The decision under review is varied. The tribunal grants a permit in the form of the notice of decision the subject of this proceeding, with the following variations:

A The statement of what the permit allows is varied to read:

The use of land for the purpose of shops, offices and food and drink premises, the development of the land by the erection of buildings and the construction of works, the waiving of parking requirements and the demolition of buildings in accordance with the provisions of this permit.

B Condition 1 of the Notice of Decision is varied by adding after the expression "the submitted architectural plans" the words "as modified by the plans marked PP 1-06-A-A to PP 1-10-A-A, 900003 Revision A and 900010 Revision A (all dated 9 June 2006)".

C Condition 1 of the Notice of Decision is varied by deleting paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (l) and (m).

D Condition 1 of the Notice of Decision is varied by substituting the following for paragraph (h):

Details of the location, height, dimensions, elevations, floor areas, finished floor levels above natural ground level and setbacks of all buildings and works to the extent that these are not already shown on the plans.

E Condition 1 of the Notice of Decision is varied by adding the following paragraphs:

Moving the east wall of the building at the upper retail level on the south west side of the sky bridge approximately 2.5 metres to the west (whilst maintaining the general shape of the building as shown in the plans), with or without any consequential change to the layout of individual shops.

Modifying the layout of the shops at the lower retail level opposite Corio Street so as to further promote views from the mall to Corio Street.

Details of the architectural treatment and lighting of the soffit of buildings over Yarra Street.

Details of the relocated electricity sub-station and any entry doors required to access the sub-station

The use and/or development allowed by this permit must be carried out in accordance with the plans, and with the plans referred to in the preceding condition, unless a variation from any of these plans is with the consent of the responsible authority.

G Condition 5 of the Notice of Decision is varied by adding the word "generally" before the word "designed" in each of paragraphs (c) and (d); and by adding a new paragraph as follows:

Provision of bicycle parking and shower facilities, designed to promote commuter bicycle use.

H Condition 6 of the Notice of Decision is varied by deleting sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (vi) from paragraph (b) thereof and by substituting the following for paragraph (c) thereof:

Disabled access must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

... at the cost of the owner. The owner must also pay the reasonable costs of the preparation, execution and registration of the section 173 agreement.

J Condition 11 of the Notice of Decision is deleted.

K Condition 13 of the Notice of Decision is varied by deleting the words "and/or Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997".

L Conditions 14 to 20 of the Notice of Decision are deleted and in lieu thereof there is to be a condition:

The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

M Condition 24 of the Notice of Decision is deleted.

N Condition 25 of the Notice of Decision is deleted.

O Condition 26 of the Notice of Decision is varied by substituting "three" years as the period within which the development may start.

The sky bridge must be maintained so as to achieve a transparent appearance, especially when viewed from the south, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Noise emissions from vehicles on the roof top car park must comply with the schedule to AS 2107-2000 and any subsequent amendment or substitution to the schedule within the premises located at 75-77 Moorabool Street, Geelong, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The permit is to be renumbered to reflect the changes made by the tribunal.

The tribunal directs the responsible authority to issue the said permit.

Ms Joan Lindross, member and spokesperson for Geelong Environment Council Inc

Mr Warwick Nelson, solicitor of Harwood Andrews, lawyers

For Westfield Management Ltd and Perron Investments Pty Ltd

Mr H McM Wright QC and Mr Adrian J Finanzio of counsel, instructed by Holding Redlich, solicitors

Mr Chris Wren SC of counsel, instructed by Ms Kirsty Douglas of the Department of Sustainability and Environment

1 All Victorian planning schemes proclaim that planning is to encompass and integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors.[1] Yet it is typical for specific planning provisions to be sectoral in character. A consequence is that responsible authorities and the tribunal often must make decisions where specific provisions pull in different directions. This case is no exception. How does one approach such a problem? The answer lies in the planning scheme itself: the goal ought be to make decisions which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.[2]

2 The present context can be shortly stated. The owners of the Westfield Bay City Shopping Centre, which is located in the central area of Geelong, wish to expand that centre to accommodate a new discount department store and supporting specialty shops. Currently the shopping centre is located in a block bounded by Moorabool, Brougham, Yarra and Malop streets. The opportunity to expand the shopping centre, particularly to accommodate the new discount department store, lies to the east of Yarra Street. More problematic, this opportunity exists on the top of an existing three level car parking structure. Tenants are unlikely to commit to the proposal unless these new shops, east of Yarra Street, are integrated with the existing Bay City Shopping Centre. To achieve this integration a sky bridge is proposed over Yarra Street, to carry both pedestrians and vehicles. Further the sky bridge is proposed to contain some retail uses.

3 There is a strong case that the proposed development and use will provide an economic boost to both the Geelong central area and Geelong generally. Further the proposed development and use is consistent with, and gives effect to, planning policies in relation to the economic and social development of Geelong. If it were not for the proposed sky bridge, it is likely that the proposal would have been widely supported.

4 By Australian standards the central area of Geelong has an historic urban fabric. Moreover (and unusually for a Victorian city) it is an amphitheatre which faces north to the sea. No doubt as a consequence of this topography, the original surveyor of Geelong, Robert Hoddle, oriented streets in a north-south and an east-west direction. This enables the north-south streets, one of which is Yarra Street, to provide long views towards the bay. These views are attractive and have been illustrated by artists over the years. Further, planning policy has specifically identified these views as important parts of our cultural landscape. The construction of the sky bridge will inevitably have an impact on the view down Yarra Street towards the bay.

5 Thus there is a real and inescapable tension between the competing policy objectives. The responsible authority, the council of the City of Greater Geelong, addressed the matter by deciding to grant a permit for the proposed development. A number of residents and groups are unhappy with this decision. These persons have applied to the tribunal to review the decision of the council. Over seven days the tribunal has heard the arguments and counter-arguments. It is now the tribunal's task to resolve the policy tension. This is not an easy task. It will help if we first set out background matters.

6 The existing Westfield Bay City Shopping Centre comprises the majority of the land bounded by Brougham, Yarra, Malop and Moorabool streets in Geelong. The shopping centre has a net leaseable floor area of 35,711 square metres. It includes three major tenants: a Myer department store, a Target discount department store and a Coles supermarket. It also comprises 66 specialty outlets, mainly shops, but also including some small offices and food and drink premises. A total of 1,121 parking spaces are provided on the site. These are provided in a basement level, accessible from Brougham Street; and from other levels accessible from Yarra Street and Moorabool Street. A total of 405 parking spaces are also provided in a separate three level car park in Malop Street, east of Yarra Street.

7 It is proposed to expand the shopping complex to the east. Part of the expansion is proposed on land on the west side of Yarra Street, generally between Malop Street and Corio Street. (Corio Street is an east-west street that is half way between Brougham Street and Malop Street.) This site, which is known as the "PowerCor" site, is ripe for redevelopment. Next it is proposed to use air space above Yarra Street for shops and a sky bridge. We will provide more detail about the sky bridge later. Then it is proposed to use land at 19-23 Yarra Street for an arcade and shops, both at the ground level and at an upper level. Then it is proposed to further develop the Malop Street car park with a discount department store (to be used by Woolworths as a "Big W" store) and for further parking.

8 The total floor area of the expanded development is to be 52,761 square metres, which constitutes an increase in the net leaseable floor area of 17,051 square metres. The proposed Big W store will occupy about 7,500 square metres. Further, the expanded development will contain about 1,750 car spaces, which is an increase of about 170 spaces.

9 The application plans show a sky bridge having the following characteristics. The sky bridge spans Yarra Street, which has a width of about 30 metres, and provides for pedestrian access at (what might be called) the first floor retail level and vehicular access on top of the bridge at the upper level of the proposed car park. The plans show the soffit of the bridge at RL15.9 AHD and the parapet at RL23.9 AHD, which means the bridge has a vertical dimension of 8 metres. At the first floor retail level the bridge consists of a walkway, or mall, of about 12 metres in width and four shops, on the south side of the bridge, having a depth (that is, a north-south dimension) of about 14 metres. The shops extend over the full length (east- west dimension) of the bridge. On the north side of the bridge the plans show a terrace which would be available for use by patrons of a café to be installed in the sky bridge. Some of the shops, not in the sky bridge as such, extend over the footpath in Yarra Street. At the top level the bridge not only accommodates a two-way car access between car parks at the upper levels west and east of Yarra Street, but also 90 degree car parking on both the north and south side of the bridge.

10 Although the proposed bridge has similar north-south and east-west dimensions, the building edges are generally curvilinear. The external finish is dominated by glass, with some metal work, in order to create the appearance of a lightweight structure of modern design. Whether the design achieves this objective is another matter. However the visual representations of the bridge put forward to accompany the application plans certainly show a relatively transparent structure.

11 The permit application was lodged on 26 August 2005. Public notification of the application was given, which resulted in the council receiving 101 objections to the grant of a permit. The main concern expressed in the objections related to the sky bridge and the impact it would have on views down Yarra Street to the bay.

12 The council referred the application to external bodies, such as Heritage Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment. It also asked various divisions of the council for input and advice. For example advice was sought and given in relation to engineering, economic development, heritage and so on. One of the council officers proffering advice was Steve Scott, a person specialising in architecture and urban design. Advice was also sought from Mark Sheppard, an external consultant specialising in urban design. Both Mr Scott and Mr Sheppard identified elements of the proposal which they regarded as undesirable.

13 The task of assessing the proposal in an holistic way fell to the General Manager of Statutory Planning, Kate Sullivan. She prepared a detailed report in which she sought to draw the various threads together. Her conclusion was that the proposal was consistent with the policies in the planning scheme and should be supported. The council adopted her recommendation.

14 Some of the objectors were dissatisfied with the decision made by the council and applied to the tribunal for the review of that decision. One applicant for review was Mr Robert Thompson. Another applicant for review was Victorian Landscape Guardians Inc. A third applicant for review was the Geelong Environment Council Inc. Each of these applicants for review was concerned that the proposed sky bridge would be a blight on Yarra Street and would adversely affect the view of the bay from Yarra Street.

15 An application to review the council's decision was also lodged by D M Gibson Corporation Pty Ltd. This corporation owns and occupies a building in Moorabool Street. It was concerned that the proposed development would lead to increased levels of noise from upper level car parking areas. Ultimately this application for review was not pursued as an understanding was reached that the concern could be resolved by the inclusion of an appropriate condition on any permit that issued.

16 The Minister for Planning intervened in this proceeding pursuant to clause 57 of schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. Mr Chris Wren SC appeared on behalf of the Minister and made valuable submissions, particularly in relation to the view towards the bay down Yarra Street and alternative design options for the sky bridge. We wish to record that the procedure adopted by the Minister in this case has significantly assisted in the informed and dispassionate resolution of the proceeding.

17 The site is contained partly in a Business 1 Zone and partly in a Business 2 Zone. Within a Business 1 Zone the use of land for a shop does not require a permit. By contrast, a permit is required to use land for a shop in the Business 2 Zone. Apart from a small strip facing Malop Street, the portion of the site in Yarra Street and on the east side of Yarra Street is in a Business 2 Zone. Hence one issue which arises is whether it is appropriate to allow shops in, and to the east of, Yarra Street.

18 In both the Business 1 Zone and the Business 2 Zone a permit is required to erect buildings. Hence another issue which arises is whether the proposed building form is appropriate having regard to the zone provisions.

19 The land is also affected by heritage overlay requirements. This reflects that some parts of the site contain heritage buildings or heritage façades. However no party suggested that these requirements were an obstacle to the grant of a permit; so it is unnecessary to say more about this control.

20 Another required permission relates to car parking. Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme requires the provision of car parking at a specified rate. The proposed provision falls short of the specified rate, so a permit is required to waive the specified rate. Hence an issue is whether the provision of car parking is sufficient.

21 The planning scheme identifies a central area of Geelong, including Yarra Street between Myers Street and Brougham Street, as an area which is subject to particular design and development provisions. This area is contained in a Design and Development Overlay pursuant to the scheme, where a permit is required to construct a building and where buildings must be constructed in accordance with specified requirements. The overlay itself is generic; but Schedule 2 of the overlay puts flesh on the bones. It specifies a number of design objectives. These include:

To reinforce the City grid by building to the street boundary line and to the height and scale of adjacent buildings.

To maintain the visual dominance of prominent landmarks including St Mary's Church and spire and retain views to significant structures or features.

To promote development that provides a compact and identifiable retail core along significant pedestrian routes.

To ensure ground floor frontages are pedestrian oriented and add interest and vitality to the streets.

To ensure that the design of new development assists in linking the CAA to the waterfront Geelong and arts precincts.[3]

22 Clause 2.0 of the schedule specifies that all buildings should be in accordance with specified requirements. There are requirements in relation to: height; setbacks; car parking; materials, finishes and colours; weather protection; and the maintenance of attractive pedestrian frontages. There is also a specific requirement in relation to views. This provides:

Development should ensure the retention of the pre-eminence of St Mary's spire as the principal feature in Geelong's townscape, enhance views to other significant structures and avoid interrupting the viewsheds towards the Bay along Bellarine, Yarra, Moorabool and Gheringhap streets.

23 The provisions of the Design and Development Overlay allow a permit to be granted to construct a building which is not in accordance with a requirement in a schedule. Before deciding on such an application, in addition to general decision guidelines, the responsible authority must consider policy matters, the objectives of the overlay, matters relating to the design, form, layout, proportion and scale of the proposed buildings and other matters specified in the schedule to the overlay.[4] In the case of schedule 2, the responsible authority must consider (for a proposal such as the present which is in the vicinity of the waterfront precinct in Geelong) whether the proposal integrates the central activities area of Geelong with the Geelong waterfront. Further, for a proposal such as the present, the responsible authority must consider any design guidelines within a document called the "Waterfront Geelong Design and Development Code 1996" ("the Waterfront Code"), which is an incorporated document in the scheme.

24 Although the Waterfront Code is principally a code for the Geelong waterfront area, which principally consists of the land north of Corio Street, it offers urban design policy ideas for the whole of the central activities area of Geelong. The central design issue in this case is the effect of the sky bridge on the viewshed towards the bay along Yarra Street. In this respect the objective is to retain views of the bay. Inevitably this has a qualitative aspect. A view is not just what can be seen; it involves the quality of that visual image. The Waterfront Code needs to be examined in this context, as it may throw light on the design objective and the circumstances where a departure from the objective might be appropriate.

25 The Waterfront Code identifies the north-south streets in Geelong as the principal mechanism of providing direct access to the waterfront, as well as offering visual access to the bay, by framing views. The code states that it is important to maintain views along north-south streets to the bay with the consequence that this may require the removal of central light poles and traffic lights, the simplification of median treatments in roads and avoiding tree planting in north-south streets, except at the kerb line. It seems clear enough that the authors of the code identify the existing grid structure of the streets as important and seek to maintain this urban structure by avoiding significant built elements within north-south streets.

26 The Waterfront Code has other themes as well. One of these is to enhance pedestrian connections between the Geelong Activities Area and the waterfront, principally by upgrading the existing north-south streets. For example, Yarra Street is identified as a street with the potential to be used as a mall between Brougham Street and Ryrie Street. Even if the concept of a pedestrian mall is put to one side, clearly the code strongly supports the pedestrianisation of Yarra Street, both by physical improvements to the pedestrian experience and by creating drawcards along the street.

27 Another important element of the Waterfront Code concerns landscape treatments, particularly on north-south streets such as Yarra Street. The code envisages that deciduous trees be planted on each side of north-south streets, generally about 6 metres from the property line. Thus the code envisages that a viewshed of some 12-15 metres wide should exist down the centre of north-south streets (that is between the trees and other urban furniture, including light poles) through which views could be obtained to the bay. In practice, these views are mainly obtained by persons travelling north along Yarra Street in a vehicle or by pedestrians in the course of crossing over Yarra Street.

28 In the course of hearing the applications for review, the parties have raised many issues. This is natural. Parties to planning matters cannot always anticipate what might be a winning argument, with the result that a "shotgun" approach is often adopted. But, in truth, decision making usually turns on identifying certain key issues and then resolving the matter by reference to those issues. We think we should identify what are the key issues and then focus our reasons on these.

29 One key issue is to ascertain the extent and nature of the economic, social and environmental benefits that will result from the expansion of the shopping centre. Another key issue is to ascertain the impact of the sky bridge on the view down Yarra Street to the bay. We think the outcome of the case will flow from balancing these benefits against this impact.

30 There are other issues that we would regard as peripheral. It is sufficient to briefly identify these and explain why these matters are not determinative.

31 A case was made that the proposed development would result in an eastward expansion of the Geelong shopping centre and it was said that this would be detrimental to the centre as a whole. We agree that the proposed development will have the effect of moving the centre of gravity of the shopping centre to the east; and that this will result in increased pedestrian movement in Yarra Street, south of Malop Street. Further, it is likely that the expansion of the Westfield Bay City Shopping Centre will draw some custom from shops further south, such as those in Ryrie Street. But this would be so even if the expanded shops could somehow be accommodated on the existing Westfield site, west of Yarra Street. In any event, the area to be developed east of Yarra Street is already devoted to what might be regarded as retail purposes. The site of the proposed discount department store is presently a three level car park which has the primary function of serving retail uses. Further, this area is a logical area within which to concentrate any expansion of fashion and food shopping in Geelong, as it is close to the Market Square centre and the Westfield centre. Indeed, the Waterfront Code actually identifies Yarra Street, between Ryrie Street and Brougham Street, as a potential pedestrian mall. It also identifies the block bounded by Malop, Yarra, Brougham and Bellarine streets as a potential area for the extension of the Central Business Zone. In our view, the fact that the shopping centre will extend to the east across Yarra Street is not a basis to refuse a permit. Rather, it is both logical and appropriate.

32 Another concern raised by the applicants for review was that the proposal involves the use of public land for private purposes. This ground is misconceived. It is not the tribunal's task to decide whether or not a lease or licence should be granted for Westfield to occupy public land. That is a property law question to be decided by those responsible for managing public land. The tribunal's task is to consider whether the proposed development should be allowed as a matter of sound town planning. In accordance with the usual practice this must be done on the assumption that the person seeking the permit has, or will obtain, the property rights which will enable this to be done. If it fails to obtain such rights, a planning permit will be worthless.

33 An allied concern, which was emphasised by Mr Nigel Flannigan, a town planner called by an applicant for review, was that the proposed development would allow pedestrian flows to be captured and privatised. Mr Flannigan holds the view that this is contrary to the public interest. We are not persuaded that this is a ground upon which to refuse a permit. In the first place we do not accept that there is a clear dichotomy between pedestrian flows on a street and pedestrian flows in a privately owned arcade or mall. In practice, both types of spaces are available to the public for use during most periods when the public would seek to use such spaces; and, in that sense, are public spaces. Further both types of spaces are subject to regulation, although the regulator and the extent of regulation differs. The ambiguous nature of publicly available spaces within privately owned malls is illustrated by the Waterfront Code, which identifies the central mall area within the Westfield centre as a "public space" and identifies the pedestrian route through that mall as a major pedestrian route. We add this comment. It is legitimate for an investor introducing a major attraction into a shopping centre to design the development so as to promote pedestrian flows in a manner that provides a benefit to other uses proposed by the investor. This recognises that some uses tend to cross-subsidise other uses. This is not to say that it will always be appropriate for pedestrian flows to be managed so as to be of exclusive benefit to the investor. However, in the present case, the design of the development does not produce such a result. On the contrary, significant pedestrian flows will be created along Yarra Street and across Yarra Street at ground level.

34 One of the objectives of the Design and Development Overlay is to maintain the visual dominance of St Mary's church and spire as the principal feature in Geelong's townscape. The proposed development is unlikely to have any significant effect on St Mary's. It is true that the sky bridge will have an impact on views of the church from Brougham Street, but we think this is slight.

35 Mr Thompson was concerned about the sufficiency of car parking to be provided to serve the development. We do not share that concern. Rather we accept the evidence given by Mr Stephen Hunt, traffic engineer, to the effect that the total amount of parking will be adequate. It is significant that surveys of parking demand taken on 5 August 2005 and 30 July 2005 demonstrate a low rate of parking demand and considerable surplus capacity. Further it is relevant that the proposed development is in a central activities area of an important regional centre: if there is some spill over in parking demand it is unlikely that it would intrude into residential areas.

36 In deciding to grant a permit the council concluded that the proposed development would contribute to the economic wellbeing of Geelong, by attracting investment to the city, diversifying the local economy and promoting local products and services to local residents. The permit applicant made submissions to similar effect. By contrast, the applicants for review submitted that some of the claimed benefits were overblown. Before dealing with the competing contentions, it is appropriate to make some general comment about the assessment of economic and social effects.

37 Proponents of major projects often make bold claims about the positive economic effects of their proposal, usually by reference to the production side. For example claims are often made that a proposal will generate a specified number of jobs. But when it comes to retail proposals we think a better method of assessing economic and social benefits is to focus on the consumption side: that is, to look at the benefits that will accrue to consumers of retail services. The reason for this is that the major share of additional retail spending at a new or enlarged shopping centre will be transferred from existing shops located elsewhere. This transfer of expenditure will tend to have a negative impact on the production side at the shops or shopping centres which will experience a reduction in retail spending as a result of the proposal. In other words, impacts on the production side tend to cancel out. By contrast, benefits that accrue to the consumer are far less likely to be cancelled by a reduction in services or facilities elsewhere; and, to the extent that this happens, it reflects consumer demand and consumer will.

38 Geelong shoppers will benefit by having a Big W discount department store in Geelong; and they will benefit from an increase in the number of clothing and fashion shops in Geelong. In overall terms the accessibility of shops will improve. Competition will be enhanced. The choices available to the shopper will improve. It is true that not every shopper would wish to shop in a Big W store or would seek out fashion shops. But this is no reason to deny the fact that other shoppers will benefit from having this opportunity.

39 The proposed development is also likely to reduce the amount of escape expenditure from Geelong. Mr Simon Rumbold, an economist called by Westfield, estimates that some ten to fifteen million dollars which is currently spent each year by Geelong residents in Melbourne will be redirected to Geelong if the proposal proceeds. Some applicants for review questioned the importance of a reduction in escape expenditure.

40 We make these comments about escape expenditure. First, escape expenditure is likely to be of limited relevance if the geographic boundaries being used for the purpose of the analysis are not "natural" boundaries, in the sense that they confine communities. Hence escape expenditure analysis will be of limited assistance if based upon municipal districts in suburban Melbourne. However the City of Greater Geelong is a socially compact geographic area. Second, it is inevitable and appropriate that there be escape expenditure (or its corollary captured expenditure), because cities tend to have different roles and functions. In the present context, it is appropriate that there be some escape spending from Geelong to Melbourne having regard to the role of Melbourne as the principal retail centre in Victoria. Third, there is a case for effecting some reduction in escape spending in order to reduce travelling costs and to promote accessibility. This is especially the case when it comes to a store like a Big W discount department store, which has a generic offer that is basically the same whether the store is in Melbourne or Geelong. Fourth, there is a social argument for reducing escape spending. The fabric of a community is strengthened by building commercial ties between citizens to buttress ties that arise through education, sport, and local community organisations.

41 Drawing on these comments, we conclude that the fact that a significant amount of expenditure, currently being spent by Geelong residents in Melbourne, will be transferred to Geelong is a positive economic and social benefit to Geelong residents.

42 Mr Rumbold gave evidence that the proposed development would create over 1,200 jobs during the construction phase. Even though some of this employment will no doubt be sourced from persons living in Melbourne, this is clearly a positive economic benefit for Geelong. He also gave evidence that there would be a gross increase in ongoing employment of 670 jobs. He acknowledged that there would be some reduction in employment elsewhere, and gave evidence that the net increase in ongoing employment would be 570 jobs (which equates to about 340 full time equivalent jobs). His evidence was that these jobs would have a multiplier effect throughout the economy which would result in an equivalent number of jobs again being generated.

43 For our part, we treat the evidence about ongoing jobs with caution. As we have observed, much of the spending which will occur in the expanded Westfield Bay City Centre shopping centre will be transferred from elsewhere. In our view this is likely to reduce employment in the shops from which expenditure is transferred. We accept that when analysed on a shop by shop basis it may be the case that a reduction in retail expenditure might not cause a reduction in employment. However, when considered in the context of all affected shops, it is likely that there will be a similar reduction in employment in negatively impacted shops to the increase in employment in the expanded Geelong centre.

44 However it is true that some jobs will effectively be transferred from Melbourne to Geelong, as this is likely to be the consequence of a reduction in escape spending from Geelong to Melbourne. Hence there will be positive employment implications from the proposed development - particularly in Geelong itself - and, notwithstanding that the impact will not be as great as claimed by Mr Rumbold, it will still be substantial.

45 Another benefit that will arise from the proposal is that it will consolidate the Central Activities Area of Geelong as the prime centre in the Geelong urban area. This accords with planning policy. More significantly, we suggest, the proposal assists to reinforce other uses and activities in the Geelong central area for the simple reason that more people will be attracted to that area. In turn it will promote multi-purpose trips (and hence less travel), greater convenience and a clear hierarchy of centres within Geelong. Some of these benefits are amorphous, but they are benefits.

46 The proposed development will enliven Yarra Street south of Malop Street. This will be achieved by a variety of means. Significant businesses will be established which will attract people. The design of the shopping centre, particularly bearing in mind some of the modifications that resulted from the tribunal hearing, means that shops facing Yarra Street will have direct connection with that street. Further, and importantly, Westfield proposes to carry out major improvements to the pedestrian environment in Yarra Street, at its own expense[5] and this can be secured by requiring Westfield to commit to this as a condition of the permit. These works include the widening of the footpath on both sides of Yarra Street, between Malop and Brougham streets, to provide a pedestrian carriageway of 7 metres, high quality street furniture and tree planting. These changes are likely to enhance the pedestrian experience, which is currently very poor in Yarra Street. It will also provide an excellent connection from the Central Activities Area to the bay. At present the principal connection is via Moorabool Street. The connection through the Westfield centre lacks legibility. However the proposed upgrading of Yarra Street will significantly improve the connection along that street by making the experience more pleasant and more interesting. We consider this to be a substantial benefit of the proposed development.

Could the benefits be obtained if a sky bridge was not permitted?

47 Some objectors queried whether a sky bridge was necessary in order to achieve the benefits of the proposed expanded shopping centre. We cannot accept this. Rather we find that it is most unlikely that new tenants would commit to the project in the absence of a pedestrian sky bridge, generally of the type proposed. Retailers rely on pedestrian flows past the door. These flows are often generated by other retailers; and by the weight of numbers of retailers. In turn this requires the integration of shops. Because the main opportunity to expand is both east of Yarra Street and on top of a three level car park, we find that a sky bridge is essential if the project is to take place and for the benefits it will produce to be enjoyed.

48 How does one go about assessing the impact of a structure on the landscape? A starting point is to understand the nature and importance of the landscape which will be affected. It will then be necessary to understand and visualise the proposed structure - and, if relevant, variations in the design of the proposed structure - in order to ascertain whether the landscape will be diminished and, if so, to what extent. In a sense the method is similar to the "before and after" method used in other contexts.[6] However, in the case of assessing the impact of structures on the landscape, the proper comparator is not strictly speaking the "before" circumstance; rather, it is the landscape that is likely to exist if a permit is not granted.

49 The 1872 painting by Alexander Webb known as "Yarra Street, Geelong" shows an idyllic view down Yarra Street, from a position somewhere near Myers Street, with buildings, Corio Bay and the You Yangs in comfortable proportion with the street. But, in truth, Webb's image is not the view that can be enjoyed today. Quite apart from the fact that Webb's perspective seems to have been taken from an elevated position, the construction of buildings, the installation of street structures (such as electricity poles) and the growth of street trees have substantially altered the view. It is now the case that the bay is difficult to see from either footpath in Yarra Street, principally because of the existence of street structures and street trees. However it remains true that enticing glimpses of the bay can be caught, framed by buildings and street trees, when one is travelling north along Yarra Street or if one is a pedestrian crossing over Yarra Street.

50 It was suggested during the hearing that the view down Yarra Street to the bay could be given an economic value, which could then be weighed against any perceived benefits of the proposed development, as if pitting dollar against dollar. We are not persuaded that this approach is feasible or appropriate, at least in the circumstances of this case. Any attempt to calculate the value of the Yarra Street view in monetary terms would inevitably be laced with speculative assumptions which would result in an uncertain and controversial outcome. Further, views are of emotional importance; and this is difficult, if not impossible, to measure. A view may engender a feeling of happiness, or pride in the city. In any event, the benefits of the proposed development cannot be simply measured in dollar terms: the benefits of economic development often accrue in social, even psychological, terms, by engendering a sense of confidence in a community. Thus in assessing the value of the view down Yarra Street we propose to adopt a qualitative approach.

51 During the hearing the President observed that, in one sense, a view is the transmission of light reflecting off the landscape. Of course it is more than that. Whether or not what is observed constitutes a view or not depends very much upon the quality of the image and the associations - even emotions - which are triggered by that image. The existence of paintings, such as that by Alexander Webb, do connect the existing view to Geelong's history and make it more evocative. Further, there is no doubt that the town of Geelong was laid out to take advantage of long views, generally to the north, to Corio Bay and the You Yangs. Thus the historic and emotional value of the view down Yarra Street ought not be dismissed lightly.

52 The view along Yarra Street can obviously be enjoyed from various locations within the street, but we think it is useful to identify three particular viewing points: being from the centre of Yarra Street at each of Little Myers Street, Ryrie Street and Malop Street. The first of these points is outside St Mary's church and represents the experience that a motorist would have shortly after travelling from McKillop Street. It is the position from which the scene is most dramatic, as it enables a view over buildings and trees to a significant expanse of sea and hills beyond. To the extent that it is possible (or appropriate) to rate viewing locations, we would regard this as the most important place from which to appreciate the Yarra Street landscape. The views from Ryrie Street and Malop Street are somewhat different in character, as the sea is less apparent, being framed by an envelope consisting of buildings and trees. Nonetheless the fact that the water is part of this view is not only orienting, but also pleasant.

53 We mentioned earlier the need to employ the right comparator when assessing the impact of development on views. Thus it is necessary to consider what works are proposed for Yarra Street apart from the development the subject of this proceeding. The evidence is that the council proposes to instigate landscaping works for a number of Geelong streets, including Yarra Street. Funding exists for these works. It is likely that the works will take place regardless of the fate of the current proposal. The proposed works are described in "Stage 5" of the Geelong Central Landscape Project. Proposed streetscape works include "improved street tree planting, lighting, furniture and power line undergrounding" in Yarra Street. The Stage 5 plan states that in north-south streets such as Yarra Street the vista to Corio Bay should be protected and on-street parking should be maximised. The plan proposes works to include tree planting at the sides of the road, but no tree planting or other features in the centre of the road. The plan contains a cross-section illustrating the nature and mature size of the trees to be planted. This plan shows trees having a mature spread of about 9 metres, which leaves a viewing gap, down the centre of Yarra Street, of about 12 metres. Thus it is likely that the impact of street planting will be to reduce the extent of the sea when viewed down Yarra Street from Ryrie Street and Malop Street; although it will add to the greening of the street and qualitatively contribute to the view in another sense. This issue is not only relevant as to what might be appropriate design for a sky bridge, but also in relation to the extent of building works that might be appropriate on top of the Yarra Street footpath.

54 We conclude this section by observing that the view to the north along Yarra Street is not just another urban view, which can be discarded lightly. It is a view which is valued by the community and triggers historical, emotional and satisfying thoughts. But, equally, to appreciate the view it is necessary to be in Yarra Street itself, either in a vehicle travelling north or as a pedestrian crossing over Yarra Street. Further the view is significantly influenced by existing buildings, street furniture and street trees, particularly when experienced at the intersections of Yarra Street with Ryrie Street and Malop Street.

55 There is no question that the construction of a sky bridge - whatever the design - will have a detrimental impact upon the view to the north along Yarra Street. But it is necessary to ascertain the extent of this detriment, as this will affect the balancing of the positive and negative aspects of the proposed development and whether a sky bridge will produce a net community benefit.

56 By reason of the topography of Yarra Street, a sky bridge is likely to have a more significant impact upon the view when observed from the intersection of Yarra Street with Ryrie Street than other relevant points. This is because when observed from Ryrie Street the sky bridge will largely obliterate the sea from the view. By contrast, when viewed from outside St Mary's church, although the sky bridge will be clearly visible, it will tend to merge with existing urban infrastructure; and views of the sea, ships on the bay and the You Yangs will be largely unaffected. And, when viewed from the intersection of Yarra Street and Malop Street, the sea and the horizon of the sea, will be seen underneath the sky bridge.

Application plans not consistent with montage images

57 Notwithstanding that high quality views will still be enjoyed at important points in Yarra Street - whatever the design of the bridge - it is obviously relevant and important that any bridge appear to be lightweight and transparent. The montages produced by Westfield in support of the proposal show the bridge to be transparent, with light coming through the bridge. The appearance which is conveyed is of a modern, sleek structure, which reveals pedestrian movement and activity from within the bridge itself. The design also avoids any appearance of vehicles, including parked vehicles, on the roof of the bridge by the use of appropriate parapets. However concern was expressed during the hearing about the accuracy of the montage images, not in a geometric sense, but in relation to the transparency of the bridge. The point was made that the internal walls separating the four shops located on the bridge would prevent views through the bridge and would markedly reduce transparency. We agree with this criticism. Thus we form the view that if a sky bridge were to be approved it would be necessary for the application plans to be revised to ensure that the transparency shown on the montage images would in fact be achieved. To this extent we uphold the objectors' application for review and the submissions made by the Minister.

58 Evidence was given to the tribunal by Mr Frank Alvarez, who is the senior in-house architect responsible for the design of the proposed development. Mr Alvarez explained that, provided columns were permitted within the road reserve to support the bridge, it would be possible to reduce the overall vertical dimension of the bridge (as shown on the application plans) by about 500 millimetres. He also explained the consequences of various other changes which were put forward by the applicants for review, the Minister and the tribunal. This evidence opened up a number of possible modifications to the design of the sky bridge which would better achieve a balance between the competing considerations. To facilitate the consideration of the matter, the tribunal gave directions that additional plans be prepared, showing various options for the bridge, before a final decision was made in relation to the proposal. We have now received those plans (for convenience called options A, B and C) and heard submissions about them. The tribunal also heard submissions on a combination of options A and C, which combination is now reflected in the plans known as Option A Revision A (which we will call "Option AA").

59 If there is to be a bridge, we see no reason why there should not be columns supporting the bridge within the road reserve. If columns are aligned with poles (supporting street lights) and street trees, the columns will not present as an intrusion in the street. Columns already exist in Malop Street and in Moorabool Street, apparently without controversy. Importantly, if columns were not included in the design it would require more structural material - and hence a bulkier bridge - in order to span Yarra Street. Indeed Options A, B and C - and Option AA - show a higher bridge soffit above Yarra Street than that shown in the application plans. We think this opens up the space below the bridge in a beneficial way.

60 If there is to be a sky bridge, we accept that it is desirable that it also be a bridge for vehicles as well as pedestrians. Mr Alvarez explained that if vehicles were not to use the sky bridge it would enable the bridge to be reduced in height by about 500 millimetres. Is such a reduction justified having regard to the loss of the benefit of a vehicle connection? In our view, there are significant advantages to be gained from connecting the car parks at the upper level. This connection will reduce circulating traffic - particularly on streets; it will assist in unifying the Westfield Bay City Shopping Centre; and it will promote efficiency within the car park, with corresponding benefits to consumers. These benefits outweigh the marginal disbenefit of a slightly higher bridge. We also note that an underground vehicular connection does not seem to be practicable.

61 We consider that any bridge must be as narrow as practicable, in circumstances where it is also important that the bridge be commercially viable. To this end, we accept that it is important that the bridge be more than a mere bridge: it is highly desirable that a retail bridge also contain activity within it. However an activity such as a café is sufficient to enliven the bridge, without reducing the transparency of the structure. A café use will also provide views for those enjoying a cup of coffee on the bridge or the terrace.

62 We consider that the architectural treatment of the bridge should emphasise lightweight structures and materials. Thus it is entirely appropriate that there be considerable expanses of glass and the use of metals, such as zinc, which reflect light. Any bridge should present as a modern structure; hence it is unnecessary that the external materials in the bridge be of masonry or other traditional materials.

63 In our view, Option AA is the best option. We form this view for the following key reasons.

64 Transparency and width: In order that the bridge be relatively transparent, it ought be as narrow as is commercially viable. The location of shops on the bridge, as shown on the application plans, would not achieve this objective. Options A and B are also wider than is necessary to achieve commercial viability. Further, the central area of the bridge ought be kiosk free: Options A and C are not kiosk free. In forming these views, we rely on our observations of the sky bridge at Bondi Junction. Option AA would appear to be commercially viable; it is as narrow as option C; and it is kiosk free like option B.

65 Design: The application plans and options A and AA create more interesting geometric forms than Options B and C. The latter options might be thought to more closely follow the symmetry of the street, as (apart from the bridge) buildings do not extend beyond the re-created footpath in Yarra Street. But the angles shown on the former options are not only more interesting urban forms, but tend to integrate the bridge with the buildings on each side.

66 Although Option AA is the best option, we consider that two further changes are necessary for it to be acceptable. First, we consider that 2.5 metres should be "shaved" off the shop at the upper retail level which is just south west of the sky bridge. The general alignment of the eastern wall of this section of the building should remain the same as that shown in the alignment. This reduction in the building will reduce the extent to which shops will protrude into the roadway and will further promote the transparency of the bridge when viewed from the north-bound carriageway in Yarra Street. Second, we consider that the layout of the shops at the lower retail level, opposite Corio Street, should be modified so as to better promote views from the mall of the shopping centre out to Corio Street. We are concerned that the present layout is not optimal in this regard, as it will involve a plasterboard wall between two shops that will obscure some views.

67 The Minister submitted that the pedestrian crossing at ground level, as shown on the plans, should be narrowed by widening the footpaths on each side of Yarra Street and by eliminating the central pedestrian refuge. We do not agree. Although such a change could enhance the ability of pedestrians to easily cross Yarra Street, the deletion of the central refuge would deny pedestrians the opportunity to pause in the centre of the road. Some pedestrians choose to cross a road "in two halves", looking one way at a time. Further Yarra Street will still perform a significant vehicular function, even after the completion of the proposed development. This function will be better met by the Westfield proposal.

Assessment in context of Design and Development Overlay

68 We return to consider clause 2.0 of the schedule to the Design and Development Overlay. We are satisfied that the proposed development as shown in Option AA will not have any relevant detrimental impact upon the spire of St Mary's Church. Although the proposed development may have a very minor effect on the ability to view the spire from the bottom end of Yarra Street we would not regard this as significant. The real question raised by the clause 2.0 is whether the development avoids interrupting the viewshed towards the bay along Yarra Street. The concept of "avoiding" means "keeping away from"; but it cannot be applied in any particular case without also considering the utility and effect of the development in question. For example, the planting of street trees might be thought to interrupt the viewshed towards the bay along Yarra Street. But the planting of trees has the utility of improving the streetscape experience and has other positive environmental effects. Further, the language used in the Design and Development Overlay is precatory in character - the overlay uses the word "should" rather than the word "must". Hence the Design and Development Overlay ought be regarded as an important consideration in the balancing process rather than as an insurmountable obstacle preventing any development that affects the viewshed towards the bay along Yarra Street.

69 Mr Tim Biles, a town planner specialising in urban design, gave evidence that the effect of the sky bridge, as initially designed, would be relatively small on the viewshed. He considered that there would be sufficient visual connection down Yarra Street to clearly reveal the presence of the bay to people crossing Yarra Street or motorists driving north along Yarra Street. Although we do not agree with Mr Biles in relation to the sky bridge as initially designed, we consider that his comments can be applied in relation to Option AA. We have already alluded to many of the relevant factors. We now summarise them.

•

The ability to experience the view to the water from locations south of Malop Street is generally limited to locations on the Yarra Street roadway and does not include the footpaths on each side of Yarra Street.

•

From most locations on the Yarra Street roadway - and from the most important locations - the bridge will not block the view of the water.

•

The bridge is now 20 metres wide, and some 5 metres of this width is in the form of an open terrace.

•

As the Minister pointed out in his submission, the most important part of the bridge will be the central portion: Option AA shows this part of the bridge as transparent; and both shop free and kiosk free.

•

By retaining columns, the soffit of the bridge is now at RL 16.5 AHD, with the result that the bridge will sit clear of the road surface by a comfortable 5.8 metres. We consider this to be an important improvement over the application plans.

•

The shape of the buildings proposed over Yarra Street is contemporary and interesting. At the ground floor level the rectilinear city grid will be retained.

•

The external materials to be used - predominantly glass and zinc - will be of high quality and will present as light weight in nature.

•

Street trees and other street furniture will screen that portion of the proposed structure over Yarra Street which will be less transparent.

70 We started these reasons by stressing that good planning must encompass and integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors. The integration of factors will often require choices to be made as part of a balancing process. We have explained why we consider that the proposed development will produce significant economic, social and environmental benefits to the Geelong community. We have also explained why there will be an environmental loss, in terms of the effect of the sky bridge on an existing, valuable view along Yarra Street to the bay. However, for the reasons we have given in considering the various aspects separately, it is quite clear that the benefits outweigh this loss. Hence we conclude that the proposed development will produce a net community benefit. In this regard, it is not unimportant that the democratically elected council of the City of Greater Geelong has reached a similar conclusion. However it is noteworthy that as a result of this proceeding Mr Thompson and his fellow objectors have succeeded in reducing the width of the bridge, increasing the space between the surface of Yarra Street and the soffit of the bridge and substantially increasing the transparency of the bridge. They may think that their efforts were not in vain.

[1] See clause 11.01 of all Victorian planning schemes, including the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

[2] Clause 11.01 of all Victorian planning schemes, including the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

[3] The CAA refers to the Geelong Central Activities Area.

[4] A full list of the decision guidelines is set out in clause 43.02-5.

[5] The cost of these works was estimated to be greater than $1,000,000.

[6] The valuation of land for compensation purposes is just one example.