VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P532/2020
Permit Application no. PP19/0939	

CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987;  Boroondara Planning Scheme; Commercial 1 Zone; Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14; Parking Overlay 1; Clause 52.06; Additional Two storeys; Offices; Alteration of Access to a Road in a Road Zone, Car Parking Reduction; Height; Shading; Impacts on Residential Amenity; Transition; Visual Bulk.	

APPLICANT	Terraplex Pty Ltd 	
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY	Boroondara City Council	
REferral authority 	Department of Transport 	
RESPONDENTs	Robert and Pauline Chazan, Suzannah Court	
SUBJECT LAND	79-83 High Street South, Kew 	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Alison Slattery, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATEs OF HEARING	1-2 October 2020	
DATE OF ORDER	16 February 2021	
citation	Terraplex Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2021] VCAT 5	
Order
1	Pursuant to Clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	R architecture 	
•	Drawing numbers:	PL01-PL27 Rev – Rev A and Rev B 	
•	Dated:	17 October 2019	
2	The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. PP19/0939 is set aside.  
3	A permit is granted in relation to land at 79-83 High Street South, Kew.  The permit will allow 
•	The construction of buildings and works including two additional storeys, to an existing building located within a Commercial 1 Zone and a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14; and
•	Alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1; and
•	Reduction in the car parking requirements.
All in accordance with the endorsed plans.
4	The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A to these reasons.

Alison Slattery
Member	

APPEARANCES
For Review Applicant 	Mr Stuart Morris QC instructed by Mills Oakley.  He called landscaping evidence from Mr Tristan Andrews of Human Habitats, town planning evidence form Mr Andrew Biacsi of Contour, urban design evidence from Mr Craig Czarny of Hansen Partnership, and traffic engineering evidence from Mr Jason Walsh of Traffix Group. 	
For Responsible Authority	Mr Gareth Gale, town planner of Gareth Gale Town Planning and Advocacy.	
For Department of Transport 	No appearance 	
For Robert and Pauline Chazan	Ms Chazan in person	
For Suzannah Court 	Ms Court in person	

INFORMATION
Description of Proposal	Construction of two additional levels to the existing building with increases in floor areas at existing levels by way of infill of the courtyard and lobby.  
The upper levels are to be constructed from bronze glass with low reflectivity.  
A total increase in floor area of 2179 square metres (beyond the existing 3136 square metres leasable floor area ) is proposed.  
One further car parking space is provided, resulting in a total of 113 spaces provided on site and a shortfall of 75 spaces as per the PAO1 requirements.  Vehicular access is continued in the same manner, but access arrangements necessitate the assessment of alteration of access to a road in a road zone due to the increase in intensity of the traffic use.	
Nature of Proceeding	Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.  	
Planning scheme	Boroondara Planning Scheme	
Zone and Overlays	Commercial 1 Zone  (C1Z)
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (DDO14)
Parking Overlay Schedule 1 (PAO1)	
Permit Requirements	Clause 32.08-construction of buildings and works
Clause 43.02- construction of buildings and works
Clause 45.09- reduction in the required car parking provision	
Relevant Scheme policies and provisions.	Clauses 11.01, 11.03, 13.06, 15.01, 15.02, 17.01, 17.02, 18.01, 18.02, 21, 21.01, 21.02, 21.04, 21.06, 21.07-2, 52.06, 52.29, 52.34, 53.18, 63 and 65	
Land Description	The site is located on the western side of High Street South, Kew.  The site is located around 115 metres to the south of the intersection of Kew Junction.  The site currently accommodates a triple level office building with parking located at the lower level.
The site is rectilinear but not rectangular in shape (battleaxe) with direct frontage to High Street South of 42.9 metres, from which vehicular and pedestrian access is provided.  The maximum depth of the site is 44.5 metres, for a total site area of 1040 square metres.  The site includes easements to the north, south and west.  Relevantly the depth of the easement to the west is 1.54 metres.  A slope occurs on the site down from the north to the south in line with the slope within High Street South.  
The context of the site here is of paramount importance.  The following properties are within the C1Z:
To the north and east (85-87 High Street South) there exists an approval for a ten storey building with a maximum height of 32.5 metres.  On the eastern side of High Street South (almost directly opposite at 112) exists an approval, with works underway, for a ten storey building with a maximum height of 36.1 metres.  Both these sites are located within a different precinct to the review site, where the maximum height suggested by the DDO14 is 28.5 metres as opposed to the 11 metres suggested for Precinct 1b (in which the review site is located).  
The following properties are within the NRZ3:
The property directly to the south of the site at 77A High Street South includes a 4 storey apartment building built close to eth boundaries at lower levels with increased setbacks at upper levels.  To the west of this apartment building, three dwellings (of up to two storeys) face Highfield Grove, one of which (2A) has partial abuttal to the review site.  Directly to the west of the review site 3 dwellings face Merrion Place (3, 5 and 7).  Two tennis courts of 3 and 7 Merrion Place abut the review site.  The rear yards beyond these courts are set back around 15 metres.

	The following property is within the GRZ4:
Directly to the north of the site the property at 5-7 Studley Park Road includes a Quest apartment building with at grade parking located at its rear (at the interface to the review site).    
The wider surrounding area in High Street South consists of a mix development, usually commercial in nature with heights of up to 12 storeys.  
The site has excellent access to community facilities and public transport, and is located within Kew Junction Shopping Centre which includes a public transport, commercial operations and caters to shopping.

REASONS
What is this proceeding about?
1	The permit applicants applied to the Boroondara Council for a permit to develop the land at 79-83 High Street South, Kew for the construction of two additional storeys of offices above the existing building, infill buildings and works at the lower levels, a reduction in car parking and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.  Amended plans were subsequently submitted as a part of the review process which increased the setbacks to the residential properties to the rear.
2	Council issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant the Permit on 18 March 2020.  The decision was based on Council’s view that the design does not respond appropriately to the character of the area having regard to siting and scale (height being of specific concern), provision of a transition to residential properties to the rear, and car parking provision.  Other impacts were raised regarding whether or not the shading was appropriate and the attendant impacts by way of bulk.  Mr Gale questioned whether or not the design represented a high standard of architecture.
3	The surrounding residents, through Ms Chazan and Ms Court agree with Council’s decision and are a party to this review.  They submitted that the proposed development was an inappropriate response to the low scale built form character of the residential area to the rear, resulting in shading, loss of light, bulk and overlooking.  Concerns were also raised that the development did not provide adequate provision of car parking.  
4	The applicants, through Mr Morris, disagree with Council and assert that the design has taken into account the constraints of the site and is site responsive, providing an appropriate built form transition to adjoining residential properties.  He argued that the design responds appropriately to its context and reflects the objectives within DDO14.  He put that car parking provision was appropriate and that parking and traffic impacts could be readily subsumed into the load capacity of High Street South, including through the use of public transport for future occupants.  It was his contention that the PPF and local policies lend support to the proposed development.  In these positions he relied on the landscaping evidence from Mr Tristan Andrews of Human Habitats, town planning evidence form Mr Andrew Biacsi of Contour, urban design evidence from Mr Craig Czarny of Hansen Partnership, and traffic engineering evidence from Mr Jason Walsh of Traffix Group.
5	In essence, the concerns raised relate to whether or nor the proposed building provides appropriate transition to surrounding residential areas and if the amenity impacts, including parking and traffic, are appropriate.
What are the key issues?
6	The key issues for determination are:
a.	Is the height appropriate?
b.	Are the amenity impacts reasonable?
c.	Is the car parking provision adequate?
7	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision.  My reasons follow.
planning policy framework of the Boroondara Planning Scheme
Commercial 1 Zone
8	The review site is located within the Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) which has the following purposes:
To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. 
To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses. 
To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.
9	The C1Z has the following relevant decision guidelines that the responsible authority, and in this instance the Tribunal, must consider:
The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. 
The interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas.
The provision of car parking. 
The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and the landscaping of land adjoining a road. 
The storage of rubbish and materials for recycling. 
Defining the responsibility for the maintenance of buildings, landscaping and paved areas.
Consideration of the overlooking and overshadowing as a result of building or works affecting adjoining land in a… Neighbourhood Residential Zone. 
The availability of and connection to services. 
The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54 and Clause 55. 
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14
10	The review site is located within the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (DDO14) Kew Junction Activity Centre which has the following schedule design objectives:
To achieve innovative, high quality architectural design that makes efficient use of land whilst enhancing the appearance and strengthening the identity and built form character of the activity centre. 
To ensure development respects the significance of heritage sites and precincts. 
To respect the character and amenity of adjacent residentially zoned land and public open spaces. 
To encourage development that supports alternative modes of travel such as walking, cycling and public transport. 
To create a safe, accessible pedestrian environment for all groups of the community. 
To encourage development that is ecologically sustainable.
11	Any variations to the to the requirements of the schedule (in this instance the preferred building height), must, amongst other things :
Demonstrate that the proposal will achieve the following outcomes (as appropriate):
 – A high standard of architectural design.
 – Innovative ecologically sustainable design practices.
 – Minimal overshadowing of adjoining streets, public spaces and residential properties.
 – Minimal impact on the amenity of adjoining residential precincts.
 – Respect for places subject to the Heritage Overlay.
 – Transitions in scale to lower building forms
12	The general requirements of the DDO14 include as relevant: 
Buildings should be designed to respect the amenity of adjoining residentially zoned land having regard to matters such as setbacks, overlooking, overshadowing, noise and/or visual bulk, guided by the objectives and standards of ResCode (Clauses 54 and 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme). 
Development should demonstrate high quality architectural design that enhances the appearance and amenity of the centre, whilst complementing its existing character. 
Building facades should be articulated through considered composition of their various design elements. This includes the size and placement of door and window openings, balconies or awnings and the colour and texture of different materials. 
The roof form and building profile of developments should be carefully considered in terms of its appearance within the streetscape and from distant viewpoints to ensure that views to the Holy Trinity Church, the War Memorial and the former Kew Post Office (along High Street) and the Melbourne Chinese Baptist Church (along Cotham Road) are respected. 
The existing horizontal or vertical design rhythms of the streetscape should be maintained, where these are dominant features, by: 
– Referencing the established roof or parapet heights of adjoining buildings, where this is a consistent feature in the streetscape, in the design of a new facade. 
– Maintaining the existing 'fine grain' appearance of buildings created by the narrow shopfronts through vertical articulation in wide building frontages.
Buildings should incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and provide active frontages (except where landscape setbacks are required) to streets, parks, public plazas, car parks and pedestrian spaces to increase interaction with and passive surveillance of the public realm. 
New or refurbished buildings should have regard to the incorporation of Ecologically Sustainable Design techniques to improve the thermal efficiency of the building and reduce energy and water consumption such as water efficient fittings and fixtures, recycling and organic waste disposal, solar hot water systems and local energy generation. 
Development should avoid overshadowing of public spaces and private open spaces between the hours of 11am to 3pm on 21 March and 22 September. 
Development should incorporate lighting to enhance the night time appearance of the building and add to pedestrian safety. 
Development should incorporate weather protection for pedestrians in the form of verandas or awnings. 
Building services and equipment such as air-conditioners, stairwells and lift over-runs should be located to minimise their visibility and should be integrated into the design of buildings.
Landscaped setbacks of a minimum of 2 metres to High Street South.
Buildings should provide continuous weather protection along these streets.
Ensure that new or improved pedestrian links are attractive, accessible, identifiable, well connected and safe for both day and night time users of all abilities. 
Ensure development incorporates and encourages sustainable transport options including walking, cycling and public transport. 
The number of crossovers, garages and car park entrances should be minimised. Where possible, car parking should be located underground. 
Encourage design that maximises safety and utilises CPTED principles. 
Encourage the use of landscaping and street tree planting (in accordance with existing Council policies) to increase the amenity of the centre.
13	The review site is located within Precinct 1 of the DDO14 – Five Ways Intersection which has the following relevant design objectives:
To establish a distinct cluster of high scale buildings around the five ways junction. 
To establish a distinct image and improve the visual amenity for the centre at this intersection. 
To provide a transition in scale for development at the edges of the precinct to protect the amenity of adjoining low-rise residential areas. 
14	Within this precinct the review site is located within Precinct 1b where building heights should not exceed an overall height of 11 metres.  
Local Policy 21.07-2 Kew Junction Major Activity Centre
15	The DDO14 called into relevance the policy at Clause 21.07-2, whereby the overlay and the policy ought be read in conjunction.  The policy also references the Kew Junction Structure Plan 2009 (updated December 2011).  
16	Objectives of this policy include the following (as relevant):
To strengthen the role of the Kew Junction Major Activity Centre as a vibrant mixed-use centre supporting a range of retail and commercial activity.
To provide a high quality pedestrian environment with improved pedestrian links and public spaces.
To improve trafﬁc management and car parking.
To encourage development of key sites around the ﬁve ways intersection and the VicRoads site for a mix of commercial and residential uses (Precinct 1).
Parking Overlay Schedule 1
17	The review site is located within Parking Overlay Schedule 1 (PAO1) which identifies a rate of 3.5 car parking spaces per 100 square metres, or an additional 76 car parking spaces based on the increase in floor area of 2179 square metres.  As 1 additional car space is provided, the reduction in car parking is 75 spaces.  
Is the height appropriate?
18	The proposed increase in height ranges from 7.9 metres to the top of the building, to 10.4 metres to the top of the rooftop/plant services.  The total maximum height has been noted as being 15.5 metres.  
Commercial 1 Zone
19	I am satisfied that the height represents an appropriate response to the C1Z.  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	The buildings and works are appropriately set back from the street façade and will not be overly dominant in the High Street South context.  In this way, the impact on the vibrancy of the commercial centre is minimal.
b.	The impact on residential properties to the south and west is reasonable, given the generous setbacks within the site and the buffer to principal private open spaces provided by the tennis courts (with a width of around 18 metres).  These setbacks, matched with the articulated and well landscaped elevation to the west, result in an appropriate interface to the adjoining residential zone (NRZ).
c.	The setbacks at the upper levels range from 9.2 metres to 14.55 metres.  The C1Z guides a decision maker to gave regard to Clause 55.  I am satisfied that these setbacks satisfy the objectives of Clause 55 in that they are reasonable and generous, particularly at the interface between a residential zone and a site within a MAC, where expectations of higher form ought be realised.  
d.	The increased height of the building will have negligible impacts on shading of primary secluded private open spaces to the west which are generally set well back from the site, around 18 metres.  
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14
20	I am satisfied that the height represents an appropriate response to the DDO14.  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	I do not share Councils Urban Designers dislike of the materials used for this development.  The schedule of materials is unabashedly contemporary and includes glass that is clear or bronze and of low reflectivity, grey render, concrete finishes, steel panelling, and metal balustrading.  I agree with Mr Czarny regarding the appropriateness of these materials in that it is high quality, and “distinctive from the Post-Modern office host”.  I further agree with Mr Czarny that the building has appropriate horizontality and articulation and that the “extension is highly contemporary in its composition and materiality, and also compatible with the geometry and profile of the 2 and 3 storey building below in its painted concrete condition”.  The proposed upper level form recedes in relation to the existing building due to the generous setbacks and the low footprint ratio.  In this way, I am satisfied that the use of these dissimilar but appropriate materials and design features is innovative and of high quality.  I have not been persuaded that the built form character of the activity centre will be unreasonably impacted upon. 
b.	There are no heritage sites impacted by the proposed development.
c.	As noted above, the setbacks, especially to the rear are generous, and appropriately limit the impacts of height on the character and amenity of adjacent residentially zoned land.  The location of the tennis courts, and the associated fencing, some of which includes climbing plants covering it, serves to limit the impacts on the sensitive open space areas of residential properties, by which I mean the yard, terrace/balcony areas that are located to the rear of dwellings in Merrion Place.  
d.	I agree with Mr Biacsi that “the land is located in a Major Activity Centre, where there is a diversity of building heights and built form scale that shape its character, particularly in the vicinity of the five ways junction”.  
e.	The height of the building at 15.5 metres provides an appropriate transition from the buildings up to 12 storeys in Precinct 1a, down to the 4 storey apartment building to the south (which is built to a height of 12 metres in an area where 9 metres is preferred).  Transition to the sensitive areas of the residential properties rear is facilitated both internally with setbacks up to 14.5 metres and through the buffer provided by the tennis courts.  
f.	Shading of streets and public spaces is minimised.  The increased shading of residential areas is minimal and reasonable, and mostly experienced by the properties to the south in Highland Grove.  To the west the increases in shade occur to the tennis courts, and recedes after 11 am (the DDO14 starting point for calculation of shading).  
g.	The site is large at 3762 square metres and can accommodate more robust form in terms of height. 
h.	I agree with the suggestions to relocate the rooftop plant so that its location does not have unreasonable impacts on the residential amenity of adjoining properties.  A condition of permit includes its relocation further to the east as is practicable.
i.	The development assists in establishing a distinct cluster of high scale buildings around the five ways junction. 
Local Policy, including 21.07-2 Kew Junction Major Activity Centre
21	At clause 21.04 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme high quality, environmentally sustainable built form and respectful responses to sensitive interfaces are sought.  This policy works in conjunction with that at Clause 21.02 which seeks to include high quality architecture in the MAC.  These policies reinforce the primacy of the MAC areas, specifically in this instance, Kew Junction.  At Clause 21.07 of the scheme there is an expectation that built form in the MAC is more robust, is in line with the DDO14 objectives, and is commercial or mixed use in nature.  
22	I am satisfied that the height represents an appropriate response to local policy.  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	The height of the development responds well to the Kew Junction Structure Plan 2009 (updated December 2011) which states that whilst a maximum height of 11 metres is preferred, each site should be assessed in its particular context, and each development on its own merits.  
b.	As noted above, I am satisfied that the height will not diminish the role of the Kew Junction Major Activity Centre as a vibrant mixed-use centre supporting a range of retail and commercial activity.
c.	Again as noted previously, the design is contemporary and recedes away from its host form.  I am satisfied that the development makes a positive contribution to the image and character of the MAC.
Are the amenity impacts reasonable?
23	I am satisfied that the impacts on residential amenity are reasonable.  I find that the impacts are in line with the those contemplated by the Commercial 1 Zone, the Design and Development Overlay 14 and the local policy.  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	As noted above I am satisfied that the development presents an appropriate face to the to NRZ properties to its rear.  The interface with these properties is sensitive, but not as sensitive had the intervening tennis courts (residential courts) not been located between the primary secluded open space areas and the review site.  This buffer, in addition to the setbacks provided within the site serve to limit the impacts of bulk from the development to the residential principle open spaces.  I am satisfied that the bulk presented by the buildings extensions will be reasonable and line with that expected at the interface between residential zones and commercial zone, especially at the periphery of MAC’s.
b.	The perception of the upper levels will be read with the background of 12 storey form further to the north east.  
c.	I am satisfied that the bulk of the development will not have an adverse impact on the character of the residential properties.  As noted above, I find an appropriate transition has been provided both to the south, where 4 storeys is constructed, and to the west, where a generous setback is provided to dwellings.
d.	The storage of rubbish and materials for recycling will not impact on the amenity of residential properties. 
e.	The landscaping proposed includes both planters at the upper levels, a large specimen tree (Japanese Maple or the like) and the retention of two existing trees.  In addition to this, the plan proposes the trailing of climber species on tensile steel wire creating both an interesting and green façade, and softening the appearance of the upper level.  I am satisfied that the landscaping design is reasonable and serves to limit impacts of the development by way of visual bulk.
f.	The landscaping serves, in association with the proposed screening, to appropriately limit unreasonable views to the windows of adjoining properties and to the primary areas of secluded private open space.  I note that ResCode Clause 55 is a decision guideline of the C1Z.  Clause 55 seeks to limit unreasonable views within 9 metres of a view point.  Generous setbacks of the upper levels provide minimisation of views.  In conjunction with the buffer provided by the tennis courts, I am satisfied that the impacts of overlooking from the development are appropriately managed.
g.	I am satisfied the responsibility for the maintenance of buildings, landscaping and paved areas can be appropriately defined via conditions of permit.
h.	As noted already, I find that increased shading of residential areas is minimal and reasonable, and mostly experienced by the properties to the south in Highland Grove.  To the west the increases in shade occur to the tennis courts, and is not increased after 10 am.  
i.	The relocation of the rooftop equipment further to the east will satisfactorily ameliorate noise issues, minimise the visibility and will be better integrated into the design of buildings.
Is the car parking provision adequate?
24	The review site is located within Kew Junction which is identified in Clause 21.01 as a Major Activity Centre where the vibrancy and sustainability of the commercial nature and form of the centre is sought to be enhanced.  One facet of such enhancement includes the tension between provision of car parking and the promotion of sustainable use of public transport and other sustainable transport modes (bicycle and walking etc).  Clause 21.06 seeks to balance the tension between these competing interests in the provision of adequate car parking for development versus the imperative toward promoting greater uptake of sustainable transport.  
25	The review site is located within the PAO1 which identifies a rate of 3.5 car parking spaces per 100 square metres for the site, and which equates to an additional 76 car parking spaces based on the increase in floor area of 2179 square metres.  As 1 additional car space is provided, the reduction in car parking sought is 75 spaces.  A total of 113 spaces is provided on site at an effective car parking rate of 2.1 spaces per 100 square metres.  According to Mr Walsh, the parking the parking is intended to be allocated in the following manner:
•	2 owner/store spaces (existing).
•	3 visitor spaces (existing).
•	79 licensed spaces to tenants (existing).
•	3 spaces to suite 14 (currently vacant).
•	3 spaces to suite 15 (currently vacant).
•	23 spaces to the proposed extension, inclusive of 4 car share spaces.  This includes the new car space, 13 spaces that are currently not leased, and reassignment of nine (9) car spaces that were casually leased.
26	I am satisfied that the car parking reduction sought is reasonable and maintains the vibrancy of the Kew Junction MAC.  It is not a question so much of whether or not the proposal provides all the parking requirements on site, rather it is a question of whether or not the proposed car parking suppression is appropriate.  I find that an appropriate balance has been struck between the need to provide parking on site and the impetus towards promotion of alternative, and sustainable transport options.  I find the reduction in car parking is in line with the objectives and purposes of the Commercial 1 Zone, the Design and Development Overlay 14. The Parking Overlay, Clause 52.06, Clause 52.34 and the local policy.  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	The review site has excellent access to daily services including community, medical, commercial and shopping facilities, all within a short walk in the Kew Junction MAC.  This is bolstered by the high level of public transport available with two tram routes and three bus routes, and a share care system close to the site (and in some instances directly in front of the site) providing access further afield.  The proposal includes the provision of 4 on site car-share parking spaces.  
b.	The site is located within the PPTN and on a major arterial road.  While the PPTN rates do not apply to the site as it is located in the PAO, the PPTN provides guidance as to appropriateness and gives an understanding of the excellent access to public transport and sustainable transport options.
c.	I agree with Mr Walsh that an additional 7 traffic movements during peak hours is low (based on 50% fill in the am peak and emptying at PM peak).  This can be readily subsumed into the High Street South and surrounding road network.
d.	I also agree with Mr Walsh that the application of a rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 square metres of leasable floor area is more appropriately applied to sites dissimilar to the review site that do not enjoy the access to alternative transport options, nor are located in an area where long term parking is scarce. 
e.	The provision of car parking at an effective car parking rate of 2.1 spaces per 100 square metres is contextually similar to that cited by Mr Walsh at 8 Redfern Road Hawthorn.  Surveys for Redfern Road showed greater unconstrained car parking spaces available, and a rate of 2.2 spaces per 100 square metres employed.  I know both these areas well and agree with Mr Walsh that a slightly lower rate of car parking should be provided in the current proposal due to the lack of access to car parking that is long term and free.  To this end, I agree that the application of a rate of car parking provision of 2.1 spaces per 100 square metres is reasonable.  To that end, the reduction in car parking provision is appropriate.
f.	The Department of Transport, as a referral authority, did not object to the proposed development.
g.	Bicycle parking has been provided in line with Clause 52.34 at ground level with 17 secure spaces for staff and 4 further spaces openly available.  The site has good access to bike lanes which in turn provide access to bike paths within the Principle Bicycle Network.
h.	I am satisfied that the promotion of non-car based transport modes results in a development with environmentally sustainable elements.
i.	The crossover is unaltered minimising impacts to the safety of pedestrians in the High Street South footpath environment. 
Conclusion
27	In conclusion, having regard to the context of the review site and the relevant policies and provisions of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, I consider that the proposal will represent an acceptable planning outcome.  I will set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct the grant of a permit, subject to permit conditions.

Alison Slattery 
Member	 		

APPENDIX A

PERMIT APPLICATION NO:	PP19/0939	
LAND:	79-83 High Street South, Kew 	
WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS:	The permit will allow:
The construction of buildings and works including two additional storeys, to an existing building located within a Commercial 1 Zone and a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14; and
Alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1; and
Reduction in the car parking requirements.
In accordance with the endorsed plans.	

Conditions

Amended plans required 
1.	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and an electronic copy provided (unlocked PDF). When the plans are endorsed they will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans dated August 2020 (Drawing PL00 - PL25, issued 14 August 2020) but modified to show:
(a)	A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit;
(b)	Any modifications recommended by the Environmentally Sustainable Design Report required by this Permit;
(c)	A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 13 of this permit.
(d)	The relocation of the plant room to the eastern portion of the new roof as much as is practical.

Layout of Buildings and Uses not to be altered
2.	The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works and the description of the uses on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Landscape Plan
3.	Concurrent with the submission of amended plans required by Condition 1 of this Permit, a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be, drawn to scale with dimensions and an electronic copy provided. When endorsed, the plan will form part of the permit. The landscape plan will be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Human Habitats and appended to evidence and must show:
(a)	All planter boxes to be irrigated using harvested rainwater, with mains back-up;
(b)	Landscaping in all new planter boxes;
(c)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity and the quantities of each plant; and
(d)	Details of the surface finish of all new pathways, paved areas and accessways.
Completion of landscaping works 
4.	Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development.
Landscaping maintenance
5.	All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plants replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Drainage
6.	The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Plant/equipment or features on roof
7.	No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plan/s are permitted on the roof of the building without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Maintenance of Buildings and Works
8.	All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Use of car parking spaces and driveways
9.	Car parking spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10.	All vehicles entering and exiting the car park must do so in a forwards direction.
Lighting of car parks and accessways
11.	Low intensity lighting must be provided to ensure that car park areas and pedestrian accessways are adequately illuminated without any unreasonable loss of amenity to the surrounding area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Environmentally Sustainable Design Report
12.	Concurrent with the submission of amended plans required by Condition 1 of this Permit, an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Report which is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be prepared by a suitably qualified expert and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The report must be generally in accordance with the Sustainability Management Plan advertised in January 2020 (dated 19 December 2019, prepared by Lid Consulting) and must address Ecological Sustainable Design (ESD) and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles proposed for the site including, but not limited to, energy efficiency, storm water collection and re-use on the site for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing (with mains back-up) and waste and building materials. Once approved, such Report must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Waste Management Plan
13.	Concurrent with the submission of amended plans required by Condition 1 of this Permit, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Such Plan must provide details of a regular garbage, recyclables and food organics and garden organics (FOGO) collection service for the office, including information regarding the type of refuse bin/s, type/size of trucks to enable onsite waste collection, means of accessing bins, frequency of refuse collection and waste collection scheduled to take place outside of the AM and PM commuter peak, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, such Plan must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Construction Management Plan
14.	Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and excavation, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.  No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been endorsed by the Responsible Authority.  Once endorsed, the construction management plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The plan must be prepared in accordance with Council’s “Construction Management Plan Template” and provide details of the following:
(a)	Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit;
(b)	Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
(c)	Measures to ensure the avoidance of any damage to street trees as a consequence of the movement of large vehicles and machinery (including cranes and excavators) to from the land or as a consequence of the operation of these vehicles and machines in association with the construction of the proposed building, including excavation of the land;
(d)	Measures relating to removal of hazardous or dangerous material from the site, where applicable;
(e)	A plan showing the location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on and surrounding the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises. Any basement car park on the land must be made available for use by sub-constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay;
(f)	A Traffic Management Plan showing truck routes to and from the site; 
(g)	Swept path analysis demonstrating the ability for trucks to enter and exit the site in a safe manner for the largest anticipated truck associated with the construction; 
(h)	A plan showing the location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site; 
(i)	Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the construction management plan;
(j)	Contact details of key construction site staff; 
(k)	A site plan showing the location of any site sheds, on-site amenities, building waste storage and the like, noting that Council does not support site sheds on Council road reserves; and
(l)	Any other relevant matters, including the requirements of VicRoads and Yarra Trams. 
Hours for Construction Work
15.	All buildings and works activity associated with the approved development (including demolition and earthworks) is to be limited to the following hours, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:
Monday to Thursday: 	7:00am to 6:30pm
Friday: 	7:00am to 5:00pm
Saturday: 	9:00am to 5:00pm
Sunday & Public Holidays:	No construction
Permit to Expire 
16.	This Permit will expire if:
(a)	The development does not start within three (3) years of the issue date of this Permit; or
(b)	The development is not completed within five (5) years of the issue date of this Permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:
(a)	Within six (6) months afterwards if the use or the development has not commenced; or
(b)	Within 12 months afterwards if the development has not been completed.
Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal are unable to approve requests outside of the relevant time frame.

--- End of Conditions ---