The decision of the Responsible Authority in permit application no. WH/14989 is varied. A permit is granted and is directed to be issued. The permit relates to the land at No. 14 Spring Street, Box Hill. The permit will allow the use and development of the land for a residential building (student accommodation) in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision dated 18 March 2005 with the following variations:

1 The text in the section "What Will The Permit Allow?" is deleted and replaced with the following:

Use and development of the land for a residential building (comprising wholly student accommodation) generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

•

Part(a) is deleted and replaced with the following:

(a) Changes to the floor plans as shown in the plans appended to the statement of evidence dated June 2005 by Mr R McGauran to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Application for Review Nos. P864/2005 & P1125/2005.

•

Part (c) is deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) Changes to the southern elevation generally as shown in the plans tendered to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Application for Review Nos. P864/2005 and P1125/2005 marked as Revision 2, 01.06.05 "Plans amended as per proposed conditions of permit".

•

Part (d) is deleted and replaced with the following:

(d) Details of the perforated/weaved metal mesh for north and west facing balconies so as to visually and acoustically screen air conditioning units placed on balconies to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

•

New Parts are added as follows:

(k)

The arrow to the notation "R.O.W. Widened for Two Way Traffic" modified to exclude the land at No. 12 Spring Street.

(j)

The provision of screening to a height of no less than 1.7 metres above finished floor level to the western end of the balconies to units 0.07, 1.08 and 2.08 [the unit numbers being based on the plans referred to in Condition 1(a)].

(k)

The provision of convex mirror opposite the bottom of the ramp to assist visibility in the basement car park and to the ramp.

•

Part (d) is deleted and replaced with the following:

(d) All rooms within the development shall be used solely as part of student accommodation and support functions. All rooms must be managed by a single management entity and must not be leased or otherwise occupied as a residence other than as student accommodation for students enrolled at a tertiary level educational institution.

•

Delete part (viii) and re-number subsequent parts accordingly.

•

Amend part (ix) [the former part (x)] as follows:

o

The number "9" is deleted and replaced with the number "10".

o

The following sentence is added:

In the event that the number of residents with vehicles accommodated on the land exceeds the 10 spaces provided within the basement, advice must be given by the management entity to prospective residents that no on-site car space can be provided.

5 In Condition 7, the words "be accommodated" are replaced with the word "reside".

6 In Condition 24, the number "9" is deleted and replaced with the number "10".

For Applicant in P864/2005 & Respondent in P1125/2005

Mr K Walters, Mrs B Walters, Ms M Dodds, Ms H Stubbs, Mr J Schulz, Mr Q Wang and Ms S Spiropoulos all in person. Mr and Mrs Walter also appeared for Mrs V Farrelly.

For Applicant in P1125/2005 and Respondent in P864/2005

Mr I McP Pitt SC, solicitor of Best Hooper solicitors. Evidence was called from:

•

Mr R McGauran, project architect.

•

Mrs K Partenio, traffic engineer.

•

Mr L Hayball, architect.

•

Mr G Wilson, Director of Student Housing Australia Pty Ltd.

1 These reasons address two Applications made under Sections 80 and 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") relating to a proposal to construct a four storey building on the subject land for 40 student accommodation units. One Application is brought by Mr K Walters and others seeking review of a decision made by the Whitehorse City Council ("the Council") to determine to grant a permit for the proposed residential building. A Notice of Decision ("the Notice") was issued on 18 March 2005. The second Application is brought by MGS Architects seeking review of conditions included in the Notice. Review is sought of Conditions 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 3(d), 4(viii), 4(x), and 7. Those conditions seek modifications to specific parts of the building and basement and make reference to limits on occupant numbers and vehicle ownership. I have noticed since the Hearing that no review of Condition 24 was sought but it is linked with Condition 4(x) and changes sought by the Council to the basement. Any amendments to Conditions 1(x) and 4(x) would require consequential changes to Condition 24.

2 The subject site is located on the west side of Spring Street close to the southern end of that no-through road. It has an area of around 595 square metres with a frontage to Spring Street of 15.24 metres. To its north, the subject land has frontage to a lane that is available for vehicles to its eastern end and is closed to vehicle traffic around half-way down the length of the lane. The subject land is relatively flat and is occupied by a single storey dwelling and a garage. Time restricted on-street parking is permitted adjacent to the site's frontage.

3 To the immediate north, at No. 12 Spring Street, are three double storey dwellings with the upper level contained in a high roof form. These units each have windows facing toward the lane and review site including living rooms and two also have a front door facing south. The primary open space is to the north. Ms Stubbs and Ms Spiropoulos are resident in two of these dwellings. No. 10 Spring Street is next to the north (Mr Schulz' residence) being a single storey dwelling. A medical centre and car parks then extend along the west side of Spring Street to the intersection with Arnold Street.

4 To the immediate south of the subject land is a single storey dwelling at No. 16 Spring Street and then another dwelling southwards at No. 18 Spring Street. I was advised that both lots have been purchased by TAFE that is adjacent to the south. A landscaped car park abuts the common boundary with No. 18 Spring Street and TAFE buildings are then to the south/east.

5 The east side of Spring Street is occupied by the Salvation Army and an open car park associated with that use. A permit application is current for the redevelopment of the car park. To the north of the Salvation Army land and extending to Arnold Street is the soon to be completed Epworth Eastern Hospital development at 5-6 levels plus basements.

6 To the rear of the review site are several dwellings fronting Wellington Road. They are Nos. 18, 22 and 26 Wellington Road as shown on the aerial photographs tendered at the Hearing (there being no Nos. 20 or 24 shown) although Mr and Mrs Walter refer to their address as No. 24. No. 22 (Mrs Varrelly's property) abuts the whole of the western boundary of the review site with private open space to the rear of the single storey dwelling. No. 18 Wellington Road is owned by Mr Wang and is diagonally to the south-west of the subject land. What appears to be a driveway on No. 18 (but might be No. 20) also runs into the western boundary of the subject land. No. 18 has private open space to the rear of the single storey dwelling. No. 24 Wellington Road abuts the north side of the lane, north-west of the review site. Other properties in Wellington Road are single storey detached houses or units. Further to the west are properties in Poplar Street including another part of the campus of the Box Hill TAFE. I understand that the lane abutting the review site is used as a walkway for students moving between different parts of the TAFE campus amongst other users.

7 It is proposed to use and develop the land for student accommodation in a three level building plus basement. A total of 40 units with 42 bedrooms is proposed. Studios, one and two bedroom units are shown with the majority being studios or single bedroom. Communal spaces are on each level. The information before me focuses on residents being full-time tertiary students drawn from outside Australia without precluding other tertiary students. A lift and small kiosk for residents are proposed. A basement accessed from the lane abutting the northern boundary of the site would provide for 10 cars and 6 bicycles as well as storage and a communal laundry.

8 The building would be setback from Spring Street by 0.5 metre at ground level then increasing to 1.3 metres for the higher two levels. The minimum setback from the northern boundary would be 1.4 metres at ground level and then 1.6 metres at the next two levels including the angled balconies. The exception to those setbacks is at the eastern section of the building where a wider setback is allowed to accommodate vehicle movement (adjacent to the ground level garbage store enclosure and communal lounge). The setback from the western boundary would be 2.5 metres at ground level then ranging between 2.5 - 3.5 metres at the first floor level and 3.5 - 4.5 metres for the upper level. Narrower setbacks are provided to the southern boundary. Each unit would have an area of private open space.

9 The plans show screening to 1.7 metres for all west-facing windows, including those at ground level given the elevated floor level above the natural surface.

10 The maximum height above ground level of the north elevation would be around 11 metres while the maximum overall height of the building would be close to 13 metres taking into account the roof access enclosure. Each façade is treated differently with a range of materials and finishes as set out in the statements of evidence of Mr McGauran and Mr Hayball. No mechanical ventilation is required for the basement with partly ivy-clad grilles facing into the laneway. The west elevation includes similar ivy planting over steel mesh in addition to glazing and coloured panels.

11 Changes to the proposal are appended to the statement of evidence by Mr R McGauran dated June 2005. They seek to respond to the conditions contested by the permit applicant and show 7 bicycle spaces, 34 units with 39 bedrooms and 134.4 square metres of communal area across the three floor levels. Ms Stamkos explained at the Hearing that although the changes may not be specifically as proposed by the Council [the Council having sought the deletion of several units to create larger communal spaces through Condition 1(a)] the Council was satisfied that the intent of its conditions had been achieved through Mr McGauran's revisions. Further, consequential changes to the southern elevation had resulted in a design outcome that the Council considered satisfied its proposed Condition 1(c). Ms Stamkos also stated that the Council's request in Condition 1(d) for the deletion of a car space was no longer required again based on the Mr McGauran's plans that show modifications to the basement layout.

12 The subject site is zoned Residential 1 under the provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme ("the Scheme"). A permit is required to use and develop the land for a residential building (student accommodation). Decision guidelines set out at Clause 32.01 have been taken into account by the Tribunal. As a result of the height of the basement above ground (up to 1.7 metres at the north-west) the development is technically four storeys for the purposes of the Scheme. The provisions of Clause 55 do not apply to a residential building of four storeys although the permit application was assessed by the Council under Clause 55 and Mr Pitt SC was content to use Clause 55 as a benchmark. No Overlays apply to the land.

13 A number of other Clauses are relevant to this review, including:

•

Clauses 11, 14, 15, 16, 17.01, 18.02, 18.07, 19.03 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Clause 19.03 brings into consideration the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE 2004).

•

Clauses 21, 22.04 (Tree Conservation) and 22.05 (Box Hill Business District) of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

•

Car and bicycle parking requirements at Clauses 52.06 and 52.34.

•

General decision guidelines at Clause 65.

14 Melbourne 2030 has also been taken into account by the Tribunal. Box Hill is designated as a principal activity centre.

15 Amendment C50 has been exhibited and considered by an independent Panel. Ms Stamkos tendered a copy of the Panel report (dated June 2005).

16 I have considered the submissions and evidence with regard to the relevant provisions, policies and decision guidelines set out in the Scheme. That has been assisted by my inspection of the subject site, the properties at Nos. 18 and 24 Wellington Road and the wider locality and locality that occurred on 7 July 2005. I have decided to affirm the decision made by the Responsible Authority, subject to modified conditions that reflect the amended plans tendered through the evidence of Mr McGauran and generally supported by the Council. The following sets out my reasons in relation to the key issues raised by the parties in their submissions.

17 Before turning to specific issues it is necessary to refer to the strategic direction for the subject land and surrounding area being pursued actively by the Council as that is fundamental to my final determination. I addressed much of this material in Lanco Commercial Projects Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2004] VCAT 1985 which considered a proposal for a three and four level student accommodation facility in Bruce Street, Box Hill; that is a short distance to the east of the review site in the current proceeding. As I said in Lanco at paragraphs 27 and 28 (inter alia):

The existing policies in the Scheme that are relevant to this Application are principally those relating to existing residential character, the Box Hill Business Centre and high quality design. Each is important, however, in the context of the review site, there is a tension between maintaining the existing low scale character and building form and the strategic objectives for land use and development relating to the Business Centre. The expectation of some residents was that the 9 metre height referred to in Standard B7 of Clause 55 would be the maximum allowed. However, in terms of the objectives of the Business Centre as I address below, four storeys is not outrageous and a consequence is that the provisions of Clause 55 do not apply even though the subject land is in a Residential 1 Zone.

It is not possible to maintain the existing low scale character and achieve other policy objectives relating to the future growth of the municipality that seeks to focus substantial development in areas such as the subject land. The basis for my conclusion that the subject land and area near to it has been earmarked for change is derived a combination of policy statements:

•

Clause 21.04 "A Vision for the City of Whitehorse" says Council will:

ensure medium density housing is integrated with existing residential areas in a form consistent with the character of neighbourhoods, with higher density housing being located in specific areas with excellent public transport and shopping access. [Tribunal emphasis added]

•

The Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.04 shows the review site within the Box Hill Business Centre as confirmed by the map to Clause 22.05. The review site is not within a special investigation or character area. ...

•

Clause 21.05 reiterates some matters already noted. It emphasises high quality design and new development that makes a positive contribution to an area's character. It states that development will be guided into areas "where redevelopment can enhance the area".

•

Clause 21.06 foreshadows the preparation of a Housing Study:

to ensure that future housing stock is able to respond positively to the population and social trends that will shape the future housing needs within the City. It will identify areas that are well served by public transport, close to employment centres, shopping, recreation, community and entertainment facilities and can accommodate higher density housing. Areas that cannot sustain further development will also be identified. This is based on the concept of sustainable growth by promoting growth on major public transport routes, grouping compatible land uses to facilitate multi purpose trips and being aware of the impacts intense development can have on sensitive areas. [Tribunal emphasis added]

•

The strategies at Clause 21.06 support the concept of sustainable growth.

•

Clause 21.10 and Clause 22.05 refer to the Box Hill Business Centre. As noted, the review site is within the Business Centre, as shown on the map to Clause 22.05, and that is common ground between the Council and Applicant. The Box Hill District Centre Structure Plan, 1991 is a reference document. The policy basis to Clause 22.05 states that several precincts in the District have been identified, each playing a different role in support of this major centre. It continues:

For Box Hill to realise its true potential, it is important that future land use and development in these precincts are consistent with these roles. [Tribunal emphasis added]

•

An objective of Clause 22.05 is to reinforce the role of each precinct in the District by appropriate land use and development. ...

18 These provisions and my findings are all relevant to the current proceeding. That is, the area will change if the policies pursued by the Council are successful and the current Applications and others before this Tribunal are testament to the fact that development is responding to the very real opportunities presented by this locality. The pace of change seems to be increasing but I do not accept submissions by Mr Walters and others that it is occurring in absence of a concrete plan or that rezoning is fundamental to this progression. I think that there is a case for more detailed design guidelines to assist guide future development in relation to matters such as heights and setbacks, as occurred in the Prospect Street Corporate Precinct (and included in Clause 22.05) and potentially rezoning, but in absence of these steps, I do not think it can be said that strategic direction is lacking or that the proposal should be halted to await further planning or investigations.

19 The review site is part of the Business Centre and was said by Ms Stamkos to be included in Precinct 4. The plan attached to Clause 22.05 is unclear on that point but the Council's interpretation is logical when examining the role and location of other identified precincts. Precinct 4 is "Box Hill TAFE and Box Hill Hospital" wherein the following policies are set out:

•

The operations of Box Hill TAFE be consolidated to the north of Whitehorse Road having regard to the protection of the residential amenity of the area.

•

Activities that support the operations of the TAFE and Box Hill Hospital be encouraged.

20 Since the introduction of Clause 22.05 in 1999, the Council has undertaken and adopted a number of studies and reports culminating in Amendment C50. The Box Hill Urban Design Framework (March 2002) includes the review site in Precinct 7 "Health & Education" where it is said that:

Existing & proposed development is dominated by health & education uses. Opportunity for higher density residential development, rationalised car parking areas & improved east-west pedestrian movement corridors.

21 The only principle relating to higher density residential development referred to in Precinct 7 is "Additional health related business and higher density housing between Rodgerson Rd & Elgar Rd, & along Arnold St to be encouraged". Given the location of Rodgerson Road, the precise location for such development is not entirely clear to me. The document also notes the lack of campus style/student housing in this area.

22 Clause 21.05 foreshadows a housing study that was then undertaken and completed in 2003. The Housing Study is also an adopted Council policy. It includes the review site in Precinct 5; an area for possible higher density housing and of substantial change. Under the heading "possible development potential" on page 77 it states:

This is an ideal location for up to three or four storey development given the scale of the Hospital and TAFE buildings. Along Severn and Station Street, however, one and two storey development is considered to be appropriate given the interface with existing residential areas.

23 The same qualification in the last sentence is not made in relation to the western part of Precinct 5 within which the review site is located. The Housing Study goes onto refer to possible yields based on a average of 5 dwellings per average lot but given the nature of the use proposed I do not think that it is helpful and it is not a figure to be bound by in any event.

24 Over time through the progression of studies, I think that the development focus for the area of the review site has increased. Amendment C50 seeks, inter alia, to bring the precincts included in the Box Hill Urban Design Framework (March 2002) into the Scheme and proposes that all applications be assessed in accordance with that Framework. It also refers to areas of "substantial change". The current Scheme directions are more generalised in relation to higher density housing compared with Amendment C50. That Amendment has not been adopted following the receipt of the Panel report (June 2005) but on my reading the Panel has given support to the strategic planning work that has been undertaken by the Council. It has recommended the redrafting of policies such as Clause 22.07 Box Hill Activity Centre to define key objectives and performance criteria for precincts. That may go some of the way to addressing criticisms raised by Mr Walter as to a lack of detailed planning for this area. I think that same point is implied in relation to the Panel's comments about areas of substantial change at page 55 when it proposes that the Council review some of the provisions of Clause 22.03 to give greater guidance to prospective developers.

25 Thus, while I note Mr Walter's submission that C50 is only a proposal, I think that the Amendment carries some influential weight for the same reasons as I said in Lanco at paragraphs 33 and 34:

... I am not persuaded that the subsequent work of the Council, that shows a progression in its thinking about the future of this area, is irrelevant to these proceedings. While a number of parties sought to dissuade me from giving weight to the adopted Council documents this material demonstrates Council's appreciation of the area of the review site as of strategic significance in terms of the Box Hill Business Centre and its potential for a more intensive development outcome than might have been the case in the 1991 District Centre Plan.

No reliance needs to be placed on Amendment C50 or Melbourne 2030 to reach that view. However, put simply, Melbourne 2030 reinforces the same direction given Box Hill's nomination as a principal activity centre. Moreover, through its own planning process, the Council has not retreated or stepped away from the view it has apparently held since 1991 that the neighbourhood north of Whitehorse Road is capable for more a higher level of development. Rather, the investigations in the past two years advocate a more intensive form than was the case in 1991. Indeed, its own Amendment, recently exhibited, suggests that 3-4 storeys in this location is possible with the area being advocated for medium to high density housing.

26 In the current case, some positive comments by the independent Panel reviewing Amendment C50 add weight to my previous findings. The adopted policies, notably the Housing Study, are relevant in this context as they underpin the directions sought to be advanced by Amendment C50 and carry weight in accordance with Section 60(1)(b)(ii) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

27 The reason why I have addressed the policy context in such detail is to establish the basis upon which reasonable expectations about development in this area can be formed. In my view, the area is one where change has and is occurring and where that will continue. That will see a much higher intensity and density of residential development as well as consolidation of educational and health related activities. As this proceeds, the transition will be most sorely felt by existing residents who remain in the low scale area around Wellington Road and the few private dwellings left in Spring Street. Further, even if the policy direction was not so defined, the existing nature of development along Spring Street would give rise to a realistic expectation of a higher form of residential development than might be the case if the immediate setting was not inclusive of tall structures such as TAFE and Epworth Eastern as well as open lot car parks opposite and associated with the TAFE land holdings southwards.

28 I now turn to the specific matters in issue.

29 Those seeking review of the Council's decision to grant a permit raised a series of issues about the proposed use of the land for student housing. They questioned the need for more student accommodation given approvals in the area and press reports of a declining number of international students coming to Australia. There was also some concern that the apartments might be available to persons other than students. These submissions were challenged primarily through the evidence of Mr Wilson.

30 A purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is to provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. Student housing is a valid component of this and the permit itself and associated conditions ensure that approval is confined to that use. Further, in developing Precinct 4 for health and education purposes there is a desire set out at Clause 22.05 to encourage activities that support the operations of TAFE and Box Hill Hospital. Student housing is entirely suitable given the major facilities that exist and the fact that the use is under-represented at present. The site selected would minimise the reliance on vehicle use being close to facilities for studying, shopping and recreating. As I said in Melbourne International Student Accommodation v Boroondara CC [2004] VCAT 800 at paragraph 34:

... That other facilities may be developed is not a factor that causes me to reject this Application. There are a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered need, decisions with which I agree (for example Shell Company of Australia Pty Ltd and Ors v City of Frankston and Anor 8 APAD 127 at 135). The main point is that demonstrated need for a facility or use may be a relevant factor but "lack of a need will rarely, if ever, be a ground for refusing to grant a permit" as stated in Shell. It is not necessary to await the development of other approved facilities before the current proposal should be considered or allowed to proceed.

31 One of the key concerns of local residents is the form and massing of the proposed building, including its 3-4 storey scale. It is necessary to consider the question of the building height, scale and mass with regard to the provisions of the Zone and strategic outcomes for this locality being pursued by the Council which I have set out above. They seek an intensive development outcome and, in principle, a development at the height proposed would seem to represent the type of outcome specifically desired by the policies and associated documents. The critical issue to me is the interface with existing dwellings, which I discuss next. Otherwise, I consider that the scale of the proposed building is acceptable when mindful of the large structures that form part of its immediate context, as I have referred to previously at paragraph 27.

32 The units to the north of the site, across the laneway, are two storey but the upper levels are contained within a roof form facing south unlike the northern elevations. Dwellings to the west in Wellington Road are single storey. Should the development be reduced in height to provide a more gradual transition to these elements? Usually the answer would be "yes" but in the physical and strategic context I have described I am unable to form the same view in relation to streetscape and neighbourhood character considerations.

33 Moreover, I give weight to the fact that although Clause 55 does not apply, it has been used as the assessment tool by the Council (possibly because the height of the basement above ground might not have been identified in the assessment process). The Council has found the proposal to be acceptable using these tighter numerical tests than the more general Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.

34 The western elevation complies with the rear setback standard at Clause 55.04-1 and there is an adequate area to allow for landscaping along the rear boundary. That carries weight although in a different context I would be concerned about the mass and inter-relationship. The northern setback does not comply with the same standard but the lane provides some separation. I have no issue with the southern setback given the abuttal to TAFE land holdings and the elevation is improved by the changes shown on a plan tendered by Mr McGauran, as referred to again later.

35 The front setback to Spring Street is less than dwellings to the north and less than the standard at Clause 55.03-1. However, I find there to be no real or significant impact in streetscape terms other than it sets up a degree of inconsistency with the east side of the street based on development occurring there that has some landscaped setbacks. That is not fatal and does not require modification as the lane is to the north and in time the land immediately to the south of the review site is likely to be developed in a way that can respond to the building on the review site. In addition, there would be a good active frontage provided to the street by the communal spaces at ground level. It is in relation to these setback and active street frontage issues, as well as height, that design guidelines for the Precinct as a whole would be helpful in providing guidance and certainty.

36 The architectural styling and palette of materials and finishes warrants comment. I think that the design and its styling would add visual interest to the area and provides a high standard and benchmark for other development that will follow. The different treatment of each façade avoids monotony, the suite of colours and materials is diverse but not radical and the use of ivy plating over steel mesh would provide an unusual and softening element. I find that the building is very well considered.

37 I am therefore satisfied in terms of character and streetscape considerations that the proposal at the height and scale proposed is acceptable. In my view, the more difficult matter is in terms of off-site amenity impacts which I go to next.

38 Visual bulk is one of the most important amenity issues with residents and property owners to the south-west, west and north-west of the subject land all opposing the extent of built mass presented to their private open spaces and dwellings causing a dominating structure and loss of outlook.

39 As I have said, in a different context outside the Box Hill Activity Centre I would be likely to accept these submissions entirely. However, in the current case I am satisfied that an acceptable balance is achieved between allowing new development and accommodating existing residents. The proposal has stepped the three level form to the rear and meets the building envelope standard at Clause 55 along the western elevation although the third level would be seen from rear yards and dwellings at Nos. 18, 22 and 24 Wellington Road. The outlook will be changed with a building introduced but the potential to plant along the western site boundary would assist to soften the mass albeit not conceal it. I also reach the view that the presentation to the units at No. 12 Spring Street is acceptable where the transition is less albeit there would be an obvious impact. The lane provides a degree of separation and the open spaces to these adjacent units appear to be to the north so that the units to an extent face away from the review site. In relation to both the western and northern elevations, the outcome is acceptable in the context of change that can reasonably be expected in this location.

40 There were also concerns about the potential for overlooking from the proposed development. The prospect of unreasonable overlooking from west-facing windows at all levels in the development is precluded by the use of highlight windows. There might be some opportunity for oblique views from north or south facing windows and balconies, but the distances would be well beyond 9 metres if Clause 55 was applied and two eucalypt on No. 24 Wellington Road would assist with screening. Mr McGauran suggested that screening to the western end of the balconies to 0.07, 1.08 and 2.08 (the room numbers being based on his revised plans) could be added. I think that would be desirable to provide some comfort to residents and it is accepted on the basis that it would not compromise the amenity of those spaces. It can be dealt with by a permit condition.

41 Windows in the units at No. 12 Spring Street would be approximately 8.5 metres from windows in the northern elevation of the proposed development. While I appreciate concerns the raised by Ms Stubbs and Ms Spiropolous, the windows to which they refer face a laneway that is said to be well used by pedestrians as well as a limited number of vehicles. On these bases, I do not find that the north-facing windows should be screened.

42 Overshadowing was a further issue raised by adjacent residents to the west. The proposal would increase shadowing to the properties to the immediate west and south-west but the shadows are within the limits specified at Clause 55.04-5 should it be applied.

43 Noise concerns relate to student activities in the building, on terraces and using the communal spaces as well as associated with plant and equipment. On the evidence and information before me, a student housing development of this type is relatively quiet and does not result in late night parties and activities that some might recall from their own days as a student.

44 The advantage of this proposal is that it would be bound by tight permit conditions through a Site Management Plan, general nuisance/amenity conditions, an on-site manager/lead tenant and the establishment of a 24 hour hotline for complaints direct to management. These are not the type of restrictions that apply if a shared student house sets up in a residential street and it should give comfort to existing residents that this type of student housing can be a compatible neighbour.

45 Air conditioning units would need to be placed on balconies but they could be accommodated behind the mesh balustrades that would substantially conceal them dependent on the degree of transparency of the mesh. Mr McGauran stated that the air conditioning units associated with upper-most units would be placed on the roof and that can readily be achieved but I am not persuaded that it is essential if the mesh is designed to provide a reasonable acoustic and visual screen. I will require the details of the balustrade transparency to be provided to the Council by way of a permit condition.

46 There might be noise and some minor headlight glare to the front units at No. 12 Spring Street as a result of the position of the basement entry. I do not find that a reason to direct changes to the plans and note that residents would be able to erect a fence along the common boundary with the lane should they desire (noting that would also require changes to the garden beds).

47 In relation to the above discussion relating to off-site amenity impacts, I have not addressed the southern elevation and its relationship to the land to the south. As the two lots to the south of the review site are now owned by TAFE, I accept the Council's position that the proposal produces an acceptable interface with the TAFE land mindful that the dwellings are to be demolished and are expected to be replaced with car parking.

48 Local residents raised issues about the adequacy of car parking for the proposed development referring to the prospect of overflow parking. I do not intend addressing this matter in detail as much is covered through the evidence of Mrs Partenio and Mr Wilson. The current experience is that student housing focused on international students does not have high levels of car ownership and this has been accepted frequently by the Tribunal. The proposal would provide 10 car spaces and additional bicycle parking. I am satisfied on the evidence, and mindful of the site's excellent access to public transport and services, that the proposal provides adequate on-site parking at a design rate of 0.2 spaces/bed. There may be domestic students residing at the facility and the statistics are less clear in relation to a development with very high proportion of local or regional students.

49 However, Mrs Partenio's report refers to three developments with only 50% of international students with an average I calculate of 0.26 vehicles per person. I am persuaded that the aim of this project is to support international students and that the provision of on-site parking is adequate.

50 Moreover, Condition 4(x) requires a provision in a Site Management Plan for the number of residents owning a vehicle to be limited to 9 (10 based on the revised plans). Mr Wilson's evidence on this point was adopted by Mr Pitt, that is there is no issue adding a sentence to part (x) that in the event that the number of residents with vehicles accommodated on the land exceeds the 10 spaces provided, advice must be given by the management entity to prospective residents that no on-site car space can be provided. Ms Stamkos was content with this suggestion.

51 The layout of the basement is tight as noted in some submissions but I am persuaded that it is functional for a small car park based on Mrs Partenio's evidence. I think the introduction of a convex mirror opposite the bottom of the ramp would assist a car departing seeing another driving inwards. That can be included as a condition.

52 Local residents expressed concern about the use of the laneway to access the basement in terms of increased danger to pedestrians including young and older persons as well as the potential for cars to block the lane. While I appreciate that these concerns are genuinely held, I am satisfied that the proposed arrangements are safe with adequate sightlines for viewing pedestrians. Garbage collection would be via a private contractor and arranged through the Site Management Plan and Condition 17 would restrict the hours of operation for collection. The Site Management Plan requires a hotline that could be used by residents if there are concerns in relation to vehicle movement associated with the student housing use.

53 I will add a condition requiring the plans to be amended to exclude any reference to lane widening as the arrow on the plans includes the driveway and planters associated with the lot at No. 12 Spring Street. The evidence before me from Mrs Partenio is that if a fence was erected along the southern boundary of No. 12 Spring Street then sufficient turning and passing area is available for vehicles associated with the proposal.

54 The Council and Applicant have essentially reached agreement in relation to the terms of a Site Management Plan as provided for by Condition 3. I have adopted the agreed conditions. I will delete a requirement for a reference to the number of students residing on the land as part of the Site Management Plan although there is no issue with the number being included should the permit applicant wish (as is the case in the draft Plan).

55 I will retain an obligation for no more than 39 students to be resident on the land, as sought by Condition 7, a matter with which Mr Pitt essentially agreed based on a wording change that I have adopted.

56 The size of communal and private open spaces was raised as a concern by some submissions and I note that the Council has said it is satisfied with the revised plans presented by Mr McGauran in relation to the increased size of communal areas. Mr Wilson's evidence was that the communal spaces are generally not well used. For the type of accommodation provided I am satisfied that the internal amenity is acceptable given the ample communal areas that would be an alternative or supplement to the private open spaces of some units that are very small.

57 For the reasons I have set out above, I will direct that a permit issue but vary conditions included by the Council in the Notice of Decision.