1. Mr Georgiades and UnitingCare Harrison say the building would be unduly large in the existing streetscape of one and two storey detached dwellings.
2. Mr Gale and Mr Kelderman say the proposal has strong policy support. Mr Gale advised that Amendment C209, gazetted in May 2015, applied schedule 3 to the General Residential Zone (GRZ) to the City's east-west main roads, generally east of Glenferrie Road. It is intended that these roads will be a focus for further intensive residential development. This would enable Stonnington to continue to contribute to Melbourne's housing diversity and compact city objectives while preserving the character of the residential suburbs that are not on the main roads. He is satisfied that this proposal complies with this policy intention.
3. Clauses 15.01 and 16.01 require a development to respond to and respect the site features and the context of the site. The context includes the planning policy framework that guides the reasonable expectations of change in an area. I turn to these matters.

1. I am satisfied that the site has heritage fabric, significant vegetation, excessive slope, or easements or restrictive covenants that constrain its further development.
2. I am also satisfied that it is well located to services and facilities. Tram services operate along High Street. It is within a reasonably convenient walking distance to two train stations and to two smaller neighbourhood activity centres. The suburb of Glen Iris is rich in community infrastructure including schools, parks and community facilities. It is a suburb that can accommodate additional dwellings.

1. A determinative consideration in this review is the planning policy framework. I agree with the responsible authority and the applicant that the planning scheme provides clear policy support for this proposal. This policy support includes:
   • Plan Melbourne encourages approximately half of Melbourne's new households to be accommodated in existing suburbs that are well provided with services and public transport.
   • The purposes of the GRZ include providing a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth.
   • Clauses 11.02, 11.04 and 16.01 generally encourage a more diverse housing stock to be provided in locations that are convenient to shops, services and public transport.
   • Clauses 21.03 and 21.05-2 direct the majority of new development (particularly higher density development) to activity centres and along roads with trams and Smart bus routes.
   • The land adjoining main roads with tram routes are identified in clause 21.05-2 as being in substantial change areas.
   • Land in the GRZ3, abutting main roads, is encouraged to be redeveloped for apartment buildings up to four storeys as schedule 3 to the zone allows a building to have a height of 12 metres, or 13 metres on this site with its slope.
2. I am satisfied that a four storey apartment building is largely consistent with the expectations for the height and scale of new buildings to emerge along High Street that is encouraged by the scheme. Such development is expected to accommodate additional households while also limiting change in other suburbs in Stonnington.

1. I agree with Mr Gale that the above broad policy support for substantial change along High Street does not mean that anything goes on the sites that abut High Street. He says that while change is encouraged, new development is expected to respect the preferred character of the Garden Suburban 3 Precinct described in clause 22.23. He says new development should be respectful and tempered.
2. He says the preferred character statement encourages space to be provided around buildings for canopy trees and other vegetation. Local policy also encourages a high quality of landscaping to strengthen the garden setting of streets and buildings. The GRZ3 encourages a building to be set back from its side boundaries for a depth from the front façade of five metres to enable landscaping to be provided.
3. Mr Gale says the development fails to provide adequate space around the building for landscaping. It is the Council's view that the building should be set back three metres from its side boundaries and 4.5 metres from its rear boundary. These setbacks would increase the opportunities for landscaping and reflect the prevailing rhythm of buildings along this part of High Street. He says that larger side and rear setbacks are provided in a four storey development that has been approved on no.1538-1540 High Street, the adjoining site to the west.
4. Mr Connor provided a table that compared this building's setbacks to the side and rear boundaries with the setbacks for the approved development at no.1538-1540 High Street. Compared to the building to the west, the building before me has slightly less side and rear setbacks at the ground and first storeys, but greater setbacks at the second and third storeys. Generally it provides two to 3.5 metres to the east and west boundaries at the ground and first storeys, increasing to 4.5 to 7.6 metres at the second level and 8.8 to 9.6 metres at the third storey. The basements would be set back 3.5 metres except for a small section of two metres setback at the northeast corner.
5. The determinative matter is whether the basement and ground level setbacks would be adequate to accommodate the space and landscaping that Mr Gale says are encouraged by policy.
6. Mr Kelderman did not agree with the Council's proposition. It was his evidence that the development complies with the schedule to the GRZ and it has substantial compliance with the setbacks required to meet standard B17 of clause 55.04. There are no walls on boundaries. He did not see any need for this building to greatly exceed standard B17 to meet neighbourhood or landscape objectives, because the area is likely to change to a more intensive built form. He advised that although the setbacks of the building to the west and south boundaries do not comply with standard B17, these are by small margins and the building should be considered acceptable.
7. Mr Patrick says the setbacks to the side boundaries, including the basement, provide ample opportunity for landscaping that would have a presence to the streetscape.
8. He proposes Bush Christmas Lilly Pilly along the west boundary to heights of three metres. It would be augmented by two Chanticleer Pear trees to 11 metres.
9. The southwest part of the building would be set back 3.5 metres from the boundary. This setback area would comprise an area of secluded open space landscaped with Blueberry Ash trees with a height up to eight metres. This would provide an evident landscape presence that would be consistent with the approved building on the adjacent land.
10. On the east boundary, the north part of the building would be set back two metres at the basement, ground and first storeys. Landscaping along the eastern boundary would comprise Natchez Crepe Myrtle and Chanticleer Pear near the front boundary, with a hedge of Pinnacle Lilly Pilly that would grow to six to ten metres.
11. The building's setback increases to three metres to the rear of the eastern boundary. This area would be landscaped with Blueberry Ash trees to eight metres. No secluded open space would be provided along the east boundary, allowing the entire setback to be used for landscaping.
12. I am satisfied the proposed setbacks and landscaping along the east and west boundaries meet the policy objectives and preferred character of providing adequate space for canopy trees.
13. I think the proposed setbacks to the side boundaries would provide adequate space for landscaping and separate the new apartment buildings. Separation of four to six metres between apartment buildings will be consistent with the prevailing streetscape rhythm and landscaping. The setbacks would also provide sufficient space for landscaping for compact living buildings.
14. I am also guided by the prevailing pattern of setbacks to side boundaries and by the prevailing rhythm of built form along this part of High Street. I observed that many dwellings along this part of High Street have a wide (three to four metre) setback to one side to provide a driveway, and a one to two metre setback to their other side boundary. Several newly completed apartment buildings have a wide setback to one side boundary to provide vehicle access to a basement, and a two metre setback to the other boundary, reducing to one metre towards the rear of the building.
15. The proposal before me would comfortably fit into both the prevailing and the emerging character of spacious landscape setting to the sides of the building.

1. The ground and first floors would be set back three to 5.5 metres. The second and third storeys would be set back between 4.8 to 6.9 metres. Mr Gale submitted that the rear setbacks should be increased. He preferred a setback of 4.5 metres at the ground level and greater setbacks at the higher storeys.
2. Mr Kelderman says the rear setbacks comply with standard B17 of clause 55.04-1 and would be acceptable. Mr Patrick says the setbacks are adequate to provide a landscaped interface to the retirement village. He proposes two Native Frangipani with a height of ten metres and a row of Weeping Lilly Pilly (height of ten metres), complemented by Bush Christmas Lilly Pilly (height of three metres).
3. I think the rear setback is acceptable and this development would make an acceptable contribution to the landscape of the right-of-way. It is a robust context, comprising a three metre wide right-of-way, car parking, fencing and lawn for the retirement village. It is not a highly landscaped or sensitive interface that is used for sensitive secluded open space (except for several units in the retirement village). Furthermore the closest dwellings in the retirement village are at least eight metres from the rear boundary, which is a moderate separation.
4. I give weight to the development's generous compliance with standard B17 and with schedule 3 to the GRZ. I also give weight to the relatively tall and dense landscaping proposed by Mr Patrick. The development to the west has similar setbacks except for an indent of some 12 metres in depth midway along the rear elevation. The building could have pushed closer to the boundaries. I think it has responded to the larger site and it provides generous rear setbacks.

1. Mr Gale was cautious about the external materials proposed for the building. He thought robust materials such as brick or stone should be used to be consistent with the materials used in nearby buildings. He was unsure of the appearance of the Artemus tile and Equitone Tectiva sheets. He also said the gold colour of the perforated screens should be replaced with a more muted copper colour. He also noted there are inconsistencies in the elevations with regard to the application of the materials.
2. Mr Kairouz gave evidence as to the texture and quality of the proposed materials. He provided examples and illustrations of some materials. He agreed that the elevations are inconsistent and tabled some further amended plans. He accepted the perforated screens could be replaced with copper.
3. Mr Gale accepted the evidence from Mr Kairouz and advised that with changes to the colour of the screens, he regarded the palette of external materials to be satisfactory.

Conclusion regarding compliance with policy and emerging character

1. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal responds in a respectful and tempered manner to its site features, context and to the policy framework that encourages taller and more robust buildings along High Street.

Would the development provide acceptable amenity for its neighbours?

1. Mr Georgiades and UnitingCare Harrison say the proposed four storey building would adversely affect the amenity of their dwellings through overlooking, overshadowing, loss of daylight to habitable room windows and visual bulk. Mr Georgiades seeks increased setbacks to the front and east boundaries to mitigate the built form as viewed from his property.
2. The responsible authority says that much of the upper built form would be located towards the rear of the building, where its massing would be visibly greater due to the fall of the land. It accepts that the building complies with standard B17 with regard to setbacks to side and rear boundaries, standard B19 with regard to daylight to existing windows and standard B21 with regard to overshadowing. It also accepts that possible overlooking of neighbours can be resolved through permit conditions that require the windows to be screened in accordance with standard B22.
3. Mr Kelderman's evidence was the proposed building has a high level of compliance with the standards of clause 55. He confirms that it complies with standards B17 (except for small non-compliances) and B19 regarding setbacks to the side boundaries and daylight to existing habitable rooms. He agrees with Mr Gale that the shadow cast by the building into the secluded private open space complies with standard B21. It was his opinion that there are multiple screening devices that can effectively limit overlooking of neighbours habitable rooms and secluded open space without unduly minimising the internal amenity of the dwellings.

1. With regard to possible impacts to the daylight to the habitable rooms in Mr Georgiades' dwelling, the development generously exceeds the setbacks required by standard B19. The windows to the living room are small, and are secondary to the large main window that faces north. Daylight to the other west facing study/bedroom and a room used for breakfast would not be diminished by the building.
2. With regard to overshadowing of the secluded private open space, the building would cast a shadow into the Georgiades property after 2pm on the equinox. The new shadow would be within the shadow presently cast by the fence and the tall vegetation along the shared boundary. The extent of overshadowing fully complies with standard B21 of clause 55.04, as Mr Georgiades' secluded private open space is large.
3. With regard to overshadowing of the secluded open space of unit 17 of the retirement village to the south, the shadow from the building would extend 0.5 metre into this area shortly before 3pm on the equinox. The extent of overshadowing easily complies with standard B21, and would be within the shadow cast by the fence that encloses the secluded open space.

1. Mr Georgiades was particularly concerned with overlooking, as he says his grandchildren often visit the dwelling and swim in the pool. He fears unwanted overlooking.
2. While I understand his concerns, I have no difficulty with possible overlooking. Mr Georgiades' rear secluded open space is well screened by a tall fence and vegetation. The habitable room windows and balconies in the proposed development would be screened to a height of 1.7 metres to prevent downward views in accordance with standard B22 of clause 55.04-6. The final details of the screens can be approved by the responsible authority and I am confident it would ensure that they limit overlooking in accordance with the scheme.

1. While the building will be visible, and would be a significant change to the present outlook from the retirement village, I am satisfied that it would be acceptable for the following reasons:
   • The primary habitable rooms in dwelling 32 face west and hence the building would be peripheral in these views.
   • Dwellings 16 and 40 to the west and 18 and 19 to the east of the retirement village are at the periphery of the review site, and the building would not be in the primary views from these dwellings.
   • Dwellings 10, 11, 34 and 35 are set back a considerable distance from the review site and their views are obstructed by a pedestrian ramp.
2. The proposed building would be most visible from units 17 and 33, as their primary windows face north, they are opposite and relatively close to the review site.
3. I think the visual bulk of the building would be mitigated by the separation of at least 11 metres to the ground and first storeys, and 14 metres to the second and third storeys. I also think it is unlikely that a person within units 17 and 33 would see more than one to two storeys of the new building, unless they stand very close to the windows. I think the heights and setbacks are acceptable given the applicable policy framework.
4. With regard to visual bulk to Mr and Mrs Georgiades' property, much of the ground floor would be below the natural ground level of his property. This means that the part of the building that is nearest his dwelling would appear to have a height of approximately one and a half storeys above natural ground level as viewed from his property. The ground and first storeys would be set back two metres from the side boundary, providing a separation of 4.6 metres between the building and Mr Georgiades' habitable room windows. This height and setback is acceptable in this context, and is likely to be more generous than provided by a new single, two storey dwelling.
5. The upper storeys have considerably greater setbacks to the east boundary. The second storey would be separated from his dwelling by nearly eight metres and the third storey would be separated by 11.4 metres. He would see little of the upper storeys from his north facing living room, or his west facing windows in the living room as they are small. He would see the first and second storeys from his bedroom/study and breakfast room, but the third storey would be largely screened by the parapet of the second storey.
6. With regard to visual bulk viewed from his secluded open space at the rear, the setbacks increase compared to the front part of the building. The setbacks would be three metres at the ground and first storeys, 5.2 metres at the second storey (with protruding balconies), and 9.2 metres at the third storey. These setbacks are generous and significantly exceed standard B17. I think the built form would be acceptable and have little impact on the amenity of his rear secluded open space.
7. Mr Georgiades says he has enclosed his front open space with a three metre high front wall and gate so it can be used for secluded private open space. He says the building would have a lesser front setback to High Street than his dwelling, consequently the front of the building would obscure his northwest views of the sky.
8. I agree with him that the building would be closer to High Street than his dwelling, which is set back some 12.2 metres and more at its western end. The proposed building would be set back 8 to 9.6 metres at the ground level, 7.9 to 10 metres at the first storey (retaining walls encroach), and 7.2 to 8.2 metres at the second storey to the balustrades of balconies and 16.3 metres at the third storey.
9. Standard B6 requires a nine metre front setback, as the adjoining dwellings are set back more than 12 metres. The development does not comply with the standard.
10. Mr Gale thought the front setback is appropriate as it would be consistent with an emerging character. He says the front setbacks would be consistent with those provided in a four storey apartment building to the west at no.1538-1540 High Street. Over time the character will comprise built form that is somewhat closer to the street than is seen at present. He says setbacks that are less than the adjoining dwelling would not adversely affect their amenity. Mr Kelderman agrees with his assessment.
11. I agree with Mr Gale and Mr Kelderman. I am satisfied that the front setback meets the objective of standard B6; that is to respect the preferred character and to make efficient use of the site. Land abutting High Street is the preferred location for relatively intensive development, and the opportunity to provide more dwellings should not be compromised by requiring substantial front setbacks. The building would be peripheral in views from Mr Georgiades' front area and he would continue to have an expansive outlook to the north and northeast. The front setback area will also have dense and attractive canopy landscaping and would make a positive contribution to High Street.
12. I am satisfied that the development would not unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

Would the development adversely affect traffic safety?

1. The vehicle access to the two basements would be via a six metre wide ramp located at the northwest corner of the review site. The original application plans had proposed the vehicle access would be via the three metre wide right-of-way on the south side of the review site.
2. Ms Hunter strongly supported the vehicle access from High Street rather than the right-of-way. She says the elderly residents regularly walk along the right-of-way and she feared for their safety if it was to be used by residents of this development.
3. Mr Georgiades says High Street and Burke Road carry high traffic volumes. He says that vehicles entering and leaving the review site would be likely to have vehicle collisions, particularly those undertaking right hand turns to and from the site.
4. Three expert traffic engineers agree that the proposed access is acceptable. Council and VicRoads traffic engineers consider the access to High Street to be acceptable. Mr Kiriakidis says any access to High Street should be located as far from the intersection with Burke Road as possible and this is achieved.
5. With regard to the capacity of High Street to operate safely with the additional traffic, Mr Kiriakidis provided an analysis of the gaps in the traffic flow and the opportunities for safe turns to be made to and from the site.
6. It was his evidence there is capacity for at least four vehicles to complete right hand turns to and from the site during every minute in the peak period. It was also his opinion there would be more opportunities for left hand turns to and from the site. There is no record of accidents that would suggest it is a dangerous road. He considered the access to High Street to be safe at all times.
7. I have no reasonable basis (such as contrary expert traffic opinion) to conclude that the access arrangements would be unsafe. I am satisfied that the proposed access would be appropriate.
8. Mr Georgiades and Ms Hunter thought that four visitor car parking spaces would be insufficient for twenty two dwellings. Four parking spaces for visitors meets the requirements of clause 52.06 of the scheme and I have no discretion to require more visitor parking spaces to be provided.

Would the development provide acceptable amenity for its future residents?

1. The parties and Mr Kelderman agreed that the three bedroom dwellings would have generous amenity. Except for one matter, I agree with their assessment. I am satisfied that the dwellings would have generous sized habitable rooms and the living rooms are adjacent to secluded open space of good size. The building would have a visible pedestrian entry to High Street. I would also have well located site services and adequate storage.

1. Mr Gale was critical of the daylight and ventilation that would be available to the bedrooms in apartments G.01, G.02, G.07, 1.08, 1.09, 1.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.19 and 2.20, located on the ground floor, first storey and second storey. All these bedrooms would receive their light and ventilation through two separate lightwells rather than external windows. The two lightwells would be either 2.5 by 4.5 metres or 5.5 by 2.3 metres. Both would have a depth of four storeys and be enclosed by a skylight.
2. Mr Gale was also critical of the daylight that would be received by a bedroom on both the ground and first and second floors that would have a saddleback or snorkel window (apartments G.04 and 1.11).
3. Mr Gale says there are seventeen bedrooms with poor access to daylight. He says these bedrooms would be "caves", with poor daylight, poor ventilation and no outlook. He says contemporary apartment buildings should not include rooms with such poor amenity.
4. Mr Richardson provided expert evidence regarding daylight. He described the results of computer modelling of the daylight that would be received in the habitable rooms throughout the development. His modelling shows the above listed rooms would receive low light levels of 0.25 to 0.3. A satisfactory level of light to a bedroom should be 0.5.
5. Mr Richardson says that while the light levels are low, the development as a whole complies with the criteria set out in the BESS assessment tool referenced in clause 22.05. BESS requires:
   • a minimum daylight factor of one percent to 90 percent of the floor area of living rooms in 80 percent of all the dwellings; and
   • a minimum daylight factor of 0.5 percent to 90 percent of the floor area of bedrooms, for 80 percent of the dwellings.
6. Mr Richardson says that while the daylight to the bedrooms identified by Mr Gale would not be ideal, it would be acceptable because:
   • Only twelve out of 61 bedrooms would have poor levels of daylight.
   • The affected rooms are not the main bedrooms in each dwelling.
   • The rooms may not be used as bedrooms or used intermittently.
   • It is preferable to locate living rooms along external walls to receive daylight.
   • The modelling is conservative because it assumes a worst case overcast day, and the rooms will probably exceed the forecast low light level on many days. It also includes the approved apartment building to the west, even though it is subject to a VCAT review and may not be approved or constructed.
   • Compliance with BESS means the development achieves "best practice"; better than an acceptable outcome required by the scheme.
   • It complies with local policy in the scheme and with standard B27 to clause 55.05-3 (access to a lightwell of three square metres).
7. It was his evidence that the daylight to the rooms could be improved by ensuring that the two lightwells and the internal corridor are combined to function as one large lightwell.
8. Mr Kelderman also considers the daylight to the various rooms to be acceptable as it meets the requirements of clause 22.05 and clause 55.05-3.
9. In G3 Projects Pty Ltd v Yarra CC[3], the Tribunal found that:

55 .....We do not consider the provision of daylight into these dwellings is inadequate in general amenity terms simply because they do not meet the best practice for ESD. On balance of the advantages of providing a street outlook and active surveillance to the street ... we consider these dwellings are acceptable in a balanced planning scheme assessment.

1. In Barana (St Kilda Investments Pty Ltd) v Port Phillip CC[4], the Tribunal found that an assessment of internal amenity should not be confined to a single consideration such as daylight, although daylight should be given primacy over other amenity considerations. It found that internal amenity is not a numeric assessment but requires an inherent qualitative judgement of factors such as outlook, room size, facilities and access to offsite facilities and services.
2. I have considered Mr Gale's criticism carefully. I agree with him that future residents should not live in dwellings that have poor amenity. I think that the community expects that apartments should be good places in which to live.
3. I agree with Mr Gale that some of the rooms are likely to have poor light on many days, particularly through Melbourne's usual grey winter months. The amenity of the rooms is not uplifted by any outlook. I also recognise that the site is not proximate to an activity centre or park where an occupant might be able to easily find some relief from living in a dark room.
4. However, taking a more holistic approach to the amenity of the dwellings as a whole, I am satisfied they would provide acceptable amenity. The living rooms are large, have good outlooks and would have generous balconies and secluded open space at ground level. The master bedrooms would have good daylight and outlook. The bedrooms with poorer light would be secondary rooms that may not be used for bedrooms, or used intermittently for guests or grandchildren.
5. I give substantial weight to the proposal's compliance with the assessment tools in the scheme. It complies with standard B27 of clause 55.05-3. It also complies with clause 22.05. There are no specific daylight tests with which it does not comply. I have to apply the scheme as I find it and I think my discretion to conclude that the rooms are unacceptable is limited by their compliance with the tests in the scheme.
6. Notwithstanding the compliance, I think more can be done to improve the amenity of the specific bedrooms. I propose that the saddleback bedrooms be improved by deleting the adjoining bedrooms in dwellings G.03 and 1.10, so the bedrooms in dwellings 1.11 and G.04 would have access to a larger window on the external wall. This change also increases the setback to the rear boundary and enhances the landscaping in this area.
7. I think there are opportunities to improve the daylight to the bedrooms that rely on the lightwells. Possible improvements can include:
   • The windows to the lightwells must be full height glazing.
   • The walls in apartments G.07 and 1.14 that separate the living area and a bedroom could be retractable walls or include windows that can be screened.
   • The bathrooms in apartments G.01 and 1.08 being altered and the third bedrooms converted to study nooks.
   • Deleting some third bedrooms.
   • The floors to the internal corridor could comprise glass bricks that transit light, thereby increasing the effective size of the lightwell.
8. In my view there are multiple ways to improve the amenity of these bedrooms. I have considered the best way to achieve improved daylight. Refusing the proposal would be a harsh penalty when all else is acceptable. An interim order creates uncertainty and much extra work for all parties.
9. I have decided I can rely on the expertise of the applicant/architects and the Council planners to work together to improve the amenity of the specific rooms. The endorsement of plans provides an opportunity to make improvements. I will impose a permit condition that requires the amenity of these rooms to be further improved through internal reconfiguration. I insist that the improvements are internal changes, without altering the building envelope, external appearance or setbacks to boundaries. This should be done with the assistance of further input from a daylight expert, and as part of the approval of the final plans, and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Mr Kelderman says some secluded open space areas do not comply with standards B28 and B29 of clause 55.05. The secluded open space for apartment G.04 does not have an area of 40 square metres (it would be 37.8 square metres). This would be rectified by deleting bedroom 3 in the adjoining dwelling G.03.
2. The secluded open spaces for apartments G.03, G.04 and G.05 do not comply with standard B29 in respect of solar access to secluded open space. Apartment G.03 would have some west facing open space that would provide afternoon solar access. The secluded open space of apartments G.04 and G.05 would be in shade all the time, but I think this is acceptable and to be welcomed in our summers that are becoming longer and hotter.
3. Mr Kelderman also noted that some secluded open space may be subject to overlooking from other dwellings within the building. I agree with his proposal that a condition be imposed to require that all dwellings have screening that complies with standard B23 of clause 55.04-7.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

• Construction of a four storey building containing dwellings in a General Residential Zone and to alter and create access to a Road Zone Category 1.

1. Before the commencement of the use / development_,_ one electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by C. Kairouz Architects dated 20 December 2016 but modified to show:

1. The recommendations of the daylight to habitable rooms assessment required by condition 4 without any reductions in the building's setbacks to any boundaries. 2. Details of the front fence.

1. A schedule of materials, colours and finishes, including the front external screens to be copper or a similar muted colour.

1. Details of the lift overrun with a height no greater than 1.2 metres above the roof. 2. Screening to habitable room windows and balconies in accordance with standard B22 of clause 55.4-6 and standard B23 of clause 55.04-7 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. 3. Bedrooms 3 in apartments G.03 and 1.10 deleted to provide a larger external window to the adjoining bedrooms in apartments G.04 and 1.11 and to increase the setback of the building to the rear boundary. 4. Sight triangles at the property boundary. 5. Widening of car space 11 to 3.05 metres. 6. Widening of the tandem garage doors to a minimum of 2.6 metres. 7. Provision of 24 bicycle spaces. 8. Any changes as required by condition 3 (WMP), 5 (SMP), 7 (Landscape Plan) and 9 (Stormwater Runoff).
2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Frater Consulting Services dated 23-03-2016 but modified to show:
   1. The WMP must acknowledge that every rateable tenement in the City of Stonnington is liable to pay a garbage charge irrespective of the level of waste collection services provided to the tenement by the Stonnington Council.
   2. Bins cannot be placed out for collection in the laneway at the rear of the property as suggested by the Waste Management Plan. At no time can the bins be left in the rear laneway.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the endorsement of any plans a Daylight to Habitable Rooms Plan (DHRP) must be approved by the responsible authority. Upon approval the plan will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the plan's recommendations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The DHRP must include, but not be limited to ways to improve daylight to the bedrooms in the apartments G.01, G.02, G.07, 1.08, 1.09, 1.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.19 and 2.20:

1. Further details of the design and size of the light wells to enhance the daylight to be received to the adjoining bedrooms. 2. Installation of windows and/or retractable walls to all bedrooms that adjoin a living room.

1. Changes to the internal configuration of dwellings including deletion of third bedrooms and relocation of second bedrooms to have a window to an external wall.

1. Any other recommendations to enhance the daylight to all habitable rooms. 2. An assessment of the daylight that would be received to all habitable rooms following the inclusion of the recommendations of the plan.
2. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

1. Demonstrate how the initiatives respond to the objectives of clause 22.05 of the Stonington Planning Scheme.
2. Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards.

1. Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved.

1. Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.
2. Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time.

All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainable Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainable Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.
2. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by John Patrick dated January 2017.
3. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
4. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. or stormwater collection tanks that are in total 6000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development (tanks must be connected to all toilets as well as used for irrigation) or other solutions to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority's consent.
6. The owner must at their cost construct an outfall drain along the rear right-of way to connect with the closest available drainage in Anthony Street at the corner of Payne Street in accordance with a plan prepared by a suitably qualified engineer or other drainage solution, all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The works must be completed to the satisfaction and under the supervision of Council's Infrastructure Unit.

1. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.
2. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.
3. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.
4. Prior to occupation of the building or commencement of use, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holder's cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Prior to the development commencing a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer in compliance with Council's report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. The crossover must be constructed to Council's Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. Separate consent for crossovers is required from Council's Building and Local Law Unit.
7. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.
8. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by standard B22 of clause 55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.
9. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All disuse or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the areas reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Roads Corporation prior to the occupation of the buildings or works hereby approved. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads. Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
   2. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

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

[2] Mr Gale sought leave to add this ground following the circulation of amended plans (email dated 9 February 2017)

[3] (Red Dot) [2016] VCAT 373

[4] [2016] VCAT 1510