1. I briefly refer to the strategic context next.
2. The subject land is in GRZ12, with the front portion within HO155. A very small area associated with the proposed dwelling (part of the rear open space) appears to be within HO155, as demonstrated by Mr English at the hearing. Only one section of the west side of Russell Street is within HO155 as shown in the planning property extract below.

1. The zoning plan shows land within a Residential Growth Zone (RGZ), to the south and west of the site for the proposed dwelling.
2. The land is a short distance to the south of a neighbourhood activity centre, focused on High Street and around Williams Road.
3. In policy terms,[6] the whole of the subject land is within two change areas. The existing dwelling, which is affected by HO155, is within a 'minimal change area' while the proposed additional dwelling, which is not affected by HO155, is within an 'incremental change area'. Change is anticipated in both areas, but is managed in differing ways and with differing intensity. Minimal change areas encourage limited residential development while incremental change areas encourage multi-unit developments, ranging between two to three storeys in height on lots capable of accommodating increased density.
4. The RGZ applies to small areas associated with the rear of several Williams Road properties. The RGZ is focused on Williams Road rather than Russell Street which is mostly zoned GRZ. The RGZ is where more intensive development could be expected. In the words of clause 22.23, to which I refer below, it is policy to allow for greater change while reflecting the elements of preferred character. However, there is not an expectation of change in Russell Street as might be contrasted with land (such as on Williams Road) fronting main roads and tram routes.[7]
5. In the strategic context that applies, the concept of an infill dwelling being accommodated on that part of the land facing Russell Street, replacing the existing unattractive paved parking area, is acceptable in principle. Infill development is expressly supported by the scheme.[8]

1. The purpose of clause 32.08 includes:
   • To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
   • To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.
   • To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
2. A permit is required to construct a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on the lot. The parties agree that the proposal meets the mandatory requirements in clause 32.08. A development involving two dwellings on the land must meet the requirements of clause 55. Among these are neighbourhood character standards and objectives in clause 55.02-1. Decision guidelines in clause 32.08-13 are also relevant.
3. Schedule 12 to clause 32.08 does not contain any neighbourhood character objectives. Varied clause 55 standards apply (B8 and B32). Clause 7.0 of schedule 12 includes additional decision guidelines:
   • Whether the development provides for an appropriate visual transition to residential properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
   • Whether the proposal meets the preferred neighbourhood character statement and design objectives for the Precinct.
4. The subject land is not immediately proximate to land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
5. In addition to the policies to which I have briefly referred in clause 21.05 and others in 21.06 and 21.06-4 in particular, relevant State policies include clauses 15 and 16.
6. A key policy in decision-making in this case is clause 22.23. The objectives are:
   • To ensure that development (including subdivision) and works contribute to the preferred character of the area.
   • To ensure that development (including subdivision) and works reflect the intention of the statement of preferred neighbourhood character and design guidelines for each precinct.
7. This Neighbourhood character policy includes the subject land in an Inner Urban Precinct (Precinct). The statement of significance is:

The Inner Urban (IU) character precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar dwellings. Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominate, the rhythm of development. Well-designed gardens for small spaces contribute to the softening of the streetscape. Low or permeable front fences provide views of building facades and front gardens. Where present, car parking structures are located at the rear of buildings with access from rear lanes to provide continuous, uninterrupted footpaths for pedestrian friendly streets. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development within a more compact setting but with space for vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

1. Design objectives include:
   • To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.
   • To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the details of buildings in the area.
   • To maintain and reinforce the alignment of buildings along the street.
   • To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.
   • To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures.
2. I have had regard to the design responses and 'avoid' policies for this Precinct, as well as additional decision guidelines in clause 22.23-6.
3. I note Mr Glossop's evidence that the existing character of Russell Street is not represented in the Precinct statement, such as with respect to consistency in front setbacks or an evident rhythm of development.

1. The Council's concerns about the proposed dwelling focus on the small site area, narrow frontage, and the location between driveways with no neighbouring buildings to absorb bulk, mass and verticality. It highlights the existing built form, which varies between either side of Russell Street, and predominant built form. Front setbacks range from around 1-4 metres.
2. The Council seeks a respectful response, not mimicry. It submits the proposal contains a cumulation of elements which result in a building that does not fit the context, and steps outside the range of building forms in the street. The design is visually bulky. It specifically refers to the following elements:
   • A limited front setback.
   • A flat and vertical front facade with no separation between the ground and upper level.
   • Cantilevered elements over the front entry and northern elevation.
   • A flat roof.
   • No eaves.
3. Persons who have filed statements of grounds make a number of similar and supplementary comments, some referring to the proposal's 'extraordinary contrast' in character terms. Issues include the lack of vegetation, building massing, scale, bulk, as well as the proposed colours, materials and finishes.
4. The statement of grounds by Mr Sutherland and Ms Heyes cites ambiguity regarding the use of the northern lane and its unresolved situation that bears on the building design, including seeking approval to undertake works on Council (public) land.
5. The applicant submits the proposed dwelling responds appropriately to, and will not unreasonably disturb, either the existing or preferred character. It is not visually bulky, will not dominate the streetscape, and is not an overdevelopment of the site.
6. The applicant relies on Mr Glossop's evidence and Council officer's assessment in support of its position that the contemporary architectural approach is high quality and respectful of the existing and preferred character.
7. The applicant submits the proposal improves upon the current streetscape condition. The proposal's height, scale, massing and materials are appropriate. The design is polite to surrounding buildings which display diversity in built forms, setbacks and heights. The upper level will not be visually intrusive or overwhelm the public realm. Variations with respect to Standards B17 and B18 of clause 55 are acceptable given the abutting accessway/lane and character context.
8. Mr Glossop says that the absence of a front fence and no car parking provision add to the acceptability of the proposal from a streetscape/ neighbourhood character perspective. However, he states that he would support an appropriately designed fence of up to 1.2 metres in height given the presence and variety of fence styles and heights within the streetscape.
9. Neither the Council nor applicant raise concerns with respect to the relationship between the new and retained (and extended) dwelling.

1. This proceeding reflects challenges associated with designing an infill dwelling that will appropriately respect and fit into the distinctive and closely-settled Russell Street streetscape.
2. I have referred to the fact that this street is narrow and comprises predominantly single storey period dwellings opposite the land. The streetscape is more varied and diverse when viewed overall.
3. The west side of Russell Street is less consistent than the east side around the environs of the subject land. There are the rear parking areas of several Williams Road properties and lanes, interspersed between dwellings of different eras, scales and styles and with varied setbacks, building materiality and front fencing. Russell Street bends into Arkle Street at this southern end. There are mixed building forms in this street. However, this location is not influential to the setting and immediate context of the subject land.
4. The Council's submission and some statements of ground identify elements of the proposed dwelling that are not, in combination, found in this location. This is correct. Several, such as a flat roof form and no eaves, are cited as elements to 'avoid' in the design guidelines in clause 22.23 for this Precinct. Cantilevered elements are also not evident.
5. I agree with the Council, and it is accepted by Mr Glossop, that the lane and access to either side boundary mean the proposed building will not be read with an immediately abutting structure. However, there is an existing presence of boundary walls often with limited articulation seen in two storey dwellings that have been constructed in Russell Street. These form part of the character context. Variations from Standards B17 and 18 are acceptable in this context, and for reasons that I add to below that relate to a lack of off-site amenity consequences. The proposed dwelling is not at odds or incongruous when considering these existing building forms. Even though it differs from Nos. 6 and 6A Russell Street which have recessed first floors, the proposed dwelling is lower than these terraces, has a narrower breadth and façade, and has a deeper ground level front setback area (which is available for landscaping as shown on a landscape plan that accompanied the permit application).
6. The proposed dwelling diverges more evidently when considered with the single storey dwellings along the east side of Russell Street extending opposite and southwards of the subject land. The design response does not include gabled forms or eaves, is simple in its regularity and lack of complexity in terms of form, materials and colours. The palette includes timber battens which can be regarded as taking its cue from the weatherboard dwellings nearby. Regular forms and plain walls are seen in the streetscape and associated with structures that can be viewed as a backdrop (buildings fronting Williams Road). The plans show the use of similar materials and finishes associated with the approved rear extension to the heritage villa to the Williams Road frontage of the site.
7. The building's height, at 6.61 metres, is lower than 9.0 metres which is a mandatory maximum height in the zone. The height is in line with policy for incremental change areas that contemplate dwelling forms at two to three storeys.
8. The proposed building adopts a larger setback of 2.8 metres from the street frontage compared with a number of buildings where front setbacks are less including to 1.15 metres. The proposal has a first floor also at a setback of 2.8 metres but articulation is provided in a contemporary manner.
9. Site coverage and permeability standards are met.
10. For the above reasons I find the dwelling as proposed is acceptable on streetscape/neighbourhood character grounds. Condition 1f) is not required to achieve acceptable streetscape and neighbourhood character outcomes.
11. I record that Mr Glossop said that he would support a low front fence, however, there is no proposal for a fence on the plans. There are no details of such in the substituted plans. It is not a suggestion that I would include as a permit condition as no details are shown on the plans to allow an assessment to be made.

1. The part of the subject land that is proposed for the second dwelling is mostly within HO155, except for a small part of the proposed area of secluded private open space.
2. The Council does not identify heritage impacts in its grounds, however, there is reference to a loss of heritage values in a statement of grounds. I note that the Council's Heritage Advisor supported the proposed dwelling.
3. While I have acknowledged the built form character of Russell Street, that includes period cottages and dwellings, this not a location that has ascribed heritage values that have seen it being recognised by the scheme. I am unable to conclude the condition must be retained for heritage reasons.
4. The proposed dwelling would not have an appreciable impact on the values of HO155.

1. The permit application seeks permission under clause 52.06-3 to reduce parking on the land, associated with the two dwellings that have three or more bedrooms. Based on clause 52.06-5, this would be calculated at two car spaces per dwelling.
2. The existing dwelling is be provided with a three car basement car park. A reduction to zero is sought for the proposed dwelling.
3. Before a requirement for car parking is reduced, clause 52.06-7 requires a Car Parking Demand Assessment.
4. Various policies address parking, including clause 21.08-3 which relates to roads and parking. That clause contains the following objective relevant to carparking:
   • To encourage reduced reliance on parking provision in the City and high levels of design and amenity associated with its provision.
5. Relevant objectives aim to reduce the provision of on-site parking and permit parking for developments close to public transport.

1. The Council submits the lack of parking provision is unacceptable. Its internal referral also did not support the proposed reduction. The Council's submission sets out and relies on that advice.
2. Like those who have lodged statements of grounds, the Council refers to the highly constrained parking context. The Council submits surveys provided in the expert evidence indicate that every parking space within the survey area is restricted at some point during the day. While acknowledging the previous use of the subject land contained a commercial use which generated a carparking demand of up to ten spaces, the Council notes that this was effectively a short-term demand rather than the use of a dwelling which creates a long-term demand. Noting rates of car ownership in Stonnington and the lack of on-site parking options, the Council considers a reduction in carparking to zero for a three-bedroom dwelling where there is no reasonable long-term capacity is an unacceptable outcome.
3. Those who have filed statements of grounds elaborate on and explain the existing parking situation and issues, including overflow from nearby businesses, and the distinct lack of on-street parking opportunities. They say the proposed dwelling will exacerbate those pressures and will adversely affect residents and businesses. They challenge the excellence of access to public transport and reference multiple strategic studies with respect to sustainable transport and the role of on-street parking. They refer to the high rate of car ownership in Stonnington, such as through the detailed comments by Mr Sutherland and Ms Heyes which I do not recite.
4. There is a common theme with respect to the potential to use the laneway to provide on-site parking as a practical solution. Mr Sutherland and Ms Heyes note that plan TP12A that refers to 'proposed driveway'. That notation remains on two Revision C plans that have been substituted in this proceeding.
5. The applicant relies on Mr Harridge's evidence and Car Parking Demand Assessment in support of the requested parking reduction. It summarises the evidence as concluding:[9]
   • The proposed overall development has a Planning Scheme car parking requirement of 4 resident spaces;
   • The proposed provision of 3 resident spaces for the existing dwelling and zero spaces for the additional dwelling requires a reduction of 2 spaces to the Planning Scheme car parking requirement;
   • The Car Parking Demand Assessment estimates that the additional dwelling would generate a demand of 0 - 1 resident parking space;
   • Noting Council's sustainable transport policy direction, availability of some on- street parking in the area, excellent access to public transport / cycling / walking / car share facilities, it is considered that there is more than adequate justification to support the reduction in the parking requirement for the proposed three-bedroom dwelling.
6. The applicant submits the reduction of car parking provision to zero is appropriate notwithstanding the limited on-street parking supply. It submits the reduction is supported by the land's physical context and locational attributes as well as planning policies that encourage the use of sustainable transport modes over private vehicle use.
7. Further, to require even a single space would not only result in an uncharacteristic streetscape outcome, dominated by parking facilities, but it would occupy such an extent of the site that it would reduce its capability of providing a usable floor plan to support its residential use.

1. Clause 52.06-7 sets out the matters to be addressed when assessing whether permission is required to reduce car parking. A traffic and parking assessment accompanied the permit application made to the Council. Mr Harridge's evidence has addressed the relevant matters.
2. Clause 52.06-7 also states that before granting a permit to reduce the number of spaces, the responsible authority (and Tribunal on review) must consider the following, as appropriate:
   • The Car Parking Demand Assessment.
   • Any relevant local planning policy or incorporated plan.
   • The availability of alternative car parking in the locality of the land, including:
     • Efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces.
     • Public car parks intended to serve the land.
     • On street parking in non residential zones.
     • Streets in residential zones specifically managed for non-residential parking.
   • On street parking in residential zones in the locality of the land that is intended to be for residential use.
   • The practicality of providing car parking on the site, particularly for lots of less than 300 square metres.
   • Any adverse economic impact a shortfall of parking may have on the economic viability of any nearby activity centre.
   • The future growth and development of any nearby activity centre.
   • Any car parking deficiency associated with the existing use of the land.
   • Any credit that should be allowed for car parking spaces provided on common land or by a Special Charge Scheme or cash-in-lieu payment.
   • Local traffic management in the locality of the land.
   • The impact of fewer car parking spaces on local amenity, including pedestrian amenity and the amenity of nearby residential areas.
   • The need to create safe, functional and attractive parking areas.
   • Access to or provision of alternative transport modes to and from the land.
   • The equity of reducing the car parking requirement having regard to any historic contributions by existing businesses.
   • The character of the surrounding area and whether reducing the car parking provision would result in a quality/positive urban design outcome.
   • Any other matter specified in a schedule to the Parking Overlay.
   • Any other relevant consideration.
3. Car parking and traffic congestion are clearly important matters for residents and the Council. The extent of parking restrictions is part of the response that has been implemented by the Council to manage parking. Russell Street is narrow and has limited public parking. As I have referred to, a number of dwellings have provided on-site parking but others do not have the same opportunity.
4. While now history, there was significant use of the subject land for a car park associated with the former use of the existing dwelling as a restaurant. I was advised at the hearing that this ceased in around 2019. I do not give this previous use influential weight, or credit, given the time lapse. Further, I agree with Mr English that the temporal pattern of restaurant patrons would differ from a dwelling.
5. I have considered submissions and evidence with respect to likely parking demand and car ownership rates. In the western part of Stonnington, rates are lower than other parts of Stonnington. In Prahran, they are close to 1.5 cars per dwelling for separate houses and semi-detached duplex dwellings based on 2016 data (2021 data not yet being available).
6. High car ownership rates do not mean that the proposed dwelling without a car space is unacceptable, given the site's location and physical context. Even though the excellence of public transport access and services have been questioned, there is ready access to such services and the nearby activity centre has a wide range of facilities.
7. People seeking to buy or rent the proposed dwelling will be aware that there is no on-site car parking nor readily available on-street parking. They will need to make a choice as to whether their needs can be met. Anyone with a car may need to manage their parking activity to align with restrictions or potentially park in streets further from the land. I agree with Mr English that this may impact other locations. People may make arrangements with others to use parking or may rely on other transport such as motorbikes and car share schemes. Mr Harridge has cited car share parking locations within 230 - 700 metres from the subject land. The later are not particularly convenient but demonstrate that not everyone has or wants their own vehicle.
8. A number of options to achieve parking on the subject land were referred to at the hearing to explore the practicality of providing car parking on the site.
9. I note the sketch provided in a statement of grounds is (in Mr Harridge's words) 'unworkable'. It would be unlikely to satisfy the Council if based on the use of a B99 vehicle. It requires multiple and reversing manoeuvres (assuming adequate turning space, which is not shown). It would also involve changes to already approved works associated with the rear of the existing dwelling. Other options, such as parking via the street frontage, would (as Mr English stated) unlikely be supported by the Council for streetscape/character reasons. I also consider this scenario would be a poor urban design response.
10. It is also important to have regard to the fact that the reduction is associated with one infill dwelling, in a location that the scheme describes as having high levels of accessibility. There is a deliberate and strong policy theme in the scheme toward a modal shift to respond to concerns about congestion and to encourage sustainability.[10] One dwelling without car parking offers an alternative and that diversity.
11. Having regard to the relevant matters in clause 52.06, I find the proposed reduction in car parking is acceptable.

1. Concerns raised in statements of grounds include visual bulk.
2. I have not been persuaded that there will be unreasonable off-site amenity impacts that warrant retention of the condition. As noted, there are variations to Standards B17 and 18 of clause 55.04 in the design response for the proposed dwelling.
3. To determine whether the objectives of clause 55.04-1 and 55.04-2 are met, I must consider the relevant decision guidelines in each clause. Among the matters relevant to both clauses are whether the wall abuts a side or rear lane. The separation provided by the adjacent lane and access to No. 76 Williams Road give a basis to accept the proposed outcome. Further, it is relevant to consider factors such as the width of the lot, orientation and neighbourhood character, which in this case involves many properties with boundary walls.
4. I find the objectives of clauses 55.04-1 and 55.04-2 are met.

1. Mr Sutherland's grounds correctly refer to the fact that the laneway is not part of the title to the subject land. He criticises the extent to which the proposed dwelling opens onto the lane, stating that it is the defacto enjoyment of a public lane without the commensurate purchasing cost and subsequent payment of rates. He links this with issues relating to the lane and suggests that without the issue of the laneway being resolved, the appropriateness of the design cannot be determined.
2. The lane has been referred to above. I have found the proposal to be acceptable with respect to the proposed parking arrangements.
3. Any different future for the public lane does not bear on the assessment I must make. Should the lane be acquired for inclusion with the subject land, any required amendments to Permit 0201/21 or any necessary new permit applications would need to be made and assessed at that future time. I note submissions by Mr Sutherland and Ms Heyes about the notation to a 'proposed driveway' on plans TP12C (28/07/22) and TP13C (28/07/22) and find that notation should be deleted.
4. At the hearing, reference was made to discussions between the applicant and the Council with respect to potential lane acquisition. This is not a matter that requires my exploration. The design is appropriate as presented. The landscape plan shows a proposed paling fence to the rear of the proposed and existing dwellings. I agree with Mr Glossop's suggestion[11] that this be realigned to allow for convenient management and maintenance and a gate be added. This is accepted by the Council.

1. Statements of grounds identify concerns with respect to construction access. This will be addressed through future processes involving the Council via local laws.

1. For the above reasons, I find the proposed second dwelling is acceptable and condition 1f) should be deleted. I consider the condition should be replaced to show minor plan changes, consistent with my findings.

1. I have power pursuant to section 85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) to make orders to modify condition 1f).
2. The Permit also must refer to the substituted plans. I expect this could be addressed by an amendment to the application under section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) by amending the application for review to include this requested modification to condition 1.
3. Deleting condition 1f) and replacing it with a short list of minor plan changes to accord with my findings would result in the plans and description of what the Permit allows being inconsistent.
4. The Permit has been issued allowing:

Partial demolition, building and works to an existing dwelling on a lot in a Heritage Overlay in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. This will need to be amended to reflect the original application including construction of the second dwelling, a reduction in parking for the second dwelling, and the fact that some works associated with the second dwelling are within HO155. A suggestion is:

Partial demolition, buildings and works in a Heritage Overlay, the construction of a second dwelling on a lot in a General Residential Zone, and a reduction in the car parking requirement in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Procedural steps were considered in the applicant's submission and discussed at the hearing. Mr Natoli considered it possible to use section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) to give effect to a consequential amendment arising from allowing the second dwelling by modifying or deleting condition 1f).[12] The possible use of the same clause to amend the application for review to include an amendment of the Permit description was also canvassed. The Council did not object to identifying and giving effect to the appropriate next steps.
2. I have subsequently considered whether powers are available to achieve the desired outcome.
3. The scope of 85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) enables the Tribunal to direct that a permit must or must not contain any specified condition. I have some concerns about the use of section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) to amend the Permit description, even though it is a document in the proceeding.
4. In absence of a related proceeding, such as under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) to amend the Permit, two pathways could be:
   • As part of this proceeding, a declaration pursuant to section 124 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) whereby a presidential member or member who is an Australian lawyer may make orders to resolve the inconsistency.
   • For the Council to use its powers under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) to amend the description of what the Permit allows, to align with Tribunal orders to delete or modify condition/s that will allow the development and buildings and works associated with the second dwelling.
5. I am inviting submissions from the parties with respect to the use of these, or any other suggested, pathways so as to enable the proceeding to be concluded in line with my findings on the planning merits. I am also inviting the parties to comment on whether these matters can be delt with through submissions considered 'on the papers' or if a further hearing is required.

1. [1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, supporting exhibits, and all statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the Tribunal's practice, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] The persons who have lodged the statements of grounds have not sought to be parties.

[3] Photograph from the Council's submission. The photograph shows existing development to the north and south of the subject land, but does not represent how the eye sees these elements.

[4] Mr English stated that is not sign-posted near to the subject land but it is clear that no cars could move through the street otherwise.

[5] Extract from the statement of planning evidence at page 27.

[7] As shown, for example, in the Strategic Framework Plan in clause 21.03 as well as clause 21.05.

[9] Paragraph 62 of the applicant's submission.

[11] Statement of evidence at paragraph 54, pages 16-17.

[12] Citing Lilley A and Tyas G v Mornington Peninsula SC [2000] VCAT 2448 ([51] - [53]); Associated Town Planning Consultants v Knox CC [2004] VCAT 2197 ([19] - [21]); and TM Mitchell Holdings Pty Ltd v Mitchell SC [2021] VCAT 536 ([20] - [21]).