Union Central Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2012] VCAT 656

Union Central Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2012] VCAT 656 - VCAT 2012 case summary — Zoe

[12]

Key features of proposal are the development of the review site for a four level mixed use building and associated car parking dispensation. The development (as amended) would involve 31 dwellings spread over the three upper levels, two levels of basement car parking, together with 7 ground floor shops, office spaces and a ground floor restaurant. The most up to date proposed basement plans propose that there be 85 on-site parking spaces - see these plans annexed to the Traffic Group expert report. Dispensation is also required with respect to the relevant loading and bicycle parking requirements as they apply to the proposed shops and restaurant.
Turning now to the site and surrounds, the overall review site consists of 6 combined land titles and is separated from the other nearest private lots by roads or the rear laneway. This is an unusually large combined site for this type of middle suburbs location at 2204 sqm. This is a mixture of one and two storey commercial buildings, some of which are older and have heritage qualities, while others are fairly non-descript, currently occupies the review site. The street walls on the subject land facing Union Road range from single storey to 2/3 modern stories high. There are currently several retail/commercial businesses operating on the review site, notably the "New Litho" printing operation that we are told employs in the order of 60 staff. There are 9 on-site parking spaces at the rear of the review site, accessed via the rear laneway.
This section of Union Road constitutes the Union Road activity centre, with the Surrey Hills railway station lying about 100 metres to the east of the review site. This activity centre features a mix of commercial and retail uses plus a church. Many of the shop facades are of a period nature and they range in height from single to 2/3 modern stories high. Beyond this section of Union Road is an established and attractive established residential area, containing many handsome period weatherboard dwellings, some of which have been renovated and extended.
In relation to the planning framework, the review site is zoned Business 2. Whilst it is also affected by a Special Building Overlay and an Environmental Audit Overlay, our understanding is that the constraints posed by these overlays can be readily met and hence they are of little consequence in practice. With respect to the State and local planning policy framework, these are well set out in the Maddocks written submission we have been provided with, and we do not need to repeat same. We are also conscious that the relevant policy framework has already been spelt out at length in at least two recent Tribunal decisions involving other nearby sites in this locality - see for example the Interim Decision dated 19 April 2012 to the adjacent 140-148 Union Road site, being the Tribunal P2992/2011 proceeding.
In relation to heritage issues, it remains that there are no formal heritage controls affecting the review site. However we acknowledge that relevant heritage studies have been done, which inform us that the buildings on three of the six lots in question here do have a "contributory" status. We understand that Council is in the process of preparing Amendment C148, which would create a heritage overlay precinct encompassing both the western and eastern sides of this Surrey Hills activity centre, extending both north and south of the railway line.
With respect to Council's June 2011 Activity Centre Strategy ("ACS"), similarly it remains the case that it does not form part of the Planning Scheme. Despite it being a strategic document rather than a formal planning control, the ACS seeks to impose a 3 storey height limit for new development on the strip of lots along this western side of this activity centre including the review site. Whilst we can certainly have regard to this strategic document, at this stage we can only give modest weight to this document for the reasons already set out in the previous decision of Asolo Developments Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC VCAT Ref P2914/2011 involving the nearby site at 619-623 Canterbury Road.
Whilst we have been told that Council is seeking both interim and permanent overlay controls which would impose a mandatory three storey height limit on the review site (see the proposed Amendments C107 and C108), we understand the relevant Planning Scheme Amendments are still in their infancy and hence at this stage similarly we can give this initiative by Council only modest weight.
With respect to the permit application process, the original application plans attracted objections from certain neighbours and from the Surrey Hills Progress Association Inc. However as no formal decision had been made by Council 60 days after the permit application was lodged, the Applicant then referred this application to the Tribunal for resolution.

[14]

In the lead up to the Tribunal hearing, certain procedural orders were made by the Tribunal and the Applicant circulated revised plans which it proposed be substituted at the beginning of the Tribunal hearing. We refer here to the revised plans prepared by Orbit Architecture dated 8 March 2012. Compared to the original application plans, these revised Orbit plans:
- Involve a more contemporary style of architecture.
- Break up the new built form into essentially two north-south modules, being a front module facing onto Union Road extending up to four levels, then an open courtyard area running north-south across the middle section of the review site, plus another building module running north-south across the rear section of the site near the laneway and extending up to three levels.
- Retain and reinstate the heritage contributory facades of the two relevant buildings facing Union Road as well as the brick building on the corner with Croydon Road.
- Provide for two levels of basement car parking, with the entrance ramp for vehicles located on the south side off Sunbury Crescent.
- Provides a ground level pedestrian corridor, connecting Union Road with Sunbury Crescent.
In addition there were expert planning, traffic and heritage reports circulated by the applicant in the lead up to the Tribunal hearing, plus a report verifying how the relevant photo montages were prepared. The traffic report prepared by Mr Jason Walsh of the Traffix Group proposed some changes to the basement design as part of showing where the structural columns would be located. These changes included being able to provide 4 extra parking spaces ie there could be 85 on-site parking spaces provided.
At the beginning of the hearing, we confirmed that we had both inspected the site over the days leading up to the hearing. We by consent made orders that the abovementioned Orbit Architecture plans dated 8 March 2012 be substituted as the new application plans for this proceeding, and that Ms Phillipa Martin be made a party to the proceeding.
Member Martin also explained the background situation and timing issues in terms of the Tribunal on 19 April 2012 handing down its interim decision for the four level residential building proposal for the site on the northern side of the Croydon Road intersection ie 140-148 Union Road VCAT proceeding P2992/2011. In particular, he confirmed that this interim decision had been sent out by either email where applicable or otherwise by express mail, but in a situation where due to mailing constraints the express post deliveries would not arrive any earlier than Monday 23 April. However to address this, Member Martin brought along seven hard copies of this interim decision to the first day of this P62/2012 hearing, and we stood the hearing down mid-morning on 23 April to allow extra time for those interested to read this interim decision.
Over the rest of the Monday and then the Tuesday in this P62/2012 proceeding, we heard submissions from Council, from two nearby neighbours in Ms Martin and Ms Longmuir, from Mr Williams on behalf of the local Progress Association, and from Mr Cicero on behalf of the Applicant. We also received expert planning evidence from Mr Kelderman, expert heritage evidence from Mr Raworth and expert traffic evidence from Mr Walsh. There was a consensus that the person who prepared the photo montages (being Mr Goss) did not need to appear at the hearing.
At the end of the hearing process at roughly mid afternoon on the Tuesday 24 April, we stood down the hearing briefly. We then returned and advised the parties as follows:
- We considered the revised Orbit Architecture plans to be a major improvement on the earlier plans.
- In most respects, we were supportive of the proposal.
- The stand-out issue had been whether or not it is acceptable for the proposed new built form to extend beyond three levels to propose a four level module oriented towards Union Road.
- We were satisfied that in the particular context here, a four storey element to the proposal was acceptable ie the fourth level could sit comfortably in its setting.
- However before any approval is granted, we indicated that there were a handful of aspects to the proposal where we wished Council and the Applicant to use the final hearing day available to progress the situation and then report back to us. Following this approach, we asked Council to prepare a new permit condition and requested the Applicant to prepare certain further design information, with a view to this fresh information/plans being discussed at the re-convened hearing at 2.15 pm on the Thursday 26 April.
We also asked Mr Williams (who was the only objector still present at this stage) to contact Ms Martin and Ms Longmuir to let them know where the process was up to ie all objectors were welcome to also participate in the further hearing process on the Thursday.
When we did re-convene the hearing in this manner on 26 April 2012, we discussed the further information we asked to be provided. In particular, Council tabled a proposed "noise control" permit condition and the Orbit Architects project designer Mr Hockley talked us through the proposed revised lift lobby and security arrangements, together with how the balconies at the northern end of the proposed four level module might be alternatively treated. He spoke to some fresh concept plans that we understand were prepared over the previous 36 hours. We were helpfully provided with a sample of the proposed external vertical battening material which was a major design element, which was presented to us as not actually timber, but a metal product coated with colorbond, made to look like timber
We allowed further time for Ms Piskuric to obtain further instructions regarding the alternative design treatment presented us regarding the 4th level north-facing balcony. She advised in due course that she was instructed that Council was content for the Tribunal to use its discretion in this regard. Ms Martin informed us that she had rung another objector Ms Longmuir, who had indicated that any reduction of the new built form so as to have less visual bulk when viewed from Croydon Road, would be supported.

[16]

A good place to start is to clarify those aspects of the proposal and planning framework which were not in dispute during the hearing.
It is appropriate that we give significant weight to the following non-contentious features of the proposal:
- It was not challenged by any party that the Orbit Architecture plans are a major improvement upon the previous plans, and that the use of contemporary architecture per se is appropriate for this location.
- In particular, there was a consensus that some positive features of the Orbit Architecture plans are the retention of the facades of the three buildings on the review site which have the requisite heritage qualities, the splitting up of the new built form into the two north-south oriented modules, the provision of substantial on-site parking in the two basement levels and the use of a variety of articulation, finishes and materials.
- There was no challenge to the basic proposition that the planning framework is telling us that activity centres such as this are intended to accommodate more intense residential built form as part of the urban consolidation process. Hence the key issue is "managing change" rather than preserving the status quo.
- There was no disputing that the proposal has a strong level of strategic policy support and that it is a major plus for the proposal that it is surrounded on all four sides by either roads or the rear laneway. It also assists that much of the length of the rear laneway is unusually wide at 6 metres, although it narrows down to 3 metres at the southern section. In addition it was implicit in the debate about the western interface that there is a lower level of sensitivity involved where this interface involves a church building to the south-west and a quite prominent two storey circa 1980s dwelling to the north-west with a pedestrian path (which appears to mainly have a service rather than an amenity function) running alongside its eastern boundary.
- There was very little specific challenge to the three level height of the proposed building module on the western section of the site closest to the rear laneway. For example, in response to our queries, it was evident that both Council and Ms Martin were much more concerned about the proposed fourth level on the module closest to Union Road, and had little quarrel with the proposed three level module. It also seems fair to say that the indications were that most if not all of the heat in the debate about the other building module oriented to Union Road would have dissipated if this module been restricted to three levels, which even Council's own ACS document anticipates.
- There was general acceptance of the external materials as proposed, but some discussion centred around the excessive use of concrete/render to the west elevation facing the laneway.

[18]

It is clear to us that the stand out issue in this proceeding was whether or not it is an acceptable planning outcome that the proposed north-south building module oriented to Union Road goes beyond three levels in scale. This proposed fourth level threw up some obvious planning issues including "visibility", "neighbourhood character" concerns, potential amenity impacts and going beyond the preferred height limit set out in Council's ACS document.
Relying on the expert planning evidence of Mr Kelderman, the Applicant urged us to find that this proposed fourth level is an acceptable planning outcome in this type of activity centre location, on a site surrounded on all four sides by a road or laneway. This was disputed by the Council and objectors, who submitted that the fourth level would be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" in terms of how dominant this new building module would appear.
Our finding is that in the particular context here and with the benefit of the revised Orbit Architecture plans which are a major improvement on the previous ones, and relying on the expert planning evidence of Mr Kelderman, we are satisfied (with one proviso) that the fourth level on the new building module facing Union Road is acceptable and can sit comfortably in its setting. We rely on the following factors in reaching this finding.
- With this being an activity centre location and a site zoned Business 2, we accept that there is a strong level of strategic policy support for taking advantage of the urban consolidation opportunity which this site presents and avoiding an unnecessarily timid design approach.
- This strong strategic planning support is reinforced by the fact that the Surrey Hills railway station lies about 100 metres to the east ie there is outstanding connectivity with fixed rail public transport.
- The very fact that the review site is surrounded on all sides by a road or laneway in itself provides a significant buffer area to the surrounding lower scale residential area, that shows considerable advantage in minimising the potential amenity impacts of the fourth level on the neighbours.
- Similarly it is a very positive feature of the design that the new built form has been split up into two north-south building modules, with an open courtyard between. Of these two modules, only the module closest to Union Road extends to the fourth level. By contrast the module closer to the rear laneway extends only to three levels. When one considers that the adjoining dwelling on the north-west side of the review site is itself a prominent two storey circa 1980s dwelling, we perceive this as an appropriate transitional "stepping down" of the built form.
- Taking this overall design approach into account but subject to the proviso discussed below, we are satisfied that the proposed fourth level will be an adequate distance from the neighbouring dwellings further west along Croydon Road and Sunbury Crescent as to provide a reasonable amenity outcome. In other words, we are satisfied that even those existing dwellings with some degree of proximity to the four level module will be far enough away that they will only have long distance views of the new building, quite possibly screened out to some extent by the street trees in the intervening area for at least some portion of the year.
- With respect to neighbourhood character and streetscape concerns, we are satisfied that the proposed fourth level is setback greater than 8 metres from Union Road and that this level will not unduly dominate same or unduly detract from the existing streetscape in relation to both Union and Croydon Roads. Subject to the proviso, we accept that the four level module is of a high architectural quality and is enhanced by the retention of the three buildings with greater heritage qualities. The very contemporary design approach is appropriate even allowing for the intended heritage controls for this activity centre. We accept that when standing on the opposite side of Union Road, the new 2/3 level street façade will largely screen out views of the 4th level behind. Hence it will be mainly oblique views of the proposed 4th level that will be visible.
- In relation to the materials samples provided to us on the final hearing day, we are satisfied that the vertical aluminium rectangular hollow sections that are used as battening, powdercoated in a material which resembles wood grain, provides a suitable external appearance, and is a practical solution with regards to weathering. The sample of this material provided, convinced us that this would avoid the problem of real wood weathering and then fading. It is a positive design feature that these battons will be applied starting at the 1st floor level making it unlikely that anyone on the footpath would realise the battons are replica rather than real wood.
- Subject to the proviso, we find these oblique views of the 4th level to be acceptable, given the high quality of the design, the sympathetic use of the vertical battons, the fact that the prominent street trees will in reality screen out some of these oblique views for at least part of the year, and acknowledging that the existing street facades in this activity centre include walls extending up to 2-3 modern stories high. Whilst it is true that the fourth level is much higher than most other dwellings along Croydon Road, this needs to be counter-balanced against the fact that this eastern end of Croydon Road intersects with an activity centre and land zoned Business 2.
- We are satisfied (even allowing for the heritage issues) that the proposed "feature clock" is an appropriate and respectful design feature. However, we would query the details of its night time illumination, and have included an additional permit condition requiring that further details of the operation of the clock be provided as part of the updated plan information put forward for endorsement.
The proviso is as follows. Having considered the situation since the hearing, we find that the more scaled-back treatment of the northern end of the 4 level building module (as shown in the concept plans tabled on the final hearing day, Drawing A12001-VC 103) will be a suitable treatment to this end of this module. This scaled-back approach involves more conventional and smaller north-facing balconies projecting off the vertical batton treatment, which has been scaled back approximately 3.7 metres from its original position. We see this revised treatment of the northern end of the four level module as still attractive, but visually recessive when viewed from Croydon Road or when viewed obliquely from Union Road. Hence we will be supporting the adoption of this design modification.
To the extent that the Tribunal allowing the 4th level goes beyond the Council ACS document and Council's wish that there be a new overlay control imposing a new mandatory 3 storey height limit for this activity centre, we see the positive features of this revised fourth level as out-weighing this discrepancy and can only give modest weight to the ACS document for the reasons already spelt out. We are also mindful that it cannot be taken for granted that the Planning Minister will support mandatory height controls for this activity centre, given how much of the Victorian planning system now operates more with a performance-based orientation.

[20]

By way of preliminary comment, even though this is a four level proposal where ResCode is not strictly applicable, we accept that there is a strong case for still utilising the ResCode approach to assessing the car parking requirements of the new units proposed here. For example, the recent Car Parking Advisory Committee Report has endorsed this approach.
Similarly, we accept that it is reasonable for the Tribunal to place substantial weight more on the anticipated actual parking demands of the new shops and restaurant having regard to empirical evidence, rather than slavishly applying the parking formulas set out in Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme. In relation to retail/restaurant uses, these formulas have been in place for many years and many previous Tribunal decisions have accepted that significant weight needs to be given to the anticipated actual parking demands, based on the assessment of other like projects.
Following this approach, we accept the expert parking analysis of Mr Walsh that the overall likely parking shortfall of the proposal is quite modest ie between 4 and 6 parking spaces, depending on the time of day. Mr Walsh is a very experienced traffic witness and we accept that his evidence was credible.
We see it as an acceptable planning outcome that this type of quite modest parking dispensation is allowed, in an activity centre location where most of the nearby on-street parking is time-restricted and Council has advised that it will not be issuing the occupants of this project any resident-parking permits.
Some other positive factors here for the proposal are that:
- We expect many future occupants of the new building will find it very tempting to use the nearby fixed rail public transport for much of their travel needs (particularly weekday commuting).
- The traffic survey work done by Mr Walsh indicates that whilst there are substantial on-street parking demands in the local street network, there is still some degree of available on-street parking (which was our experience in visiting the site).
- The need for the New Litho printing business to re-locate should free up a substantial number of parking spaces in this general area. At page 10 of Mr Walsh's report he indicates that of the 59 New Litho staff, he expects 39 to drive to work. Whilst we accept most of these workers would not park in Croydon Road given the time limits involved, common sense suggests that these workers must be parking somewhere within walking distance and that these parking spaces will then be freed up once New Litho re-locates.
Finally, we make the observation that, consistent with the Tribunal's comments in its Interim Decision for the 140-148 Union Road site, much of the concerns raised over this 23 and 24 April hearing about existing parking pressures lacks a direct connection with the likely visitor parking demands arising from this particular development. To the extent for example that there are currently problems with on-street parking during school drop offs or pick ups, or with the current garbage collection arrangements or recalcitrant drivers parking in front of crossovers in Croydon Road, these pressures in our view are not particularly changed by the likely visitor parking for this proposal. We also note from our site inspections that most dwellings further west along Croydon Road appear to have their own off-street car parking.
In relation to the likely additional traffic movements arising from the proposal and the design of the car park, we are satisfied that the local street network can accommodate the extra traffic and (with one proviso) that the revised design of the two basement levels as set out in Appendix B of Mr Walsh's report are a worthy outcome. The proviso is that we will be requiring in the permit conditions that a Security Management Plan be prepared, to ensure there is a reasonable balance kept between after hours access to the basement for restaurant patrons vis-à-vis protecting the after hours privacy/safety of occupants of the dwellings in the new building.

[21]

In relation to heritage issues, we accept the evidence of the expert heritage witness Mr Raworth that the retention of the facades of the three relevant buildings is a good heritage outcome, and that there is no heritage problem with the buildings on the other three lots being demolished. This "keep three facades, and demolish the other three" approach is consistent with the relevant heritage information set out in the draft Amendment C148 document, which shows three of the lots as involving "contributory" buildings and the other three to be "non-contributory".
At a general level, we are pleased to see the revised design taking a sensitive rather than a confrontational approach to these heritage issues, given that the local heritage controls appear to be on the way but are not yet in place for this activity centre. There is no doubt that the overall revised design is much the better for the retention of the three contributory period facades. In addition Mr Raworth confirmed that the original fabric will be retained for a depth of about 8 metres back from the façade ie about one room's depth.
With respect to issues of "borrowed light" with the new units, we endorse the planning evidence of Mr Kelderman that the situation is acceptable with all new dwellings apart from Units 111 and 211, where a permit condition will require these two unit layouts to be improved.
In relation to the western façade of the three level module, we will be requiring in the permit conditions that there be some degree of improvement to the presentation of the ground floor/basement levels of this façade to the laneway and the adjacent dwelling, which is in fact a vertical freestanding wall, be converted from "concrete/ cement render" as shown on Drawing A12001-VC 302, to "brick". With this improvement, we are satisfied that the height and scale of this three level module is in order. Where there is minor non-compliance with the relevant B17 ResCode setback Standard, the breach in our view is of little practical consequence and see the Objective as still being met.
Where the concept plans tabled on the final hearing day (Drawing A 12001-VC 104) include internal layout changes to provide for more generous lift lobby areas, we see these changes as very positive and have required by way of permit condition that these changes be incorporated into the final plans put forward for endorsement.
With respect to the day to day operation of the proposed restaurant, we have considered the amenity concerns raised about same by Ms Longmuir in particular. With reference to the expert planning evidence of Mr Kelderman on this issue, we see the situation here as reasonable, for three reasons. First, the operation of a restaurant per se should not come as a great surprise in an activity centre. In our experience with other activity centres, it is fairly common for restaurants or cafes to locate either facing the main road or just around the corner. Second, we accept that the Applicant has suitably responded to this concern by agreeing to a new Acoustic Report needing to be prepared (see Condition 3 in the Appendix hereto). Third, we accept that the proposed permit condition setting an 11 pm closing time for the restaurant is in order - this seems consistent with our experience of the closing time of other like restaurants. We note that no liquor licence has been applied for at this stage for this restaurant and any such licence will involve its own rigorous approval process.
In relation to the need to prepare the new Acoustic Report, building on the precedent permit condition used in the recent Dimmeys planning application/VCAT proceedings[1], Condition 3 in the Appendix requires this report to review and deal with the potential noise impacts in relation to both the new restaurant and the adjoining fixed rail line. With respect to the former, we have worded the condition to in particular require the report to consider practical steps to reduce any noise impacts after 9 pm caused by the restaurant. While we are content for this to be a secondary consent process, our initial impression is that closing off the two north-facing windows in the period brick wall is worth considering after 9 pm, as is closing the partition walls between the open dining area and the internal courtyard. At the 26 April hearing the concept plans tabled Drawing A 12001-VC 104 included some potential sliding roof panels that could cover some of this open dining area after 9 pm. As it is less clear to us whether these apparently very expensive folding panels are warranted, we are content for this to be resolved with Council at a later stage, with suitable expert input and when all relevant information is available.
Whilst the proceeding has involved some other points of dispute such as matters of design detail, we are satisfied that these other points are sufficiently peripheral as to not require specific comment. Suffice to say that we are content that with any other such minor matters, the proposal is either acceptable "as is" or these minor concerns can be readily dealt with in the final version of the permit conditions in the Appendix hereto.

[24]

(a) A notation confirming a maximum of 80 seats available to the public for the restaurant.

(b) Fully dimensioned and annotated internal-east and internal-west elevations. Any blank walls should be well articulated and treated broadly in the same manner as the outside walls. This must include further details of the proposed privacy screens on the internal-west elevation, fully dimensioned, at a scale of 1:20, including a section.

(c) An additional notation on the relevant architectural plan(s) indicating how the new clock on the south-east corner façade of the building will operate in practice.

(d) Further details of the proposed battened privacy screen, fully dimensioned, at a scale of 1:20, including a section.

(e) Deletion of the pedestrian bridge-link between the east and west cores of the building.

(f) Further details of security gate locations and treatments at the southern and eastern end of the open courtyard area between the two building modules, including "after hours" access by security card or like arrangement. The gates should have a contemporary open profile treatment, possibly in black rectangular iron bar configuration, to compliment the proposed architectural treatments to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(g) Any changes required by the approved Acoustic Report to be prepared pursuant to Condition 3 below.

(h) The internal layout of Dwellings 111 and 211 modified so as to minimise as far as practicable the reliance in the bedroom area on borrowed light.

(i) The dimensioned setback from the proposed awnings to the face of kerb.

(j) A door providing access between Shop 7 and the court yard/square.

(k) A door providing access between Office 4 and the court yard/square.

(l) Disabled access into the shops and offices from the court yard/square for those premises with direct access to the court yard/square, including details of ramp grades.

(m) In relation to the waste collection areas facing the laneway, a notation must be added on the relevant architectural plan(s) confirming that there must be no permanent storage of garbage bins in this collection area facing the laneway.

(n) Different treatment of the ground and basement levels of the western façade of the three level module such as brick, so as to add greater visual interest to same. This treatment should if practicable also incorporate graffiti-resistant finishes or materials.

(o) Any modifications necessary due to the requirements of the approved landscaping plan pursuant to Condition 13 below.

(p) The eastern wall of Office 3 to align with the title boundary on the ground, first and second floors (with the relevant ground floor external door to be inset appropriately so as to avoid opening into the footpath area).

(q) Any requirements or modifications recommended within the ESD report required by Condition 31 of this Permit.

(r) The revised internal configuration changes for the lift lobby areas, generally as shown in the Concept Plans (Drawing A12001-VC 104) marked up with "red clouds" which were tabled by the Applicant on the afternoon of 26 April 2012, being the final hearing day of the P63/2012 VCAT proceeding ("Concept Plans").

(s) The revised treatment of the vertical batten screen to the Croydon Road façade of the eastern four level building module, where the balconies have been reduced in size and project through this repositioned battened screen, generally as shown in the Concept Plans (Drawing A12001-VC 103), including the associated changes to the façade of this building and additional sun protection for the adjacent north-facing rooms.

(t) An additional notation shown on the eastern elevation plan, in relation to the period façade facing Union Road where the front upper verandah is being reinstated, to make it clearer what works are involved and how the modified front façade will then operate.

(u) The provision of a schedule of materials showing the proposed palette of materials and finishes (including samples of the proposed battened facade treatment and clock materials) selected for all sides of the building, generally in accordance with the revised Orbit architecture plans and the materials simples discussed at the 26 April 2012 VCAT P63/2012 hearing.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (70 paragraphs)

Union Central Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2012] VCAT 656 (18 May 2012)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)