VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1965/2020
Permit Application no. P543/2019	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Brimbank Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Heritage Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay; Conversion of former Council offices to residential; Car parking reduction.	

APPLICANT	Sunshine Vale Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Brimbank City Council	
SUBJECT LAND	6-18 Alexandra Avenue
SUNSHINE VIC 3020	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	28 July 2021 and Practice Day Hearing 12 August 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	15 September 2021 	
CITATION	Sunshine Vale Pty Ltd v Brimbank CC [2021] VCAT 1058	

Order
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and 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:	BBP Architects	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP0.0.00- TP6.0.01 	
•	Dated:	VCAT Issue 5 March 2021	
No permit granted
2	In application P1965/2020 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
3	In planning permit application P543/2019 no permit is granted.

Megan Carew
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr M Bartley, Solicitor, HWL Ebsworth
He called Mr Nathan Woolcock, Traffic Engineer to give evidence 	
For responsible authority	Mr J Klarica, Town Planning Consultant, Calibre Town Planning
Mr D Joti, Town Planner, Brimbank City Council	

Information
Description of proposal	Partial demolition and buildings and works to convert the former municipal offices for 35 dwellings, removal of vegetation and a reduction in car parking requirements.

The new dwellings will contain one or two bedrooms and are fitted within the existing floor plates. New balconies are to be created with new openings in the building fabric. Part of the central roof is to be removed to allow for increased height for some of the dwellings. There are a total of 22 car spaces proposed, four car spaces are located to the south of the building within the existing circular loading/basement access.  A further 18 car spaces are proposed at grade to the north east side of the building (accessed via the internal road). 	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Brimbank Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone- Schedule 1 (GRZ1)
Heritage Overlay- Schedule 109 (HO109)
Significant Landscape Overlay- Schedule 2 (SLO2) as to part
Special Building Overlay (SBO) as to part
Development Contributions Overlay- Schedule 2 (DCPO2)
Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 - To construct two or more dwellings on a lot in GRZ1
Clause 43.01-1- Demolition and to construct a building or carry out works in HO109
Clause 42.03-2 - Buildings and works and vegetation removal in SLO2
Clause 52.06- Reduction in car parking requirements.
52.02-To create, vary or remove an easement.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22.01, 22.02, 32.08, 43.01, 42.03, 44.05, 45.06, 52.02, 52.06, 52.23, 53.18, 55, 65 and 71
	
Land description	The review site is part of the former Municipal Offices located on the eastern side of Alexandra Avenue in Sunshine. The site is located opposite the Council’s children’s services buildings. The site abuts Wilkinson Road to the south and extends through to McCracken Street to the north. The site has a total area of 5,747m2. A Council reserve is located on the north- west boundary. The land is divided by an internal road to the north of the existing office building. 

The site was part of a larger municipal complex, sold in separate allotments for redevelopment. These nearby and adjoining sites are now subject to separate development approvals including:
•	6-8 Service Street with 37 dwellings (completed).
•	7A McCracken Street with 56 dwellings under construction.
•	20 Alexandra Avenue approved for 21 dwellings. 	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the review site and environs on 2 August 2021	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	The applicant seeks to refurbish the former Sunshine Municipal Offices building for residential use. 
2	Council did not support the proposal on the grounds that insufficient car parking was provided for the new dwellings, that the design of the car parking was unsatisfactory and that the proposed development fails to provide best practice in the design of the development in terms of environmentally sustainable development and stormwater management. These are the key issues in this application. 
3	This was a hearing “on the papers”. A practice day was held on 12 August 2021 to allow the parties to answer questions put by the Tribunal. Further written submissions were directed by order dated 18 August 2021. These further written submissions and reply have been considered as appropriate in these reasons.
4	I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented and the applicable policies and provisions of the Brimbank Planning Scheme, I have determined to affirm the decision of the responsible authority. My reasons are set out below.
WHAT ARE MY FINDINGS?
5	The review site is the location of the former Sunshine Municipal Council offices and library. The sale of the land was part of a broader exercise of divestment of assets by both Council and VicTrack that included land to the east and north. Amendment C126 (Part 2) 25 January 2018 rezoned the land from the Public Use Zone- Schedule 6 (Local Government) to the General Residential Zone- Schedule 1. 
6	The former office building is a mid-century development of some note and its importance is recognised in the application of the heritage overlay to the site (HO109). The statement of heritage significance is:
These substantial municipal buildings are of historical, social and architectural significance at the local level. Historically the building represents the economic and political maturation of the City of Sunshine as a consequence of the post war boom. It is of architectural significance for the distinctive building form, and in particular, the dramatic stained glass mural panel to the Council antechamber, which is expressed in the design as a major projecting volume over the main entrance and driveway portico. 
The building is of social and historical significance as an expression and symbol of the expansion of a rapidly growing district at a time (the 1960s) when large numbers of migrant settlers were arriving and the municipality of Sunshine was becoming one of the largest in Victoria in terms of population. The modern sun motif on the mural wall, which is the main feature of the building, has links with the name of Sunshine and the symbol which was used on the thousands of Sunshine Harvester Works and other manufacturers' products over many decades. As such, it relates historically to the origin of the suburb as the company town for H.V. McKay's Sunshine Harvester Works. The building is also significant as the work of Melbourne architect, G. Stuart Warmington, who also has a link with Sunshine's early history, since his family came to live on McKay's Sunshine estate in its first decade of development. 
The building is also of interest for the emphasis given to the use of local manufacturers and builders in its fabrication and construction. The significant elements are confined to the original 1960s structures and associated landscaping, but do not include the later additions to the east.
7	That part of the land to the south and west of the municipal office building (former municipal gardens) was included within the Significant Landscape Overlay- Schedule 2. The statement of nature and key elements of landscape to be protected is:
The Municipal Office garden located at the intersection of Wilkinson Street and Alexandra Avenue is the intact remains of the once extensive landscape laid out in conjunction with the construction of the Sunshine Municipal Offices in 1967. The architect, G. Stuart Warmington was responsible for the design of the building, the surrounding landscape and car park. 
The Municipal Office gardens are considered to be significant as the setting to the Offices, and for the collection of trees, shrubs and garden beds which survive from Warmington’s original design. Historically, the building and landscape represent the economic and political maturation of the City of Sunshine as it grew to become one of Victoria’s largest municipal populations as a consequence of post-World War Two migration and the increasing desire for suburban housing. 
The garden includes mature specimens of Silky Oak (Grevillia robusta), River She Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana), Norfolk Island Hibiscus (Lagunaria pattersonii), Willow Myrtle (Agonis flexuosa), Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora), White Cedar (Melia azederach), Blue Cedar (Cedrus atlantica forma glauca), Brush Box (Lophostemon confertus) set into lawn. The choice of predominately Australian native trees is deliberate, and a strong statement regarding the emerging popularity of native trees in public design projects during the 1960s and 1970s. Immediate to the southern and western walls of the Municipal Offices are narrow garden beds, with small trees and shrubs, including but not limited to the following species: Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster glaucophylla), Viburnum (Viburnum tinus), Magnolia (Magnolia x soulangeana), Rhododendron (Rhododendron cv.), Azalea (Azalea cv.), Japanese Maple (Acer japonicum), Sacred Bamboo (Nadina domestica), Mahonia (Mahonia cv.). The juxtaposition of the exotic collection of shrubs and small trees and the collection of Australian native trees is a deliberate design. A number of mature Norfolk Island Hibiscus (Lagunaria pattersonii) are planted as street trees which enhance the garden.
The garden, including the mature trees, lawn and garden beds provides a important aesthetic frame and setting for the building and softens its impact on the largely residential streetscapes. It also represents a deliberate attempt to provide an attractive setting for the new (c1967) building, while providing a social function in the provision of an attractive recreational space for the public and municipal office employees. 
Protection of the area is important to maintain the original intended landscape setting for the building, as well as conserving the historic, aesthetic and social values the landscape expresses. 
8	Both the building and the municipal gardens are in a state of disrepair. The repurposing of the building for residential development in accordance with the zone is supported by the planning scheme. I find that there is clearly a benefit to the community in retaining and adapting the building and the gardens. 
9	While the application for permit includes all the land known as 6-18 Alexandra Avenue, the application involves two separate stages of development (refer to Figure 1):
•	Stage 1 includes the southern part of the site that contains the former office building. It comprises the renovation of the existing building for 35 dwellings. 
•	Stage 2 is the remainder of the land. No plan for Stage 2 is provided to the Tribunal, although it is understood that the original permit application included new townhouses to the north of the internal service road and that residential development is contemplated.
The proposal before me is for Stage 1 only. 
10	Approval is required under the provisions of the Heritage Overlay for demolition and new buildings and works. The parties agreed that the demolition of non-contributory elements was acceptable and that subject to design detail, demolition of portions of the main office building (such as the roof) was also appropriate.
11	Council also generally supported the changes to the building proposed from a heritage perspective, although raised a number of matters of detail and concerns relating to the internal amenity of the proposed dwellings. 
12	The proposed removal of 7 trees under the provisions of the SLO2 was not in dispute between the parties. 
13	The key matter in contention that the parties asked the Tribunal to determine is whether the extent of reduction in car parking was acceptable. 
Figure 1 Staging plan

the WILKINSON STREET CAR PARKING CONUNDRUM 
14	Unusually, part of the publicly accessible indented car parking and footpath along Wilkinson Street is situated within the title boundary. Although being identified at the time of the sale, this matter was not addressed and the “split” ownership remains. The Tribunal understands that the contract of sale identifies these spaces for removal by the owner but that this is not a clear requirement. The applicant submitted that:
Special Condition 13 of the Contract of Sale for the Subject Land does not contain an express requirement to remove the parking and anticipates the future of the car spaces and footpath to be determined through the planning permit application process.
15	The spaces include 11 on the western side of the access and a further 9 on the eastern side. Figure 2 below identifies the spaces in question. The red line show the parts of the car parking within the title boundary, together with the blue pedestrian pathway.
Figure 2 Wilkinson Street car parking.

16	The permit applicant says that these spaces are not required to be removed as a result of this permit application, that there is no nexus and that the questions around maintenance and liability can be resolved through alternative means. The applicant indicated that it was prepared to fully vest the spaces in Council ownership.
17	The evidence of Mr Woolock was that this parking has been provided for many years without any unreasonable detriment to safety and congestion based on my investigations and knowledge as presented at item no. 125 of my Evidence Statement and I see no reason to suggest why it would be any different in the future if these spaces were to be retained. 
18	Council says that the spaces need to be removed and that they do not want the land vested in Council, particularly if no works are undertaken first. Council’s traffic engineer says that:
In addition, to address climate emergency matters and minimise heat effect from hard surfaces. It would be reasonable to expect the 90 degree parking pays to be altered to parallel parking bays with kerb outstands to maximise green space and tree planting opportunities. I am not sure what is planned in the street abutting this development to address this. 
19	Council expressed specific concern about the proximity of the pedestrian pathway to the car spaces. Mr Woolcock noted that wheel stops could be included to address the pedestrian pathway if Council felt that the existing hatched line marking was insufficient. The angled parking in Alexandra Avenue also directly abuts the footpath but that footpath is far wider. The issue is illustrated in Figure 3 below.
20	Putting aside the question of ownership, these spaces are clearly functional and have been used for many years while part of the Council offices. The location of these spaces, particularly the 11 that are located towards the west appear to form part of the original 1967 design of the review site and are shown on the original building development plans. From a heritage perspective they provide an understanding of how the site was developed, although only the portion within the review site is included within the Heritage Overlay. However, the spaces do appear to have some existing design issues that require resolution. 
Figure 3: Car spaces Wilkinson Road (Photo: Tribunal’s own)

21	There is also some logic in providing a consistent public realm to Wilkinson Road through matching the footpath and parking arrangements to the new works to the east. I note that there is a wide crossover that has been recently created at the eastern end of the Wilkinson Road frontage that is not addressed in this proposal as the development plans retain the former car parking layout in this location (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Eastern end of Wilkinson Road (Photo: Tribunal’s own)

22	A principle of the planning system is that conditions in a permit must fairly and reasonably relate to the permission being sought. In other words, there must be a valid connection or nexus between the two. A clear nexus is difficult to ascertain in the context of a proposal that seeks a reduction in car parking requirements. Given the uncertainty about these car spaces, I have not included them in my assessment of car parking demand. However, it is obvious that these spaces in their present configuration raise issues of maintenance and liability to be addressed by the parties, and to this limited extent the matter may be arguable that the matter is a question of orderly and proper planning. 
23	I have not supported this application for other reasons below so have not made detailed findings on this matter. Given the split ownership, the resolution of the Wilkinson Road conundrum is a shared responsibility. The Tribunal encourages the permit applicant and the Council to work to resolve the matter. 
IS THE APPLICATION PIECEMEAL?
24	Council submits that the splitting of this application into Stage 1 and Stage 2 has artificially constrained the opportunity to consider the site as a whole and to provide land for either more car parking or an improved car park design. Council submits that there is no indication of the proposed development of Stage 2 and how this may affect vehicle access and traffic along the accessway. 
25	At the practice day hearing, I expressed concern that the application does not provide for an integrated design that takes into consideration the development of the entire site. This is particularly relevant to the way the car parking proposed on the northern side of the building would function. I asked the parties whether the application was piecemeal? 
26	As set out in in Rowcliffe v Stonnington [2005] VCAT 1535 piecemeal applications involve the following analysis:
•	Is there any risk to orderly planning in this application by excluding a portion of land from the proposal?
•	Is there any risk to orderly planning involving the excluded portion of the land, by excluding it from the subject proposal? Alternately, is there any constraint of future discretion in respect of the excluded portion of the land?
•	Is there any inherent unfairness to the public in splitting proposals? This adverts to their need to fight two proposals instead of one, to incur two sets of costs, two lots of time and labour.
27	The applicant submitted that the proposal is not piecemeal in the Rowcliffe sense. It says that the southern part of the land is a self-contained planning unit. It says that the application does not rely on any part of the Stage 2 land for either car parking or access. The Council did not disagree but noted that:
In answering the question above, it is firstly important to reiterate Council’s position that the main issue relating to the proposal is the lack of car parking on site. Whilst TP1, 0.06 (Revision T4) shows a staging plan, (with Stage 2 a vacant lot of 1431 square metres) the application submitted and under consideration is for the whole of 6 – 18 Alexandra Avenue and not just “part” of the site consisting of the existing building and proposed car parking. 
Therefore if VCAT did set aside Council’s refusal and decided to grant the application, subject to additional land being required within Stage 2 for additional car parking/ landscaping for example, Council’s view, is that this could be achieved by a simple permit condition and not require a resubmission.
28	While I find that the application can be considered in two stages, a comprehensive understanding of the design is compromised by the way in which this application has proceeded. It is not known for example whether the existing egress to McCracken Street to the north is to be retained in this proposal. It calls into question how the northern edge of the proposed access and car park is to be finished and whether the existing angled parking (11 Spaces) on the north side of the internal access are to be removed? How does the car park impact on Tree 29 within Stage 2?
29	The parties submitted that these questions may be answered through permit conditions, even if they required works in the Stage 2 area. In respect to the access and design issues the applicant submits that:
To clearly differentiate the two planning units, the Applicant would be willing to provide an ‘interim’ landscape strip separating the two stages, to be in place until such time as a planning permit was approved for development in the Stage 2 development area. This would clearly remove any confusion that may result from the existing internal access way to the north. 
Additionally, the Applicant would accept a permit condition requiring fencing, or another method, to block the site entrance to McCracken Street. Considering the Subject Land will only be accessed by residents, and they will be very aware of the access way arrangement, we do not see this as a traffic concern.
30	In respect to Tree 29, the applicant says that:
The Applicant does not take issue with the Tribunal considering Tree 29 as part of a separate planning unit and therefore requiring its retention. This could be managed via a suitably worded permit condition that allowed the amendment of plans to reduce the hardstand area within tree 29’s Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). 
31	I address these matters in my assessment of the car parking layout below. I acknowledge the views of the parties that these things can be addressed through permit conditions, but have formed the view that these and other matters require further resolution before a permit can be granted.
32	The parties have stressed that it is the car parking matters that are of primary concern, so I have addressed these first below. However, to assist the parties I have also included my findings on the built form and heritage issues. 
IS the proposed car parking layout acceptable?
33	The parties agreed that the former basement area was not constructed to contemporary standards and that this cannot be reused as a car parking area.  
34	The amended plans located 22 car spaces in two locations. Council took no issue with the four spaces proposed within the area formerly used for loading and basement access to the south of the building. A review of historical aerial photograph shows that these spaces were in use for many years as part of the office occupancy. I find that ongoing use for the new occupancy is appropriate. 
35	An additional 18 car spaces are proposed to the north east of the building. This is considered by the parties to be the preferred location for new parking, being removed from the Significant Landscape Overlay area and hidden from the main entry aspect. The amended plans remove one way circulation along the internal road and appear to terminate access at the car parking area. The plans show widening of the existing service road at the entry to allow two-way movement.
36	The evidence of Mr Woolcock is that the car parking layout is acceptable. He says that the car spaces are accessible and functional and that the two-way access will work, despite its narrow width and the limited passing area at the round-about.
37	Council submitted that the car parking layout was not acceptable. Council specifically questioned the dimensions of some of the car spaces which are shown as adopting the dimensions in the Australian Standard AS2890.1-2004 instead of the provisions of Clause 52.06. Council says that there is no analysis of why these dimensions have been chosen over the Planning Scheme dimensions or reason given that adjacent land (including Stage 2 land) cannot be used for increased car space and access aisle width. Council also questioned the ability of larger vehicles to pass at the entry to the site. 
38	In respect to the latter, I am satisfied based on the turning templates provided that two-way entry to the access road can be achieved subject to detailed design. I am also satisfied that given the limited length of the accessway and the low number of car spaces that the accessway is acceptable. 
39	However, I find that a revised proposal that provides a fully resolved access and car parking layout is required. This would include an understanding of how the car parking interacts with the existing 11 spaces on the northern side of the access (within Stage 2) and the location and form of any temporary measures to prevent access to the north as outlined by the permit applicant in submission. 
40	I also agree with Council that car spaces 1-9 should adopt the dimension in the planning scheme at Clause 52.06-9. The note to the table identifies that: 
The dimensions shown in Table 2 allocate more space to aisle widths and less to marked spaces to provide improved operation and access. The dimensions in Table 2 are to be used in preference to the Australian Standard AS2890.1-2004 (off street) except for disabled spaces which must achieve Australian Standard AS2890.6-2009 (disabled)’. (emphasis added) 
This will result in the loss of an additional car space. In addition, it appears that car space 1 acts to impede pedestrian access to the disabled ramp to the main entrance. The extent of aisle width is also not clear for these spaces. 
41	Tree 29 is a large Corymbia Maculata that is located on Stage 2. This tree is noted as of very high significance in the Arborist report (Greenwood Consulting 25 October 2019) submitted with the application. The report identifies it as having a useful life expectancy (ULE) of more than 60 years. Council’s arborist (internal referral) did not identify this tree for removal. It has been subject to tree protection measures (observed on my inspection) during the construction of the adjoining townhouses). The proposed car parking area clearly extends within the Tree Protection Zone. I find that this tree should be retained within the proposal. The applicant estimates that an additional 2 car spaces may be lost as a result of tree protection measures. This, combined with the changes to the dimensions of car spaces 1-9 reduces the available car parking from 18 to 15 spaces. 
42	I further note that Trees 24, 25 and 26 (lemon-scented gums) may also be impacted by the proposed car parking layout (where it extends beyond the existing spaces). These trees are discussed further in relation to the built form considerations below.
IS THERE ENOUGH CAR PARKING?
43	The proposal has a parking provision of only 22 car spaces for 35 dwellings and therefore a reduction of 13 car spaces is required. However, as set out above the reduction is potentially in the order of 16 car spaces due to the need to address the car parking layout. No visitor car parking is required due to the location of the review site within the Principal Public Transport Network. Clause 52.06-7 sets out the matters to be considered for a car parking reduction (including a reduction to zero).
44	Council says that the car parking proposed is insufficient to cater for the needs of future occupants. It says that at a minimum of at least 1 car space for each dwelling should be provided. Council’s traffic engineer commented that:
Council’s current Car Parking Management Plan (CPMP) does not allow unit developments and apartment buildings to be entitled to obtain residential parking permits. The CPMP is also implementing time limit parking within the Sunshine Activity Centre. 
Council cannot guarantee there will be all-day parking available in the streets abutting this development in the future. 
At the moment residents and their visitors wanting to park on-street are competing with commuters and workers vehicles. Council is in its plan accommodating for these demands. 
We are receiving concerns from existing local residents in the surrounding street in this area, concerned of the increased density of residential developments and generating increased on-street parking. This will lead to increased congestion, access difficulties and road safety issues in their street. 
45	The evidence of Mr Woolcock was that the car parking reduction of 13 car spaces was acceptable. He undertook a demand assessment, concluding that based on resident car ownership that a peak demand for up to 32 resident spaces is anticipated. A potential reliance of 10 spaces off site was identified. He considered that the on street car parking in Wilkinson Road may be used because half of the spaces along Wilkinson Road are within the property boundary. In cross examination, Mr Woolcock confirmed his view that even without relying on these spaces that the proposal would provide an acceptable level of car parking:
I would still be of the opinion that sufficient justification is provided for the proposed parking reduction even if the existing 90 degree parking along Wilkinson Road was removed. 
46	For the purposes of my assessment, I have given no weight to the 90 degree car parking along Wilkinson Road because of the uncertainty around these spaces as set out above. I note that even if the Wilkinson Street car parking is removed, car parking would likely be reinstated parallel to the road as described by Mr Woolcock and a net loss of only 4 car spaces is likely. 
47	Mr Woolcock in his car parking demand assessment reviewed earlier parking surveys undertaken in 2019 by One Mile Grid. He noted that:
Car parking surveys of the area were completed by One Mile Grid as part of their transport assessments which accompanied the permit application. Surveys were originally completed in late October/early November 2019 and indicated low occupancy surrounding the site. Subsequent surveys completed by One Mile Grid in mid-late November 2019 indicated moderate-high car parking demands within parking areas directly abutting the site. 39 Based on these results, a review of historical aerial photography, as well as general observations, One Mile Grid concluded that the majority of on-street car parking demands in the area (during times of moderate-high occupancy) were associated with long-term car parking demands associated within the nearby Sunshine Activity Centre.
48	Mr Woolcock’s firm undertook additional surveys in March 2021. These surveys found that:
The car parking survey area comprises a total of up to 270 suitable on-street car parking spaces. With key results as follows: 
•	The peak demand during the weekday surveys occurred at 12noon, with 154 vacant spaces identified in the survey area (97 parked cars, 39% percentage occupancy). 
•	The peak demand during the weekend surveys occurred at 12noon, with 215 vacant spaces identified in the survey area (55 parked cars, 20% percentage occupancy).  
In addition to these results the following observations of the survey area were made: 
•	During the weekday morning survey, the vast majority of occupied on-street car parking spaces on Station Street, as well as those within the former Council Office’s off-street car park, were observed to be occupied by construction workers. 
•	A number of redundant car parking restrictions ‘No Stopping 7am-5pm Mon-Fri (Authorised Council Vehicles Excepted)’ still apply to Islington Street.
•	Incomplete signs along the northern side of Wilkinson Road to the east of the site indicate that ‘2P 9am-6pm Mon-Fri’ restrictions apply, however it appears to continue to the west without terminating. As such, I suggest that it is current legal to park in these spaces unrestricted.
49	Mr Woolcock did not consider additional car parking demand from the additional approved developments within this precinct, although he noted that there was construction car parking occurring on the review site associated with the development to the east. I observed this on my inspection. I also observed moderate to high demand at the time of my inspection (around midday) for the indented bays along Alexandra Avenue. This demand appeared to be associated with attendance at the Alexandra Avenue Children’s centre opposite the review site. I observed parents and carers with young children access the Council services.
50	The land is included within the study area for the Sunshine Activity Centre Car Parking Management Plan (April 2020). Parking across an activity centre needs to be addressed in a centre wide manner. In Vincent Corporation Pty Ltd the Tribunal found that in areas of existing restricted on-street parking, the supply of on-street spaces for future occupants of a proposal is not particularly relevant to the assessment. The Tribunal considered that in these locations, on-street road management restrictions can ensure future residents of a proposal are not able to rely on any spare capacity in on-street parking. 
51	In the car parking management plan, the existing on-street car parking is slated for “car parking restriction change (future consideration)”. It is not identified as an area of high concern for immediate action. At present a large extent of parking surrounding the review site is unrestricted, including in the residential hinterland and this is not identified for change and it is anticipated that future residents may seek to rely on it. 
52	Having considered the decision guidelines of Clause 52.06-7, I find that in principle a reduction in car parking is acceptable for this site because:
•	The review site is located just outside the boundaries of the Sunshine Town Centre Structure Plan 2020 and I agree with Mr Woolcock that it has excellent access to a full range of services and public transport networks. 
•	Council has specific local policy at Clause 22.02 that relates to Environmentally sustainable design. The policy seeks to minimise car dependency.
•	The proposal is a reuse of an existing heritage building and there are associated constraints on the provision of car parking.
•	The reduction in car parking must be balanced against the benefit of reusing and retaining the heritage building and gardens.
•	The dwellings proposed range in size but include smaller one and two bedroom apartments which are likely to generate a lower empirical demand as identified by Mr Woolcock.
•	I am also satisfied that alternative means of transport such as bicycles are catered for in the development.
53	While I find that a reduction is acceptable in principle, I find that the quantum of car parking reduction sought is too great, particularly if additional car spaces are required to be removed to accommodate the changes that I have identified to the car park layout to the north of the building. There is clearly existing demand for on-street car parking along Alexandra Avenue and the Wilkinson Road car parking in its present form is not guaranteed. The proposal based on empirical demand is likely to generate additional on street demands. 
54	To assist the parties in moving forward, I find that a reduction in the order of 10 car spaces from the planning scheme requirement would be acceptable considering the sum matters in Clause 52.06.
55	Despite the heritage constraints, the review site is not constrained by virtue of its size (as opposed the line drawn for Stage 2). There is clearly opportunity to provide additional car parking on the review site to the north of the accessway as acknowledged by Mr Woolcock. Alternatively, the applicant may need to re-consider the number of dwellings proposed. 
OTHER Built form, Heritage and LANDSCAPE Considerations
56	Council did not raise any significant concerns about the proposed demolition and new buildings and works to the heritage building. Council’s internal referral identified only one outstanding issue being the detail of the proposed balcony doors. I find that this is a matter that could be resolved through permit conditions.
57	As recognised by the Council officer a conservation management plan would be required as a condition of permit, which will set out how the works will be carried out while protecting the heritage fabric of the building. 
58	The proposal includes changes to the former Municipal Gardens that are included within the Significant Landscape Overlay. Seven trees/ plants are proposed to be removed that require a planning permit under the SLO2 and Council’s arborist also identified additional tree removal. I have no concerns about the proposed treatment of the former municipal gardens which will form shared open space for the development. A detailed landscape plan could provide a suitable outcome. I note that the location of the proposed fencing may be contingent on the outcome of the Wilkinson Road car parking conundrum.
59	However, I have some outstanding concerns relating to the trees to the north of the building (outside the SLO2). In the arboriculture report by Greenwood Consulting 25 October 2019 four trees were considered of very high retention value (Trees 24, 25, 26 and 29). The Council arborist also identified these trees as of high value for retention. My concerns in relation to the impact of the car park on Tree 29 are set out above. Trees 24, 25 and 26 are lemon scented gums on the north side of the building. In my view they form an important part of the setting of the building. While they have been planted close to the building, they are clearly adapted to their location and have a high useful life expectancy (see Figure 5). 
60	The application is not clear as to the future of these trees. I see no reason why demolition of the ramp to the north west addition could not be undertaken in a manner that protects the trees. I have already noted above the potential impact of the proposed car parking layout. The location of new balconies also impacts these trees. The planning report accompanying the application (Axiom, November 2019) notes that:
Native tree species have been planted, or self-propagated, in very close proximity to the existing building, associated accessways, and along the site boundary. As such, it is not yet known the number of native trees that can viably be retained. This will be determined further to a planning permit condition requiring an arboricultural impact assessment. 
61	I find that it is not acceptable for this to be left to a permit condition. For example, the location of proposed balcony for apartment G05 and above could be simply adjusted to accommodate the centre tree, perhaps with some internal apartment re-configuration. Several the apartments are not provided with balconies due to the heritage considerations to the front of the building. This is acceptable given the extent of communal open space provided in the former municipal garden area. 
Figure 5: Trees to the north of the building.

62	Council’s urban designer expressed concerns about the internal layout including the design of the internal corridor which could be addressed through conditions. Council also questioned the amenity of some of the internal spaces including the sub-ground areas. Accepting that it is not easy to retrofit the heritage building, I am generally satisfied that internal amenity is addressed. Further consideration could be given to the matters raised by Council in any redesign. I would also consider the amenity of those balconies to apartments that interface the car parking in the north west corner of the building. 
63	Council questioned the location of bicycle parking and sought that it be located at ground level. The evidence of Mr Woolcock was that these proposed ground level bicycle spaces are no less conveniently located than if they were to be instead located adjacent to the lift. I find that the bicycle parking is acceptably located.
64	The ESD officer also identified several issues with the sustainability assessment which could be addressed by condition.
Conclusion
65	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

Megan Carew
Member