VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1557/2023
Permit Application no.TP-2016-798 	

Applicant	The Graduate Union of the University of Melbourne Incorporated	

Responsible Authority	Melbourne City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	220-234 Leicester Street
CARLTON VIC 3053	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATEs OF HEARING	27 and 28 March 2024	

DATE OF ORDER	11 April 2024	

CITATION	The Graduate Union of the University of Melbourne Inc. v Melbourne CC [2024] VCAT 324   	

Order
1	In application P1557/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In relation to planning permit No. TP-2016-798 issued on 31 July 2018, pursuant to section 85(1)(f) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) the Tribunal directs that:
(a) 	the date by which the permitted development must be commenced pursuant to Condition 58(a) of the Permit is extended to 31 July 2028; and
(b) 	the date by which the development must be completed pursuant to Condition 58(b) of the Permit is extended to 31 July 2030.
3	Costs reserved.

Christopher Harty
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr Adrian Finanzio, Senior Counsel and Mr Daniel Robinson, Counsel instructed by Ms Amara Coleman, Solicitor from Harwood Andrews Lawyers.  Mr Finanzio called the following witnesses:
•	Mr Marco Negri, Town Planner from Contour Consultants Aust. Pty Ltd
•	Mr Andrew Prowse, Quantity Surveyor from Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd
Mr Daniel Clark, General Manager and Ms Natalie Gray, Chair from the Graduate Union observed.	
For responsible authority	Ms Ann-Maree Drakos, Solicitor and Mr Matthew Mukhtar, Town Planner from Melbourne City Council	

Information
Description of proposal	Partial demolition of existing buildings and buildings and works to construct a residential building comprising 11 storeys above a five-level basement and business identification signage. 	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 81(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the failure of the responsible authority to extend the time of the permit within one month after the request for extension is made.	
Planning scheme	Melbourne Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Capital City Zone Schedule 5 – ‘City North’ (‘CCZ5’)
Heritage Overlay Schedule 1 – ‘Carlton Precinct’ (‘HO1’)
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 61 – ‘City North’ (‘DDO61’)
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 65 – ‘Hospital Emergency Medical Services Helicopter Flight Path Protection (Inner Area)’ (‘DDO65’)
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 66 – ‘Hospital Emergency Medical Services (Outer Area)’ (‘DDO66’)
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 70 – ‘Melbourne Metro Rail Project – Infrastructure Protection Areas’ (‘DDO70’)
Parking Overlay Schedule 1 – ‘Capital City Zone – Outside the Retail Core’ (‘PO1’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 37.04-4 to construct a building or carry out works and to demolish or remove a building or works.
Clause 43.01-1 to demolish or remove a building and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Clause 43.02-2 to construct a building or construct or carry out works.	
Land description	The subject land at 220-234 Leicester Street, Carlton is in the City North Renewal Area and amidst the University of Melbourne precinct which is undergoing significant change with a mix of heritage buildings and older and more recently constructed multi-storey buildings.  
It is an irregular shaped parcel comprising multiple allotments on the south-eastern corner of Leicester Street and Grattan Streets in Carlton.  It is developed with seven attached Victorian Terraces that front Leicester Street.  The northernmost terrace has a side wall presenting to Grattan Street.  The Terraces are graded as significant.  
Opposite the site, on the other side of Leicester Street, and to its south-west is University Square, an open space area that has undergone some changes including an extension east over part of Leicester Street. 	

  Reasons
1	I delivered detailed reasons for my decision orally consistent with the Tribunal's practice in the Fast Track Cases List and the following is provided containing the reasons for the decision.  
2	This matter involves an application in the Tribunal’s Fast Track List made by The Graduate Union of the University of Melbourne Incorporated (‘applicant’) under Section 81(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) seeking a review by the Tribunal of a failure by Melbourne City Council (‘Council’) to grant an extension of time to commence the development allowed under Planning Permit No. TP-2016-798 within one month.
3	The permit was issued on 31 July 2018 and allows for the partial demolition to existing building and buildings and works to construct a residential building and business identification signage at 220-234 Leicester Street, Carlton (‘site’).
4	The permit included the following Condition 58:
Permit Expiry
58 	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a)  	The development is not started within three years of the date of this permit.
b)  	The development is not completed within five years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months afterwards.
The Responsible Authority may extend the time for completion of the development if a request is made in writing within 12 months after the permit expires and the development started lawfully before the permit expired.
5	Based on Condition 58 and the date of the permit, it would have expired on 31 July 2021 if development was not started and on 31 July 2023 if not completed.
6	On 6 July 2021 the permit was extended by Council so that the permit expires if the development is not commenced by 31 July 2024 and the development is not completed by 31 July 2026.
7	I note Council says that the applicant was advised at the time, that plans had not yet been endorsed, and that any further extensions would need to consider if sufficient steps have been taken to action the permit. 
8	On 26 October 2023, an extension of time request was lodged.  It sought a commencement by 31 July 2029 and completion time of 31 July 2031.  
9	On 14 December 2023 the review application was lodged with the Tribunal.
10	Since lodgement of the review application Council have formed the view that had the application for review not been lodged with the Tribunal, Council would have determined to refuse the request to extend the permit.    
11	I have been provided with a detailed description of the site and its environs, the proposal, the Melbourne Planning Scheme provisions, and applicable policies.  It is not necessary for me to repeat that material other than to record that:
•	The site is in the City North Renewal Area and amidst the University of Melbourne precinct which is undergoing significant change with a character comprising a mix of heritage buildings and older and more recently constructed multi-storey buildings.    
•	The site is an irregular shaped parcel comprising multiple allotments on the south-eastern corner of Leicester Street and Grattan Street in Carlton.  This part of the site is developed with seven attached Victorian Terraces that front Leicester Street.  The northernmost terrace has a side wall presenting to Grattan Street.  
•	The site is occupied by Graduate House and the terraces are graded in the Melbourne Planning Scheme Heritage Places Inventory March 2022 (Amended May 2023) as significant.
•	Opposite the site, on the other side of Leicester Street, and to its south-west is University Square, an open space area that has undergone some changes including an extension eastwards over and into part of the Leicester Street road reserve.  I also note that it is subject to further work guided by the University Square Master Plan Refresh, October 2023.
•	The permit provides for an 11-storey residential building to a height of approximately 40 metres above a five-level basement.  The concept of the design is to provide for 136 accommodation units, a café at ground level and various communal facilities with the terraces adapted to form the base of the building.
12	The site is in the Capital City Zone Schedule 5 - 'City North' ('CCZ5') and affected by the following overlays:
•	Heritage Overlay Schedule 1 - 'Carlton Precinct' ('HO1').
•	Design and Development Overlay Schedule 61 - 'City North' ('DDO61').
•	Design and Development Overlay Schedule 65 - 'Hospital Emergency Medical Services Helicopter Flight Path Protection (Inner Area)' ('DDO65').
•	Design and Development Overlay Schedule 66 - 'Hospital Emergency Medical Services Helicopter Flight Path Protection (Outer Area)' ('DDO66').
•	Design and Development Overlay Schedule 70 - 'Melbourne Metro Rail Project - Infrastructure Protection Areas' ('DDO70').
•	Parking Overlay Schedule 1 - 'Capital City Zone - Outside the Retail Core' ('PO1').
13	I have had the benefit of submissions from Ms Drakos and Mr Mukhtar for Council, Mr Finanzio and Mr Robinson for the applicant and the expert planning evidence of Mr Negri and the expert quantity surveying and costings evidence tendered from Mr Prowse and have given consideration to them.  I have also been provided with, and referred to, numerous case law which I will not cite except where relevant in my reasons.   
14	Fundamentally, the applicant says the Graduate Union have not proceeded to date with the approved development because of the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic over the period of 2019 to 2021.  The Graduate Union is a non-profit organisation which the applicant says has been deeply affected by the pandemic through the uncertainty played out with the role and functioning of tertiary and post-graduate education and that of the operation of universities and the delivery of on-campus education and consequently the effects on on-campus accommodation, conferences, and events.  
15	The applicant says the above uncertainty together with the combined effects of a reduced income due to loss of student on-campus accommodation and the effects from the pandemic on rising costs of construction have led to the Graduate Union being cautious about committing its funds for the development until matters settle down and become less uncertain.
16	Hence, the applicant requests a 5-year extension to the permit to allow sufficient time to ensure funds are committed for the permitted development in a prudent and responsible manner.  The applicant says these circumstances are unique.  
17	Council says the granting of a further extension of time as sought by the applicant should not be granted.  It says a considerable amount of time has lapsed (I note it has been 6 years since the grant of the permit) to commence the development and the applicant has not progressed with commencement with no reports or amended plans, as required under the conditions of the permit, lodged with Council for approval and endorsement. Council says this is a case of ‘sitting on one’s hands’ with the applicant not demonstrating the advancement towards commencement over the last 6 years.  
18	Council outlined in submissions that, since the permit was granted the following key changes and proposed changes to the Melbourne Planning Scheme are relevant to the consideration of the extension of time request:
•	Amendment C258 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme was introduced on 10 July 2020 which amended policy relating to heritage.  The Amendment converts the previous A-D grading system for heritage buildings to a significant/contributory/non-contributory category system and revised the previous heritage policies.  The site now finds itself re-graded from a 'C' graded heritage place to a 'Significant' heritage place.  
Council says this change effectively elevates the heritage significance of the site and strengthens its heritage classification such that policy under Clause 15.03-1L-02 would call for a greater level of investigation and scrutiny.  Council says, for example, the rear portions of the Victorian terraces on the site under the previous 'C' grading would typically be permitted to be demolished as what is proposed in this case, while the 'Significant' grading emphasises that all original parts of the Victorian terraces on the site would be sought to be retained.
Under what is proposed in this case, the rear portions of the Victorian terraces on the site would be demolished to accommodate the higher built form.
•	Amendment C415 (formerly Amendment C278) relating to 'Sunlight to Parks'.  This Amendment seeks to adjust the policy setting of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to protect sunlight access to public parks outside the Hoddle Grid and Southbank considering the development intensification around public parks.  It introduces Schedule 8 to the Design and Development Overlay ('proposed DDO8') which contains mandatory controls guiding additional shadowing on parks at the winter solstice.  
19	The Amendment has not yet been gazetted but has been through a public exhibition and Panel review process with the Panel report received dated 1 June 2021.  I understand that Amendment C278 lapsed and was unable to be adopted by Council through lack of a quorum.  Consequently, Council re-packaged the amendment into Amendment C415 and resolved on 21 September 2021 to request the Minister for Planning to prepare and approve Amendment C415 under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic).
20	Council says that, although Amendment C415 is not yet gazetted into the planning scheme, it is an Amendment that has progressed to an advanced stage now awaiting the Minister's response and approval.  Council says it is a seriously entertained Amendment and should be afforded considerable weight in this proceeding.
21	The applicant prepared shadow diagrams which demonstrate the current permitted development would be prohibited under the Amendment C415 controls because it casts shadows, beyond the 'allowable' shadows, to University Square between 10am and 11am at the winter solstice.  The submitted shadow diagrams show an additional 630 square metres of shadow cast from the approved development over a portion of the eastern end of University Square which comprises tree planting, lawn area and park/bench seating (both situated within the park and adjacent to the footpath's edge).   
22	Council says granting an extension of time would impair the overarching objectives of Amendment C415 to protect sunlight to parks and would be contrary to the purpose of proposed DDO8.  
23	The Amendment identifies University Square as a Type 2 park meaning that no additional shadow is permitted onto the park between 10am and 3pm on 21 June beyond the existing shadow or allowable shadow (whichever is the greater).  A permit cannot be granted for buildings and works that do not comply with this requirement. 
24	In turning one's mind to assessing applications for extending the life of a permit, a collection of principles has been established commonly referred to as the ‘Kantor’ principles given their origin in the case of Kantor v Murrindindi Shire Council (1997) 18 AATR 285 ('Kantor'), decided by Ashley J. 
25	The Kantor principles can be summarised as:
•	Whether there has been a change of planning policy.
•	Whether the landowner is seeking to "warehouse" the permit.
•	Intervening circumstances as bearing upon grant or refusal.
•	The total elapse of time.
•	Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate.
•	The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit.
•	The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made.
26	It is also accepted that these considerations are neither exhaustive nor mandatory and that other matters might be relevant to whether the permit in question warrants an extension of time being granted.  Further, the applicant is obliged to advance some reason or material in support of the grant of an extension.
27	The applicant posits that the less typical an application whether owing to the nature of the development, the circumstances of the permit applicant, the surrounding circumstances, the reasons for delay and the reasons more time is needed, the more the focus of the discretion allowed under section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) should be directed to the Kantor principles to advance the purposes of the Act in a fair and practical manner in the circumstances of each case.
28	In this regard, the applicant says the Tribunal should:
a)	not treat the request in the same manner as a fresh permit application, but as one regarding a proposal which has already once been assessed and approved on its substantive merits;
b)	not treat intervening gazetted changes to the planning scheme since the grant of the permit as determinative, but rather, as one of a number of matters to be considered in balance with other relevant factors, and weighed with regard to the relative practical significance of the changes in the context of the approved development;
c)	certainly not treat as determinative potential future changes to the planning scheme, 'seriously entertained' or not - indeed, it is entitled, but not even required, to have regard to any of the factors listed in s 60(1A) of the Act which do not form part of the planning scheme; and
d)	in contrast to decisions regarding the initial grant of a permit, consider the request in a way which fully accounts for:
(i)	the individual circumstances of the permit holder and its own reasons for needing an extension; and
(ii) 	the individual or differential way in which matters influencing the time needed and taken to commence or complete a development may affect the person making the request.
29	Balancing the Kantor principles, Council submits the combination of the lack of progress towards commencement of the development, changes to the planning scheme in relation to heritage policy since the permit was granted and the seriously entertained Amendment C415 weighs strongly against extending time, indicating a permit would not be granted on the same terms should a fresh application be made for the same proposal.
30	I have heard the submissions from Council and the applicant and the evidence, and I note that the decision to be made here is whether the life of a lawfully granted permit should be extended.  The accepted principles for considering this type of application are set out in Kantor.
31	Regarding whether there has been a change in planning policy, I accept that the policy relating to heritage has changed.  I also accept that the changes proposed under Amendment C415 are a seriously entertained proposal.
32	However, in relation to heritage, I am mindful that the change to policy was already in place at the time of Council's last grant of an extension of time for the permit in 2021.  I note that Council granted the extension of time knowing that heritage policy had changed under Amendment C258, yet Council expressed no concern in relation to heritage issues at that time.
33	In this regard, I note that, in response to questions from the Tribunal, Ms Drakos conceded that the change to heritage policy bears little weight on the matter.  Having acknowledged this, I make the observation that I am unaware of any change in circumstance in regard to heritage values that would warrant a different position being taken today with respect to heritage matters.  
34	I am not concerned that the proposal may offend heritage values associated with the significance classification of the Victorian terraces fronting Leicester Street or their sideage to Grattan Street.  Both the sideage and frontages of the Victorian terraces are to be retained with a setback area to provide a three-dimensional form of the retained heritage fabric in the approved proposal.
35	I consider this remains satisfactory and do not see it as an impact that would be considered intolerable with the change in heritage policy that has occurred to the planning scheme since the granting of the permit.
36	Regarding the seriously entertained Amendment C415 and the changes it proposes to the Melbourne Planning Scheme, I am aware that the development and its associated overshadowing cast under the permit over the eastern part of University Square would be considered prohibited.  The controls under the proposed DDO8 would not permit such overshadowing.
37	However, I do not consider this sufficient to warrant not granting a further extension of time.  I am mindful the approved development exceeds the mandatory overshadowing requirements of the proposed DDO8 over University Square, however, this does not prevent an extension of time to the permit being granted.  
38	I note section 60(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) requires that a responsible authority must consider the relevant planning scheme, whilst section 60(1A)(h) includes that a responsible authority may consider any amendment to the planning scheme which has been adopted by a planning authority but not, as at the date on which the application is considered, approved by the Minister.  I note that Amendment C415 was not adopted by Council.  This makes consideration of the Amendment under section 60(1A)(h) somewhat defunct.  However, under section 60(1A)(j) any other matter can be considered.
39	I am comfortable in finding that Amendment C415 is a seriously entertained proposal.  I have considered the following factors established by the then Planning Appeals Board in Lyndale & Black Pty Ltd & Black v MMBW & Shire of Melton that relate to seriously entertained proposals and what weighting should be given to an amendment, noting of course their reference to a permit application as distinct from an extension of time request for an existing permit:
The true position is that a proposed change to the operative planning controls is a relevant consideration to be taken into account, whether or not the planning proposal is in the form of an adopted amendment to a planning scheme.  However the weight that should be given to such a planning proposal will vary according to a number of factors.  Some of these factors are:
a 	The form of the planning proposal - a formal planning scheme amendment will be given much more weight than a planning proposal of a less formal nature.
b 	The stage which the planning proposal has reached in the planning process – greater weight will be given to a planning proposal which has reached an advanced stage in the planning process than to a proposal of an embryonic nature.
c 	The seriousness with which the responsible authority or state government is pursuing the implementation of the planning proposal.
d 	Whether the grant of a permit would impair the objectives of the planning proposal and not merely be inconsistent with the strict letter of the planning proposal.
e 	The nature of the development or use for which a permit is sought - for example a planning proposal will generally have greater weight when a permit is sought to develop vacant land or to subdivide land than when a permit is sought to use an existing building especially for temporary purposes.
This list is not intended to be an exclusive list of relevant factors that may determine the weight that should be given to a planning proposal.
40	I do give it weight.  Amendment C415 was supported by the Panel who supported the shift to winter based mandatory overshadowing controls noting that winter sun access to public parkland plays an important role in providing high amenity and for the health of users and the park itself.  The cumulative impacts from discretionary controls can lead to unacceptable outcomes because the Panel recognised that once sunlight is lost, it is lost forever. 
41	However, the weighting I give to the Amendment is commensurate with the difference in the level of consideration between what is, and is not, in the planning scheme by way of controls or policy or otherwise.  The weight I give it is also relevant to whether the approved development if granted an extension of time would impair the objectives sought to be introduced into the planning scheme under Amendment C415.
42	I also consider my ability to grant an extension of time against a proposed change to the planning scheme that would make a permitted development prohibited is clearly outlined in the decision of AMV Homes Pty Ltd v Moreland CC (Includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1699 ('AAV Homes Pty Ltd'), whereby the Tribunal stated the following at paragraph 7:
It is important to appreciate some additional relevant principles:
•	An applicant should advance good reasons as to why an extension should be granted; a request should not be approved simply because it has been asked for.
•	The Kantor "tests" are not mandatory nor exhaustive.
•	There may be other relevant considerations to those articulated in Kantor, including matters of natural justice and equity.
•	That the approved development is now prohibited does not mandate a decision refusing to extend the time to commence a development. However, it is something that would usually be expected to be one factor weighing against an extension of time.
•	Each case needs to be decided on its own facts and circumstances including whether and how the development in question would undermine or offend the changed policy or planning control regime.
43	Having regard to the decision of AMV Homes Pty Ltd, it is important to consider whether the scale of the approved development would now undermine the proposed DDO8.
44	Proposed DDO8 prohibits additional shadow onto the nearby University Square between 10am and 3pm at the winter solstice beyond the allowable shadow.  The approved development would cast shadows over University Square between 10am and 11am on 21 June.  
45	The Amendment proposes to introduce policy ensuring good sunlight access to public spaces and to ensure development does not result in significant loss of sunlight and diminish the enjoyment of public spaces.  It does seek to protect and where possible increase the level of winter sunlight access.  The DDO8 design objectives seek similar outcomes including protection and maximisation of winter sunlight to public parks.
46	Overshadowing images provided by the applicant show shadows cast over the original area of University Park between 10am and 10.30am.  The extent and shape of shadowing is representative of a slither of additional overshadowing made worse by the eastern extension of University Square over the road reserve area of Leicester Street.  An area of 630 square metres or around 3.2% of the overall area of University Park (19,640 square metres) is impacted for 1 hour between 10am and 11am at the winter solstice.  I do not consider this would undermine the purpose of Amendment C415 and the protection of sunlight access to University Square in this instance.  
47	The extent of shadowing is limited in time and extent with most of the park not impacted.  I consider this acceptable.  
48	I also do not find the impacts significantly detrimental and do not consider that a mandatory control that does not yet form part of the Melbourne Planning Scheme should dictate whether a reasonable view should be taken to granting a further extension of time for a permit granted 6 years ago.
49	Amendment C415 has been with the Minister for Planning for over 2 years.  I consider this introduces some uncertainty regarding the form and outcome of the Amendment.
50	If the controls were in place as part of the planning scheme, I would have taken a different view.  But they are not, and I do have to take into consideration the planning scheme as I find it at the time of making my decision.
51	In this sense, I find it appropriate to grant an extension.
52	Regarding, the other principles set out in Kantor I find that:
•	The applicant is not seeking to 'warehouse' the permit given that this is the second extension of time request over a 6-year period.
•	Restrictions that have been put in place during the COVID -19 pandemic made it more difficult to commence and complete development projects within the same timeframes that apply when such restrictions do not apply.
•	The permit is only 6 years old, and the applicant made the request to extend the life of the permit promptly, as was the lodging of this application.  These are all signs that the applicant wishes to pursue the permission granted.
•	The original time frame for the commencement and completion of development as set out in Condition 58 is not unusual for a permit of this type, but neither is the granting of a second extension of time.
53	I accept that a permit would not be granted for the proposal if proposed DDO8 were in place in the planning scheme due to the mandatory nature of the overshadowing of parks requirements.  However, this is not the case now, and I consider the other factors outlined above outweigh any perceived conflict with the proposed controls.
54	Regarding the timeframe for the requested extension, the applicant seeks a 5-year extension.  I note Council previously allowed a 3-year extension.
55	I note the submissions from the applicant that the Graduate Union is a charitable non-profit organisation established in 1910 for graduate students to live and study close to the University of Melbourne.  As such I accept that it has been cautious and prudent in pausing for a while to ascertain the economic and student accommodation needs before embarking with development.  The pandemic has had an impact, and this is evident in the various financial material provided by the applicant.
56	The evidence of Mr Prowse relating to the cost of development demonstrates that the proposal was estimated to cost around $31 million at the time of the original permit application and which has now increased under current cost estimates to around $57 million.  This increase is testimony of how construction costs and the cost of materials have increased significantly during and since the pandemic.
57	However, the experiences of increased costs for development are evident across the development industry and for anyone who wishes to pursue construction.  I note Council does not see why a special dispensation should be provided for the Graduate Union.  Council says granting a 5-year extension is unprecedented and risks compromising what the planning scheme may look like and what its directions may be when development does eventually proceed.
58	I note that the financial circumstances of the Graduate Union have improved and now that the pandemic has left us, I am satisfied that a further extension of time is appropriate.  
59	The applicant says section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) provides broad discretion on any extension of time of a permit and that the nature of the organisation holding the permit is a relevant matter to take into account with granting an extension of time.  The applicant says a 3-year extension of time is not sufficient to allow for the Graduate Union to conduct its due diligence and commence its work to prepare reports and amended plans, gather its finances in order before the uncertainty of another extension request would need to be lodged and the process that has now occurred, repeated.
60	The applicant drew my attention to the decision of then Senior Member Byard in A. Genser & Associates (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] VCAT 2640 where he described in paragraph 19 the concept and effect of ‘dead time’ with permit time limits.  I accept that in the case of a non-profit organisation holding a valuable right in the form of a planning permit, that time should be adequate to enable it to conduct in a diligent manner its resourcing for commencement of what is, in this case, and for the Graduate Union, a significant development. 
61	In this case, I consider a 4-year extension for commencement appropriate.
62	It is not the 5 years that the applicant seeks but it is also not the 3 years that Council has previously permitted.  However, I find it should provide a balance between avoiding too short a time period so that the applicant can get itself ready to proceed whilst not extending the risk of the proposal becoming out-dated if changes do occur to the Melbourne Planning Scheme in the intervening period.  
63	This avoids uncertainty with respect to a longer-term extension with regards to any changes to the planning scheme whilst allowing time, now distant from the pandemic's effects, for some movement to proceed with the proposal. 
64	I accept Mr Negri's evidence demonstrating that the proposal continues to represent an acceptable planning outcome.  I find the approved development will support other provisions in the planning scheme including the purposes of the zone and policies around the City North Urban Renewal precinct.  The design will not overwhelm heritage values due to setbacks and retention of heritage fabric that can be seen from the public realm. 
65	For the above reasons I will grant an extension of time of a further 4 years for the commencement and completion within 6 years which I consider appropriate given the constraints and delays and uncertainties on building and construction due to COVID-19.

Christopher Harty
Member