Vantage Point Projects Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2013] VCAT 1707

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.
2. In permit application PP12/01202 no permit is granted.

Mr Dominic Scally, Solicitor of Best Hooper Solicitors. He called written and oral evidence from:

• Mr Maugan Bastone, Town Planner of Urbis Pty Ltd.
• Mr John Patrick, Landscape Architect of John Patrick Pty Ltd.
• Ms Charmaine Dunstan, Traffic Engineer of Traffix Group Pty Ltd.
• Mr Mark Sheppard, Urban Designer of David Lock Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd.

Mr Peter Roccella of Roccella Design Studio prepared photomontages, but with the agreement of parties was not required to attend and answer questions.

Mr Daniel Bowden, Town Planner of Song Bowden Planning Pty Ltd.

Ms Mary Algar, Mr David May for himself and Lynette May, Mr Gary Oldfield, Dr Geoff Stephens, Ms Nicola McGowan for Wendy Stephens.

Construction of 39 dwellings within a 3 storey building and basement parking for 39 vehicles.

Cl. 32.01-4 (the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in R1Z).

Cl. 52.29 (create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1).

I visited the review site, adjoining sites and the locality on the afternoon of the last day of hearing. It was an accompanied inspection.

The site is located on the northern side of Seymour Grove, approximately midway between Burke Road and Inkerman Road. Seymour Grove is in a Road Zone Category 1 and forms part of the Camberwell Junction bypass.

The review site is a former tennis court, rectangular in shape except for a small extension in the north east corner which is a carriageway easement connecting to a laneway to the east and providing access to the site at the rear. The site has a frontage of 40.23 metres, a depth of 47.55 metres and an area of 1,786m2. The site has been levelled for the tennis courts and is set down below the footpath by approximately 1.25 metres.

Adjoining sites to the west and east are developed with single storey dwellings. The site at the rear is occupied by a school boarding house located in one and two storey buildings.

1. The permit application is seeking approval for a three storey building containing thirty-nine dwellings above basement parking for thirty-nine vehicles. A complete waiver is being sought for visitor parking.
2. The building has a maximum height of 11.17 metres to the central glass roof canopy. It adopts a 'square' footprint with approximately the same length and width of 32 metres. It is set off all boundaries except for a small length of ground floor wall and terrace in the north east corner adjacent to the carriageway easement. The main pedestrian access to the building is located centrally across the frontage and provides access to a communal lobby and lift. Ground floor contains thirteen dwellings - all with courtyards, although the four at the rear are elevated terraces because of the land slope and basement protruding above natural ground level by approximately 1.5 metres. Four of the dwellings are orientated to Seymour Grove, six are orientated to the east and west boundaries and four are orientated to the north.
3. Level 1 contains fifteen dwellings which are largely configured in the same manner as the ground floor with five orientated to Seymour Grove, six to east and west boundaries and four to the north. All are provided with balconies and all but three achieve or slightly exceed the ResCode standard of 8m2.
4. Level 2 or the top floor contains ten dwellings - three orientated to Seymour Grove, four to the side boundaries and three to the north. All are provided with terraces which exceed the ResCode standard and, with two exceptions, they are larger than the balconies at Level 1.
5. A glass canopy positioned centrally at roof level provides daylight to a light well extending to ground level and enables twelve inboard bedrooms and the communal lobby to receive natural lighting. Landscaping is proposed around the whole perimeter of the site except in the north east corner where a wall and terrace extend to the carriageway easement and in the south east corner where the driveway and basement ramp intersect with Seymour Grove. In addition to thirty-nine car spaces, the basement also provides bicycle parking, storage for each dwelling and a communal bin storage/rubbish room.
6. Despite receiving an officer report supporting the development, Council resolved to refuse the application on four grounds which can be summarised as:
   1. The development will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties due to visual bulk and overlooking.
   2. The reliance on the internal light court for daylight to dwelling bedrooms is detrimental to the amenity of those dwellings.
   3. The development fails to adequately respond to the existing neighbourhood character due to its building form and scale and lack of landscaping opportunities.
   4. The proposal does not provide sufficient visitor parking in accordance with Clause 52.06 and will result in an adverse amenity impact on the surrounding area through additional on street parking.
7. Nearby landowners and residents have lodged statements of grounds supporting Council's refusal. These grounds focus on non compliance with planning policy and the Residential 1 Zone, neighbourhood character, being an overdevelopment (height, bulk, scale, setbacks, extent of built form, site coverage, lack of landscaping), detrimental amenity impacts to adjoining dwellings (overshadowing, overlooking , noise, effects of construction), inadequate parking, poor location of driveway and traffic impacts. Five attended the hearing to present written and oral submissions.
8. Whilst I acknowledge that construction of a larger medium density development on the review site is a reasonable proposition, I have come to the conclusion that this particular proposal is not an acceptable outcome for the reasons which follow. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the relevant planning controls and policies, submissions, evidence and my accompanied site inspection.

Does policy support a medium density development and is a three storey building too high for this site?

1. In principle, a three storey apartment style building fronting Seymour Grove should be relatively uncontroversial given its location on a section of the Camberwell Junction bypass road, relatively close to the Camberwell Junction Principal Activity Centre, very close to public facilities and close to two tram routes. Having a large site area with few encumbrances is also a positive feature. I therefore agree with Mr Bastone's summary on page 2 of his evidence statement as to why the location of the site makes it suitable for higher density residential development.
2. However, despite these positive locational factors and lack of overlays guiding development outcomes, Seymour Grove has experienced very little development of taller, more intensive residential buildings. Except for a limited number of earlier one and two storey blocks of flats and villa unit style complexes, the most recent medium density development on the opposite side of Seymour Grove is in a town house style of two or three double storey dwellings. That style of development appears to be acceptable to Council and residents as being of a scale and form that fits with neighbourhood character.
3. However, unless the planning controls change in the near future, it is likely that sites along Seymour Grove will be subject to applications for different, more intensive apartment style medium density developments than what has occurred in the past. The proposal for eleven dwellings in a three storey apartment building at No 53 Seymour Grove is indicative of a different built form outcome that is likely to become more prevalent. Although the application has yet to be considered by Council, I do note that despite having similarities with the design response adopted for the review site (i.e. 3 storey apartment style building over basement parking), the dwelling yield is considerably less than that proposed on the review site. At No 53 on a site of 920m2 it is proposed to construct eleven dwellings (1 dwelling per 84m2) compared with the review site of 1,786m2 and 39 dwellings (1 dwelling per 46m2). In making this comparison I recognise that it is not the number of dwellings or dwelling density which is critical but rather the built form outcome and the flow on effects as dwelling numbers increase. For example, the built form of a building containing 20 small dwellings could be the same as one containing 10 larger dwellings. What is different between the two is that as the number of dwellings increase additional areas need to be set aside for car parking, secluded open space and storage. Achieving acceptable internal amenity can also be more problematic as dwelling number increase. As an example, a reduction in the number of dwellings in this proposal without any reduction in the size of the basement may well obviate the need to seek approval for any reduction or waiver to the provision of on-site visitor parking.
4. In making these comments, I acknowledge that the new residential zones, and particularly the Neighbourhood Residential Zone if applied to Seymour Grove, would effectively prohibit taller buildings exceeding the mandatory height limits (8 metres and 9 metres on sloping sites). Whilst Dr Stephens encouraged me to take account of the new residential zones, and the stated intention of Boroondara Council to apply the Neighbourhood Residential and General Residential Zones, there is no certainty as to what zones will be applied and to what land. Unlike the planning schemes in some other municipalities such as Glen Eira and Whitehorse, the Boroondara Planning Scheme has not at present categorised the residential areas of the municipality into areas with different degrees of change - Minimal, Natural/Incremental and Substantial Change. In the case of Glen Eira it was a relatively easy task to translate those change areas into the new zones. That task is likely to be more complex and drawn out in Boroondara and may involve, unlike Glen Eira, a public exhibition process for any amendment to the Planning Scheme.
5. However, I do note that the Camberwell Junction Structure Plan adopted by Council in 2008 and updated in December 2011 does not include the review site and that the boundary of the study area and residential interface is depicted along Inglesby Road. The existing school/church and parks between Inglesby Road and Reserve Road provide a buffer for the residential areas south of Inglesby Road and the area identified for 3 storey buildings up to 11 metres in height to the north of Reserve Road. If that informs how the new zones are applied then it may well be that land outside the Structure Plan boundary will be included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
6. In the meantime, I am required to asses the application on the basis of the gazetted Planning Scheme.
7. On that basis, I consider there is strong support for more intensive development in and around activity centres, on strategic redevelopment sites, on land along the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) and close to sources of employment. Although the Residential Framework Plan at Clause 21.07 does not identify this area as being within a mixed use corridor or having potential for higher density development, one of strategies in Clause 21.07-3 is to increase residential development opportunities (including higher density development) in and around commercial centres and other strategic locations.
8. I therefore consider that the site is one which receives strong policy support for more intensive development given its proximity to the Camberwell Junction Principal Activity Centre and tram routes forming part of the PPTN.
9. However State and local policy, the Residential 1 Zone and Clause 55 also require development to contribute positively to local urban character, to respect neighbourhood character, to respond to the features of the site, to minimise detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties, and for design solutions that enhance and respond positively and creatively to existing neighbourhood character. Although there was reference in Council's submission to Clause 16.01-3 dealing with strategic redevelopment sites, I am not persuaded that much turns on whether it meets one or more of the listed characteristics for such sites. For example, whether the site can provide ten or more dwellings does not suddenly make it a strategic redevelopment site. Instead it is the underlying site context and the relevant issues that need to be taken into consideration including policy dealing with urban consolidation, housing variety, site responsive design, the importance of neighbourhood character and providing acceptable internal amenity which are critical to an assessment of the application.
10. Clause 22.07 provides policy guidance about neighbourhood character and is based on the 1996 City of Boroondara Residential Urban Character Study. The review site is within Area 125. The study is now nearly 20 years old and, as I have remarked in previous decisions, I consider it is more a statement of what existed when the study was undertaken rather than a guide to future preferred character. However, unlike other parts of Boroondara it remains a largely accurate description of existing character for this area (Many large Victorian houses from its original period of development remain, though there has been considerable house replacement and some multi-dwelling development over all periods). Given the emphasis placed in policy and Clause 55 (ResCode) on new development respecting and responding to existing neighbourhood character, it is important to recognise that the description for Area 125 is still largely accurate. As noted above, that is not the case in other parts of Boroondara where the character has changed quite substantially in some areas.
11. Partly in response to those changes caused by new development but also as part of its ongoing review of planning controls and policies, Council has undertaken a reassessment of neighbourhood character and in 2012 adopted new Character Precinct Statements. As discussed by Mr Bastone, the review site is within Precinct 55 which covers a vastly larger geographic area compared to Area 125.
12. I understand that the new character statements have been adopted by Council but that they are still at an early stage in the long process of being included in any amendment to the planning scheme, including statutory drafting with appropriate wording for inclusion in the planning scheme, public exhibition, receipt of submissions, panel assessment, adoption by Council and eventual consideration and possible approval by the Minister for Planning. Although I do not put much weight on the statement for Precinct 55 given its status, it nevertheless provides a useful updated description of existing character. Unlike the detailed property information contained in the 1996 study, it provides a more generalised description of the precinct. It includes reference to the predominant 1 and 2 storey dwellings on 10 to 20 metre wide lots, pitched roofs, front and side setbacks and moderately sized landscaped front gardens.
13. One of the key differences between the 1996 study and the latest statements is the incorporation of design guidelines for each precinct. In the case of Precinct 55 they include objectives that seek to maintain the one and two storey scale, pitched roof and boundary setback character. I am not sure how that character outcome can be achieved with certainty except with the introduction of mandatory height and design controls. But however and in what form the neighbourhood character guidelines are implemented, there appears to be a consistent theme that new development must integrate with the one and two storey built form and garden character, and that bulky buildings built too close to boundaries with insufficient space for soft landscaping are to be avoided. Although more detailed than the existing neighbourhood character policy, it is my assessment that it does not represent a radical change in thinking over what exists at present in Clause 22.07.
14. Under the existing Clause 22.07, it is policy where a neighbourhood character and site description is required in accordance with Clause 55 that:

�� The relevant Neighbourhood Character Statement be considered.

�� The creation of more than one lot respects the prevailing subdivision patterns of the street.

�� Newly created lots respect the prevailing frontage widths of the area.

�� Development takes account of established traffic characteristics of the area and does not add to identified traffic conflicts.

�� The design takes advantage of views without detriment to the views from neighbouring properties.

�� The proposed development be cognisant of the types of housing in the area.

�� Fences exposed to the street be constructed of a material and to a height which reflects the established characteristics of properties within 100 metres adjoining and opposite the site.

�� A landscape plan be submitted and reflect the garden character of the area.

�� The landscape plan identifies, retains and protects as much existing significant vegetation on the site as possible.

�� The landscape plan shows new canopy trees and other vegetation characteristic of the neighbourhood.

�� Development complements the existing building styles in building and roofing materials, massing, roof forms and detailing.

�� The design be respectful of, but not necessarily replicate, the prevailing building style of the neighbourhood.

�� The scale of new buildings or additions complements the prevailing building scale of the area.

1. In essence, this list of policy items is seeking new development that responds to the specific site context. Whilst it is always necessary to respond to site context, where the Planning Scheme is anticipating a significant level of change, such as in a mixed use corridor or on land having potential for higher density development as shown on the Residential Framework Plan, then the existing site context and the existing character will be considered differently. But the review site is not in one of those areas and I therefore agree with Council that planning policy says that the design response here must be contextual, that is driven by the context.
2. Whilst I have only specifically referred to a small number of relevant policies, based on my understanding of what State and local planning policy is trying to achieve, I consider that a more intensive medium density development can be contemplated on this site. However, the scale of any proposal must respond to its specific site context being the mid block location within a residential area, the existing single storey, period style dwellings on the western and eastern boundaries and the two storey school boarding house to the north.
3. Although I would not reject an apartment style development on the review site, I am not persuaded that the proposal has achieved a positive contribution to the area, or that it has minimised adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. In essence it is a proposal that has paid insufficient regard to the character of the area and it would introduce a form of development which would be quite at odds with the character of Seymour Grove.

Does the design and layout respond appropriately to the site context?

1. The Residential 1 Zone does not prevent or prohibit the development of taller buildings and there are many arterial roads, such as Riversdale Road, where residential buildings of 3, 4 or more storeys have been constructed. Unlike other parts of Boroondara, the area is not affected by Design and Development Overlays limiting buildings to a specified height. ResCode under which the application must be assessed makes reference in Standard B7 to buildings up to 9 metres in height (10 metres on a sloping site).
2. Clause 55 is specifically designed for the assessment of applications for medium density development of up to three storeys in height[1] and provides guidance as to what is acceptable. Compliance with the relevant ResCode standard is deemed to be compliance with the related objective. Decision guidelines must also be considered. Where compliance with a numeric standard is not achieved then a judgement needs to be made as to whether the related objective has been met. However, it is not a question of ticking all, or most, of the ResCode boxes in order to receive a permit. However the cumulative failure to satisfy the various numeric standards often provides a good indication that a proposal is an over development and that it needs to be scaled back to more closely match the particular site characteristics.
3. A number of submissions by neighbours made reference to the inappropriate height, excessive building footprint (site coverage and lack of space for landscaping) and inappropriate or inadequate boundary setbacks. Expert evidence provided by Messrs Bastone and Sheppard dealt with these matters along with other criticisms raised by Council and objectors in relation to built form, compliance with ResCode and other related planning provisions.
4. Having considered all the material presented at the hearing, I consider that the reason why the building does not respond acceptably to site context is because of the combination of height, the large footprint pushing out the built form close to site boundaries, the extent of built form along and across the site and the extent of paving and hard surfaces in the front setback. Although submissions by Council and neighbours identified height as one area where the relevant ResCode standard was not met, height alone is not the only factor to consider given that a building is three dimensional. It is a combination of height, setbacks and articulation that influence whether a building is acceptable in its site context.
5. I acknowledge that with the exception of some relatively small intrusions, the building meets the B17 setback envelope along both side and rear boundaries and that Council's draft conditions seek to ensure minimum compliance with the standard. However that does not address the broader issue of character and how the building relates to the adjoining sites.
6. Although the streetscape elevation suggests that the overall height of the building is not significantly greater than the nearest one and two storey dwellings, the single or double storey wall height and pitched roofs of those dwellings means that they are visually more recessive than the proposed three storey, flat roofed building on the review site. The extent of built form exacerbates what would be a very different visual experience. When viewed from the east or west, the building stretches unbroken for 32 metres with no meaningful breaks and the only articulation of any note is created by balconies that overhang the spaces below. I do not accept that the variations in wall plane make any appreciable difference to how the building would be viewed from neighbouring properties, particularly from No 42 where the proposed building virtually occupies the full length of the side boundary.
7. Although the same applies to No 52 to the west, I am less concerned about that interface because the dwelling is orientated away from the review site. I accept that there is some vertical articulation to the east and west boundaries in the sense that the top floor is slightly setback behind the floors below but it would still represent an imposing and visually dominating building. I do not accept that such an outcome results in a positive contribution to neighbourhood character or that it is minimising impacts on neighbouring properties.
8. The same can be said for the front façade as well. Although at ground level there is an indentation for the entry, this is not carried through to the two floors above. Partly in response to concerns about the appearance along the front façade, Mr Sheppard suggested the deletion of the metal canopies at Level 2 and the use of mid grey cladding to reduce its visual presence and make it appear more akin to the pitched roof of the two townhouse developments on the other side of Seymour Grove. Whilst acknowledging that these may be an improvement, I am not persuaded that they resolve my fundamental concern about the extent of built form.
9. At the rear, the building largely adopts a similar unbroken façade. The two storey boarding house buildings perhaps makes this interface less sensitive, although there is an outdoor seating area near the north western corner of the building. I also observe that this area is overlooked from a two storey block of dwellings to the west of the site (behind No 52 Seymour Grove), and that the amenity of the area is already somewhat compromised.
10. However, the difference in ground level between the review site and the boarding house site serves to exacerbate the height of the proposed building which reaches a height of over 11 metres in this part of the site. Although the wall of the top level is setback 5.39 metres, screened balconies and terraces extend to within 3.6 metres at this level, 1.95 metres at first floor and 1.5 metres at the elevated ground level. At the hearing there was discussion about providing additional screening to the balconies to Dwellings 8, 23 and 36 to prevent overlooking, but these changes do not address my concerns about the extent of built form across the site.
11. Although submissions made reference to non-compliance with a number of ResCode standards such as height, front side and rear setbacks, size of balconies, overlooking and so forth, ultimately my major concerns about this development do not relate to numeric ResCode standards. Instead they concern the broader concept of neighbourhood character which is referenced in the objectives for many of the ResCode requirements including B1, B6, B13 and B17. They also concern the policy guidance contained in Clause 22.07 which I have referred to in the previous section. In essence, it is my assessment that this proposal seeks to do too much on the site and stretches the built form envelope to a point where it is unacceptable.
12. Council and neighbours are also concerned about limited landscaping opportunities. Mr Patrick has prepared a landscape plan and attended the hearing to give evidence and answer questions. I consider that the landscaping proposal is acceptable given the layout of the proposed development but that a different layout, with greater boundary setbacks, would have provided more scope to achieve a landscape outcome more in tune with the outcomes sought by local policy, including the consistent theme concerning the 'Garden Suburb' and the development of nature strips and private gardens. I acknowledge that the landscape proposal includes twenty 11 metre high Chanticleer/Capital Pears, one 12 metre high Chinese Elm together with other trees, shrubs and other planting around the boundaries and that these are good aspects of the proposal. However, it is constrained by the extent of building footprint, including the extent of the site occupied by the basement and access ramp.
13. Some other matters of detailed design, overlooking and internal amenity were also raised in submissions. Given that I am not granting a permit, I have not commented on each of these matters and they can be reconsidered in any new design for the site.
14. I have reservations about the practicality of the central light and the level of amenity it will provide to inboard bedrooms at all levels. One of Council's reasons for opposing the development made specific reference to the reliance on the internal light court for daylight to dwelling bedrooms and detrimental amenity to those dwellings. I agree with this criticism. Whilst the concept of providing an open lobby and light court is acceptable, the resulting use of open walkways to provide access and light at first and second levels is not an outcome I am prepared to support. Apart from the issue of noise to adjoining rooms from people using these walkways, there is also an issue of how to prevent overlooking into adjoining rooms. At the hearing there was some discussion about how these areas could be redesigned and Mr Bastone presented an alternative light well scheme as part of his evidence statement. Provision of full height screens as he suggested would be one solution but if the light well is intended to assist in air circulation then noise becomes an issue if full height screens are not provided. As with the other shortcomings I have previously discussed, I consider that the practical difficulties arising from the light well is indicative of a design that needs a reassessment based on what can achieved on this site.
15. A revised proposal needs to reduce the intensity of built form in order to overcome these shortcomings and to recognise the residential zoning of the land and related character and other policies. The site is not in a business or mixed use zone, is not part of an activity centre, is not in an identified mixed use corridor or area for higher density development and must respond according to its residential context. That context is not, as in other parts of Boroondara, formed by 3 and 4 storey apartment buildings such as those that exist along major tram routes and arterial roads such as Riversdale and Glenferrie Roads.

Should the request to approve a reduction of the Clause 52.06 parking requirement by seven visitor parking spaces be allowed and are future traffic movements unacceptable and unsafe?

1. Council and residents raised concerns about traffic generation and access arrangements and noted that at certain times of the day traffic and parking around the review site can be quite congested.
2. Ms Dunstan was called to give evidence about car parking and traffic related issues and these were discussed with her, along with bin storage and driveway access arrangements.
3. Based on the parking requirements set out in Clause 52.06, the only reason a permit is required for parking is the 7 space shortfall in visitor parking. A total of 39 spaces are being provided for residents which is a number that complies with the rate included in Clause 52.06. Although neighbours expressed concern about residents parking in the street, the required number of spaces is being provided for each dwelling and there is no justification for requiring parking beyond that specified in Clause 52.06 since there is no request to reduce the number of resident parking spaces.
4. Visitor parking is a different matter. A total of 7 spaces are needed to meet the Clause 52.06 requirement for residential visitor parking. None are being provided on-site. Council's traffic engineers supported the proposal and made reference to surveys undertaken by the applicant's traffic engineer which suggested that ample parking exists in the vicinity of the site, particularly at peak demand times in the evening.
5. The Planning Scheme allows for a reduction in on-site parking subject to the preparation of a Car Parking Demand Assessment. Clause 52.06-6 sets out what must be taken into account in such a Demand Assessment and Section 5.2 of Ms Dunstan's evidence statement provided such an assessment. Based on her analysis she estimates a peak demand of 5 visitor spaces or 2 less than the statutory rate.
6. As part her assessment, a series of parking surveys were undertaken for the full length of Seymour Grove and along Burke Road north and south of the Seymour Grove intersection. The survey area contains 95-99 on-street car spaces and excludes various 'no stopping' spaces. It also identifies five on-street time restricted spaces outside the review site. The surveys were undertaken at different times on four days and reveal that peak demand occurred at 1pm on a Wednesday (29 vacant spaces - 71% occupancy). The lowest demand occurred on a Saturday (21% occupancy) with low rates also on Sunday and Thursday evening.
7. Although I accept that on-street parking is not close to saturation point, I am not persuaded that there should be a complete waiver of visitor parking despite the site being well served by public transport. I accept that Government policies aim to reduce dependence on motor vehicles by, amongst other things, encouraging new development into areas already well served by public transport and by trying to better match housing and work places. However visitors do not necessarily have the same travel patterns as residents and it may not be as convenient for them to use public transport, or to walk or cycle.
8. A related issue and one which is rarely addressed in any detail, is the cumulative effect of allowing multiple waivers or reductions in on-site parking for different sites and the whole vexed question concerning equitable access to the public resource of on-street parking and how best to achieve the equitable use of that public resource.
9. Although neighbours raised concerns about traffic generation from the 39 on-site resident spaces, I consider that the proximity of the site to different parts of the Principal Public Transport Network and easy access to a Principal Activity Centre, educational institutions and the like will encourage residents to leave their cars at home, thereby reducing traffic movements even further than would be expected if the site was remote from such facilities. I would also observe that if the rates specified in Clause 52.06 are met in any new proposal then a permit is not required and the adequacy of parking is not open for consideration.
10. Concerns were also raised by neighbours about the location of the accessway close to the driveway and crossover for No 42 as well as being opposite the driveway to a day care centre on the south side of Seymour Grove. Although I do not dispute that traffic volumes can be high at certain times of the day given its role as part of the Camberwell Junction bypass, I am not persuaded that the accessway should be relocated to the west as suggested by Ms McGowan.
11. Noise from residents on balconies and construction noise and pollution are not reasons that would cause me to refuse the application. Whilst I accept that noise from residents can be intrusive, it is self evident that noise caused by speech, laughter, music and entertainment equipment will be generated from any form of residential development and this is part and parcel of living in an urban area. In the case of the adverse impacts of construction activities, it is obvious that any building works will create temporary inconvenience to the owner and surrounding neighbours whilst the works are being undertaken. In closely settled urban communities neighbours are more likely to be directly impacted than in lower density rural residential or rural areas. Within any community people have to accept a certain amount of temporary inconvenience while neighbours go about building or making changes to their properties. I also note that many permits include a requirement for a construction management plan setting out how building works are to be carried out or where materials and rubbish are to be stored so as to minimise impacts on neighbours.

1. Having heard submissions and evidence, reviewed photos and the plans and inspected the site and neighbourhood, I am not persuaded that the three storey apartment style building is an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character or site context.
2. I consider that the basic concept of providing dwellings in a three storey apartment style building is at odds with the existing neighbourhood character. It introduces an intensity of development more suited to a location identified on the Residential Framework Plan for more intensive residential development. That does not mean that more intensive new development cannot be supported, just that this particular proposal is unacceptable.

1. Having regard to all of the above, I will therefore order that the decision of the Responsible Authority be affirmed and that no permit is to issue.

[1] As relevant to my consideration of this application. Amendment VC104 gazetted on the 22 August 2013 now requires consideration of ResCode for buildings up to four storeys in height.