1. For this proposal, the planning scheme requires the provision of 3 office car spaces, 29 dwelling car spaces and 5 residential visitor car spaces, a total of 37 car spaces. The Applicant is seeking planning permission to reduce this to zero.

1. The Council's traffic engineers support no car parking for the office, the residential visitors and the one bedroom apartments, but do not support the reduction to zero for the two bedroom apartments as they generate a higher car parking demand. However, the Council's planning officers decided a reduction to zero for the two bedroom apartments was acceptable because:
   • The development represents a preferable outcome by providing a mix of dwellings that outweighs any potential disadvantages relating to car parking;
   • There is strong strategic support for parking reduction in a Principal Activity Centre;
   • The reduction is consistent with Council Sustainable Transport Policy which is a reference document in the planning scheme that seeks to reduce car parking dependency by encouraging walking, cycling and public transport options;
   • A reduction avoids contributing to additional traffic generation in Hazeldon Place;
   • Additional car parking to such a small site is completely impractical;
   • The site has excellent access to services, facilities and public transport which is likely to reduce demand;
   • Bicycle parking is proposed in excess of the planning scheme requirements; and
   • The removal of car parking creates a positive urban design outcome given the increased capability of activating the frontage.

1. The Society apartment building owners corporation, one apartment owner and one apartment occupier are concerned about the lack of on-site parking, particularly given Mr Turnbull's evidence is that approximately 12-14 dwellings would generate a car parking demand. Mr Milner suggests a more sustainable form of development would be a smaller scale development with access to a few cars possibly accessed by a lift.

A Reduction of Car Parking to Zero is Acceptable

1. The purpose of the car parking particular provision in the planning scheme is multi-faceted. Planning policy, the likely demand for car parking, the proposed activities, the nature and amenity of the locality, and creating a high standard design that is safe, easy and efficient for users are all matters to be considered and balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations[19].
2. In this case there are planning policy, physical context and design reasons why a car parking reduction to zero is acceptable.

1. The State planning policy objective for car parking is "to ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located". The strategies associated with this objective refer to physical context and design when preparing plans for the design and location of local car parking and require land to be set aside for car parking subject to the existing and potential modes of access including public transport, the demand for off-street car parking, road capacity and the potential for demand management of car parking[20].
2. The State planning policy for Activity Centres encourages a concentration of development within such centres, which "provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community". The associated strategies include reducing the number of private motorised trips by concentrating activities that generate high numbers of trips in highly accessible activity centres[21].
3. The Municipal Strategic Statement describes this site as being within a principal activity centre. Part of the municipal vision for housing is to direct higher density development "to locations with the highest accessibility to public transport and services"[22]. This principal activity centre is one such location. In regard to infrastructure, the municipal vision includes the following:
   • The City's main roads with trams are progressively converted to 'main streets' where pedestrians, bicycles and public transport have priority and private motor vehicles are limited to local (Stonnington) traffic.
   • The need for sustainable personal transport modes (for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users) is given priority over the needs of motorists.
4. In regard to infrastructure, the sustainable transport objective is "to facilitate the use of sustainable transport modes in preference to private vehicle use". One of the associated strategies is:

Ensure new use and development supports the prioritisation of transport modes in the following order:

• walking;
• cycling;
• public transport;
• commercial vehicles serving local businesses and institutions;
• multiple occupancy vehicles; and
• single occupancy vehicles.

1. This strategy accords with the car parking objective "to encourage reduced reliance on parking provision in the City and high levels of design and amenity associated with its provision". Relevant strategies include reducing provision of on-site parking and permit parking for developments close to public transport; and planning land use and development to reflect the parking capacity of each area and the need for off-street parking. The MSS identifies that, when deciding whether to reduce/waive car parking, it is policy to consider matters such as:
   • whether public transport is available and likely to be used by residents, workers and patrons accessing the site;
   • whether the amenity of nearby residents is likely to be affected by increased through traffic or on-street parking on local streets arising from the proposed use.
2. The combination of these State and local planning policies provide a clear strategic direction to reduce reliance on car parking in new developments, particularly in activity centres including this principal activity centre.

1. This site is in a narrow, short, dead-end road with parking permitted on its west side. These circumstances together with the 4.4 metre wide carriageway width therefore restricts the access available for vehicles. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is limited (and almost impossible) ability to turn a vehicle around in Hazeldon Place, so vehicles parked in Hazeldon Place reverse out of it, as we witnessed during our inspection. Due to the narrowness of the road, it is common for the vehicles to park up on the small footpath (as is evident in all the photographs tabled during the hearing and as we witnessed during our inspection).
2. This site and the property next door at 3 Hazeldon Place have relatively narrow frontages of around 10 metres. This width does not prevent the provision of car parking on the site as it is possible to provide quite sophisticated mechanical parking that incorporates car lifts and even robotic arms to create car parking opportunities on properties that would otherwise be significantly constrained. Whilst a vehicle accessway onto this site could be included, it would reduce the potential to activate the street frontage with a land use such as an office. We agree with the Council that the activation of the ground floor with a suitable land use is preferable to providing car access.

1. The objectives for the precinct that this site is located in in the adopted ACZ1 include:

To enhance the street level of the precinct through improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenity.

To support the activation of retail and commercial activity in side streets, particularly Avoca Street.

1. The decision guidelines of the adopted ACZ1 include:

The extent to which the development prioritises walking, cycling and public transport use, and provides car parking that responds to anticipated demand.

The provision and location of car parking so as to not dominate the street.

1. Whilst Mr Turnbull's empirical analysis identifies a demand for car parking for the two bedroom apartments, he also supports the reduction given the location of the site within this principal activity centre and the various policy and physical context considerations.
2. Just because there is a car parking demand generated by the proposed inclusion of two bedroom apartments does not mean this demand should automatically be catered for in a development. The clause 52.06-6 decision guidelines for reducing car parking include a range of matters such as considering:
   • Relevant local policy, which in this case provides strong support for reduced car parking provision in this area;
   • Local traffic management in the locality of the land - this activity centre has undergone significant planning management as part of its future anticipated growth and the Panel report for this activity centre acknowledged that this growth was supported by a parking management strategy as well (albeit not detailed in the Amendment);
   • Access to or provision of alternative transport modes to and from the land - there is no dispute between the parties that this site is well serviced for walking, bicycles, public transport and car share schemes;
   • The character of the surrounding area and whether reducing the car parking provision would result in a quality/positive urban design outcome - we consider this is a key benefit to be derived from no parking provision. Hazeldon Place is a small, intimate laneway that, if designed right, could develop into an attractive mews environment with active street frontages and no car parking and perhaps even no car access except for emergency vehicles. Hazeldon Place is unique in this precinct for its shortness and narrowness. The fact that there are 3-4 properties that gain access from it creates an opportunity for the Council in urban design terms to create a unique streetscape environment. We consider the benefit for the future development of Hazeldon Place as a whole in this principal activity centre by providing no car parking outweighs the relatively small car parking demand generated by the incorporation of two bedroom dwellings.
3. For all of these reasons, we support the car parking reduction to zero.

1. For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit is to issue.

[1] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.

[2] Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 (DDO7) applied to the site at the time of the hearing, as did the local planning policy at clause 22.19 for the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre, however DDO7 and cl 22.19 expired on 31 October 2015. None of the parties sought to rely upon DDO7 in any event, so this change has no impact upon our consideration of the merits of the proposal.

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

[4] Section 60(1A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states

Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority, if the circumstances appear to so require, may consider:

(h) any amendment to the planning scheme which has been adopted by a planning authority but not, as at the date on which the application is considered, approved by the Minister or a planning authority; and

Section 84B(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that:

In determining an application for review under this Act, in addition to the matters referred to in subsection (1), the Tribunal -

(g) must (where appropriate) have regard to any amendment to a planning scheme which has been adopted by a planning authority but not, as at the date of which the application for review is determined, approved by the Minister or a planning authority

[5] A factor identified in Double LZ Development Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2015] VCAT 1558 and the relevance of this factor is apparent in that decision as well as, for example, Michael v Moreland CC [2015] VCAT 1110 at 13-17 and RF Nominees Pty Ltd v Darebin CC [2015] VCAT 816 at 33-42.

[6] Again, a factor identified in Double LZ Development Pty Ltd v Moreland CC and the relevance of this factor is apparent in, for example, Pace Development Group v Kingston CC [2014] VCAT 230 at 27

[7] See Clause 15.01 with reference to Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

[8] As set out in a reference document to proposed Amendment C177 that is an adopted amendment, but not approved by the Minister.

[9] As referenced in Clause 15.01 of the planning scheme

[10] The condition attached to the dwelling land use is that on land designated for Side Street Uses, must be located on Level 2 or above. In this hearing, there was no dispute between the parties that this means a permit is required for dwellings at ground and first floors. For this proposal, this means dwelling land use on the first floor would require planning permission.

[11] The built form requirements direct floor to floor heights of the first three levels of a building, regardless of its location, e.g. small street or main street.

[12] These retractable windows sit above a 1.1 metre high fixed glazed panel.

[13] The site directly opposite is currently a car park servicing a commercial office use at 6 Hazeldon Place. The site falls into the same design and use precinct as the site under the Chapel ReVision structure plan as the review site.

[14] The application plans lodged with Council had storage in a basement level. The plans substituted at the hearing removed this basement and the storage areas.

[15] Lintime Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1244 Paragraph 42

[16] Gesher Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2015] VCAT 506

[17] Therefore, conventionally occupied, such an apartment is unlikely to have multiple residents highly dependent on separate spaces within a dwelling. For example, a teenage child who has to spend half, his or her, life in their bedroom.

[18] The Waste Management Plan submitted with the application assumed a larger bin storage room in the basement with collection once a week. Mr Pitt submitted that the smaller room provision at ground floor would most likely be addressed through collection twice a week.

[19] Clause 10.04 identifies that society has various needs and expectations for land, economic well-being, various social needs, and proper management of infrastructure (amongst others) so planning aims to meet these by addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social well-being affected by land use and development. This clause goes on to state: "Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations".