Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2003-06-24

Vasiliou v Stonnington CC [2003] VCAT 785 (24 June 2003)

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to refuse a permit. Permit Application No. 0909/01. Business 2 Zone. Environmental Audit Overlay. Clause 52.06 Car Parking. Clause 52.27 Licensed Premises. Serviced apartments (including café, conference room and chapel). Site (Frontage 14.63 metres, Area 589 square metres). State and Local Planning Policy Framework. Zone Purposes. Neighbourhood character. Streetscape. Building envelope. Car parking, Traffic.

The order of the Tribunal is that the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is granted for not more than 57 serviced apartments at 10 Claremont Street, South Yarra generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:-

1. Before development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies provided generally in accordance with the application plans but modified to show:

(a) no part of the building overhanging Claremont street, other than a weather protection canopy, minor architectural decoration, advertising signs and like structures;

(b) at the fourth and fifth floors the front façade and front balconies being set back a further 1 metre from Claremont Street;

(d) measures to ensure that the driver of a vehicle exiting from the entry/exit ramp has a reasonable view of pedestrians in Claremont Street;

(e) head clearances in the basement and associated ramps.

2. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans endorsed (including the materials, colours, decoration and/or finishes to be applied to the exterior of the buildings or works) shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Before the use starts, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a) constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

(d) drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(e) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(f) appropriately sign posted as to access and use entitlements.

(g) all driveways and access ramps to car parking spaces to comply with the relevant provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Parking areas and access lanes must be used for these purposes and for no other purpose.

4. Vehicle crossings must be constructed in the locations shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority.

5. Any abandoned or disused vehicular crossings must be removed in conjunction with the development and the footpaths and kerb and channel surrounding the site must be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Before commencement of construction or carrying out any buildings or works in association with a sensitive use on the site, the permit holder must provide to the Responsible Authority either:

(a) a certificate of environmental audit issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

(b) an environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

7. Any external lighting must be designed, baffled and located to suitably manage any adverse effects on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. All plant and equipment must be generally contained within the envelope of the buildings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. Adequate provision shall be made for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid wastes by private collectors within the curtilage of the site. This area shall be properly graded and drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(a) the development is not started within 2 years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the development is not completed within 2 years from commencement of construction.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the Permit expires or within the three (3) months afterwards.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Mr John Rantino, Solicitor appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority.

Mr Andrew Vasiliou, Applicant for Review appeared on his own behalf.

1. This is an application to review the refusal of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for serviced departments in a proposed eleven storey building over basement car parking at 10 Claremont Street, South Yarra. The parties at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal.

2. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal made certain directions in relation to the Responsible Authority producing "Yarra - Claremont Street preliminary urban design guidelines" and associated agenda paper and minutes, on the basis that at the hearing it was anticipated that the Council would be considering the proposed guidelines at its meeting on the 19th May 2003. The Responsible Authority subsequently advised the Tribunal that the guidelines were unlikely to go before the Council until the end of June, in which circumstances we decided that we should decide the Application For Review without waiting for this additional information.

3. The Tribunal inspected the subject site and its locality. During its inspection the Tribunal had particular regard to sites which were the subject of permits for redevelopment, and in particular the Fun Factory site.

4. The following extracts from Mr Rantino's submission provide a description of the site, the locality and the proposal:

The subject land is located on the eastern side of Claremont Street, South Yarra, approximately 120 metres north of Toorak Road.

Claremont Street is a local, one-way street which intersects with Melbourne High School and terminates at Yarra Street.

The subject land has a frontage of 14.63 metres and a depth of 40.23 metres, giving a total site area of- 589 square metres.

The property forms part of a larger precinct occasionally known as the Forrest Hill area. This precinct is broadly defined as the area to the north east of the South Yarra railway station, bounded by the railway line, Alexandra Avenue to the north, Chapel Street to the south and Toorak Road to the east.

Currently, the land is used and developed with an apartment building housing 4 apartments. The building has a brick exterior and a hipped roof and is partially screened from Claremont Street by a high front fence and mature trees within the front setback. Carports are located to the rear of the property, accessed via a driveway along the site's northern boundary.

The subject land previously had the benefit of a planning permit issued in July 2000 (No. 0487/00) which authorised a five storey building with generous setbacks and a maximum height of RL -26.05. This permit was never acted upon and has since expired on 31 December 2002. It was intended to be "transitional" in that it was to preserve the site specific controls approved by Amendment L16 following the introduction of the new-format Scheme. This development was to consist of 30 serviced apartments with carparking and a cafe.

Claremont Street is generally characterised by development of 2-3 storeys (excluding the Daly Street carpark which rises to the rear of the subject land) and, given that the street falls from north to south, buildings generally follow the fall of the land, resulting in an additional half level particularly at the northern end of the street. The street itself is narrow and buildings are of a generally low scale and height.

Adjoining land has the following development characteristics:

* to the east - the Daly Street carpark, a building of an equivalent 7-8 "residential" levels (15 parking levels) which provides in excess of 500 car spaces with primary access from Daly Street and secondary access adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject land;

* to the south (6 Claremont Street) - a double storey office building;

* to the north (12 Claremont Street) - a double storey office building which is setback from the street alignment and provides car parking within the front setback. Further north at 14 Claremont Street is the Salt nightclub which is housed within a double storey building set back from the street; and

* to the west (opposite side of Claremont Street) - generally industrial/ warehouse buildings. 7 Claremont Street is directly opposite the subject land and contains a 2-2.5 level building used as a factory outlet. Further south at 5 - 11 Yarra Street (with frontage to Claremont Street) is the substantial Pinnacle Yeast factory (having a 7,800 square metre site area) which is presently being decommissioned. The Tetley Tea Factory is located at 12 Yarra Street, having a site area of approximately 2,241 square metres and a frontage to Claremont Street. Both the Yeast Factory and Tetley Tea sites have recently been sold, with the intention that they be redeveloped, possibly for mixed use development.

An application has been received by the Responsible Authority for the subdivision of the Yeast Factory site, although this application is in its early stages and further plans are required.

The application proposes the development of an 11 storey building above basement car park for use as 57 serviced apartments and a chapel. It also a café which is a Food and Drink Premises which is an as-of-right use in a Business 2 Zone.

* 35 car parking spaces, 6 of which will be provided in tandem;

* ground floor - foyer and reception, kitchen and "coffee bar" (caff), a swimming pool and amenities along the northern boundary, 4 x one bedroom apartments each with small courtyards;

* levels 1, 2 and 3 - 6 x one bedroom apartments and 2 x two bedroom apartments on each level. Balconies are provided to all apartments;

* level 4 - 4 x one bedroom apartments and 3 x two bedroom apartments, each with a balcony, including a substantial balcony to unit 1 facing Claremont Street;

* level 5 - 4 x one bedroom apartments and 3 x two bedroom apartments, each with a balcony;

* level 6 and 7 - 5 x two bedroom apartments, some of which can be separated into single apartments, with balconies to all units (although the two front units appear to share a single balcony);

* level 8 - 3 x two bedroom apartments each with balcony, some of which can be separated into single apartments, a conference room and amenities fronting Claremont Street;

* level 9 - 1 x two bedroom apartment and 1 x three bedroom apartment, each with balconies;

* level 10 - a chapel with substantial terrace area on all sides, small kitchen and single bathroom with a small dome on the top of the building. The application material suggests that this chapel may operate only on Sundays; and

* the application material does not seem to include a roof plan.

* The building will have a maximum height of RL 48.1 to top of parapet (with street level being RL 10.0, hence the building is 38.1 metres above street level) and the following setbacks:

* at ground floor, the building is built to the Claremont Street frontage. The building is also built to all other boundaries, with the exception of the four courtyards at the rear of the building which have a depth of 1.2 metres;

* levels 1, 2 and 3 include a balcony overhang above the Claremont Street footpath which ranges from 800mm to 1.58 metres. Maximum side setbacks are 1.2 metres for small indented portions of the building between the side balconies and the rear elevation is constructed to the boundary;

* level 4 continues an overhang over the Claremont Street footpath (800mm) although the building front is set back 2 metres from this frontage. The north, south and eastern boundaries have the same building footprint as the levels below;

* level 5 has the same setbacks as level 4, although the front balcony is now entirely within the property boundary and has been decreased in size;

* the building face of level 6 is set back - 6.97 metres from the frontage, with the balcony projecting to within 1.9 metres of the boundary (part of which will be undercroft). The north western and south western parts of the building have a 1.2 metre setback from the north and south property boundaries;

* at level 7, the building face is set back 6.97 metres, with the balcony projecting to within 4.97 metres of the boundary. Other setbacks remain the same;

* at level 8, the balcony is set back 6.97 metres from the frontage, with the building face set back 13.4 metres. The building envelope steps in from the boundary although the balcony extends over the level below on the north and south elevations;

* level 9 is set back 16.84 metres to the front facade, with 13.44 metres to the front of the balcony. The building is set back 3 metres from the eastern (rear) boundary to provide for a balcony. Other setbacks remain the same; and

* level 10 is set back - 23 metres to the building face and 16.7 metres to the front of the balcony. The eastern boundary has a setback of between 4.8 and 6.5 metres to the building face and 3 metres to the front of the balcony. The northern and southern elevations are set back 4.1 metres, with a 1.2 metre setback to the balcony.

It can be seen that there are minimal setbacks to the northern and western elevations at but levels 9 and 10, being constituted by small breaks between balconies which are "framed" by the balconies above. The building will be constructed to the rear (east) boundary along all but levels 9 and 10.

5. The history of this site from a planning perspective is lengthy and torturous. The history includes the approval of a planning scheme amendment L16, which permitted the use and development of the land for serviced departments in a five level building above basement car parking. The following extract from Mr Rantino's submission sets out the background to the current permit application and this associated application for review:

Planning permit application no. 909/01 was lodged with the Responsible Authority on or around 2 August 2001 by Andrew Vasiliou seeking permission to use and develop the land for 57 serviced apartments and chapel with basement carpark. The subject land is currently used for 4 flats in a double storey apartment building of RL1 7.63.

* a report prepared by the applicant dated 26 July 2001.

Additional information was submitted to the Responsible Authority on 12 March 2002 (as requested on 6 February 2002), including:

* urban design context report - Tract Consultants March 2002;

* town planning report - Tract Consultants February 2002;

* traffic report - Andrew O'Brien & Associates 1999; and

* town planning report - Urbex International February 2002 (prepared by the applicant in person).

The Responsible Authority made a request for further information pursuant to section 54 of the PE Act on 18 March 2002 for an updated traffic analysis of the proposal, with this information provided on 21 March 2002.

Notice of the application was given in accordance with section 52(1)(a) and (d) of the PE Act to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and to other people who the Responsible Authority considered may be caused material detriment. A public notice was erected on the front of the subject land.

Five objections were received in response to notification (one was later withdrawn), generally on the following grounds:

* entrance to proposed apartments would be too close to adjoining nightclub entry;

* inadequate provision of car parking for residents and visitors which would cause detriment to the amenity of the area and existing uses;

* proposed access is inadequate and would result in traffic congestion in the street; and

* casual/public car parking in the Daly Street carpark is limited, given existing commitments of large numbers of car spaces to other uses.

There are no referral authorities for the application. The application was informally referred, within Council to its Transport & Parking Unit. It had concerns that the number of units should be reduced to correlate with the 31 car parking spaces to be provided for residents and also considered that tandem spaces are generally inappropriate for serviced apartments. It commented that on-street parking is likely to be sought for overflow parking rather than the Daly Street carpark and that there was a generally inadequate supply of conveniently located longer-stay resident parking. It determined that an appropriate ratio for the provision of car parking was 0.8-1 space per unit. It noted concerns about the chapel being used by people other than residents, which would lead to increased demands for car parking. This unit also suggested alterations which should be undertaken to improve ramp design and sight distances within car park if the proposal was to receive a permit. The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of impacts on traffic flows in the local area (aside from those caused by car parking deficiencies on site).

We then had the appointment by the Minister of an Advisory Committee charged with a number of tasks, one of which was to advise on "the merits of the proposal in Planning Application No. 0909101". This Committee held its hearing on 25 June 2002 and delivered in its report in August 2002. In relation to its task regarding the permit application, the Advisory Committee's recommendation was: Planning Application 909/01 be determined by Council as soon as possible using the report of the Advisory Committee to frame their decision. The Responsible Authority issued a Refusal to Grant a Permit on 22 November 2002 on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives, policy and preferred height and setbacks set out in Clause 22.02 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. The bulk, mass, scale and height of the proposed development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

3. The proposed development will adversely impact on the public realm and is contrary to the design principles in Clause 19.03 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

4. The provision and layout of off-street car parking is unsatisfactory.

In his application for review, the applicant submits in his application for review that the proposal is consistent with planning controls, the proposal does not constitute overdevelopment of the land and will not have any adverse effects on car parking in the area.

6. In the above extract from Mr Rantino's submission, he outlines how this permit application was referred to an Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister for Planning in an attempt to find a resolution of this matter. Both parties in this application for review relied on the conclusions of the Advisory Committee to a greater and lesser degree. The Advisory Committee report is a moderately lengthy document. Set out below is the Advisory Committee's conclusion:

* The subject area (ie the "Forrest Hill" precinct) has not been strategically analysed for 15 years and in that time much has changed and is still changing.

* As submitted, the proposal partly complies with the SPPF (Urban consolidation) but has some shortcomings with respect to Clause 19.03 (Design and built form).

* Not surprisingly, the proposal fails the LPPF but this is mainly because these strategies and policies are based on such "tired" strategic research.

* The proposed design, in isolation, has some shortcomings especially in terms of its lack of pedestrian scale and inadequate car parking.

Overall, it is simply not possible for this Committee to advise Council or this proponent on how this proposal sits in a strategic context because there is an inadequate contemporary strategic context.

It is therefore also not possible to advise Council or this proponent on the merits of his proposed building because there is very little to reference to it.

Until that strategic work is done, there is no basis for amending the scheme on a site specific or precinct basis, and there is therefore no basis for supporting the current application.

7. One area of common ground between the parties, is that the use of the land for the purpose of serviced apartments, is an appropriate use. While the purpose of the Business 2 zone is primarily focused on the development of offices and other like commercial uses, the history of the various permissions granted for the use and development of this land, and the character of the area generally, support its use for serviced apartments. Indeed, serviced apartments are not uncommon in South Yarra and reflecting the attractiveness of the Toorak Road and Chapel Street activity centres to short term residents whether they be tourists, or business people working in Melbourne for a short period.

8. In many respects the most important issue in this appeal, is that this permit application is argued to be premature. While a strategic direction relevant to the Forest Hill precinct is to "encourage the more intensive and larger scale mixed uses, such as office and service uses, to these localities", it is unarguable that the present proposal does not comply with the preferred building height and setback provisions of Clause 22.02 of the planning scheme ordinance. The Advisory Committee described these policy provisions as being stale, based as they are on research and policy development which is now almost 18 years old. These requirements do not reflect the changes in the planning, social and economic environment in which development in the area is taking place. The Responsible Authority does not dispute that the existing policy framework is stale (in particular the expressed urban design guidelines in relation to height and building setbacks) rather the Responsible Authority argues that there is a need for a comprehensive review of existing policy, and that proposals such as the present proposal should await the outcome of that process.

9. The Tribunal was advised that the Responsible Authority is presently in the process of putting together a proposal to the State Government for funding to support a comprehensive review of the Forest Hill precinct. On this basis, it is clear that even if the State Government is very speedy in approving the funding of the project, we are nevertheless many years away from the implementation of a planning scheme amendment, giving effect to the recommendations of such a review.

10. The Responsible Authority has recognized the onerous impact of these lengthy policy development processes on land owners. In relation to two large development sites located between Claremont Street and Yarra Street, the Responsible Authority has entered into discussions with the developers of those sites, and proposed the preparation of interim guidelines to guide development of these larger sites in advance of the conclusion of the broader policy review to be undertaken for the area as a whole. We were also advised that options for these sites under discussion to date included buildings up to 12 storeys in height.

11. The Responsible Authority's approach to these larger sites recognises that it is not always fair or appropriate to make land owners wait long periods, in this case many years, for a proper assessment of their proposal, on the basis that the planning policy framework relevant to the locality is in need of review. It seems to us that the question to be resolved in this case is whether or not the present proposal if approved is likely to prejudice the development of a long term plan for the management of use and development of land within the precinct. We have already reached the relatively uncontested conclusion that the proposed use of the land is an appropriate use, the remaining issue to be resolved is whether or not the proposed building is appropriate from an urban design/neighbourhood character perspective.

12. The current preferred height and setback regime essentially contemplates a three level building built to the front boundary of the site, and with up to two additional stories set back so that they are not visible within the streetscape other than from oblique view points. The proposed building has four storeys built to the frontage of the site, with the front portion of the building thereafter progressively setback from both the front and side boundaries as the building rises from the fifth to eleventh level. In this design the upper levels of the building will be much more prominent within the streetscape, but will nevertheless be seen as recessive vis a vis the lower floor levels which occupy the entire frontage of the site.

13. The Advisory Committee was concerned that the proposed building will be adverse to pedestrian amenity, because of its potentially overbearing impact. We are of the view that it is the lower level of the building, that is that part of the building built to the frontage of the site, which will dictate the extent to which the building is overbearing within the streetscape. In many respects this part of the building is of a similar scale to the existing industrial building located immediately to its south in Claremont Street. Therefore, it is our conclusion that a four level building built to the streetscape is not unreasonable in the context of Claremont Street. Nevertheless, there is an aspect of the present design which may have been influential in the Advisory Committee forming the view it did in relation to its threat to the amenity of pedestrians in Claremont Street. The three levels above ground floor level, in this four storey podium, all have balconies which overhang the narrow eastern footpath of Claremont Street. These balconies and the rather heavy framing and dividing structure which is an element of the architectural decoration of the building, will be overbearing when viewed from street level, as a consequence of the narrow dimensions of Claremont Street itself, and in particular of its footpaths. However we think that this problem can be readily overcome by requiring the proposed balconies to be inset behind the building line, and only allowing weather protection, and decorative architectural elements such as poles or blades, to sit out from the face of the building and overhang the street. The upper levels of the building step away from both the front and side boundaries and we consider that these upper levels cannot be regarded as being oppressive from a streetscape perspective (with some minor adjustment to the setback of the fourth and fifth floors).

14. A question to be resolved is whether or not an eleven level building on the subject land is acceptable in the broader neighborhood context. In this regard if one has regard to the scale of the Daly Street car park which abuts the land to the rear, the existing ANZ bank building, and the proposed twenty seven level building on the Fun Factory site, it is difficult in our view to argue that the an eleven level building on the subject land is incongruous. In this context it is unsurprising that the discussions to date in respect of the larger development sites on the west side of Claremont Street, have included discussions about twelve storey buildings. When the proposed building is viewed from more distant locations, it will be in the main viewed against the background of taller buildings to the east and south. In that respect it will create a transition downwards from the taller towers.

15. In architectural terms the building is a quite pleasing building by a well regarded firm of architects. Nevertheless, the proposal has been under discussion for a considerable time, and as a consequence the colours and finishes proposed in the design before the Tribunal are somewhat different to that which is presently fashionable. The permit condition requiring the specification of colours and materials will provide an opportunity for a review of this aspect of the design if considered desirable.

16. The building as proposed includes a basement car park for 35 car spaces, including some 10 car spaces in tandem pairs. The arrangement is rather tight, as one would expect on a small site such as this. The subject land adjoins the Daly Street car park, a very large commercial car park, and access to this car park is available via a driveway from Claremont Street adjoining the south boundary of the subject land. There is considerable scope for the operators of serviced apartments on the subject land to enter into a commercial arrangement with the operators of this car park, if such an arrangement is seen to be necessary. In fact, we observed on inspection that the nearby Claremont Hotel, located on the corner of the Toorak Road and Claremont Street, uses the Daly Street car park for this very purpose, and there is a sign at the entry to the car park indicating that it provides car parking for the Claremont Hotel.

17. The permit application was supported by a traffic engineer report from Andrew O'Brien and Associates. And Mr Rantino called traffic engineer evidence from Mr Henry Turnbull of the Traffix Group. It is interesting to contrast the approach of these two traffic engineering firms in this matter.

18. The O'Brien report treats the café, conference room, chapel etc as being ancillary to the primary use of the land for the purpose of serviced apartments. The report then assesses the car parking demand of the service apartments on the basis of 0.73 car spaces per occupied apartment, and applied an average occupancy rate of 75%. The occupancy rate was based on surveys in the inner metropolitan region. The Traffix report on the other hand regarded the café, conference room, and chapel as separate uses and applied reasonably conventional car parking rates for these uses independent of the service apartments. In relation to the serviced apartments a car parking rate of 0.8 car spaces per apartment was applied, which essentially assumed an average occupancy of 100%.

19. We think that the car parking approach adopted by the O'Brien report is to be preferred in the context of an important regional activity centre in inner metropolitan Melbourne, with excellent public transport. It is more reasonable to provide car parking to accommodate average car parking demands, rather than to attempt to anticipate the worst possible peak outcome, and then to seek to accommodate that peak demand, although in fairness to Mr. Turnbull, he did not advocate all car parking being provided on site. If on occasion, on site car parking is insufficient it will be in the commercial interest of the operator of serviced apartments, to ensure that there is a sufficient car parking available by arrangement with the Daly Street car park.

20. We also prefer the O'Brien report's approach of regarding the café, conference room, chapel as being ancillary to the use of the premises as serviced apartments. It is unlikely that people will drive to the area to use the café within this building on this site. The conference room is a relatively small space, and it is unlikely that it will be used for conferences for a significant number of persons not resident on the premises. The chapel is a very small space, and more a decorative finish to the building, than a real and independent use.

21. As described above the basement car park is very tight, because of the restricted dimensions of the subject land. The present design was prepared by Grogan Richards Pty Ltd in response to criticisms by the Responsible Authority's own traffic engineers in respect of the original layout prepared by the architects. The Traffix report raised a number of matters about the functioning of the car park, three of which we think need to be addressed. These issues are, opposing traffic on the one way entrance ramp, sight distances at the entry/exit onto Claremont Street, and head clearances below the proposed swimming pool.

22. We do not agree that a two way ramp would be appropriate from a streetscape perspective and therefore the issue of opposing traffic on the ramp should be addressed through the use of a traffic signaling system. Site distances at the entry exit onto Claremont Street in our view can be addressed either by some minor widening of the ramp at the street, or through the use of devices such as mirrors. In some respects mirrors would be preferable because of the desirability of reducing the visual impact of the entry ramp on the streetscape, however, it is our intention that this be a matter to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In relation to the head clearance issue it is important that the plans demonstrate that the head clearance within the basement car park is not compromised by the proposed swimming pool.

23. It is our conclusion that the proposed use and development is consistent with the character of the locality, and the scale and form of buildings in the immediate environs both existing and proposed. The planning policy framework encourages more intensive development within the Forest Hill precinct. While the current proposal is consistent with that general aim, it is not consistent with the specific building height and setback policies set out in the urban design guidelines of the planning scheme. However, these guidelines are acknowledged to be "stale" and in need of review. While it would be desirable in a perfect world for the redevelopment of this site to await a new round of policy development for this precinct, the considerable delay which would be required in this case would lead to an unjust outcome. The present proposal is unlikely in any fundamental way to compromise the future planning of this locality. For these reasons it is our intention to direct the grant of a permit.

Environment Act 1987

Vasiliou v Stonnington CC [2003] VCAT 785

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (120 paragraphs)

Vasiliou v Stonnington CC [2003] VCAT 785 (24 June 2003)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)