demonstrate that Alexandra Parade has a different set of expectations from other arterial roads. The relevant provision seeks the transformation of Alexandra Parade to a contemporary boulevard.
34. Simply because the use is utilitarian is not a reason to ignore the implications of policy which seeks high-quality design treatment in locations such as these, where there is a clear expectation of change which will benefit future generations who live in or pass through the area. The Planning Scheme clearly identifies that change is sought in the locality. The architecture, design, massing and three-dimensional expression of built form, together with the treatment of the external skin of buildings, form essential components of the desired change.
35. The façade wraps around the built form some distance down Hilton Street and the laneway to the west. This treatment is an acceptable response. It reflects the way in which the street wall is 'broken down'.
36. What in this case is essentially 'a box within a predetermined building envelope' could be used, as suggested by Mr Holdsworth, as a canvas for urban art. Alternatively, a more sophisticated take on the 'building as signage' approach displayed by some large-format retailing, one where the design and appearance of the exterior skin of the 'box' signals the use of the building, could be employed.
37. The 'wrapping' of buildings where, for whatever reason, the more usual ways of applying design elements such as openings or surface texture is difficult or inappropriate, is not unusual. The use of screens for practical or decorative reasons in a variety of durable materials is one way to achieve a desired result, for example to control the entry of light and heat or, to add design interest by articulating and giving depth to a façade, resulting in a building which is visually interesting.
38. Whilst we find, as set out above, that the proposal acceptably responds to some of the objectives set out in DDO2 and DDO38, as a whole it does not achieve a sufficiently high level of design for its context. In another context, the proposed design may well be acceptable on the basis that it largely complies with the 'prescriptive' requirements of the Planning Scheme. However, in this case, we agree with Council that when assessed against relevant policies specific to this location and the clearly articulated aspiration for the transformation of Alexandra Parade by the insertion of buildings of a high design quality as set out in DDO 2 and DDO 38, the proposal fails.
39. It is our conclusion that this failure is fatal to this application. It requires a new design approach, which reflects the aspirations and requirements of the Planning Scheme.

1. Council submits the proposed signs are excessive and will dominate and create visual clutter, contrary to the provisions of clause 52.05. It says the proposed signs to the Alexandra Parade frontage dominate the building's presentation due to their substantial size and bold framing.
2. The proposed signage, as described in Mr Twite's evidence,[30] 'comprises two large business identification signs to Alexandra Parade and under awning signage adjacent to the main entrance to Hilton Street. The large signs comprise internally illuminated laser 3D lettering (500 millimetre projection), surrounded by orange-coloured feature frame (signage zone) with 150 millimetre projection from the building wall. This orange feature frame is extended to include window glazing and wraps around Hilton Street corner. Each façade sign has an area of 50.1 meters squared along the Alexandra Parade elevation as shown below.
3. Signs 1 & 2 are defined as internally illuminated, high wall, business identification, panel signs. Sign 3 is an internally illuminated, business identification, panel sign. A permit is required in respect of all three signs.

1. Mr Holdsworth shares Council's view. He concludes that the design as proposed is an inappropriate response and he identifies the large façade signage as a design deficiency. He notes the strategy to clause 15.01 - 1L in terms of the public realm is to encourage development to incorporate public art. Amongst the strategies at clause 15.01 - 2L (building design) is the desire for the building form to make a contribution to the streetscape through high-quality architecture. He says the policy enumerates a number of key aspects of design, necessary to achieve a high quality of architecture and urban design and that in this context the two large façade signs, both extending over two levels, are excessive.
2. Mr Twite based his analysis on Alexandra Parade being a 60 metre wide arterial road in a commercial area classified as the 'least limitation' category at clause 52.05. He says the signs will be viewed in a 'mixed' context and that there is other business signage associated with 'big box' stores in the area. His evidence is that the orange framing adds to the building's interest and articulation in terms of the visual impact. Rather than resulting in 'clutter', the inclusion of the 100 metres squared of signage can readily be accommodated within the façade and will not distract drivers in Alexandra Parade.
3. It is acceptable for a building such as this to incorporate bold signage and we accept that is it is appropriate that the building should be recognisable to its customers. This elevates the importance of a design treatment which clearly identifies the building, but importantly such signage must be appropriate to its location.
4. We agree with the applicant that the mere fact there is more than one sign is not problematic nor, in isolation, is the area of the façade occupied by the signs. Rather, it is the design and disposition of the signs in addition to their orange framing and 500 millimetre projection of the lettering from the face of the building which cause 'visual clutter'. The signage as proposed adds to the lack of cohesion evident in the design of the façade.
5. Relevant purposes at clause 52.05 seek to ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder and are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.
6. Council's submission was that the design of the proposal, including the signage, was a 'big box' standard design and that little effort had been made to deviate from the applicant's standard design format or to tailor the proposal to the site's context. We agree.
7. The podium facade at levels 1, 2 and 3 is comprised of the two signs, a section of glazing and metal cladding. The design of the façade appears to be focused on provision of the two signs as architectural features, with the balance of the façade designed around them. We find this approach creates a focus on the signage that unacceptably clutters the podium façade and diminishes the architectural design of the host building.
8. This design response is inconsistent with a purpose at clause 52.05 that seeks to ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter and decision guidelines that seeks consideration of the scale and form of the signs relative to the scale and proportion of the host building and extent to which the sign displays innovation relative to it.[32]
9. We find the Alexandra Parade façade signage does not complement the host building and the design response does not sufficiently respond the relevant design objective at DD02 that seeks high quality contemporary architecture as previously discussed.[33] We consider that provision of signage to the Alexanda Parade frontage to be unacceptable.
10. The primary access to the proposed storage facility is from Hilton Steet. In this context the provision of the proposed sign to Hilton Street is acceptable.

WILL THERE BE ANY UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS ON THE AMENITY OF ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTIES?

1. The key considerations in respect of the development's impact on the amenity of adjoining properties raised in the respondents' submissions are overlooking, overshadowing, visual bulk, light spill and noise.
2. They say the proposal is highly visible from the residential area located to the north and is out of scale with its northern context. They also say a stepped built form would reduce the actual and apparent bulk of the proposal.
3. Relevantly, the provisions of 15.01-2L require consideration of the impact of development on adjoining properties. Further, the purposes of the C2Z seek to encourage commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated business and commercial services and ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive uses.
4. Council says there are no unreasonable amenity impacts associated with built form with respect to overlooking, overshadowing, visual bulk, daylight-to-windows and light spill.
5. The applicant submits:
   • The adjacent residences are adjacent to land in the C2Z which is earmarked for mid-rise development. Reasonable amenity expectations must be tempered in those circumstances.
   • Having regard to the range of uses that are permissible within the C2Z, a self-storage facility is a relatively benign use.
   • The off-site amenity impacts are expected to be limited to the visual impact of the built form and vehicle movements.
6. The subject site is located in a C2Z as is the immediate abutting land to the north, east and west with the exception of its approximate 7.0 metre abuttal to 7 Hilton Street along its east boundary.
7. As previously noted, the relevant Planning Scheme provisions contemplate and allow for significant change in this location. The construction of large commercial buildings as proposed is anticipated as is the contrast in built form. Similarly, it is to be expected that the larger built form will be visible when viewed from surrounding land including the residential area located to the north. We agree with Mr Twite's submission that there is no requirement in the Planning Scheme for the taller built form envisaged by DDO38 to be invisible.

1. The proposal will be visible from the residential areas located to the north and north-east. We find the visual impact is acceptably moderated by a combination of the 32.0 metre and 24.0 metre separation provided by the C2Z land respectively located at 3 and 5 Hilton Street and 24A Alexandra Parade and the existing development on these sites as shown below.

1. The existing buildings at 3 and 5 Hilton Street are built to their respective north boundaries and, although single storey have a tall built form due to their intended use for commercial purposes. Similarly, there is a two storey weatherboard building that is built to its east boundary at 24A Alexandra Parade which is also used for a commercial purpose. The siting and location of these building with their taller built form assists the proposal to integrate albeit at a taller height with existing commercial development in the context of longer-range views. With respect to more proximate views from the north and north-east the siting and height of these buildings assist to moderate and integrate the height of the podium with surrounding commercial building.
2. The built form above the podium will rise to a maximum height of 30.3 metres. We find the intervening built form at 3 and 5 Hilton and 24A Alexandra Parade combined with the minimum setbacks of the proposal of 3.35 metres and 6.0 metres from the north boundary and 3.8 metres from the east boundary will acceptably reduce the visual impact of the proposal when viewed from the north and north-east. The upper levels will be visible, however the visible form of the intervening buildings in the foreground will acceptably moderate the visual impact of the taller built form of the proposal in the context of the preferred maximum building height for development.

1. The proposed development shares an approximate 7.0 metre common boundary (east) with the dwelling located at 7 Hilton Street which is its only abuttal to a residential zone. The dwelling is set back approximately 6.1 metres from its west boundary with three windows facing the shared boundary with the subject site. The setback area is occupied by secluded private open space that is partially covered as shown below.

1. The owner of the property is concerned about the impact of the proposal. In particular, he submits that the proposal will impact the access to the sun, sky and cause overshadowing and noise.
2. DDO38 provides guidance with respect to interface requirements where a rear boundary wall of a site abuts an NRZ. DDO38 stipulates a maximum 8.0 metres on-boundary wall height with upper levels of the development contained in a 45 degree envelope above where adjacent the section of NRZ land.[36] The interface with 7 Hilton Street is not a rear boundary wall abuttal, however the guidance is of assistance when assessing the proposed built form along it.
3. The proposal seeks to construct an approximate 8.08 metre high two storey (ground and level 1) wall along this common boundary. Level 2 is set back 3.6 metres from the common boundary rising to an approximate height of 11.6 metres. The balance of the upper floors are not located opposite the shared boundary as they are set back approximately 7.4 metres from the north boundary. The outlook to the west from the windows and within the secluded private open space ('SPOS') of 7 Hilton Street will change from the existing conditions. However, we find the impact to acceptable having regard to the expected change in built form and the guidance provided by the interface requirements. Further, it is noteworthy that the proposal does not impact the northern orientation of the SPOS associated to 7 Hilton Street. In this context the dwelling and SPOS associated will acceptably retain access to sunlight and outlook to the sky as guided by the Planning Scheme.
4. With respect to shadow impacts of the proposal on the SPOS at 7 Hilton Street, Mr Twites evidence states.[37]
   1. The proposal will cast shadow on the rear area of secluded private open space at 7 Hilton Street at 2pm and 3pm (see Figure 37). Upon close inspection, the area of "new" shadow is limited, due to the existing shadow cast by the 2.4m high boundary fence and the covered pergola of the SPOS in question. The new shadow will affectively fall to the side (south) setback area of the SPOS pergola of 7 Hilton Street, with limited impact to its useable area of the SPOS.

1. Having regard to the limited additional shadow and its location proximate to the south boundary of the SPOS as shown above we find the shadow impact on 7 Hilton Street to be acceptable. The balance of the SPOS located to the north of the cast shadow is not impacted by the proposal and retains its northern orientation albeit partially below an existing roof area. Further as the balance of the residential area does not abut the subject site and is located to the north the proposal will not have any shadow impact on the broader residential area.
2. The proposal includes windows that have outlook to Alexandra Parade (south), Hilton Street (east), the laneway (west) and to the north and north-east over the abutting commercial property and the nearest residential property at 7 Hilton Street. The overlooking of concern to the respondent is to the north and east. The immediate outlook to the south, and west is toward land developed for commercial purposes that do not present sensitive interface.
3. The proposal includes windows relevant to the respondents concerns as follows:
   • Level 2 - one window that has outlook to the east over 5 Hilton Street.
   • Level 3 - one window that has outlook to the east over 3 Hilton Street.
   • Level 4 - one window that has outlook to the east over 3 Hilton Street.
   • Level 5, 6 and 7 - each having two windows. One window having outlook to the north and the other to the east over 3 Hilton Street.
4. The windows will be elevated, but we find their proposed location opposite the commercially developed land at 3 and 5 Hilton Street means that the unacceptable overlooking does not occur. The proposed windows in the north elevation that look over 3 Hilton Street have an approximate 19.0 metre separation from the nearest residential property at 7 Hilton Street. This separation, combined with the intervening built form of the commercial properties at 3 and 5 Hilton Street limits the opportunity got unacceptable overlooking.
5. The windows located on the east elevation have a separation of approximately 3.2 metres (level 2) and 15.0 metres (level 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). The approximate 15.0 metre separation for the windows located at levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will ensure that the extent of overlooking will not be unacceptable. We note views from these windows will be at an oblique angle and the intervening built form of the commercial properties at 3 and 5 Hilton Street will ensure unacceptable overlooking does not occur. However, we find that the 3.2 metre separation of the level 2 window from 7 Hilton Street may cause an unacceptable loss of privacy. We find that the window should be screened to limit views to the north-east. Had we been supportive of the proposal we would have addressed this matter by condition.
6. The use is proposed to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will be staffed between the hours of 9:00am to 6:00pm (Monday to Friday); and 10:00am to 5:00pm (Saturday). A maximum of three staff are proposed to be on-site at any one time during the office hours, with the site otherwise accessible via security card to existing customers.
7. Entry to the storage facility is from Hilton Street with provision of separate pedestrian and vehicle access. Vehicle parking and loading bays are located at ground level in the form of an undercroft carpark. The storage areas are located throughout the various levels and fully enclosed. In this context whilst the proposed use is to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we have not been persuaded by the respondents that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact with respect to noise. The nature of the use is for activity to occur within the confines of the building. The confinement of the activity within the building combined with the enclosure of each storage spaces will assist to limit the potential for unacceptable off site noise impacts. Further, the design response that includes an undercover carpark and loading area will assist to contain and limit noise impacts on the surrounding area. It is also noted the access points are located opposite commercial property, which further assists to limit unacceptable residential amenity impacts.
8. The nearest dwelling within NRZ to the north at 7 Hilton Street has an approximate 19.0 metre separation from the vehicle entry/exit point on Hilton Street. The proposed 24-hour operation of the use will introduce some late-night activity to the site and vehicle movement to the locality. While the level of activity and vehicle movement will increase that does not mean the increase is unacceptable. The site is located in a C2Z and Hilton Street is road that is expected to carry vehicle movement. There is no evidence before us that would substantiate the submission that the additional vehicle movement cannot be accommodated on Hilton Street or that the noise impacts of the additional vehicle movement cause the proposal to be unacceptable.
9. The proposal does not include any external lighting other than in association with the proposed signage which is located approximately 36.0 meters from the nearest residential property at 7 Hilton Street. Whilst there are windows located on the north and east elevation, they are adjacent to the commercial sites located at 3 and 5 Hilton Street. Therefore, given the separation of the potential sources of light from the dwellings in Hilton Street, including their orientation we are not persuaded the proposal will have an unacceptable impact with respect to light spill.
10. Therefore, whilst we find the proposal unacceptable with respect to its built form and proposed signage we conclude the proposal as considered will not have any unacceptable off-site amenity impacts.

WILL THERE BE AN UNACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACT?

1. The respondents are concerned with the potential traffic and parking impacts generated by the proposal. They say the proposed use is unsuitable considering the narrowness of Hilton Street and the 24 hours per day, seven days a week operation will produce severe traffic congestion and noise problems, especially on Hilton Street. The additional traffic is said to also have an impact on Council Street and the laneway west of the property.
2. Council has no traffic-related concerns that they say cannot be dealt with through conditions. They say:

(a) Under Clause 52.06-3 of the Planning Scheme, a permit is required to reduce the number of car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5. The Proposal provides approximately 870m2 of car parking when it is only required to provide 245m2.

(b) The Council Officer has noted that the traffic impacts of the Proposal [sic] would not be unreasonable or adversely affect the existing traffic conditions.

(c) Council's engineers recommended a condition to provide a convex mirror at the Hilton Street vehicle entrance to provide visibility of the footpath of Hilton Street (to the north) for exiting vehicles. This recommendation is supported by Mr Gnanakone's evidence.

(d) To address concerns expressed by the Respondents, the Council supports Mr Gnanakone's recommendation that all traffic out of the Site is discouraged to travel north along Hilton Street.46 This could be done by installing a sign advising motorists to not turn left out of the Site. This could also be included as a condition of permit.

1. The applicant called traffic evidence from Mr Gnanakone:

74. In summary, Mr Gnanakone's evidence states:

(a) The proposed access arrangements are appropriate for the development, with entry access from Hilton Street and exit access to either Hilton Street or the unnamed laneway to the west.

(b) The design of the proposed car parking, bicycle parking and loading bay is appropriate for the proposed use.

(c) The traffic engineering requirements of DDO38 are met and a splay is not required at the corner of Alexandra Parade and Hilton Street.

(d) The proposal provides a satisfactory number of car parking spaces for the proposed use based on the statutory requirement and the case study of a nearby facility.

(e) There will be negligible impact on the surrounding road network when compared to existing conditions.

(f) There are no traffic engineering reasons which would preclude a permit from being issued for the Proposed Development.

1. The land-use 'self-storage' is not specifically defined within Clause 52.06. In this context both Council and the applicant submitted the use most appropriately falls within the 'store' land-use, which is defined in Clause 73.03 as 'land used to store goods, machinery, or vehicles'. The parking rate for a 'store' land-use is based on site area, and as the site has an area of 2,454 metres squared a parking area of 245 metres squared is required. The proposal meets this requirement as an area of 870 metres squared is provided for parking and associated accessways.
2. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from a two-way crossover to Hilton Street which will lead to an east - west aligned internal driveway that will connect to the laneway on the western boundary. Only exit movements are available to the lane. Entry to the site from the lane is prevented by a gate that is limited to opening for vehicles exiting the site.
3. At Hilton Street the access point is proposed to allow entry and exit movements, with a staff and customer parking area accommodating five parking spaces (including one accessible) provided within the east section of the site which will remain accessible at all times. A security gate will then control access into the loading area that will accommodate eight loading and parking bays suitable to cater for cars, trucks or car/trailer combinations. Once vehicles are within the gated area, all vehicles will exit via the western lane towards Alexandra Parade as shown below:

Source: V Gnanakone evidence statement.[38]

1. Having regard to Mr Gnanakone's evidence and the absence of an objection from Council in respect of car parking and traffic considerations, we have been persuaded that, with respect to the provision of parking and additional traffic movement generated, the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on Hilton Street and the surrounding road network including the lane to the west.
2. Mr Gnanakone's evidence, study[39] and survey[40] results show that the proposed use is expected to generate a maximum of 24 vehicle movements per hour, representing approximately 12 vehicles arriving and departing the site equating to one vehicle entering or exiting the site every 2-3 minutes.
3. The additional traffic movement is an increase on the existing 230 vehicle movements per day in the Hilton Street as shown in the traffic volume and speed table below. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the additional movement cannot be accommodated in Hilton Street or the surrounding road network.

Source: V Gnanakone evidence statement[41]

1. Hilton Street is narrow and the trafficable width is limited by the provision of on-street parking. We acknowledge that the existing on-street parking currently limits the ability of some larger vehicles to use Hilton Street in particular for that portion north of the site.
2. These conditions are not likely to change, however we find the location of the site at the south end of Hilton Street with a three street frontage (Alexandra Parade, Hilton Street and the lane) provides an acceptable opportunity for users of the storage facility including those using larger vehicles to access the site from south.
3. All vehicles will enter the site from Hilton Street, with the vehicle entry located approximately 34.0 metres north of the intersection of Hilton Street and Alexandra Parade. The location of the entry proximate to Alexandra Parade combined with the design that requires vehicles that use the loading bays to exit the site via the laneway to the west will also assist to reduce the number of vehicle movements (including larger vehicles) onto Hilton Street.
4. The recorded vehicle speed in Hilton Street varies from 18.8 kilometres per hour to 23.3 kilometres per hour. We agree with Mr Gnanakone that these speeds are low. The low-speed environment will assist to reduce the potential for unacceptable safety impacts in the locality.
5. We accept Mr Gnanakone's evidence that the fact that no crashes have been recorded in the vicinity of the site indicates that there is not an inherent safety issue at the existing intersection of Hilton Street and Alexandra Parade. Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that the crash stats data only include the incidents recorded by police and therefore may exclude minor incidents which were not reported.
6. Further, we are persuaded by the applicant's submission that users of the storage facility would be made be aware of the access arrangements to the site when renting space at the facility. The 'induction' will assist to reduce the possibility of larger vehicles attempting to access the storage facility from the north via Hilton Street.
7. Therefore, whilst we find the proposal unacceptable with respect to its built form and proposed signage, we conclude the traffic generated by the proposed use can be accommodated by the surrounding road network and will not have unacceptable traffic and parking impacts.

WILL THE PROPOSAL UNACCEPTABLY IMPACT VIEWS OF THE SHOT TOWER?

1. The respondents submit the proposal will intrude into the primary view of the Clifton Hill shot tower. They say the shot tower is a point of visual interest in long-range views moving west along the Eastern Freeway towards Alexandra Parade. They say any new development should ensure that views of the shot tower silhouette against a clear sky are not impeded and that development within the foreground of the tower should be sited, designed and scaled to retain clear views to at least the top one third of the tower structure.
2. Council does not raise any concerns regard the proposal impacting view lines towards the Shot Tower. Notably, the Council officer report states:[42]

The DDO38 includes in its objectives to retain view lines to the Clifton Hill Shot Tower at No. 94 Alexandra Parade (on the northern side of Alexandra Pde, approximately 290m to the east of the subject site). Although there are no specific view lines prescribed in the DDO38 it is noted that Clause 15.01-2L-02 specifies that the significant element is the top one third of the tower and primary views are from:

• Intersection of Brunswick Street and Alexandra Parade - north-east corner of centre median.
• Eastern Freeway (west of the Hoddle Street overpass)
• Darling Gardens (Rotunda)

The proposed development will not block views to the Shot Tower from the above locations. In particular, as demonstrated in the aerial image below, views from the north-east corner of the centre median at the Brunswick Street/Alexandra Parade intersection would not be obstructed.

Although Council's Urban Design Unit found that the mass and height of the building will be a "visual distraction" in relation to views towards the Shot Tower, the site complies with the height and setback requirements along Alexandra Parade and any larger building in the foreground, would compete visually to some extent with the Shot Tower. While the proposed building design is not acceptable for other reasons, it is considered that it adequately protects views to the Shot Tower through its siting and massing.

151. The Clifton Hill Shot Tower is listed as a Landmark with primary viewpoints. I have undertaken a site visit from the three locations listed at Table 1 of Clause 15.01-2L-02, and it is my observation that:

• the review site is not in the foreground or background when viewing the Shot Tower from the Eastern Freeway (west of the Hoddle Street overpass) and/or Darling Gardens (Rotunda).
• from the intersection of Brunswick Street and Alexandra Parade (north-east corner of central median), there is limited visibility to the Shot Tower due to existing established trees. Further, the alignment of view is such that it will not be obstructed.

1. Relevant strategies at clause 15.01-2L-02 include:

Maintain primary views to landmarks identified in Table 1.

Site, scale and set back new development to minimise encroachment of views to the identified significant elements of landmarks in Table 1.

Provide adequate setback and building separation to maintain clear sky between the identified significant elements of the landmark in Table 1 and new development.

Minimise light spill from new development to reduce the visual prominence of identified illuminated landmark signs at night.

1. The podium of the proposed building is to be sited to the Alexnadra Parade frontage with the upper levels (levels 4, 5, 6 and 7) set back 6.3 metres from the Alexandra Parade. Notably existing buildings on nearby land are sited to the Alexandra Parade frontage albeit they are lower in scale. In this context in addition to the proposal not impacting primary views, the siting of the proposal inclusive of the upper-level setbacks ensures that there is an acceptable separation between the proposed building and the significant element of the Shot Tower.
2. We find that primary views from the designated locations are maintained.

1. The respondents raised concerns regarding the proposed use which includes floor space for an office to be used by staff and users of the facility. They are concerned that the office area will be used as a 'office hub' independent of the storage facility.
2. In response the applicant submitted that the office component is ancillary to the storage facility with a maximum of three staff on-site. They further submitted that this area is intended to be used whilst the users were waiting for deliveries and not as an independent office working space.
3. Council submits that the proposed use is correctly defined as a 'store' and that the office use is an ancillary use. They say:[43]

(a) The office use cannot be logically separated from the self-storage use - the office of the proposal must be co-located with the self-storage use and the office only exists because of the proposal for the self-storage facility.

(b) The total floor area (measured to the inside of external walls) is approximately 13, 490m2. The floor area of the proposed office is 168m2. This makes up approximately 1.2% of the overall floor area of the proposal.

(c) The proposal includes that only two administrative staff (in addition to one on-site manager) will be on-site during office hours.

(d) As set out in the Town Planning Report which was submitted with the application, the office space will only be used by staff and by customers. The Town Planning Report provides that: the waiting area located inside the office space is to be used for any new customers that may need to wait for staff to provide assistance.

1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find that the proposed office component is not intended to operate independently of the storge facility. The staff use of the office will be related to the operation of the storage facility and users of the facility are expected to use the office facility as a waiting/working area whilst accessing their storage. We find the proposed use inclusive of the ancillary office use to be acceptable.

1. We agree with the parties that the site has strong strategic support for a proposal of this type. This area of Yarra is identified as an area of change and consequently, it is not a question of whether the site can be developed in this way, rather whether the design is acceptable having regard to the site context and other specific planning policies and provisions.
2. As discussed above we find the treatment of the exterior building fabric is not an acceptable response to the policy and aspirations found in the Yarra Planning Scheme. The current proposal fails to demonstrate a cohesive or integrated design outcome that utilises quality materials and finishes. Further the proposed signage will dominate the Alexandra Parade façade creating visual clutter and adding to the lack of cohesion. The design treatment of the external skin of the building needs a fundamental review. A more sophisticated approach to the overall design and use of materials is required to lift the proposal from the pedestrian to the high-quality building sought by the Planning Scheme.
3. In this context we find the proposal to be unacceptable. The decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] A 'Store' is included in the definition of 'Warehouse' pursuant to clause 73.03.

[2] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[4] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 8.

[5] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 189.

[6] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 38.pages 23.

[7] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 44, page 24.

[8] The requirements of the schedule to DDO38 cease to have effect after 30 June 2025.

[9] Pursuant to the incorporated document, City of Yarra Database of Heritage Areas (City of Yarra, March 2024)

[13] K Twite evidence statement, page 37.

[14] Clause 2.0 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[15] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 130, page 49.

[16] Clause 2.4 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[17] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[18] Clause 2.10 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[19] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[21] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 2 to clause 43.02.

[22] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 2 to clause 43.02.

[23] Clause 6.0 of schedule 2 to the clause 43.02.

[24] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[25] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[26] Clause 2.10 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[27] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 2 to clause 43.02.

[29] Clause 1.0 and clause 6.0 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[30] K Twite evidence statement paragraph 185.

[31] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 186, page 62.

[33] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 2 to clause 43.02.

[34] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 24,

[35] K Twite evidence statement paragraph 174.

[36] Clause 2.6 of Schedule 38 to clause 43.02.

[37] K Twite evidence statement, paragraph 178.

[38] V Gnanakone evidence statement, page 22.

[39] V Gnanakone evidence statement, page 18 - Parking and Traffic Study commissioned by the Self-Storage Association of Australia ('SSAA') was undertaken by Stantec in 2022/2023.

[40] V Gnanakone evidence statement, pages 29 and 30.

[41] V Gnanakone evidence statement, page 18.

[42] Council delegate report, dated13 September 2024, pages 45 and 46.

[43] Council submission, paragraph 10.7, page 22.