Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Victorian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal
You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal >> 2009 >> [2009] VCAT
1722

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [LawCite]

[Context] [No Context] [Help]

Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors

[2009] VCAT 1722 (24 August 2009)
Last Updated: 31 August 2009

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. P740/2009

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. PL08/0909

CATCHWORDS
Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Yarra Planning Scheme; Residential
1 Zone; Heritage Overlay (HO313); Building Scale and Mass; Demolition; Heritage Values;
Character; Off-Site Impacts; Traffic; Parking.

APPLICANT Common Equity Housing Ltd

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Yarra City Council
RESPONDENT M Phan and others
SUBJECT LAND No. 203-205 Gipps Street, Abbotsford
WHERE HELD Melbourne
BEFORE Margaret Baird, Senior Member
Christina Fong, Member
HEARING TYPE Hearing
DATE OF HEARING 3, 4, 5 and 6 August 2009
DATE OF ORDER 24 August 2009
CITATION Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC &
Ors [2009] VCAT 1722

ORDER

1. Pursuant to Section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1987,

1 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

persons listed in the document tendered by Ms Halls “People who have written to
request to be a party to the appeal” are joined as parties to the proceeding.
2. Leave is given to the permit applicant to substitute for the permit application plans, the
amended plans circulated in accordance with the Tribunal's directions, being plans
TP008 – TP012 inclusive all revision A dated 10.06.2009 and TP014 - TP016 inclusive
all revision B dated 02.07.2009.
3. In permit application no. PL08/0909 the decision of the Responsible Authority is set
aside. A permit is granted and is to be issued. The permit relates to the land at No.
203-205 Gipps Street, Abbotsford. The permit will allow:
(a) Partial demolition of the existing factory and demolition of the existing
dwelling;
(b) Construction of two, three and five storey buildings for the purpose of no more
than 59 dwellings plus basement parking;
(c) A reduction in parking requirements;

in accordance with the endorsed plans.

4. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1 to these reasons.

Margaret Baird Christina Fong

Senior Member Member

APPEARANCES

For Responsible Ms A Lane, solicitor of Maddocks lawyers. Ms M Marcus, solicitor,

Authority appeared for part of Day 3.
For Applicant Mr S Morris QC and Ms S Porritt (Days 1, 3 and 4) of counsel
instructed by Macpherson & Kelley lawyers. Mr S Toia, project
architect, assisted with respect to aspects of the design. Evidence
was called from:

Mr B Raworth, heritage architect.

Mr C Butler, traffic engineer, of Cardno Grogan Richards.
Mr V Connor, town planner of Contour Consultants Australia.

A statement of evidence by Mr T Vernon, landscape architect of

CDA Design Group, was tendered. He was not called and no party
sought to cross-examine him.
For Respondent Ms M Halls for a large number of parties as set out in her
submission and for parties joined to the proceeding.
Dr V Dods in person.
Ms J Koppel in person.
Mr P Ahern in person.
Mr G Peverell in person.
Mr M Dahl in person who tendered a written submission.

INFORMATION

Overview of Proposal Approval is sought to demolish the dwelling on the land and all but

2 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

the external walls of existing factory as they abut Gipps and

Nicholson Streets. It is proposed to construct a basement car park
with 60 spaces, bicycle and other storage. That would extend to
900mm above footpath level. Above would be a five storey building
fronting Gipps and Nicholson Streets (18.2 metres high), a three
storey building fronting Gipps and Little Charles Streets (12.2 metres
high) and five, two storey townhouses fronting Little Charles Street (8
metres high). That would total 59 dwellings. Common Equity
Housing Ltd [CEHL] would retain 25 units for social housing.
The balance of 34 units would be sold. Profits from the sale would be
used for other housing projects by CEHL, a not-for-profit body.
Zone and Overlays Residential 1 Zone. Heritage Overlay (HO313 Charles Street).
Permit Triggers Clauses 32.01, 43.01 and 52.06.
Relevant Scheme Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15.11, 15.12, 16.02, 16.05, 18.02, 19.03, 21,
Policies/Provisions 22.02, 22.03, 22.05, 52.34, 52.36 & 65. Council has adopted
Amendments C84 & C85. Amendment C84 was subsequently
gazetted on 13 August 2009.
Land Description The site is on the south-west corner of Gipps and Nicholson Streets. It
is 2,385 square metres in area with frontages to Gipps, Nicholson and
Little Charles Streets. It contains a single storey building (the former
Harold Shoe Company) with a high parapet. There is also a single
storey timber dwelling.
The land abuts single storey dwellings west of Little Charles Street
fronting Gipps Street and to the south at No. 113 Nicholson Street.
Both have habitable room windows facing the review site. Former
industrial land is also to the south. Two double storey dwellings front
Little Charles Street. A three storey dwelling, fronting Little Charles
Street, is approved to the rear of No. 108 Charles Street. The opposite
side of Nicholson Street comprises commercial/industrial premises of
one and two storeys. The north side of Gipps Street includes a shop
on the western corner with Nicholson Street and a converted two
storey industrial building to its rear. A single storey heritage dwelling
is on the opposite corner of Gipps/ Nicholson Streets. North along
Nicholson Street are single storey dwellings.
Tribunal Inspection 6 August 2009 including buildings on-site. Several further visits
occurred to view traffic and parking conditions.

REASONS

What is this proceeding about?

1. Common Equity Housing Ltd proposes the redevelopment of the former Harold
Shoe Factory to provide 59 units, in three building modules, for a mix of social and
private housing. A five storey building would front Nicholson Street wrapping around
the corner into Gipps Street, a three storey building would front Gipps Street wrapping
around the corner into Little Charles Street, and two storey townhouses would front
Little Charles Street. One basement would service all units, with the highest building
separated from the lower two buildings assisted by a central communal open space. The
design provides for the Gipps/Nicholson Streets façades of the factory to be retained
mainly as the base to the larger building.

3 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

2. The permit application lodged with the Yarra City Council to undertake this project was
refused by the Council. It was, however, the subject of a favourable recommendation
from officers. The Council’s grounds of refusal focus on the building’s scale and bulk in
terms of the existing neighbourhood character, heritage considerations and site
responsive design. The Council’s grounds also express concern that the proposal is an
over-development with respect to traffic and parking. These grounds are supported by
Respondent Objectors who have raised other concerns with the proposal. Additional
issues include the extent of demolition, density of the development, failure to integrate
with the street, increased loads on infrastructure, overshadowing, overlooking, lack of
environmentally sustainable design, and aspects of the internal layout of the buildings.
3. As CEHL has applied for the Council’s decision to be reviewed, the Tribunal must
decide whether to grant a permit and, if so, what conditions should apply. Having
considered all submissions based on the provisions and policies within the Yarra
Planning Scheme[1], assisted by our inspections, we will allow the Application for
Review. In setting out the reasons for our decision, we do not recite all of the
documentation tendered by the parties as all material is retained on the Tribunal’s file.

How is the intended use considered by policy?

4. No planning permit is required for the use of the land for residential purposes.
5. It is, however, noteworthy that the proposal involves the former industrial land being
used for entirely residential purposes, consistent with the primary purpose for which the
site is zoned. We also acknowledge the aim of the project to provide social and
affordable housing, an outcome that is consistent with the strategic directions of the
Yarra Planning Scheme.[2]
6. State and local policies place weight on the achievement of a dwelling mix while
accommodating forecast increases in population and retaining a diverse population and
household structure. In this context, we do not accept criticisms of the proposal made in
several statements of grounds with respect to the lack of family-friendly dwellings. It is
not necessary to provide larger dwellings or units directed to a different or specific
population profile. We also do not accept “in principle” arguments that the proposed
density is too high and should be rejected outright. Rather, having regard to the
provisions and policies of the Scheme to which we are required to give effect, it is
essential for any proposal to achieve an acceptable outcome with respect to heritage and
neighbourhood character objectives, ensure that occupants have an appropriate level of
internal amenity, address the potential for adverse off-site amenity impacts, and have a
suitable supply of car parking. We turn to these considerations next.

Is the extent of demolition acceptable?

7. The proposal involves demolition of the existing dwelling to the north-west of the site
and most of the factory building except walls along Gipps and Nicholson Streets.
Several parties expressed concern about demolition of the dwelling and the extent of
demolition of the factory. The parties placed weight on the buildings on the site being
identified as contributory in the 2007 City of Yarra Heritage Review. We also note that
the Council’s 1998 City of Yarra Heritage Review, that is the reference document in the
Planning Scheme at Clause 22, does not identify the site as having significant or
contributory elements.
8. The evidence and information presented by several parties indicates the factory was
erected in two stages and completed in the early 1920s.
9. A building at the north-west corner of the site in 1858 is shown on a map tendered by Dr
Dods but the form and position of the existing dwelling closely corresponds with a 1901

4 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

MMBW plan, rather than the 1858 map, as Mr Raworth described. Our inspection
confirms Victorian detailing in the dwelling without obvious evidence of an earlier
structure. We understand from submissions and videos[3] Dr Dods tabled for viewing
that the dwelling was used in association with the factory. We do not consider the
dwelling dates from the mid 1800s. Rather, it has the hallmarks of a Victorian house that
has been substantially altered internally and externally. It is essentially obscured from
Gipps Street today and we have not detected remnant vegetation or original elements
associated with the garden. There are no submissions that the house has important
associations with any individual.
10. We consider the extent of proposed demolition in the context of why HO313 is
significant, as required by Clause 43.01 of the Scheme.
11. The statement of significance for the Charles Street heritage precinct differs between the
1998 and 2007 heritage studies. Both citations refer to:
the precinct’s outstanding significance with a core of early civic buildings of
individual significance including the landmark Collingwood Town Hall; and
substantially intact late 19th and early 20th century houses.
12. The most and less intact streetscapes are identified in the 1998 study, including
Nicholson south of Gipps being one of the less intact.
13. Both the 1998 and 2007 studies describe the heritage precinct including a boot factory in
Yarra Street that is said to be typical of industrial buildings in the area.
14. Industrial buildings are not part of the statement of significance in the 1998 study.
Conversely, the 2007 citation identifies contributory elements including “well preserved,
typically one-storey residential and industrial buildings” with the Charles Street precinct
significant for reasons including:

some well preserved industrial and commercial buildings (i.e. in Gipps ... Streets), dating
predominantly from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but with a secondary contribution
from the inter-war era.

15. Consistent with this, the 2007 study refers to the primary development era as Victorian
and Edwardian with a secondary contribution from some well preserved inter-war
buildings.
16. On these bases, we accept submissions that the area enjoys an historic context of a
mixed industrial and residential area.
17. We also accept submissions the inter-war factory building on the review site makes a
limited contribution to the heritage significance of HO313. That is on a secondary basis
to the primary significance. It is also relevant that the site is in one of the less intact
streetscapes. The factory building retains its integrity despite the Nicholson Street façade
being painted with a wave design. Some original detailing is extant. The wave painting
was called a local landmark in one submission but it is not cited as such in any way in
the documentary material (descriptions or citations) to which we were referred by the
parties.
18. The dwelling at the north-west of the site is from the primary development era but it is
obscured and altered. It does not sit within a cohesive row or intact context.
19. Clause 43.01 requires consideration of whether the demolition, removal or external
alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Local policy at
Clause 22.02 discourages demolition of contributory fabric such as the dwelling and
factory particularly where the fabric has not been changed beyond recognition and does
not make a streetscape contribution. Amendment C85 would also not support demolition
of contributory elements. The site’s location is not among buildings with a similar
appearance but it is related to heritage buildings of a similar height and scale.
20. In the design before us, the front factory walls to Gipps and Nicholson Streets would be

5 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

retained and the inappropriate wave paintwork removed. There would be incursions into
the façades, such as the vents to service the basement and modified windows to allow
the entry between the five and three storey buildings. The balance of the factory and all
of the dwelling would be removed.
21. We are satisfied that the proposed demolition is acceptable in the circumstances. The
buildings in issue make a limited contribution and sit within a modified context. There
are better examples of boot factories of a similar period in the area. If the factory and/or
the dwelling made a more significant contribution individually or to the precinct and/or
were in a different setting then we might reach a view that more should be retained.
22. Thus, although there is an argument that demolition does not accord with the local
policy, subject to an acceptable replacement/addition, we find the proposed demolition
of most of the factory and all of the dwelling on the review site would not adversely
affect the significance of HO313.

Is the proposed built form acceptable in heritage terms?

23. The Council and Respondent Objectors submitted the proposal fails to conserve and
enhance the values of HO313 that comprises predominantly single storey dwellings.
They submitted the proponent has placed too great a reliance on larger buildings outside
HO313 for design cues. The design was criticised as representing “façadism” and the
upper level setbacks insufficient to respect the retained building. Many parties submitted
the proposal would overwhelm the heritage place because of the substantial departure
from the existing building scale and nearby contributory structures. Some also submitted
the ground level setbacks should be increased to match adjacent building lines. Further,
the development was said to alter and obscure viewlines to heritage buildings.
24. Those opposing the proposal referred to the heritage advice obtained by the Council
whereas the Applicant relied on the evidence of Mr Raworth to refute the heritage
grounds upon which the proposal was challenged.
25. In addition to implementing State and local policies, the purposes of Clause 43.01
include:
To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.
To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage
places.
26. Decision guidelines of Clause 43.01 that we must consider include whether the proposed
development would adversely affect the significance, character and appearance of the
heritage place (the whole of HO313) and whether the proposed works would be in
keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.
27. Something significant was sought to be made of the different bases upon which Mr
Butler and Mr Raworth assessed the proposal with respect to the local policy (that is
whether the proposal is regarded as additions or infill). We have considered both parts of
the local policy as well as the adopted revisions to Clauses 22.02 in Amendment C85.
While there are differences between the various parts of the existing policy as well as
with the proposed policy, the messages are clear with respect to the objectives.
28. HO313 is quite large and there are diverse elements within it, as set out in the
description included in both the 1998 and 2007 heritage reviews. There is no doubt that
the single storey Victorian and Edwardian dwellings are one of the primary bases for the
precinct’s significance in addition to (inter alia) the early civic buildings.
29. The review site is located at one corner of the intersection of Gipps and Nicholson
Streets where two other corners are also in HO313. West of Little Charles Street, on the
south side, are single storey period dwellings, with those closest to the review site being
more altered and less intact than others further west. The north side of Gipps Street also
comprises single storey dwellings (some with additions) and the double storey converted

6 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

building opposite. The art deco factory on the south-east corner of Gipps and Nicholson
Streets is not in HO313 nor is the row of two storey commercial premises with front
setbacks used for parking further south. To the south of the review site, on the west side
of Nicholson Street, are several single storey cottages with front setbacks, then some
more modern two storey dwellings with single storey between, before larger school
buildings that terminate this part of the HO313 area at Mollison Street.
30. The proposed two storey townhouses fronting Little Charles Street were not really
challenged by any party on heritage grounds. In our view this format and laneway
frontage are typical of newer development addressing lanes that is emerging in the wider
area. Representative of that trend, there are two double storey dwellings opposite the site
in Little Charles Street and a three storey development is approved to the rear of No. 108
Charles Street, also with a Little Charles Street address. We find the townhouses to be an
acceptable heritage response with respect to HO313 and Clause 22.02.
31. The proposed three storey building would provide a transition from the single storey
dwellings to the west of Little Charles Street and the higher corner form with the
retained factory walls as its base. The spacing between the three and five storey elements
is equivalent in breadth to the spacing provided by Little Charles Street. This serves to
avoid a singular building mass and to retain views between built elements. That is, the
fine grain of the area is respected in this aspect of the design.
32. Similarly, the position of the driveway allows a break between the stepped southern
elevation of the larger building and the lower form of No. 113 Nicholson Street. A
suitable transition on the southern elevation is achieved based on the substituted plans.
33. Retention of the front factory walls means a zero lot line; that is not the same for the
adjacent dwellings. However, retention of the front walls is acceptable in our view even
though that means the development would be relatively prominent in the immediate
environs of the site. A hard edge to a corner is not, however, unusual in HO313.
34. Arguably the most contentious aspect of the proposal is the five storey form and its
relationship to the retained façades of the factory. Opposition to this form focused on the
height of this building and the lack of similarly-scaled buildings in HO313. Some argue
a two storey outcome is required.
35. The five level form would not be recessive when compared with single storey dwellings
and other low scale significant and contributory elements in HO313. It would be
reasonably prominent in the immediate setting but less so when the mature street trees
are in leaf dependent on the view line.
36. We are, however, persuaded that the outcome is acceptable.
37. HO313 is not homogenous in terms of a single storey domestic scale and there is a mix
of building stock with disparate heights. Older industrial and other buildings (such as the
school to the south) are an element of this.
38. The base of the five storey building is formed by the retained walls with a raised internal
floor to allow vents for natural ventilation to the basement and the parapet to form the
balcony balustrade for the first floor dwellings. This is a clever approach. The fairly
minor incursions into the retained fabric are acceptable given the building’s low level of
significance when also balanced with improvements that will be made, such as by the
removal of the wave paintwork.
39. The upper levels of the five storey building would be setback from the retained walls.
Although the setbacks are not deep (except for the top floor) the break is sufficient given
the low heritage contribution of the retained fabric. The building will not be as
top-heavy as the elevations may suggest. The approach to retained front walls is not
dissimilar to other examples one can see in Abbotsford where walls have been reused in
some contemporary development (eg. Charles Street near Victoria Street) albeit on a
larger scale.

7 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

40. We find the proposal has been very carefully prepared to respond to the retained fabric
and setting. The façade treatments are broken to respond to the grain of development
found in HO313. The use of brickwork to levels 3 and 4 is proportionally responsive to
the retained walls with the recessed glazed first floor (2nd level) providing a visual
separation. The fifth level is recessed and thus the development will be read as four
levels even though the top floor will be seen within increasing distance.
41. The saw tooth roof format of the uppermost level of the largest building and to the three
level building was criticised but we think it works well with the balance of the design
and assists to bring daylight into the dwellings. The lift over-run will not exceed this
height.
42. As alluded to above, the design and materials adopted by the architect are crafted in a
way that is not fairly appreciated from the elevations or colours found in the
photomontages. An example is the “bug eye” windows to which the Council referred
that are actually shrouded windows with recessed glazing. On the elevations and in some
images, they look like windows that protrude whereas it is only the window frame that
would do so to any depth. Similarly, the “hit and miss” brickwork and colours in the
montages give an impression that will be quite different to what will occur based on the
descriptions provided to us, the brick samples, and the sample board of material and
finishes that were tabled.
43. We do not consider the proposal would impact on significant vistas or view lines to
heritage fabric or to the Collingwood Town Hall from any identifiable critical viewing
point. Nor do we consider the heritage skyline will be adversely affected in the site’s
context.
44. A lack of integration with the street was suggested by some parties. While there are few
doors directly off the street, we do not find that to be a critical failing having regard to
the retained building fabric and the acceptable approach taken to the corner of Gipps
Street and Little Charles Street.
45. In summary, despite the scale of the proposed development, we find it would achieve the
objectives of Clause 43.01 in the site’s context. That is primarily because of the use of
three, essentially separate, built elements, with a large central courtyard. In addition,
there is good spacing between buildings on site and adjacent properties. The pattern and
rhythm in the façade treatment respond to heritage elements. A more deferential
response to the retained building fabric is not required.
46. This finding does not necessarily provide a precedent for other sites in HO313. The
same scale of development may be unsuitable in other parts of the heritage precinct
where the context and pattern of development are different, such as narrower streets and
more intact streetscapes. A contextual approach is needed in every case.

Is the proposed built form acceptable in character and urban design terms?

47. Arguments against the proposal focused on similar criticisms as referred to above.
However, character and urban design considerations raise broader matters with respect
to the site’s relationship to its whole context (including land outside HO313). In this
respect, a number of parties again submitted the proposal has relied on larger
developments that are remote from the site or that the proposal will produce a
development that is too large outside an activity centre. They seek a lower scale
response.
48. The Applicant challenged these arguments primarily through the evidence of Mr Connor
while also relying on the assessment by the Council officer and independent urban
design advice obtained by the Council during the processing of the application.
49. We agree with submissions that the purpose of the Zone, and local policies, emphasise
respect for neighbourhood character. There are also the Guidelines for Higher Density

8 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

Housing which we have considered.

50. Clause 21.05 refers to the aim to retain the low rise urban form of Yarra with pockets of
higher density development. The low rise form is described as “mostly in the one to two
storey range, with some three and four storey buildings”. The pockets of taller buildings
are identified as high-rise housing estates, some industrial or ex-industrial complexes
and landmark towers, spires and signs.
51. Clause 21.05, Strategy 16.1, is to ensure that development outside activity centres and
not on strategic redevelopment sites reflect the prevailing low-rise urban form. Policies
for Abbotsford at Clause 21.08 show the site as within the heritage overlay – to ensure
that development does not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place (a
matter discussed above).
52. Submissions varied as to whether the review site is a strategic redevelopment site. The
review site is not shown on the map or in the list of six strategic redevelopment sites in
Abbotsford at Clause 21.08. Clause 21 does not define the term.
53. The phrase “strategic redevelopment sites” is, however, used in State policy. It is policy
at Clause 12.01 to locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity
centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and
transport by identifying strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development
that are:
In and around the Central Activities District.
In or within easy walking distance of Principal or Major Activity Centres.
In or beside Neighbourhood Activity Centres that are served by public transport.
On or abut tram, train, light rail and bus routes that are part of the Principal Public
Transport Network and close to Principal or Major Activity Centres.
In or near major modal public transport interchanges that are not in Principal or
Major Activity Centres.
Able to provide 10 or more dwelling units, close to activity centres and well
served by public transport.
54. The review site could be argued to fit the second and last criteria given Victoria Street is
a major activity centre.
55. Should the list of strategic redevelopment sites in each neighbourhood in Clause 21.08
be regarded as an exclusive list? This question is relevant because Clause 21.05 Strategy
16.2 states (inter alia) that development on strategic redevelopment sites and within
activity centres should generally be no more than 5-6 storeys unless it can be
demonstrated that the proposal can achieve specific benefits such as:
Significant upper level setbacks;
Architectural design excellence;
Best practice environmental sustainability objectives in design and construction;
High quality restoration and adaptive re-use of heritage buildings;
Positive contribution to the enhancement of the public domain;
Provision of affordable housing.
56. We do not think the mapped and listed sites should be regarded as being exclusive. It
will not always be possible to identify such sites into the future and opportunities that
present themselves that fit the location criteria should be able to be considered for higher
scale development. Any redevelopment will involve an assessment of a site’s physical
and planning contexts resulting in different responses in different settings. That does not
mean any site that can fit more than 10 dwellings in Yarra should be contemplated for
5-6+ storeys.
57. On the basis of the local policy, a development of two and three storeys on the review
site cannot be said to be fundamentally at odds with the direction adopted by the Council
and only recently included in the Planning Scheme with respect to the municipality’s

9 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

low rise form. The five level building has one more storey than the policy description,
but, on a site of 2,385 square metres and with a well recessed fifth level, we consider
there is the potential to achieve the Scheme’s built form objectives. Moreover, if the
review site is regarded as a strategic redevelopment site, the proposal would accord with
the identified height range of 5-6 storeys and achieve benefits cited such as affordable
housing and adaptive re-sue of heritage fabric.
58. Either way, we are satisfied that the proposal is an acceptable response to the character
outcomes sought by the Scheme.
59. Our reasons are substantially the same as set out above with respect to heritage
considerations and do not need to be repeated.
60. Our views with respect to character and urban design objectives are further reinforced
by the acceptable relationship to the commercial precinct to the east of the site. The
proposal would be significantly higher than the lower scale art deco corner building.
However it is reasonable to expect that site would be redeveloped in time as it is not
affected by any Heritage Overlay and is within an industrial zone with higher elements
to its east and south.
61. Minimal front and side setbacks are not unusual in the area. The retained factory
building assists to tie the development with the commercial and industrial fabric to the
east. We find the hard edge design response to be acceptable for this reason even though
we acknowledge there are frontage setbacks associated with the newer commercial
premises south along the east side of Nicholson Street that mainly provide for car
parking.
62. The proposed five storey building would be largely read as four storeys from Nicholson
and Gipps Streets and the design responds to the industrial fabric in the near and wider
area without copying it or being too complex.
63. We accept the fifth level would be seen in longer views, the extent of which will be
influenced by existing and proposed street trees, however that is not unacceptable in this
mixed urban setting and context. The southern elevation of the five storey building has
been modified several times with the form in the substituted plans more graduated with
respect to the interface to the south and in northwards views along Nicholson Street. We
will, however, accept Mr Connor’s suggestion with respect to a small modification to the
southern elevation as shown in Attachment 3 to his statement of evidence.
64. Ms Lane said that Mr Hutson had suggested a variation to the western elevation of the
three level building so as to soften the corner treatment. We have not been persuaded
that change is required (although we would not oppose it should it be taken up by the
proponent). We consider the three storey form is sufficiently articulated and setback
given the separation provided by Little Charles Street.
65. The proposal would improve the sense of passive surveillance and enhancement of the
public realm. We have not been persuaded to direct changes to respond to some matters
raised at the hearing such as the provision of additional doorways or a revised façade to
Little Charles Street.
66. Clause 22.07 addresses development abutting laneways and seeks to enhance the
amenity of the laneways including a sense of safety. We are satisfied that the proposed
townhouses adopt suitable scale and setbacks along Little Charles Street. Entries are
clear and it would be desirable to include external lighting associated with the units.
67. Plant and equipment are not shown. Having asked Mr Toia to explain how these items
would be addressed, we are satisfied the lift over-runs will sit no higher than the saw
tooth roof and spaces are available for plant, equipment and air conditioning units
without these elements appearing as add-ons. The solid balustrades are an example;
condensers could sit behind the balustrade without being seen from the public realm.
Underground water tank(s) will be used with associated pumps being within the

10 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

basement. It is unclear at this stage whether any mechanical ventilation will be required
for the basement but that can be dealt with by a condition.
68. For these reasons, we find the proposal to represent an acceptable outcome in terms of
character and urban design considerations and objectives. The layout has been planned
to provide a lower scale response to the south and west, where there is a closer
relationship to more modest building forms, with the higher element along Nicholson
Street, opposite commercial buildings, and to the Gipps Street corner. The southern
elevation is sufficiently graduated with respect to the low scale buildings to the south.

Is the internal layout acceptable?

69. A number of criticisms of the proposal focused on the internal layout and amenity
associated with the design. We address these concerns next.

Amount and orientation of private open space

70. Most units rely on balconies and the central communal courtyard. Four ground floor
units have no open space while larger dwellings tend to have more private space. Only
one unit has south-facing private open space.
71. We find the amount and orientation of individual open spaces to be acceptable. We reach
this conclusion having regard to the large communal area on-site and being mindful of
ready access to the Yarra River corridor a short distance to the east. Thus, we will not
direct any changes to the design in this respect, other than to take up Mr Connor’s
recommendation to modify the south-west corner of the five storey building that is for
built form reasons. We will not require a juliette balcony to unit G.02.

Screening

72. Given the need to add screening to protect against overlooking to the west and south, Ms
Halls submitted some units would have poor amenity because of the excessive use of
screening devices.
73. We are not persuaded to agree. Additional screening is required to some west-facing
windows along the western elevation of the development however sufficient daylight
and sunlight access would remain. The upper level bedrooms in the townhouses will
have access to skylights through the saw tooth roof form. The living rooms in 1.12 and
2.12 have cabinets adjacent to the windows meaning raised window sills are
unnecessary. Moreover, those living areas have an alternative northern window and
deck.

Inadequate bicycle storage

74. The design provides for visitor bicycle parking off Gipps Street and a communal area for
residents’ bicycles within the courtyard. We accept Mr Butler’s evidence that additional
bicycle parking be provided and that can occur at a convenient and secure location in the
car park. The courtyard bicycle spaces could either be removed or retained.

Lack of space for external clothes drying and storage

75. There are spaces for external drying associated with the townhouses but they would be
seen from the central courtyard. Clothes on balconies may also be seen. The inclusion of
a common drying area would be possible in association with the courtyard. There is also
scope to add storage in the basement, as discussed at the hearing.

11 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

Environmentally sustainable design measures

76. The design was criticised by some parties as having insufficient attention to
environmentally sustainable design. Among the comments were poor ventilation in each
dwelling and a contention that centralised waste chutes would discourage recycling.
77. The proposal includes some ESD measures and has been modified through the
substituted plans to provide for improved ventilation for the units. The window
treatments, with varied depth in the window shrouds, are an example of the detailed
consideration of the amenity of the dwellings and weather conditions. Other elements
include rainwater tanks and solar hot water heating that can be detailed through permit
conditions. The central waste chute is an efficient way to deal with rubbish disposal and
does not mean recycling will not occur. A permit condition proposed by the Council will
require ESD elements to be further developed. We find that to be acceptable.

Would unreasonable amenity impacts result for nearby dwellings?

78. The main issues arising with respect to potential off-site amenity impacts focus on
overlooking, overshadowing, visual bulk, a loss in outlook and noise. We are satisfied
that none of these matters warrant rejection of the proposal for the following reasons.

Overlooking

79. Most proposed windows and terraces would be more than 9 metres from any habitable
room windows or open space in surrounding properties. This is the standard referred to
in the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development relying on Clause 55 of
the Scheme.[4] Overlooking potential is confined to west and south-facing windows. We
agree with submissions that screening is required to protect against overlooking to
habitable room windows and private open spaces west of Little Charles Street. We will
require first and second floor west facing bedroom windows to apartments 1:12 and 2:12
to be screened. We will also require first floor west facing windows of the first three
townhouses to be screened with a modified façade treatment as required to maintain
variation in the west elevation of the row of five townhouses. We find no reason for
screening to the slot windows that face south, or to any north or east facing windows.

Overshadowing

80. Given the design, the potential for unreasonable overshadowing is limited to properties
to the south, notably No. 113 Nicholson Street, and Gipps Street properties to the west
of the site. Winter shadows were among the concerns identified.
81. The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development state that an assessment of
the impact of shadowing of private open spaces is typically based on the equinox as the
design standard.[5] Thus, even though shadows will be longer in winter, this is not the
test usually applied. Design suggestions include “Maintain sunlight and daylight access
to adjoining private open spaces of dwellings in accordance with Clause 55 of planning
schemes”.[6] The proposal would comply with Clause 55 in terms of shadowing to the
south and west. We therefore find the impact arising from the proposal to be within
acceptable limits of change. One statement of grounds referred to impacts on solar
panels that might be installed. We do not find against the proposal for this reason.

Visual bulk and change in outlook

82. The proposal will change the outlook from dwellings notably No. 113 Nicholson Street
and others near to the review site. Even though Clause 55 does not apply, the proposal

12 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

would comply with the numerical standards with respect to north-facing windows
should they be applied. Given the separation from the closest existing dwellings, and the
design’s transitional elements, we are not persuaded to accept submissions that the
proposal would represent unreasonable visual bulk or that a change in outlook from
dwellings warrants a lower scale of development on the review site.

Noise

83. Ms Halls and other parties referred to the potential for noise from the roller door
servicing the basement, pumps, plant and equipment. We are satisfied these matters can
be addressed by conditions. The roller door is set into site while other plant and
equipment will be within the basement. Locations for air conditioning can also be
identified on the plans.

Is sufficient parking provided?

84. A reduction in parking is required for this development. Pursuant to Clause 52.06, two
car spaces per dwelling are required. The proposal has one space for each unit and two
spaces for the three bedroom dwellings. One dwelling would have no car space. No
visitor parking is proposed on-site.
85. We accept Mr Butler’s evidence that the amount of car parking proposed on-site to
support the residential use is acceptable. It is likely that the social housing component
will have a lower rate of car parking demand than typically occurs in medium density
development. Even if we do not allow for that possibility, we find a reduction in parking
is appropriate given the modest size of the dwellings, the close achievement of parking
based on Clause 55 rates, the availability of alternative transport such as public
transport, and excellent access to on-road and off-road bicycle networks.
86. The lack of visitor parking on-site was a very strong concern in many submissions and
statements of grounds. We appreciate that many existing dwellings do not have the
option of on-site parking and at times on-street parking is pressured. New development
in the area may add to that demand in addition to the proposal before us.
87. We viewed the locality at various times of the day and evening, on weekdays and
weekends, to appreciate submissions on this question. There is, however, a sizeable area
of parking available along the site’s frontages (away from the intersection and taking
into account existing and proposed street tree planting). The demands arising from the
development would not place an unreasonable burden on the public realm nor utilise a
disproportionate share of the public resource. The design has the benefit of allowing
some trucks into the basement to access lifts.
88. The expert evidence would suggest that there could be surplus spaces in the car park
given the social housing units. We will include a permit condition that requires a parking
allocation plan and also allows for the potential provision of on-site visitor parking
should social housing tenant spaces not be fully utilised. That might mean internal
signage and an intercom are required.
89. We will also accept minor internal design changes referred to by Mr Butler.

Would traffic impacts be acceptable?

90. Many parties expressed concern about increased traffic on Nicholson and Gipps Streets.
They highlighted existing congested conditions and submitted cars turning right into the
site would block traffic movement and cause queuing into the intersection.
91. We have considered this question mindful of the degree of concern and having regard to
new development that is occurring in the area. We are aware of the extent of through

13 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

traffic in this area and using Gipps and Nicholson Streets. We have also reviewed Mr
Butler’s findings and those in the traffic report prepared in support of the permit
application. Mr Butler’s evidence differs from the earlier report that is based on a more
theoretical assessment of the intersection’s capacity. We have also considered the views
of the Council‘s engineers on this matter.
92. The information before us does not take into account traffic generated by the former use
of the land. It does include Eastlink traffic. We are aware of the busy nature of the
intersection and the potential for cars entering the site, southbound on Nicholson Street,
to cause a delay. We are, however, persuaded to accept Mr Butler’s evidence that the
outcome is acceptable given the fairly low levels of traffic movements to and from the
site that would coincide with commuter peak hours. The proposed driveway would
enable two cars to move side by side. If any specific issues arise then the Council, as
road manager, would be able to introduce any required measures.
93. Some submissions also referred to impacts on Little Charles Street that is used by
pedestrians as well as some vehicles. The townhouses would not rely on Little Charles
Street for vehicle parking or access as the allocated spaces are proposed in the basement.
Little Charles Street is a public road and the Council could ensure no standing signs are
provided if there is a concern that residents might prop their vehicles in this lane/little
street.

Do any other matters warrant rejection of the proposal?

94. Other matters were raised in submissions or statements of grounds upon which we
summarise our conclusions:
Visitor bicycle storage is uncovered. We have no concern with respect to the
design of this area but it could be covered if required.
Lack of detail about balcony planting. This can be resolved through the
endorsement of a landscape plan by the Council.
Impact on infrastructure such as footpaths, water mains, medical services, public
transport and roads. There is no evidence to suggest that the local infrastructure
cannot absorb the additional dwellings proposed as part of this development.
Urban consolidation will place demands on services but this does not provide a
basis to reject the proposal.
Pollution from increased traffic, fumes from vents and more pet droppings. To the
extent that these impacts might occur or be perceptible, they are not matters that
cause the proposal to be rejected.
Noise pollution from occupants and private waste collection. The intent is for
waste to be collected from inside the basement by a private contractor (requiring a
3.6 metre high ramp clearance). We consider this to be acceptable. It will
minimise noise mindful that the former use of the land may have been noisy and
its parking area abuts No. 113 Nicholson Street. The noise from occupants would
not be expected to be any different to what can potentially occur in any other
apartment development and does not provide a reason to lower or reject the
proposal.
Car parking venting. We will include a condition addressing this matter with the
aim of avoiding a negative impact on the public realm from any mechanical vents.
Inconvenient access to the townhouses. Car parking for the townhouses is
provided in the basement with several options to access the dwellings from the
basement within the site and via the street network.
Construction impacts including noise. There will be an increase in activity around
the site during construction and that can be managed through a construction
management plan to the Council’s satisfaction.

14 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

What planning permit conditions are appropriate?

95. We have considered all submissions regarding possible permit conditions. We have
adopted conditions to accord with our findings and otherwise have generally accepted
the conditions as agreed between the Council and Applicant as well as some suggestions
made on behalf of Respondent Objectors with respect to details that need to be added to
the plans. It is appropriate to draw attention to the following:
Environmental audit. We have adopted the wording proposed by the Applicant
with respect to this matter. It is based on a similar condition for another
development in Yarra (Permit PL07/0556).
Section 173 agreement. The Council sought an agreement seeking to restrict the
use of the land to social/affordable housing. That was opposed by the Applicant;
Mr Morris instead suggested a condition that the development must only be
carried out by a non-profit entity for social housing purposes. We have adopted the
Applicant’s suggestion, with an added reference to affordable housing. We have
made the condition variable with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
We think that flexibility is reasonable to reflect the basis upon which the permit
application has been advanced and argued but would enable an alternative
implementation model to be considered by the Council if necessary.

Conclusion

96. For the above reasons, we will allow the Application for Review. We find the proposal is
a carefully considered contemporary design and represents an acceptable outcome
having regard to all of the applicable provisions within the Yarra Planning Scheme that
we are required to consider and the policies to which we must give effect.

Margaret Baird Christina Fong

Senior Member Member

APPENDIX 1 CONDITIONS FOR PERMIT PL08/0909

Amended plans

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The
plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The
plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Kann Finch Group, as
modified by the plans TP008 – TP012 inclusive all revision A dated 10.06.2009 and
plans TP014 - TP016 inclusive all revision B dated 02.07.2009, and further modified to
show:
(a) first and second floor west facing bedroom windows to apartments 1:12 and
2:12 to be screened to prevent views into adjoining habitable room windows and
private open space of dwellings to the west;
(b) first floor west facing windows of the first three townhouses to be screened to
prevent views into adjoining habitable room windows and private open space of
dwellings to the west with modified façade treatment as required to maintain
variation in the west elevation of the row of five townhouses;

15 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

(c) the third and fourth floor plans modified to show the following changes:
(i) modifications in accordance with the recommendations of Mr V Connor,
as set out in Attachment 3 of the statement of evidence to the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Application for Review P740/2009;
(ii) terraces of apartments 3:06 and 3:09 screened to prevent overlooking
into adjacent habitable room windows and private open space over a
distance of 9 metres with details submitted demonstrating compliance;
(iii) details of screening between terraces of apartment 3:06 and 3:09
demonstrating no overlooking between terraces;
(d) details of screening between first floor units along the north and east elevations
of the five storey building, to minimise the visibility of these elements as seen
from the public realm;
(e) the new vehicle crossing must meet the requirements of Condition 4;
(f) changes to the basement ramp and development to allow a 3.6m headroom
clearance including changes to the floor level of Unit G.09 but without any change
in the height of the building or minimum setbacks of the building from the
southern and western boundaries;
(g) a mechanism to provide visibility to the top of the ramp from the basement for
exiting drivers prior to approaching the ramp;
(h) the provision of a separate delineated pedestrian pathway provided in the
basement carpark, for pedestrians crossing the ramp to the south-east lobby;
(i) the provision of 14 additional bicycle parking spaces within the basement.
Spaces may be relocated from the courtyard but visitor bicycle parking must be
retained, as shown, off Gipps Street;
(j) the provision of a one metre setback to the store opposite car space no. 31 to
facilitate vehicle movement;
(k) the retaining wall of the landscaped setback at the south-east corner of the
building reduced to 600m and be splayed at a 45 degrees angle;
(l) a 'keep clear' sign must be provided on the footpath and be within proximity to
the vehicle entrance;
(m) strategically located mirror must be provided to in the basement car park to
aid with vehicle sightlines, particular for bays 34 and adjoining space to the south;
(n) provision and details of storage facilities for each dwelling including the use of
part of the “no parking” area to the south-west corner of the basement, to a depth
of approximately 3.6 metres, to retain sufficient aisle and turning area to facilitate
vehicle movement;
(o) a car parking allocation schedule detailing how car spaces are to be allocated
including the potential provision of visitor parking should tenant spaces not be
fully utilised;
(p) provision and details of all attenuation measures to protect the internal amenity
of the dwellings from external noise sources from the adjacent commercial
premises;
(q) an area set aside within the property boundaries for pits, meters and essential
services;
(r) all proposed external plant and equipment (including roof top plant and
equipment, lift over-runs and air-conditioning) which must be concealed from
view from street level and be acoustically baffled;
(s) any mechanical venting for the basement car park;
(t) plans to show the location of rainwater tanks (including capacity details) and
solar boosted hot water units including pumps;
(u) an updated landscape plan, including details of protection measures for all

16 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

existing street trees and vegetation abutting No. 113 Nicholson Street, Abbotsford;
(v) a plan notation confirming that all new on-boundary walls must be cleaned and
finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(w) an updated schedule of all external materials and finishes (including colour
samples and coloured elevations), showing the use of dark Hawthorn (or similar)
bricks for external brick walls. The schedule must show the materials, colour and
finish of all (other) external walls, roof, fascias, window frames, glazing types,
doors and fences. It must be generally in accordance with the sample board
tendered to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Application for
Review P740/2009. No highly reflective glass or reflective materials is to be used.

Endorsed plans

2. The development shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written
consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without
written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Vehicle crossings and accessways

4. The installation of the new vehicle crossing must comply with the following:
(a) the splay/tangent point of the crossing must commence no less than 2.0 metres
north of the property's south boundary line;
(b) the ramp grade of the first 6.0 metres inside the property must be 1 in 16;
(c) the proposed vehicle crossing shall be constructed in accordance with City of
Yarra Standard Drawings and Specifications;
(d) the development's finished floor levels relative to the existing footpath and
road levels must be such that pedestrian and vehicular access accord with
Australian Standards;
(e) existing footpath, kerb and channel, and road pavement surface levels must not
be altered; and
(f) the design and construction of the proposed vehicle crossing must also satisfy
the requirements of Council's Community Amenity unit's Vehicular Access into
Properties (Info Sheet and Application Form) before a vehicle crossing permit can
be issued.
5. Any damaged road(s) and footpath(s) and other infrastructure adjacent to the
development site as a result of the construction works must be reinstated to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. The existing street tree/s along the Nicholson Street frontage must not be removed or
damaged.

Car parking areas

7. No fewer than 60 car parking spaces must be provided on the land at all times.
8. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles, together with the associated access lanes
as delineated on the endorsed plan must:
(a) be provided and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted;
(b) thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(c) be made available for such use at all times and not used for any other purpose;
(d) be properly formed to such levels that it can be used in accordance with the
endorsed plan and

17 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

(e) be drained and sealed with an all weather seal coat.

all to the satisfaction on the Responsible Authority.

9. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, car parking must be allocated to each apartment
in accordance with the endorsed car parking allocation schedule.

Lighting

10. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access
to each car parking space, motorcycle parking space, bicycle parking space, store,
rubbish bin, recycling bin, pedestrian walkways, stairwells, lift, dwelling entrances and
entry foyer. Lighting must be located, directed, shielded and of limited intensity so that
no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site, to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Environmentally Sustainable Principles

11. Except with the consent of the Responsible Authority, before the plans are endorsed, a
report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Environmental Sustainable
Design expert must be submitted and endorsed to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.

Timing of landscaping works

12. Prior to occupation of the development, all landscaping works must be [5566917:
6406461_1)

carried out in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan and be maintained to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Department of Transport

13. Prior to the occupation of the development a Green Travel Plan must be prepared by a
suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the director of Public. The GTP must:
(a) Describe the location of the development site in context of alternative modes
of transport and objectives for the GTP;
(b) Outline GTP measures for the development, including, but not limited to:
(i) household welcome packs;
(ii) possible incentives (eg. provision of Met Cards through
rental/ownership of a dwelling);
(iii) cycle parking and facilities included; and
(iv) GTP management responsibilities, including ongoing monitoring and
review.
14. Once approved the GTP must form part of the Planning Permit or any ongoing
Management Plan for the site to ensure the plan continues to be implemented by
residents/owners to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Drainage

15. Provision must be made for the drainage of the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
16. All piping and ducting, other than for drainage above the ground floor storey of the

18 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

building must be concealed.

17. Any storm water drainage within the property must be provided and be connected to the
nearest Council pit of adequate depth and capacity (legal point of discharge), to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Waste management

18. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings the applicant must submit in consultation with
Council approval by the Responsible Authority a waste management plan. Once
approved the waste management plan must be complied with. Collection may be
undertaken by private contractors or by Council Service.
19. Rubbish, including bottles and packaging material, shall at all times be stored within the
building and screened from external view. All waste collection and recycling collection
to be undertaken by private contractors or Council Service between the hours specified
in Council's Local Law No. 3.

Environmental Audit

20. Before the commencement of any structural works above level one of the buildings
hereby approved either:
(a) a certificate of environmental audit indicating the land upon which the
apartment building is situated is suitable for residential use must be issued for that
land in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or
(b) an environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act
1970 must make a statement in accordance with Section 53ZS of the Act that the
environmental conditions of the land upon which the apartment building is
situated are suitable for residential use. This must include:
(i) How contaminants identified present on the site are to be removed so that
the site is suitable for residential use; and
(ii) Management and/remedial measures for their removal, including
disposal.

Unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, the land subject of investigation
for this report is all of No. 203 - 205 Gipps Street, Abbotsford from which former buildings
and structures have been demolished or removed.

21. Before the commencement of the development hereby approved, a certificate of

Environmental Audit or Statement pursuant to Condition 20(a) or a written confirmation
pursuant to Condition 20(b) must be issued indicating that the land is suitable for
residential use.
22. A copy of the certificate of environmental audit and/or statement, and the complete audit
report and audit area plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
23. The development/buildings and works allowed by this permit must comply with the
directions and conditions of any statement of environmental audit issued for the land.
24. Prior to the occupation of dwellings a letter must be submitted to the Responsible
Authority by an Environmental Auditor accredited with the EPA, to advise that all
construction and remediation works necessary and required by an environmental audit or
statement have been carried out.

Soil removal

25. Any handling and disposal of contaminated site soil must be in accordance with the
requirements of any statement of environmental audit issued for the land, the

19 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

requirements of the Environment Protection Authority and the Environment Protection

Act 1970.
26. The landowner and all its successors in title or transferees must, upon release for private
sale of the parent lot or each of the lots, created by the subdivision, include in the
vendor's statement pursuant to section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 annexed to the
contract of sale for the sale of the land, a copy of the endorsed development plans,
planning permit and statement of environmental audit (together with any later issued
certificate of environmental audit) for the land.

Development of social/affordable housing

27. The development must only be carried out by a not-for-profit entity for social and/or
affordable housing purposes unless otherwise with the prior written consent of the
Responsible Authority.

Construction Management Plan

28. Before any development starts, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and . approved by the Responsible
Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval. The
plan must provide for or include the following:
(a) a pre-conditions survey of all adjacent Council roads and footpaths;
(b) protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area
reasonably proximate to the site);
(c) remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area
reasonably proximate to the site);
(d) containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of
clean up procedures in the event of build up of matter outside the site;
(e) on site facilities for vehicle washing;
(f) methods for management of noise and general nuisance;
(g) site security;
(h) waste and stormwater treatment;
(i) construction program;
(j) preferred routes for trucks delivering to the site;
(k) parking facilities for construction workers;
(l) delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
(m) an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated
disruptions to local services;
(n) an emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and
the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems
experienced; and
(o) traffic management measures to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002
Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for
works on roads.

Construction

29. During the construction, the following must occur:

[5566917: 6406461_1]

any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system to comply with EPA
guidelines;

20 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no
solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the premises enters the stormwater
drainage system;

vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the site;

the cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on site and not on adjacent footpaths
or roads;

all litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be
disposed of responsibly; and

all site operations must comply with the EPA Publication TG302/92.

30. The development, once commenced, must be completed to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.

Construction hours and noise

31. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, demolition or construction
works must only be carried out between: 7.00 am - 6.00 pm, Monday-Friday (excluding
public holidays) and 9.00 am - 3.00 pm, Saturday and public holidays. No work is to be
carried out on Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day or Good Friday without a specific
permit. All - site operations must comply with the relevant Environmental Protection
Authority's Guidelines on Construction and Demolition Noise.

Time limits

32. This permit will expire if:

(a) The development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of this
permit; and
(b) The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of this
permit.

The Responsible Authority may approve extensions to these time limits if requests are made
before the permit expires or within 3 months afterwards.

END CONDITIONS

[1] References to Clauses within the Yarra Planning Scheme are based on the current Scheme
(as amended on 13 August 2009). The parties agreed that C84 was a seriously entertained
proposal and addressed us on its provisions.

[2] Clause 21.04-1.

[3] Working in Collingwood (1987) and End of An Area (2009).

[4] Design Suggestion 2.9.1.

[5] Objective 2.3.

[6] Design suggestion 2.6.2.

21 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM
Common Equity Housing Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2009] VCA... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT...

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback

URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/1722.html

22 of 22 1/06/11 12:40 AM