(a) Delete conditions 1(a) and 1(c).

(b) Amend condition 1(b) to read:

a) A different colour for the roof to that of the external walls such as the colour shown on TP201-A or a grey colour or another suitable alternative.

(c) Renumber condition 1(d) as condition 1(b).

1. The responsible authority is directed to issue a modified planning permit in accordance with this order.

Mitch Seach, planning consultant of Articulate Town Planning

He called Martin Turnor of Bryce Raworth Conservation Heritage to give expert heritage evidence

Chiara Randazzo, urban planner, and Daniel Murphy, planning appeals coordinator

The site is one property to the north of the intersection of Oakdale Avenue and Mont Albert Road. It is rectangular with a 16.76m frontage, a maximum 42.67m depth and a total area of 715.5sqm. The site is generally flat and does not contain any significant vegetation.

Planning Permit PP23/0303 issued on 19 September 2025 allows:

• the demolition of the existing house,
• the construction of a new two storey house with a basement and roof terrace, and
• the construction of a new front fence and crossover.

Application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) - to review conditions 1(a), (b) and (c) contained in the permit.

Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 - Low Scale, Low Density Residential Areas

Heritage Overlay Schedule 192 (HO192) affects properties to the north and east, including this site, and the parkland to the west in the Reid Estate Balwyn heritage precinct.

Heritage Overlay Schedule 689 (HO689) is a site specific heritage control affecting 67 Mont Albert Road, that abuts the site's southern boundary. The house on this property is identified as 'Ballantyne House'.

Clause 43.01-1 To demolish or remove a building, to construct a building and construct or carry out works, and to carry out works which change the appearance of a heritage place in HO192

The site and surrounds were inspected prior to the hearing. The parties were advised of this at the start of the hearing.

1. Jason Yang (the applicant) has undergone a long permit application process with Boroondara City Council (council) with multiple changes made to the plans to address concerns expressed by, first, one council heritage adviser and, then, a second and different council heritage advisor. No objections were received to the permit application.
2. Council issued Planning Permit PP23/0303 on 19 September 2025 for the property at 1 Oakdale Avenue, Balwyn (the/this site) allowing:
   • the demolition of the existing house,
   • the construction of a new two storey house with a basement and roof terrace, and
   • the construction of a new front fence and crossover.
3. This permit contains conditions, including condition 1 that requires amended plans to be submitted with various changes. Three of those changes are disputed by the applicant. They are:
   1. Condition 1(a) that requires the materials and finishes schedule for the brick and render (wall) colours to be changed from a 'light cream' (as described by the applicant) to heritage red, red blue, autumn, mid blend, old Melbourne town, smoke grey or similar;
   2. Condition 1(b) that requires the materials and finishes schedule for the roof tile to be changed from a white tile to 'a more traditional colour, such as terracotta or grey'; and
   3. Condition 1(c) that requires the first floor façade height (91.80) to be reduced by at least 600mm (with no change to the RL of the roof (93.20)).
4. I must decide whether the disputed conditions should remain on the permit.

1. Based on the submissions, I agree with the applicant that the key questions for determination are as follows:
   • Is the light cream colour appropriate for elevations?
   • Is the roof tile colour acceptable?
   • Is the first floor façade height acceptable?
2. Having considered the submissions and heritage evidence as well as the relevant policies and provisions of the Boroondara Planning Scheme and assisted by my inspection of the site and surrounds before the hearing, I have determined to vary council's decision.

1. Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing and below is a transcript (subsequently revised) of these reasons.
2. I have indicated already that I have had the benefit of an inspection. I have read all of the material that is before me and I have heard the oral submissions of the parties and the evidence of Mr Turnor. On the basis of all of that, I am going to vary council's decision.

1. The starting point is that this site is contained within a Heritage Overlay that is specific to the Reid Estate heritage precinct. This site is located at the southwestern end of this precinct and is, in fact, the last property and at the boundary of the precinct. The site has a number of properties to the north of it, along Oakdale Avenue, that are non-contributory, as is the site itself. Therefore, if ever there was an opportunity to have a more distinctive, contemporary form within the precinct, which would not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place, it strikes me that this is the perfect spot for it.
2. I am satisfied that the design, in a general sense, is in keeping with the character and appearance of the precinct as a whole. There is a mixture of heritage places and non-contributory heritage places in the precinct. There are also a few modern house examples in the precinct, and this will be yet another one of those modern examples.

1. Council's concerns particularly relate to the decision guidelines about whether the proposal will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place and whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.

1. In relation to the latter decision guideline about whether the proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, as I see it, it is fortuitous for council that the fact is a planning permit is required on this site. This planning permission and this decision guideline allows council to consider the impact of the proposal upon 67 Mont Albert Road, being Ballantyne House. I do agree with Mr Turnor's evidence that you have to look at this as a secondary consideration because it is not the reason why a permit is required in the first instance. The decision has already been made at some point in the past that the house at 67 Mont Albert Road should be (and now is) a site-specific heritage place. It stands alone, and it is only any building and works that are undertaken on that property itself that require the consideration of the impact on the heritage significance of that property. In other words, if this site was not in the Reid Estate heritage precinct, there would be no planning permit required and no consideration of the proposed house's impact on Ballantyne House.
2. I am also persuaded by the fact that this site's interface with 67 Mont Albert Road is primarily in terms of 67 Mont Albert Road's sideage and not its frontage. When I refer back to the statement of significance for Ballantyne House, I am not persuaded that it places any particular significance on the fact that there is a secondary streetscape view of this house. The significance of Ballantyne House has clearly got to do with the history of the ownership of it and the architectural detailing of it. But what is focused on is the architectural detailing of it as appreciated from Mont Albert Road.
3. In terms of separation, I agree with Mr Seach's submission and Mr Turnor's evidence that there is a significant separation between the two-storey element of Ballantyne House and this proposal for a two-storey building. Therefore, I am not persuaded that there needs to be any change to the height of the parapet of the proposed building in order to be in keeping with the height and form of Ballantyne House. There is a separation between the two buildings, and their principal frontages are appreciated in two different streetscapes. In terms of the side street presentation of Ballantyne House, the site is located at the rear of Ballantyne House, so I am not persuaded that it has any adverse effect on the heritage significance of Ballantyne House.

Proposed materials and finishes of external walls

1. In terms of the materials and finishes of the proposed building within the Reid Estate heritage precinct, I am not persuaded that there needs to be any changes to the brick and render colours because I am satisfied with the proposed light colours. I agree with Mr Turnor's evidence that, within the precinct, there are many examples of light colours and they are in different finishes including painted brickwork and render. The fact that this proposal includes a light brick finish does not concern me. Whether it is painted or rendered, it is of a light colour, which is consistent with other materials that are found within the precinct.
2. Bearing in mind the words of the local Heritage policy in the planning scheme is about using external materials that complement the materials evident in the precinct, I am persuaded by Mr Turner's evidence that it means that a design needs to blend in, or be visually neutral or benign, as opposed to needing to respect and utilise the same or similar materials to what are found in the precinct already. Therefore, I am satisfied that the presentation of the front facade and the wall materials and finishes are acceptable.

1. This leaves me with the roof and the parapet's relationship to the roof. Council's submission explained a reason why the parapet needed to be reduced was to open up greater views of the roof form. I do agree that the visibility of the roof form is a characteristic that you can find generally within this heritage precinct. It also seems to be a characteristic that exists for the more contemporary buildings that have been built within the precinct in recent times. I explored with Mr Seach during the hearing that the sight line diagram contained in the application plans is just one very limited view from the opposite side of Oakdale Avenue. This site is opposite parkland, and this park is part of the heritage precinct. Hence, I am satisfied that there are greater view opportunities of the three-dimensional form of the proposed building from either up at the Mont Albert Road intersection or within the park at a greater distance away than the opposite side of Oakdale Avenue from this site. Therefore, I am not persuaded that there need to be any further changes to the height of the parapet in order to increase the visibility of the proposed roof form.
2. In terms of the roof material and finish, the Council has suggested in condition 1(b) that it should be amended to be a more traditional colour such as terracotta or grey. I am troubled by the use of terracotta for the reasons that I asked Mr Turnor about in terms of the potential for it to provide a connection to 67 Mont Albert Road or potentially adversely impact (e.g. detract) in some way from 67 Mont Albert Road. Furthermore, there is a mix of roof colours evident in the heritage precinct. For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the roof necessarily should be of a terracotta colour.
3. What I observe from my inspection of the heritage precinct is that you can generally see a distinction between the materials of the walls of the buildings and their roof forms. Council's concern may be influenced by the way in which the colours are done on the illustrations of the proposed house in the permit application material, or the references to the materials written on the plans. The illustrations of the proposed house do not do justice to the roof form and its material and finish. When I look at the materials that are contained on the plan at TP201-A, it seems to suggest, in colour, that the tile is to be a darker tone compared to the wall finishes. That extent of distinction between the walls and roof colours does not trouble me, but what is contained in the illustrations does.
4. Therefore, I am inclined to change condition 1(b) to require the substitution of a proposed white roof tile to a more contrasting colour. If that is to be the colour that I can see on TP201-A, then that would be acceptable. But, if the material was a darker grey, as was discussed with Mr Turnor in his evidence, that would be acceptable too. A bit of a contrast between the walls and roof colours would help, but I am not necessarily persuaded that the contrast should be of terracotta.

1. These are the reasons why I have made the decision that I have. I am going to remove condition 1(a), remove condition 1(c) and modify condition 1(b). I will issue an order to that effect in due course.
2. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. Conditions 1(a) and (c) are deleted from the permit and condition 1(b) is modified to require a different colour for the roof to that of the external walls.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, the supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the Tribunal's electronic file 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.