VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P122/2021
Permit Application no. PLN19/0238	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987, Yarra Planning Scheme, Commercial 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay – schedule 2, Heritage Overlay, 12 storey building, university, urban design, heritage streetscape, building activation, access to a Road Zone Category 1, visual dominance, prominence, bicycle parking.	

Applicant	Australian Catholic University Limited	

Responsible Authority	Yarra City Council	
Respondents	Chair, Fitzroy Residents Association - Martin Brennan, Mary Polis, Louise Elliot, Gregory Hocking and others.	
Referral Authority	Department of Transport	
SUBJECT LAND	81 – 89 Victoria Parade and 8 – 14 Brunswick Street
FITZROY  Vic  3065	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	27 – 30 September 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	20 October 2021	
CITATION	Australian Catholic University Limited v Yarra CC [2021] VCAT 1218	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P122/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application PLN19/0238 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 81 – 89 Victoria Parade and 8 – 14 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	buildings and works, including demolition, to construct a twelve (12) level building used as an education centre (permit not required use), 
•	a reduction in the car parking and bicycle parking requirements of the Yarra Planning Scheme, 
•	display of internally illuminated business identification signs, and
•	alteration of access to a Road Zone, Category 1.

Alison Glynn
Presiding Member		Stephen Axford
Member	

Appearances
For Australian Catholic University Limited	Mr Stuart Morris, QC with Mr Barnaby Chessell, barrister on instruction from Norton Rose Fulbright Australia.  They called the following witnesses:
•	Mr Mark O’Dwyer, architect.
•	Mr David Crowder, town planner.
•	Mr Bryce Raworth, heritage consultant.
•	Mr Jeroen Hagendoorn, project architect
Photomontage expert evidence was also provided by Mr Johnny Wilkinson but he was not required to present his evidence in person.	
For Yarra City Council  	Mr Terry Montebello, solicitor of Maddocks.  He called the following witness: 
•	Ms Leanne Hodyl, urban designer.	
For the chair, Fitzroy Residents Association - Martin Brennan, Louise Elliot, Gregory Hocking and others	Ms Louise Elliot and Mr Greg Hocking, in person, day 1 only.	
For Mary Polis	Ms Mary Polis, in person, day 1 only.	

Information
Description of proposal	Buildings and works, including demolition to establish a new 12 storey building for education purposes as part of the Australian Catholic University (ACU).  The proposal also includes new signage associated with the building and planning approval to reduce the car parking and bicycle parking requirements of the planning scheme as they relate to the floor area of the proposed building.
The proposal also alters access to Victoria Parade.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.  	
Planning scheme	Yarra Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z)
Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 2 (DDO2)
Heritage Overlay – Schedule 334 (HO334)
Development Contributions Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (DCPO1)
Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO)
The land abuts a Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1) to Victoria Parade.	
Permit requirements	Buildings and works in a C1Z and DDO2.
Buildings and works, including demolition in HO334.
Alteration of access to a road in RDZ1.
Establishment of an internally illuminated advertising sign in accordance with clause 52.05.
Reduction of car parking requirements at clause 52.06.
Reduction of bicycle parking requirements set out in clause 52.34.	
Key relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15.01, 18, 19.02, 21.03, 21.05, 21.06, 21.08, 22.02, 22.03, 22.04, 22.05, 22.17, 34.01, 43.01, 43.02, 52.06, 52.34, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The site sits at the north-east corner of Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade, forming part of the ACU campus.  The site has an approximate 50 metre frontage to Brunswick Street and 29 metre frontage to Victoria Parade.  The land is currently developed with a two storey building used for education purposes.  To the north of the review site, and open to the public, is the St Mary of the Cross Square, forming part of the university campus.  East and north-east of the site are eight and nine storey buildings as part of the ACU campus.  West of Brunswick Street are a range of buildings that comprise land held by St Vincent’s Hospital.  Approval exists to develop this land for a 12 storey building as part of the hospital campus.	
Tribunal inspection	We inspected the site, unaccompanied from various public vantage points around the site, after the hearing.   	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about and our key findings?
1	The Australian Catholic University Limited (ACU / the applicant) is seeking to construct a 12 storey building at the north-east corner of Victoria Parade and Brunswick Street, Fitzroy as a landmark education and office building to its campus that occupies much of the street block between Brunswick Street and Napier Street, Fitzroy.
2	Although officers of Yarra City Council (the council) recommended approving the proposal, the council determined to refuse to grant a planning permit on two grounds:
•	The scale, height and architectural quality of the proposed development does not respond to the site context and fails to comply with the provisions at Clauses 15 (Built Environment and Heritage), 22.02 (Development Guidelines for Sites Subject to the Heritage Overlay) and 43.01 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.
•	The proposed development fails to provide a public environment in accordance with Clause 21.05-4 (Public Environment) of the Yarra Planning Scheme.
3	Statements of grounds from three local residents, Ms Polis, Ms Elliot and Mr Hocking, as well as the Fitzroy Residents Association (the objectors) support the council in its decision.  They concur with the grounds of the council and submit the proposed building is too big, dominant and overwhelming to the heritage setting of Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade.  
4	Our role is to review the decision of the council having regard to the provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme (the planning scheme) and the Planning and Environment Act 1987, being the framework for decision making about the permit application.  Having reviewed the proposal against this framework, and the submissions and evidence provided by the parties we have determined to grant a planning permit for the proposal subject to some minor changes that we will require by condition.  In summary, this is because we are satisfied that the building design is responsive to the site’s context and indeed, we accept that the design has been driven by the context. While the design approach takes an unconventional form, we find it clearly demonstrates it can form a landmark building commensurate to its site context that balances the needs of its gateway location and heritage setting.  Our reasons follow.
What are the key issues?
5	This is a case where it is firstly worth identifying what is not at issue.  The council and objectors do not raise any concern about traffic implications, car parking or general off-site amenity impacts to other landholdings.  The council also accepts that all relevant servicing issues are addressed and that the building provides good Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) that meets its ESD excellence policy.  Our review of material is also that these matters are acceptably dealt with in the proposal, when tested against the relevant provisions of the planning scheme.
6	The relevant questions we therefore need to determine are:
a	Does the proposal unreasonably, adversely impact the heritage place in which it sits?
b	Is the building an appropriate urban design response to its site setting?
c	Does the proposal provide a public environment in accordance with Clause 21.05-4 of the planning scheme?
7	We address these issues below after firstly setting out a summary of the proposal and the context of decision making.
what is proposed?
8	The proposal is to demolish the existing two storey building that retains a bluestone plinth from an earlier heritage building and construct a 12 storey building, with a maximum building height of 55.4m above the NGL measured from the lowest footpath gradient at the Victoria Parade interface to the highest point of the building.  The proposed building is to be used for education and offices as part of the ACU campus.  The building also includes a loading dock, requiring a new driveway access to Victoria Parade and advertising signs at the top level and ground floor entry.
9	From Brunswick Street the building includes an effective four storey street wall, above which the building tapers back to level 7, and then extends vertically to level 12.  To the north, facing the St Mary of the Cross Square (the square) the building extends vertically to level 7 where it then tapers back, south, to level 12, thus forming a complex geometry that will be most visible from the north, as illustrated in Figure 1 below.  
10	The south elevation of the building, facing Victoria Parade, is vertical from ground to level 12, with openings at different levels to break up the façade.  The east façade, facing an unused service lane is vertical across all levels and includes limited active frontage, with the lift core and service blocks sited adjacent to this boundary.  

Figure 1 - Image of the proposed building viewing south-east from Brunswick.  Taken from the application plans. Note this includes a montage of the approved St Vincent’s hospital building that has not yet been constructed.

Figure 2 - Image of the proposed building from Victoria Parade as extracted from the Urban Context Report.  This also includes montage views of the approved St Vincent’s hospital building and another ACU building under construction, east of the site.
11	The north, west and south facades each include large openings that punctuate the ‘exoskeleton’ façade treatment to form entries or balconies that break up the façade and contribute towards an alignment with the general scale of the existing context.  We were informed that each of the openings have a connection through to one of the others, with the intention of expressing the building’s complex interior functions through reflection in the exterior appearance. 
12	The north elevation includes a large opening close to Brunswick Street that includes stairs and bleacher-style casual seating leading up to a teaching space at level 2.  A second smaller opening at ground level provides an accessible link into the building connecting through to the main entry at the south-west corner of the building, featuring on both the west and north facades.
13	Figure 2 is a montage of the proposed building as extracted from the urban context report.  This image superimposes an approved building to the site’s west that is yet to be constructed, and a building currently under construction to the site’s east, at the north-west corner of Napier Street and Victoria Road.  
14	All four sides of the building comprise a layer of clear and spandrel glazing that is overlayed with a patterning of vertical and horizontal bronze anodised cross fins, and then GRC, masonry finished, deeper fins, that are vertical in form above level 7, arch-like in form below, consolidating into a diamond pattern below level 4.  This layering of glazing and fins, referred to as the exoskeleton of the building, has a functional shading role as well as an ornamental role in breaking down the mass of the building and with the expressed intention of reflecting the shape of gothic tracery in local church buildings including, most notably, St Patrick’s Cathedral.  Above the top level is a roof plant area that is screened by horizontal aluminium louvres sitting behind the exoskeleton that rises up to the top of the louvres. 
what is the decision making context?
Strategic growth context
15	The site is located in a Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z).  The site, forming part of the ACU campus and close to the St Vincent’s Hospital complex is one of a number of health and education precincts nominated in Plan Melbourne.  Metropolitan planning policy at clause 11.01-1R of the planning scheme has direction to focus investment and growth in places of state significance, including health and education precincts.   The growth of the ACU campus is also supported by regional policy at clause 11.03-1R which seeks to locate significant new education facilities that attract users from large geographic areas ‘in or on the edge of Metropolitan Activity Centres or Major Activity Centres with good public transport’.
16	The site has good public transport with the Victoria Parade tram interchange to the south-west of the site and walking access to Parliament Station, approximately 500 metres to the south-west of the site, which also forms the northern edge of the Central Business District.  The site is identified as an education facility on Map 4 of Plan Melbourne that sets out ‘key features in and around Melbourne’s central city’.  The St Vincent’s Hospital and the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital are also identified in this map.
17	Within the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), the site is identified as being at the very southern edge of the Brunswick Street Activity Centre.  General policy across all activity centres of the municipality is to maintain the long term viability of activity centres and  clause 21.08 includes direction to support the existing scale and character of the Brunswick Street and Gertrude Street activity centres.  We note that the existing LPPF is quite dated, with, by example, the Activity Centres strategy at clause 21.04-2 last updated in 2010 and makes reference to activity centres under Melbourne 2030, being metropolitan planning policy now superseded by Plan Melbourne.  
18	Amendment C269 to the Yarra Planning Scheme has recently finished exhibition as an amendment to update and translate the existing LPPF into the broader policy framework of clauses 10 to 19.  We agree with Mr Crowder’s planning evidence, however, that this is not yet a seriously entertained planning scheme amendment so we do not address it in any detail.  Nor did any party seek to rely on provisions in this amendment.  
Heritage context
19	The site sits within schedule 334 of the heritage overlay (HO334).  This schedule affects a precinct area that comprises much of the suburb of Fitzroy, but not the shopping strips of Brunswick Street and Smith Streets.  These are separately listed, as are a number of individually significant sites.  Individually significant sites include the former Eastern Hill Hotel to the west of Brunswick Street (HO190), the Grand House (HO150), terrace houses at 11 and 13 Brunswick Street (HO151 and HO152) and Cathedral Hall, within the ACU campus (HO347).  Further east is HO502, a site currently being developed for another 12 storey building in conjunction with a retained VHR heritage building facing Victoria Parade.  As set out in figure 3 below, Victoria Parade itself is in a heritage overlay as is part of the land south of Victoria Parade, within the City of Melbourne.  
20	The site was previously developed with a tramway building that was demolished after a previous permit was issued in 2007 allowing its demolition and construction of a 47 metre high (approx.) 14 storey tower building.  The building approved under this 2007 permit was not developed, but the heritage building was demolished with only a bluestone plinth remaining.  A temporary, two storey building currently occupies the review land, used for education purposes as part of ACU.  

Figure 3 - Heritage overlays on and surrounding the review site (outlined in blue).  Includes HO areas within the City of Melbourne, in and south of Victoria Parade.
21	A permit is required for demolition under HO334 so a permit is needed to demolish the existing bluestone plinth.  A permit for the construction of the new 12 storey building is required in accordance with the heritage overlay, with relevant decision criteria set out in clause 43.01.  This includes consideration to state and local policy and the significance of the heritage place, being the precinct HO334.  
22	The statement of significance for HO334, as set out in the City of Yarra Review of Heritage Overlay Areas 2007, updated in 2013, states the area of South Fitzroy is aesthetically and historically significant to the City of Yarra:
•	As the earliest urban area outside the Melbourne City grid to be settled in the Melbourne municipality, with several buildings from the mid nineteenth century surviving as testimony to its early establishment; . 
•	For the unusually high number of early Victorian-era and some Regency period buildings, being generally simply detailed and a clear reflection of the early date of Fitzroy's settlement.
•	As evidence of early government planning controls or Acts of Parliament, from the 1850s, that aimed to solve street alignment problems in this privately planned suburb, arising from a hitherto lack of co-ordination between neighbouring allotment owners; 
•	As a good example of the successful application of the Act for Regulating Buildings and Party Walls, and for Preventing Mischiefs by Fire in the City of Melbourne (Melbourne Building Act 1849), which forced the use of fireproof construction and gave South Fitzroy a character distinct from other inner suburbs such as Richmond and Collingwood, that have a greater proportion of Victorian-era timber buildings
•	As a substantially intact collection of predominantly mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth century building stock, interspersed with well preserved inter-war residential, commercial, retail and industrial buildings that contribute to the historical character of the area. 
•	For the relatively large number of individually significant buildings, being predominantly solid masonry rather than clad with timber, largely as a result of the Melbourne Building Act, 1849
•	For the ornate and exuberant detail of many late nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings in the suburb, reflecting the affluence of many of the inhabitants of this area, particularly in the late 19th century. 
•	For the early street, lane and allotment layouts, some original bluestone kerbs, paving and guttering, and some mature exotic street trees, providing an appropriate setting for this collection of residential, retail, commercial and industrial buildings. 
•	For the landmark qualities of some large factory and warehouse buildings from the late 19th and earlier 20th century, such as the MacRobertson confectionary complex which are significant features in the skyline of this predominantly low rise suburb; and  
•	For the major early institutions that developed on its fringes, in particular, St Vincent's Hospital and The Convent of Mercy, as closely linked with the area's history, education and welfare within the metropolitan area. 
The South Fitzroy Precinct (HO334) is within close proximity to the Royal Exhibition Building and is adjacent to the World Heritage Environs Area precinct. The nineteenth century development and character of the South Fitzroy Precinct contributes to the broader setting and context of the Royal Exhibition Building. Views and vistas of the Royal Exhibition Building from within the South Fitzroy Precinct, including views to the dome from Gertrude Street, are also an important feature of the precinct.
23	The consideration of policy includes all policy relevant to the proposal.  In particular we need to have regard to heritage policy set out at clauses 15.03 and 22.02.  This is also consistent with directions of Plan Melbourne to respect Melbourne’s heritage as we build for the future (direction 1.4) and to promote urban design excellence (directions 4.3, notably policy at 4.3.1)
Urban design policy context
24	Consideration of the heritage context is intertwined with consideration of the overall urban design context of the area, taking into account both heritage and non-heritage fabric to make up the physical environs of the site.  This includes the tree lined boulevard of Victoria Parade with the front two-thirds of the site to Victoria Parade affected by Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 2 (DDO2).  This overlay is not specific to Victoria Parade, applying to a number of main roads and boulevards in the Yarra City Council.  These include Victoria Parade, Hoddle Street, Wellington Street and Alexandra Parade. 

Figure 4 - Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 2 (DDO2) location on the site and surrounds.
25	The need to consider the site’s urban design context is directed by the CIZ as well as policy at clauses 15.01, 21.05 and 21.08.  Specific to the immediate area, clause 21.08 includes strategic direction to ‘improve the pedestrian environment of Brunswick and Gertrude Streets’.  A landmarks and tall structures policy at clause 22.03 also specifically directs a policy need to ‘protect the silhouette/profile of St Patrick’s Cathedral seen from the intersection of Brunswick Street with St Georges Road’.  
Other planning scheme context
26	The proposal implements uncontested policy provisions including the promotion of ecological sustainable design at clause 22.17.  The proposal requires a reduction of car parking requirements as set out in clause 52.06 but there is no dispute that this site can accommodate such a reduction and that this is consistent with other environmental and transport policy.  We concur that the reduced car parking provision is acceptable.
27	There is also no dispute from the council or from the Department of Transport about the introduction of a new service access to Victoria Parade, that triggers the need for a planning permit in accordance with clause 52.29.  We are also satisfied that as a question of traffic safety and orderly planning the proposed new access is acceptable.  
28	There was no dispute by the parties to this hearing about the reduction in bicycle parking. However the Tribunal sought explanation to ensure adequate bicycle parking is available to the students attending this building. We were informed that there is presently an excess of bicycle parking across the campus and estimates are that this will be sufficient to cater for the increased demand from the new building; if it is found that additional bicycle facilities are needed the ACU submits they can be better accommodated elsewhere on the campus. The applicant proposed a condition to deal with this possibility which we have accepted.  Essentially this requires the green travel plan to manage bicycle parking across the campus.
29	Finally, we note that signage proposed to the building requires a planning permit in accordance with the C1Z and clause 52.05 provisions.  We address the consideration of this signage in our reasons below.
Previous VCAT decision
30	This site was the subject of a previous tribunal decision, Premier Projects Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (Premier) that led to the demolition of the former tramways building on the review site.  In this decision the tribunal was satisfied the loss of the heritage building was acceptable in part because the proposed replacement building was of sufficient quality to warrant the loss of heritage fabric.  Specifically, the tribunal found:
[78] 	The proposed building is of high architectural quality. While we accept that there is disagreement between the parties as to whether it is an appropriate building for this site, it cannot be said that its design was not devised following what we consider to be a thorough site analysis process. In terms of its architectural quality, the form of the building is well composed; imagination and innovation has been shown in the use of materials and regard has been given to the context.
31	We find this a relevant test for the proposal before us, noting it replaces what was previously accepted for the loss of heritage fabric on the site.  It also accords with submissions put to us by the council, that while we effectively are only contending with a new building, there is a need to consider the heritage of the site itself, as did the tribunal did in 2007.
Does the proposal unreasonably, adversely impact the heritage place?
32	The council submits that it is not specially opposed to the height of the building in its heritage context but to the combined effect of the overall scale, setback and façade design of the building when sitting in its heritage context.  The council’s submissions as they relate to Victoria Parade are broadly an intermixed discussion of urban design and heritage, in discussion of whether the vertical form of the building to Victoria Parade is acceptable.  We address these issues below in the discussion of urban design as a whole.
33	The council also submits that the overall design proposed is not consistent with the finer grain pattern of Brunswick Street and that the proposal has failed to provide an appropriate street wall to Brunswick Street that respects its heritage character. In summary, it says the unorthodox form of the proposed building provides too subtle a reference to the heritage street scale to be read effectively.  The council’s view is that the architectural treatment causes the building to be read as a single form that will visually dominate the heritage setting. 
34	The council is particularly critical that the proposal does not appropriately address heritage policy at clause 22.02-5.7.2 which it says calls for new buildings to reflect the setbacks of buildings that occupy other corners of the intersection.  In this case the approved building to the west of Brunswick Street has a deeper, 10 metre setback of its tower from the Eastern Hill Hotel building.  The council acknowledges that the previously approved building for the review site had an upper level setback similar to that proposed before us.  It submits however, that the use of a taper setback above level 4, rather than a clear podium and tower form above level 3, as previously approved, fails to address the heritage streetscape of Brunswick Street.
35	The objectors are also concerned that the proposal has failed to appropriately address the heritage context of the site.  They comment that in their view the proposed ACU development does not respect existing built form.  Instead they say it is designed to dominate the historic intersection of Victoria Parade and Brunswick Street.  As commented by Ms Polis, she considers the proposal is a disproportionate 'boxy' glass tower, relative to the much more consistent 2 – 3 storey terrace forms that exist further north along Brunswick Street.  She contends that the proposal will irreparably disrupt the scale and existing heritage value of the precinct, in particular the  symmetrical aspect experienced when travelling along Brunswick Street towards the city, noting the symmetry of the block, and the framing of the view of St Patricks Cathedral to the south.
36	The objectors say that the building’s taller form is inappropriate in this context compared to any other nearby building.  Further they submit there is no net community benefit to be drawn from other elements of the proposal that may outweigh the adverse impact on the heritage context.
37	The applicant relied on the expert heritage witness statement of Mr Raworth.  We have also had some regard to the comments of the council’s heritage adviser who reviewed the proposal in preparation of the officer report put to the council.  We do this noting that the advice, as referred to in the officer report, was prepared by Ms Robyn Riddett, an external heritage advisor to the council.  We were provided a copy of Ms Riddett’s comments in full.
Is the demolition of retained heritage fabric on the site acceptable?
38	No party is opposed to the demolition of the existing two storey building.  We agree it has no heritage significance and it can be demolished.  We do note that the mural painted on the side of the modern building has some artistic and cultural value that we encourage the applicant to replicate or interpret elsewhere in future development of the campus.  We accept, however, that this is a matter beyond our jurisdiction to order.
39	The proposal includes removing a bluestone plinth that formed part of the earlier tramways building established on the site.  This plinth was retained after the former tramways building was demolished even though the 2007 approval provided for demolition of all of the tramways building, including the bluestone plinth.
40	The council accepts the removal of the plinth.  The objectors did not expressly comment on the plinth, other than to express their concern about any loss of heritage fabric in the Fitzroy area.  
41	Mr Raworth’s evidence is that the existing bluestone plinth offers no significant heritage value to the heritage place in which it sits, being the broader precinct.  
42	The council heritage advice provided during the permit processing from Ms Riddett comments that ‘Ideally from a heritage perspective it would be appropriate to retain/reinstate after construction of the bluestone footings of the former cable car engine house as part of an interpretation package’.  
43	The applicant advised it is keen to reuse the bluestone where possible in the new building.  A recommended condition that formed part of the officer report included as part of a condition for a façade strategy for the new building include ‘information about how the existing bluestone will be recycled and included to construct the plinth / base of the new building’.  The applicant proposes different wording to this condition.
44	Firstly, we agree that the plinth itself has little heritage value in presenting a heritage streetscape as sought by HO334.  Its retention appears only to have been by convenience in establishing the current building on the site, when the remainder of the building was demolished.  
45	As considered in the 2007 Premier decision, the demolition of the previous building is considered as a whole, tested against the proposed new building.  We are satisfied that removing the bluestone plinth in its current form is acceptable, provided the new building is an acceptable form.  We set out below our reasons about why we find that the new building is acceptable.  
46	The remaining question is then how to address any reuse of the bluestone in the new building.  Having reviewed the plans for the proposal in detail we agree with the applicant that a more practical approach to reusing the bluestone should be provided than in the condition set out in the officer report.  This is noting the limited significance of the bluestone itself as a heritage element in the heritage place.  
47	We therefore have incorporated the amended wording proposed and agreed at the hearing between the council and the review applicant.  This requires the existing bluestone to be incorporated into the design of the building, either as part of the base of the new building, within the building’s public foyer or its staircase.  
48	With this condition in place, and our review of the new building as set out below, we are satisfied that the demolition is acceptable 
Is the new building an acceptable response to the heritage provisions of the planning Scheme?
49	The establishment of the new building needs to be assessed against the provisions of clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay, that in turn make reference to considering policy.  The locally relevant policy is set out at clause 22.02.  
50	The council and objectors are concerned that in a broad sense the proposed new building is too dominant and unconventional to the heritage setting of Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade.   This is a relevant consideration we test against the purpose of the heritage overlay to ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place, being HO334 and the nearby individually listed heritage places.
51	The council also submits that the proposal specifically fails heritage policy at clause 22.02 – 5.7.2 that considers buildings on corner locations.  This specific policy sits within clause 22.02 that is titled ‘Development guidelines for sites subject to the heritage overlay.’  The policy basis at clause 22.02-1 then sets out that the policy ‘provides guidance’ for the protection and enhancement of the city’s identified places of heritage significance.  In assessing the specific concerns of the council about clause 22.02-5.7.2 we do so in context that the provisions of this policy are guidelines.  They are not mandatory or prescriptive requirements.
52	Clause 22.02-5.7.2 sets out specific requirements, including addressing corner sites, that state:
Encourage new building and additions on a site with frontages to two streets, being either a corner site or a site with dual street frontages, to respect the built form and character of the heritage place and adjoining or adjacent contributory elements to the heritage place. 
Encourage new buildings on corner sites to reflect the setbacks of buildings that occupy other corners of the intersection.
53	The council submits the proposal fails these policy elements as the new building does not adequately respect the built form of the former Eastern Hill Hotel to the west of Brunswick Street.  This issue led to some debate during the hearing between the council and Mr Raworth as to what constitutes an adjoining or adjacent contributory heritage element.  
54	We firstly accept that an adjacent contributory element does not need to directly adjoin the review site to be a site that is the subject of the first policy line.  However, we concur with Mr Raworth’s interpretation that the first limb addresses the review site ‘corner’ because it is a corner, singular and the second policy confirms that ‘other’ corners of an intersection are to be addressed differently.  
55	In the case before us, the review site has no heritage building directly adjacent to it on the north-east corner of Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade.  The former Eastern Hill Hotel sits at another corner, being the north-west corner of Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade.  
56	Ultimately we consider there is no weighty implication in agreeing with Mr Raworth’s interpretation about this policy.  Regardless of the two policy limbs the building still needs to consider its heritage streetscapes, which includes both Victoria Parade and Brunswick Street.  The former Eastern Hill Hotel forms part of both these streetscapes, although separated from the proposed building by a 20 metre road reserve of Brunswick Street.  With this in mind, we agree with Mr Raworth’s broader commentary that in general heritage assessment it is the directly abutting or adjoining buildings that are of greater concern in a heritage assessment rather than one further away.  This is because there is a direct impact arising from a new form that will be visible directly against a retained heritage form.
57	In assessing the streetscape impacts the council heritage advisor comments, as set out in the council officer report:
In views from Victoria Parade, the height will have minimal, if any, effect on the heritage streetscape.  In views from the north looking south along Brunswick Street, the proposed building will be prominent and probably dominant but not noticeably more than the approved building in terms of height.  Importantly the proposed building is tapered away from Brunswick Street from the fourth level upwards (TP-3001, Rev. B) and thus any effects of height in relation to any visual interface with, or vistas of, the Belvedere Hotel, later Eastern Hill Hotel and Dodgshun House have been mitigated somewhat.
58	The council, however, submits that the building will dominate both the Victoria Parade and Brunswick Street streetscape and concurs with comments of the objectors that these are highly valued heritage streetscapes.  The council is particularly critical that the building does not follow a conventional podium and tower form that was accepted in the 2007 Premier decision.  
59	In the 2007 Premier decision the tribunal commented that the site is located on a corner of two busy roads and ‘at the southern edge of the HO area in question’.  The tribunal went on to comment that although ‘still within the HO area, it is apparent that the height, scale and mass of the built form along this southern edge is quite different to that found further north.’  The tribunal in Premier then comments that ‘the character and appearance of the southern edge of the HO area is made up of buildings that are much larger and taller than those found within the “internal” parts of the HO area.’ 
60	Further the tribunal in Premier comments that:
We also note that the site is located adjacent to vacant land to the north, a new development to the east, Brunswick Street to the west and Victoria Parade to the south. To some extent it is buffered or separated from fabric that is of heritage significance. If there is to be a transition, this could take place on the vacant land. 
61	Since 2007, this buffer between larger, modern campus buildings at ACU and the more significant heritage fabric to the north and north-west has become more pronounced with the establishment of the David Mannix Building and the formalisation of the square in the northern part of the review site.  There has also been approval for development over the former Eastern Hill Hotel building as part of the St Vincent’s Hospital complex.
62	We are satisfied that the provision of the proposed taller building on the review site can sit comfortably within the heritage context in which it sits.  It will be prominent, and therefore not ultimately recessive as sought by policy at clause 22.02, but it sits sufficiently separate from buildings of individual significance.  The building will be read as part of the overall modern cluster of buildings at ACU, separate from the heritage streetscape of Brunswick Street due to the public domain of the square to the north and the road reserve to the west.  This can enable it to be read in a way that does not dominate or overwhelm the retained heritage elements of the heritage precinct in which the site sits.  
63	On broader view, the building form will be quite different to the individually significant buildings to the west of Brunswick Street but these individual buildings already sit in a context where modern tall forms can be seen.  This includes the existing St Vincent’s Hospital buildings, the approved new hospital building, as well as the Eye and Ear hospital and other ACU buildings.  The existing individually significant buildings will continue to be able to be distinguished and clearly read as their own heritage places in this context.  
64	There are issues of heritage street wall height, materials and finishes that we address below as part of the urban design consideration given the urban design context is led by the heritage designation of both streetscapes.
Is the building an appropriate urban design response to the site setting?
65	The council acknowledges the proposed building is a sophisticated design that is well executed.  However, it says that it is ‘in the wrong place’.  Effectively, we take this to mean the council considers the design has not sufficiently responded to its context.  Specifically the council says the proposed building is too influenced by its Victoria Parade context and the relationship to the city, with this influence carrying around the corner into the Brunswick Street façade.  The council submits this results in a building form that is too heavy and uniform, effectively ignoring the Brunswick Street scale and rhythm.
66	In making these submissions, the council referred us to comments of the tribunal in Premier where it commented that the previously approved building included a traditional podium, tower and cap form that enabled the building to be consistent with the three storey scale of Victorian buildings to the west and north.  The tribunal in Premier also commented that the podium form replicated the building to the east.  In 2007, the tribunal supported the podium as providing a solid base that was consistent and response to the heritage fabric of the area.  
67	The applicant says that the building provides a highly considered response to the Brunswick Street context in an innovative and highly creative way. They rely on the evidence of Mr Mark O’Dwyer architect, who said the building draws its shape and texture from its context with a combination of the angled forms, the sculpting of the exoskeleton that shifts in shape from vertical to interlaced forms as it meets the ground. He finds that this combines to provide subtle references to the scale in Brunswick Street and to an extent, Victoria Parade; and this is further reinforced by alignment of the large openings with the line of street facades.  In addition, the interlacing of the exoskeleton introduces shapes that are reflective of other church buildings in the area, including St Patrick’s Cathedral.
68	The applicant also points to the strategic policy supporting the growth of the ‘Health and Education precinct’, noting that the site is identified in Plan Melbourne as the ‘St Vincent’s Hospital and Australian University Precinct (East Melbourne/Fitzroy).’  They say the proposed building through its sophisticated design and generous through links will improve the visibility and functionality of the ACU campus. 
69	The proposal before us does not take on a traditional podium, tower and cap form but we do not find this fails the proposal.  The proposal has taken on a different, but we consider a highly nuanced, approach to the design.  We assess against the two streetscape environs below.
Brunswick Street interface
70	Ms Hodyl’s evidence, and indeed the submission of the council, is not that the building is too tall per say in the context, but that its overall form is too dominant for the Brunswick Street setting.  Ms Hodyl’s evidence is that the large façade to Brunswick Street is too monolithic and repetitive such that it exacerbates rather than diminishes the visual dominance of the proposed building.  Her evidence is that there is a severity to the facade design that is significantly out of character with the surrounding context, particularly the fine-grain heritage context of Brunswick Street.
71	The objectors reiterate that they consider the design too dominating and out of context with the fine grain heritage streetscape of Brunswick Street.  The objectors also comment that clause 21.05 – strategy 14.6 of the planning scheme requires new development within an activity centre to consider the context of the whole centre recognising that activity centres may consist of sub-precincts, each of which may have a different land use and built form character.
72	The character and form of the south end of Brunswick Street is quite different to that of the core retail area north of Gertrude Street, focussed around Johnston Street.  The proposed building will sit against existing tall modern buildings that form part of the ACU campus.  In a view south along  Brunswick Street it will also be in general view of the Eye and Ear Hospital and St Vincent’s Hospital.  
73	When viewing north-east, it is necessary to either be standing in Victoria Parade and therefore reading the building as part of the Victoria Parade context, or be standing directly opposite the site at the north-west corner of Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade.  At this point, a person is either focussing on the ACU campus itself, viewing directly east, or focussing on the heritage streetscape that already clearly commences north of the square, separate to the proposed building.  This is because the proposed building when viewed from this location is a closer view that will therefore predominantly be to the lower street wall.  This wall sits at a similar height to the façade of Cathedral Hall.  
74	The building as it faces Brunswick Street includes a street wall, above which the former tapers, rather than applying a horizontal setback.  When standing close to the building we are satisfied that it will retain a street wall form that is contextual of the Cathedral Hall building to the north of the square and the former Eastern Hill Hotel to the west.  
75	This western street wall is patterned with the proposed exoskeleton of fins and blades over a mix of spandrel and clear glass.  Ms Hodyl is concerned that this façade is too monolithic and referred to other forms, such as the Design Hub building at RMIT university as a comparator of poor street interface.  We find, however, that the building before us is more active and engaging than the Design Hub building with use of transparent glass and various openings across the building.  
76	We discuss specific issues about ground floor activation elsewhere.  As a question of general street wall massing, Ms Hodyl’s evidence is that the façade has insufficient distinction between the mass of the lower and upper levels that is exacerbated by what she says is a uniform façade that results in an overly dominant building for its context.  We disagree.  From the detailed explanation of the façade design from the applicant and Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence we are satisfied that the façade changes over the exoskeleton and glazing changes, along with the openings and folds of the building work together to provide a cohesive design outcome.
77	We discuss some specific improvement needed to the ground floor in discussion of clause 21.05-4 below.  Provided the ground floor includes some greater prominence, notably at the corner of Victoria Parade, we are satisfied that the façade suitably balances being not overwhelming in excessive detail or dominant façade detail, while also providing visual interest and high quality materials.
78	The fold back, south, of the north façade of the building above level 7 also enables the building to frame the square to the north and give the building some articulation rather than simply forming a traditional vertical tower.  This is a positive attribute.  
79	We find the overall height and mass acceptable, noting that the top five metres forms a slightly open frame element to screen roof plant.  While this frame does not need to be as high to form its function to screen roof plant its height and formation provides an important part of the overall visual proportions of the building.  We therefore accept its height as part of the overall design massing, of what is a somewhat sculptured building form.
Are views to St Patrick’s Cathedral Spire retained?
80	Policy at clause 22.03 requires us to have specific consideration to protecting view lines to St Patrick’s Cathedral south of the site.  The council accepts that the view line to St Patrick’s Cathedral is maintained.  This is also acknowledged by Ms Hodyl’s evidence that the inclusion of the angled setback from Brunswick Street above Level 3 provides a sufficient amount of sky around the belfry and spire so that the silhouette of the landmark building can be appreciated.  We agree from our review of material and site inspection that the silhouette of the tower will be retained.
81	We also note the comments of the permit applicant that the setting of the proposed building and the approved (but not yet constructed) building at St Vincent’s to the west, are equidistant from either side of the spire.  This creates an effect of providing a frame to the spire that sits slightly off centre of the Brunswick Street road reserve.  We acknowledge that the existing Eye and Ear Hospital encroaches into this frame, as evident in figure 5 below.

Figure 5 - extract from Hassell Urban Context report.  outline of the proposed building and also St Vincent Hospital approved building framing the Cathedral spire.
Victoria Parade interface
82	The objectors and the council submit the proposal is too dominating to Victoria Parade and leads to impacts on the urban design realm, including shadow to the nearby tram interchange and may detract from the avenue of elm trees in the road reserve.  In particular, the objectors comment that DDO2 applying to the land, facing Victoria Parade seeks:
•	To reinforce and enhance the distinctive heritage qualities of main roads and boulevards. 
•	To recognise and reinforce the pattern of development and the character of the street, including traditional lot width, in building design. 
83	We also note that DDO2 includes purposes:
•	To encourage high quality contemporary architecture. 
•	To encourage urban design that provides for a high level of community safety and comfort. 
•	To limit visual clutter. 
84	Relevant decision guidelines of DDO2 are to consider:
•	The contribution of the proposal to the streetscape. 
•	The design, height and visual bulk of the development in relation to surrounding land uses and developments. 
•	The design, height and form of the development in relation to the built form character of the street.
85	These considerations of DDO2 also need to be read in context of the heritage overlays applying to Victoria Parade.
86	Ms Hodyl’s urban design evidence on behalf of the council is that she is satisfied with the Victoria Parade façade and interface, aside from the pedestrian interface issues at the ground level.  The council, however, maintains that the vertical interface to Victoria Parade is too dominant for its heritage streetscape and DDO2 setting, including the avenue of trees in the central median which we will address later.  The objectors also contend that the vertical interface is too dominant and should have included a podium level with building form then setback behind, similar to what has occurred in other building to the east.
87	From our view of Victoria Parade we concur with evidence of Mr O’Dwyer that there is not a clear podium tower form to Victoria Parade and nor is the wide boulevard vista dependent on new form providing a podium / tower form.  As Mr Raworth commented, each of the recent development approvals around the area have considered their own specific site considerations.  This includes that the ACU building at the north-west corner of Victoria Parade and Napier Street includes varied setbacks of a tower form.  This form addresses the State heritage listed building that forms part of that site as well as managing an interface to the directly adjacent residential terraces to the north of that site in Napier Street.  
88	The approved St Vincent’s Hospital building is set back, but this sits directly above the retained Eastern Hill Hotel building.  The building further west varies in any podium form, with the existing building at the north-east corner of Victoria Parade and Nicolson Street only defining a street wall by material and very minor recession, not a traditional podium, tower form.
89	In this context we do not find that a consistent tower / podium level needs to be adhered to.  The proposal uses a change in its exoskeleton detailing to demarcate different levels of the building, using a finer grain diamond type pattern for its first four levels, then an elongated cross form to level 7 and then a vertical column form above.  This is interplayed with openings at upper levels.  
90	We also accept that the site is in a location where it can play a key role in assisting ACU to improve its visibility and define the entrance to the campus from the CBD.  We agree with the previous Tribunal in Premier, which concluded that ‘there can be no dispute and no uncertainty about the state significance of this particular health and education precinct and the support being given for it to grow and for the specialised economic functions to be reinforced.’  To the extent that this means the building form is prominent, particularly when viewed from the south, we find it is an appropriate response to policy.
91	The façade strategy is more subtle than a design having a clear differentiation between podium and tower, however, we are satisfied that it forms part of an overall well executed design that has clearly considered all of its interfaces.  We find that the design has been devised following what we consider to be a thorough site analysis process. In terms of its architectural quality, the form of the building is well composed even if challenging convention.  Imagination and innovation has been shown in the use of materials and regard has been given to the context. 
Shadow impact
92	The council maintains that the height and form of the building may shadow the St Vincent’s Plaza tram interchange.  It relies on urban design comments provided by Mr McGauran in January 2020 to the council officers as part of its assessment of the building.  These comments, that were provided to us, do not direct a specific need for a tower and podium form, only that Mr McGauran is concerned the proposed building will cast excessive shadow to the tram interchange.  
93	Ms Hodyl raises no concern about shadow to the tram stop and neither does Mr O’Dwyer.  In response to the comments provided by Mr McGauran, the council officer report comments that additional shadow diagrams were provided in response to Mr McGauran’s concerns that satisfied the council officers that the shadow is acceptable.  
94	There is no formal test within the planning scheme to address shadow to a tram stop.  The council referred us to clause 5.1.3 of the Victoria Urban Design Guidelines that seeks to ensure buildings in activity centres provide equitable access to daylight and sunlight.  This includes policy to locate and arrange buildings to allow winter sun access to key public spaces and key pedestrian street spaces.  
95	Our review of aerial photos of the tram interchange in winter months, such as that depicted in figure 5 below, is that the existing and approved St Vincent’s Hospital buildings, that sit directly north of the tram interchange already shadow, or will shadow, the interchange for much of the day in winter months.

Figure 6 - Nearmap image of St Vincent’s Hospital Private building shadow at 11.37am on 21 June 2021.
96	The proposed building will add to this shadow early in the morning, but consistent with the equinox shadows, will move away from the tram stop by mid-morning.  The tram stop is not public open space where people recreate for long periods of time.  Nor is it a pedestrian location comparative to a shopping strip where pedestrians may linger and stroll.  In context of:
•	the limited time any shadow will cast over the tram stop, 
•	the existing shadow cast by buildings to the west, and 
•	the pedestrian use of a tram stop, as opposed to other public environment;
we are satisfied that the height of the building will not cause undue amenity impact by way of shadow.
Impact on street trees
97	Objectors and the council are also concerned that the building may dominate or overwhelm the avenue of elm trees within Victoria Parade.  With this the objectors referred to strategy 26.2 at clause 21.05-3 of the planning scheme.  This is to ‘maintain the dominance of avenue trees over built form along boulevards.’  The objectors comment that the elm trees in the centre median of Victoria Parade were first planted in the 1890s and play a crucially important role in the image of the city and therefore should remain dominant over built form in Victoria Parade.
98	The council elaborated in verbal submission that the lack of a podium level to Victoria Parade meant that the building has a tall, sheer face to Victoria Parade that may be considered to dominate or overwhelm the avenue of trees.  We disagree.  The trees are highly important but are sufficiently separated from the proposed building due to the roadway of Victoria Parade to ensure the tree avenue is not overwhelmed by the building.  We say this noting there are many other buildings along Victoria Parade that are tall to the street and, in our viewing, do not impact on the elms that sit in the central median.
99	No party made specific submission about the impact on trees directly in front of the site, or opposition to the removal of one of these trees to enable the new loading bay access.  We viewed the two trees directly in front of the site and accept that the removal of one of these trees for the loading bay is acceptable.  Mr McGauran’s urban design comments refer to a need to include new street tree planting.  
100	We note the officer report comments that permit conditions can be provided to require the recovering of the costs of replacing the tree in Victoria Parade and protecting the retained street tree.  Such conditions were included in the draft conditions provided by the council and we have included them as set out in conditions 9 and 10 in Appendix A.  We also note the officer report comments that tree planting in Brunswick Street is not supported as this public footpath has limited space and is better utilised as full access for pedestrians.  This is noting there are no trees currently along this section of Brunswick Street.  We concur with these comments.
Ground floor public interface
101	The council grounds of refusal specially comment that the proposal fails to address the public environment as directed by Clause 21.05-4 of the planning scheme.  This clause has two objectives, the first of which is to provide a public environment that encourages community interaction and activity.  The strategies listed to implement this objective relevantly include directions to:
•	Ensure that buildings have a human scale at street level. 
•	Require buildings and public spaces to provide a safe and attractive public environment. 
•	Require new development to consider the opportunity to create public spaces as part of new development. 
•	Require new development to make a clear distinction between public and private spaces. 
•	Require new development to consider the creation of public access through large development sites, particularly those development sites adjacent to waterways, parkland or activity centres.
102	The council maintains that the proposal lacks human scale at ground level and lacks active interface to both Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade.  In making these submission the council relied on the evidence of Ms Hodyl about the engagement of the building to the street.  
103	The council and Ms Hodyl both say that the interface to the building’s north façade is acceptable as it includes a large opening with informal seating that addresses the square to the north in addition to a café and second entrance.  It is the extent of frontage to Brunswick Street that they say has limited engagement to the street and the inactive frontage to Victoria Parade that they find problematic.  It is also generally agreed that the eastern façade to a service lane does not need to be active.
104	There are three elements about the ground floor engagement that we find we need to address.  These are the south-west corner entry portal, the Victoria Street façade and Brunswick Street façade.
South-west entry portal
105	The council submits that the entry portal is too low and lacking an appropriate proportion to the building.  Ms Hodyl’s evidence similarly makes comment that this entry is poorly defined particularly for its prominent location.  Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence also questioned if the opening to the south-west corner could be enlarged to make it more prominent and engaging. 
106	In preparing Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence, the applicant engaged the project architect to respond to this specific question, with an addendum to Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence setting out a potential change to this corner treatment to increase its prominence and active interface.
107	This change, as depicted in figure 7, below is to raise the height of the façade at this entry point so as to make the entry more prominent.  Mr O’Dwyer explained, with reference to documentation of the architect attached to this evidence, that while it would be preferrable to raise the height of the entry to a double level height, there is a need to retain structural beams in this location due to the angles of the form above.  There is also locational related plant sitting at first floor for a lecture theatre at level first and second floor.
108	We also questioned how the materiality of the raised entry would work and were advised that it would be a brass colour perforated metal screen, giving the raised element a lightness, rather than being a solid form.
109	We agree that the corner entry requires greater prominence and are satisfied that with changes as set out in Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence this corner can provide an appropriate entry and human engagement to the street.
110	Ms Hodyl is also critical of the placement of advertising at the ground floor entry at this location.  Ms Hodyl is concerned the ground floor sign is scaled at a size that signals the building’s use to vehicular traffic not pedestrians.  She is of the view that the entrance would be better served with a location for pedestrians to gather or sit, rather than being dominated by a ground level sign.
111	We are not specifically opposed to the sign’s size or the need to have a sign at the entry portal, but agree with Ms Hodyl that the sign at its proposed location blocks the pedestrian entry space as it faces Victoria Parade.  Her evidence is that this sign should be removed or relocated to upper levels.  
112	In raising the entry portal with metal screen at first floor, this sign could be reformatted to comfortably fit in the level 1 screened area.  This would have the advantage of further opening the pedestrian space around to Victoria Parade from Brunswick Street at the entry portal.  It would also make the entry sign more visible from the CBD approach, as it would lift it above the landscape planting in the median. We are satisfied that an entry sign is needed and that relocating it to above the entry way, within the mesh facia contextual of other signs already in Victoria Parade.  The detail of how this sign should be moved is a matter that can be addressed by permit condition.  

Figure 7 - Image of amended entry treatment from Appendix to Mr O'Dwyer's evidence.
Victoria Parade Façade
113	The council, with the evidence of Ms Hodyl, is critical that the Victoria Parade façade lacks pedestrian activation.  In particular, Ms Hodyl’s evidence is that the location of the electricity sub-station and loading consume much of the ground floor façade reducing human interaction with the inside of the building.  This is noting that Victoria Parade is an important boulevard.  Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence for the permit applicant is that the ground floor interface to Victoria Parade could be improved by rotating the sub-station so that it has less façade to the street.  
114	This alternative layout, along with other options to move the sub-station away from the façade altogether, were explored by the project architect in an addendum to Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence.  The applicant submits that if we consider it necessary that the sub-station be relocated then it would accept this as a permit condition.  However, its preference is not to move it as it will be costly and lead to potential complications in the loading bay and servicing arrangement inside the building.
115	We find the alternative layout set out in architect’s addendum to Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence illustrates an important, and we consider necessary, change to the ground floor layout.  As depicted in figure 8 below, moving the substation increases the glazed area to Victoria Parade and also improves the usability of the foyer space inside the building.

Figure 8 - Extract from page 10 - Hassell Architect Response - Addendum to O'Dwyer evidence statement.
116	The application plans show a narrow seating area, east of the entry portal, that is less than two metres wide at the south, glazing line and less than three metres in width at its corridor to the main entryway.  We are concerned that not only do the application plans show a minimal activation to the street, but the activation behind the glazing line will also be minimal as the space is not very functional.  Moving the sub-station increases the activation to the street substantially by both increasing the view into the building, and also increasing the functionality of the internal space so that the view will be to active use.
117	We are not particularly concerned as to how the service and loading bay area is rearranged, provided that the glazed area to Victoria Parade and usable student space behind it is increased in size in a manner similar to that shown in figure 8 above.  We therefore will condition that the plans be amended to show an increase in the area of glazing to open foyer, to the frontage to Victoria Parade, consistent with what is achieved in this diagram.  Ultimately, how internal services are rearranged to provide the more active frontage is a matter for the applicant to resolve in seeking plans for endorsement.
118	With this change, and the other changes discussed above and below, we are satisfied there is sufficient activation to Victoria Parade.
Brunswick Street façade
119	Ms Hodyl is critical that the Brunswick Street façade lacks pedestrian scale and activation.  This is noting the use of the exoskeleton fins to the ground and the length of this façade.  Mr O’Dwyer and the applicant explained in detail how the design to this street includes the use of the exoskeleton, but in a slightly modified, thinner form to minimise potential vandalism opportunities and to increase visibility into the ground floor.
120	Mr O’Dwyer’s evidence is that the extension of the exoskeleton to the ground in this way is an important part of the ‘architectural language’ because it creates the illusion of the building ‘growing out of the ground’ and this reflects the gothic style where details such as fluting and buttresses generally extend to the base.  
121	While the façade to Brunswick Street has minimal openings we are satisfied that it provides active frontage, commensurate with this part of Brunswick Street that is not a traditional shopfront part of the activity centre.  Other buildings, including the former Eastern Hill Hotel building have more limited active frontages, as does the house to its north that is set back from the street and has high front fencing.
122	The proposed building façade along Brunswick Street includes a large glazed area to an informal learning space and the corner entry feature.  The areas of service and bike storage are limited to approximately 16.5 metres of the overall 50 metre frontage to Brunswick Street.  The applicant also commented that the bike storage area could include a glass door to increase safety and activation to this space  We agree this door should be transparent for these reasons.  We are satisfied that the overall activation to Brunswick Street can be acceptable and that the slimming of the exoskeleton will minimise any restriction of views in or out.
123	In concluding this issue, we note that the materials selection in drawing TP_2005: Façade systems refers to MC-05 mesh to the west side of the entry portal, against and behind the ACU advertising sign to Victoria Parade.  Imagery we were provided, such as depicted in figure 7 in our reasons above, shows this section as transparent glazing.  As part of opening the prominence of the south-west corner entry and providing activation to the corner we consider this mesh should be replaced with more transparent opening.  We have addressed this as part of condition 1a) n the attached permit conditions.
124	This need for a more transparent and ‘open’ entry reinforces our view that the ground floor sign should be raised to sit above the pedestrian space in the amended mesh entry frame.
Advertising signs
125	The second objective of Clause 21.05-4 is to ensure that advertising signs contribute positively to the Yarra municipality, by applying the advertising signs policy at clause 22.04.  In turn this policy seeks to ensure that signs are not the dominant element in the streetscape and enhance the character and integrity of places of heritage significance.
126	We have already discussed our reasons why we consider the ground level sign must be moved as part of discussion of street activation.  Moving the sign to above the entry portal may make it slightly more prominent, but we are satisfied still meets the policy test to not be dominant in the streetscape.  
127	The council and objectors are also concerned the upper level sign adds to the dominance of the building in the heritage streetscape.  We disagree.  The sign is conventional high level business signage, similar to other branding of the ACU campus on other buildings, such as St Vincent’s Private Hospital that is also visible in the heritage streetscape.  The proposed sign sits modestly in the proposed building form, sitting against the upper level facia.  We are satisfied it is commensurate with its setting.
Are there any other issues?
128	The council submission to the tribunal raises some issue that the wind analysis undertaken for the proposal leads to a screen at the north-west corner of the building and to the east.  
129	Our reading of the council officer report and material provided as part of the permit assessment is that this wind ‘screen’ to the north-west corner can be addressed by landscaping.  An updated landscaping plan, as directed by permit condition 15 in appendix A addresses this issue.
130	Council also raised a question of whether the ‘standing’ condition is an acceptable standard for the northern interface. The applicant explained that the standing condition does not mean that there will never be conditions suited to seating, and in fact most of the time this would be the case.  With the benefit of this explanation, we are satisfied that the standing criteria is acceptable given that the square is generally a transitory space and the large opening with its informal bleacher style seating provides a protected environment for those times when external conditions may be uncomfortable for seating.
131	There is also a need to address wind at the east of the building in the service lane.  Condition 15 addresses this and directs that mitigation measures must occur within the title boundary.  We are satisfied with this condition to address issues of wind, noting also that this eastern area is a service area, not a pedestrian area. 
Conclusion
132	We find the building, while different to that proposed and approved in Premier is still a building of high architectural quality.  We find comments put at paragraph 78 of Premier remain apposite.  This is that ‘while we accept that there is disagreement between the parties as to whether it is an appropriate building for this site, it cannot be said that its design was not devised following what we consider to be a thorough site analysis process. In terms of its architectural quality, the form of the building is well composed; imagination and innovation has been shown in the use of materials and regard has been given to the context’.  
133	We find that the subject site is removed sufficiently from the heritage character of Brunswick Street and that the references it makes to the scale of Brunswick Street, while subtle, are sufficient to provide an acceptable interface to that precinct. 
134	While we agree that a conventional podium and tower approach could work on this site, we find that the alternative now proposed is a more interesting and indeed innovative response that has a realistic chance of adding to the heritage of the city as seen by future generations.
135	Subject to some minor changes to façade detailing at the ground and first floor level we are satisfied it is a building worthy of its high profile location.  For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.  
136	The conditions are generally consistent with the conditions discussed at the hearing but with changes to address matters we have set out above.  We have also concluded the following about draft conditions disputed between applicant and the council at the conclusion of the hearing:
•	We have removed the discussion of number of bicycle spaces from condition 1.  This is a matter better addressed in the green travel plan condition 17.  We have also made some amendment to condition 17.
•	We have amended condition 37 to include that road pavement must be re-profiled and re-sheeted the full width road pavement of the Victoria Parade and Brunswick Street ‘to the extent impacted by the construction’.  We consider the added, quoted words are reasonable as they tie the remediation works to impacts of the building construction.
•	We have retained condition 54(p)(i) that requires consideration of whether construction on the site is suitable for an electric crane.  The applicant advised that this was not such a suitable site.  We see no reason to remove the requirement from the considerations to be reviewed in preparing a construction management plan.  Whether the site is, or is not suitable for an electric crane, is a matter that should be assessed as part of preparing the construction management plan.
•	We have retained the two and four year, standard expiry requirements.  While the applicant sought this to be changed to three and five years we are not convinced there are current extenuating circumstances to require this.  

Alison Glynn
Presiding Member		Stephen Axford
Member	

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No:	PLN19/0238	
Land:	81 – 89 Victoria Parade and 8-14 Brunswick Street
FITZROY  Vic  3065	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	buildings and works, including demolition, to construct a twelve (12) level building used as an education centre (permit not required use), 
•	a reduction in the car parking and bicycle parking requirements of the Yarra Planning Scheme, 
•	display of internally illuminated business identification signs, and
•	alteration of access to a Road Zone, Category 1.	

Conditions:
Amended Plans
1	Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by HASSELL Limited bearing the following revision numbers: TP_001 (Rev H), TP_0100 (Rev E), TP_0101 - TP_0111 (Rev D), TP_0200 - TP_0300 (Rev C), TP_1100 (Rev D), TP_1101 - TP_1102 (Rev F), TP_1103 (Rev D), TP_1104 - TP_1105 (Rev C), TP_1106 (Rev D), TP_1107 (Rev F), TP_1108 – TP_1110 (Rev C), TP_1111 (Rev D), TP_1112 (Rev E), TP_1113 (Rev C), TP_2001 – TP_2002 (Rev E), TP_2003 – TP_2004 (Rev C), TP_2005 (Rev A), TP_3001 -  TP_3002 (Rev B), TP_4001 (Rev A), but modified to show:
(a)	The primary entrance on the south-western corner to include a perforated metal fascia above the entrance, and transparent glazing to habitable spaces of the entry foyer, generally in accordance with diagrams contained in ‘Section 1 – Enhancing the south-west entry’ ACU 81 Victoria Parade Responses to VCAT Expert Witness Queries: Hassell Architects Rev 01, NO11115 dated 01 August 2021.
(b)	An increase in the area of glazing to open foyer to the frontage to Victoria Parade, consistent with that achieved in diagrams and images on pages 10, 12 and 13 of ‘Section 02 – Substation Relocation’ ACU 81 Victoria Parade Responses to VCAT Expert Witness Queries: Hassell Architects Rev 01, NO11115 dated 01 August 2021.
(c)	Modify the description of the ‘Bike Store Entry’ on Plan TP_2002 (Rev E) from ‘Bluestone Door’ to ‘Clear Glazing Door’.
Signs
(d)	Redesign and relocation of the ground level sign to sit on or within the mesh framing element required by condition 1(a).
(e)	Details in relation to the levels of illumination of the high-wall mounted sign on the Brunswick Street interface.
(f)	The location of the interpretation heritage sign as required by Condition 2 with plan notations confirming all content and text displayed.
Reports and Plans
(g)	Any requirement of the endorsed Façade and Foyer Strategy (condition 5) (where relevant to show on plans).
(h)	Any requirement of the endorsed Landscape Plan (condition 7) (where relevant to show on plans).
(i)	Any requirement of the endorsed Tree Management Plan (condition 10) (where relevant to show on plans).
(j)	Any requirement of the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan (condition 12) (where relevant to show on plans).
(k)	Any requirement of the endorsed Wind Assessment Report (condition 15) (where relevant to show on plans).
(l)	Any requirement of the endorsed Green Travel Plan (condition 17) (where relevant to show on plans).
(m)	Any requirement of the endorsed Waste Management Plan (condition 19) (where relevant to show on plans).
(n)	Any requirement of the endorsed Public Lighting Plan (condition 22) (where relevant to show on plans).
(o)	Any requirement of the Transport for Victoria conditions (conditions 29 - 31) (where relevant to show on plans).
Interpretation Heritage Package
2	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority an interpretative sign that includes the text below must be displayed on the building where it can be seen and read from the public domain, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
The Former Brunswick Street Cable Tram Engine House was built in 1886 and was designed by Alexander Davidson and built by Martin & Peacock for the Melbourne Tramways Trust. Twelve engine houses were built in Melbourne between 1884 and 1891 and eleven were built by the Melbourne Tramways Trust and this one was the second of the eleven built to provide power to what was considered to be the most advanced cable tram network of its time.
The Former Brunswick Street Cable Tram Engine House propelled three underground cable lines which operated trams on routes travelling down Collins Street to Spencer Street, down Victoria Parade to Victoria Bridge and down Brunswick Street to North Fitzroy. The cables were propelled by two pairs of engines which used six Babcock & Willcox water tube boilers and two multi tube boilers.
The Former Brunswick Street Cable Tram Engine House was the first in Melbourne to use rope gearing and is believed to be the first to use a Malcolm Moore conveyor system to handle coal.
The cable tram system continued to run until it was replaced by the electrical powered system during the 1920s and early 1930s. The Collins and Victoria Street lines closed in July 1929 and the Brunswick line was closed in June 1930. (Victorian Heritage Database
3	Following the removal / demolition of the portable class rooms, an archaeological investigation must be conducted with any new found information to be added to the interpretative signage required by Condition 2. Any new found information must be provided to the Responsible Authority for record keeping or written confirmation must be provided confirming that there is no new information.
4	If remnants relating to the Former Brunswick Street Cable Tram Engine House are found following the removal / demolition of the portable class rooms as a result of Condition 3, these must, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority be maintained, restored and included as a feature element to commemorate the sites past in the foyer(s) / portals of the building. This information must be provided to the Responsible Authority prior to the completion of the foyer interiors for further approval.
Façade and Foyer Strategy
5	In conjunction with the submission of development plans under Condition 1, a Façade Strategy and Materials and Finishes Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Façade Strategy and Materials and Finishes Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.  This must detail:
(a)	Elevations at a scale of 1:20 illustrating typical podium details for all podium types, entries and doors, utilities (services to Victoria Parade) and tower facade details (in particular glazing types (ensuring limited glare) used within the development).
(b)	Section drawings to demonstrate façade systems, including fixing details and joints between materials or changes in form.
(c)	An assessment of whether it is possible to incorporate the existing bluestone into the design of the building, either as part of the base of the new building or within the building’s public foyer or staircase.  
(d)	A sample materials board and coloured renders outlining colours, materials and finishes as these relate to the building, with a graffiti proof finish applied to all walls facing the public domain and carriageway to the east.
Ongoing Architect Involvement
6	As part of the ongoing progress and development of the site, HASSELL Limited or another architectural firm to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be engaged to:
(a)	oversee design and construction of the development; and
(b)	ensure the design quality and appearance of the development is realised as shown in the endorsed plans or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Landscape Plan
7	Before the development commences, an amended Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Landscape Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Landscape Plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Architecture Plan prepared by HASSELL Limited and dated December 2018, but modified to include (or show):
(a)	Details of soil volumes for all garden beds provided.
(b)	Consideration to passive irrigation or use of water captured by the subject site.
(c)	A detailed planting plan including a planting schedule including the quantities, pot sizes and mature heights.
(d)	A specification of works to be undertaken prior to planting.
(e)	Maintenance schedules and notes, including how any plant failure will be managed
(f)	Details on the proposed methods for irrigation and drainage.
(g)	All plants proposed confirmed to not be listed within DELWP Advisory List of Environmental Weeds in Victoria.
8	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained by:
(a)	implementing and complying with the provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Landscape Plan;
(b)	not using the areas set aside on the endorsed Landscape Plan for landscaping for any other purpose; and
(c)	replacing any dead, diseased, dying or damaged plants, 
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9	Before the development commences, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the permit holder must make a one off contribution of $12,049.40 to the Responsible Authority for the amenity value, removal and replacement cost of the street tree located on Victoria Parade to make way for the crossover.
Tree Management Plan
10	Before the development commences, a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be prepared by a suitably qualified Arborist and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the Tree Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Tree Management Plan must make recommendations for:
(a)	the protection of the tree closest to the south-west corner of the subject site on the Victoria Parade footpath:
(i)	pre-construction;
(ii)	during construction; and
(iii)	post construction
(b)	the provision of any barriers;
(c)	any pruning necessary; and
(d)	watering and maintenance regimes,
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Tree Management Plan must be complied with and implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Sustainable Management Plan
12	Before the development commences, an amended Sustainable Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Sustainable Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Sustainable Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan prepared by LCI Consultants dated 3 December 2018, but modified to include or show:
(a)	VLT used for daylight modelling, consistent with SHGC.
(b)	Indicate on plans the water source for landscaping.
(c)	Confirm actual roof area and review STORM report to reflect this.
(d)	Advice on the Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) for the roof.
(e)	Consider evaporative pre-cooling for air cooled chillers.
(f)	Consider a small pallet of materials and construction techniques that can assist in disassembly.
(g)	Consider collecting organics waste from café.
13	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14	Before the development is occupied, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan, approved under this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.
Wind Assessment Report
15	Before the development commences, an amended Wind Tunnel Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Wind Tunnel Report will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Wind Tunnel Report must be generally in accordance with the Wind Tunnel Report prepared by MEL Consultants, dated December 2018, but modified to include (or show):
(a)	Assess the proposal as amended pursuant to Condition 1.
(b)	The north-west corner wind mitigation replaced with landscaping treatment.
(c)	The screen wind mitigation item in the carriageway replaced with mitigation treatment shown within the title boundaries.
16	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Wind Assessment Report must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Green Travel Plan
17	Before the development is occupied, an amended Green Travel Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Green Travel Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Green Travel Plan must be generally in accordance with the Green Travel Plan for the Australian Catholic University campus received by Council on 19 June 2019, but modified to include or show:
(a)	How the overall campus bicycle parking provides sufficient bicycle parking spaces for the additional floor space of the building;
(b)	The inclusion of floor plans showing details of the bicycle parking and end of trip facilities;
(c)	The types of bicycle storage devices proposed to be used for employee and student spaces (i.e. hanging or floor mounted spaces) with at least 50% of those at grade with further space for cargo bike(s);  
(d)	Provision of charging point(s) for E-bikes.
18	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Green Travel Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Waste Management Plan
19	Before the development commences, an amended Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Stuart McQuire, of Green Makeover dated 18 March 2019 (Version 5) but modified to include:
(a)	Assess the proposal as amended pursuant to Condition 1.
(b)	Provision of food waste diversion.
(c)	A reduction in the five garbage stream to no more than four.
(d)	Details relating to the management of hard waste.
(e)	Details relating to risk management.
(f)	Reference to all EPA and council laws regarding waste collection times.
(g)	Provision for recycling of glass.
20	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21	The collection of waste from the site must be by private collection, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Public Lighting Plan
22	Before the development commences, a Public Lighting Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Public Lighting Plan must address lighting along Brunswick Street and Victoria Parade interface but also in the forecourt and entrances to the approved building. When approved, the Public Lighting Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Public Lighting Plan must provide for:
(a)	The control of light spillage into the windows of existing and proposed hospital bed rooms associated with the St Vincent’s Hospital from the approved building and high wall mounted sign to Brunswick Street, to comply with the requirements of AS 4282 – 2019,” Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting”;
(b)	A maintenance regime for the lighting scheme within the curtilage of the property.
(c)	The use of energy efficient luminaries and/or solar lighting technologies to reduce carbon emission if possible.
23	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Public Lighting Plan must be implemented and complied with at no cost to Council and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Signs
24	The location and details of the signs, as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered (unless the Yarra Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
25	The signs must be constructed, displayed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
26	The signs must not include any flashing or intermittent light.
Loading and Unloading
27	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the area set aside on the endorsed plans for loading and associated works must be:
(a)	constructed and available for use in accordance with the endorsed plans;
(b)	formed to such levels and drained so that it can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans;
(c)	treated with an all-weather seal or some other durable surface; and
(d)	line-marked or provided with some adequate means of showing the loading bay area. 
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
28	The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the land must be conducted entirely within the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Head, Transport for Victoria’s Conditions 29 - 31
29	The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to tram operation along Brunswick Street is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruption to tram operations during construction and mitigation measures must be communicated to Yarra Trams and the Department of Transport thirty-five (35) days prior.
30	The permit holder must ensure that all track, tram and overhead infrastructure is not damaged. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of the Department of Transport at the full cost of the permit holder.
31	The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus operation along Victoria Parade is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruption to bus operations and mitigation measures must be communicated to the Department of Transport eight (8) weeks prior by telephoning 1800 800 007 or emailing customerservice@ptv.vic.gov.au.
Road Infrastructure
32	The pillar box on the Victoria Parade footpath is to be removed, stored for safekeeping, and reinstated at the completion of the building in its exact same location, with all associated costs to be borne by the permit holder.
33	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the vehicle crossing at the Victoria Parade interface must be constructed:
(a)	in accordance with any requirements or conditions imposed by Council;
(b)	Demonstrating satisfactory access into and out of the site with a vehicle ground clearance check using the B99 design vehicle, and be fully dimensioned with actual reduced levels (to three decimal places) as per Council’s Vehicle Crossing Information Sheet;
(c)	at the permit holder's cost; and
(d)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(e)	The permit holder must obtain the consent of the relevant power authority for the relocation of any power poles. All costs associated with the relocation will be at the permit holder’s cost.
(f)	The vehicle crossing shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Infrastructure’s and City of Yarra’s requirements and specifications.
34	The vehicle crossing shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Infrastructure’s and City of Yarra’s requirements and specifications.
35	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, all building works and connections for underground utility services, the footpaths along the property’s Victoria Parade and Brunswick Street (service road) frontages must be reconstructed (including kerb and channel):
(a)	at the permit holder's cost; and
(b)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
36	The permit holder must obtain the consent of the relevant power authority for the relocation of any power poles. All costs associated with the relocation will be at the permit holder’s cost.
37	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the permit holder must re-profile and re-sheet the full width road pavement of the Victoria Parade and Brunswick Street reserve, to the extent impacted by the construction:
(a)	at the permit holder's cost; and
(b)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
38	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, any isolated areas of road pavement failure as a consequence of construction traffic impacts must be reconstructed:
(a)	at the permit holder's cost;
(b)	to the satisfaction of any other relevant authority; and
(c)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
39	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the permit holder must relocate any service poles, structures or pits necessary to facilitate the development:
(a)	at the permit holder's cost; and
(b)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
40	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, any redundant vehicular crossing must be demolished and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel:
(a)	at the permit holder's cost; and
(b)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
41	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the removal of any kerbside parking sensors and any reinstatement of parking sensors will require the permit holder to pay Council the cost of each parking sensor taken out from the kerb/footpath/roadway. Any costs associated with the reinstatement of road infrastructure due to the removal of the parking sensors must also be borne by the permit holder.
Lighting
42	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, a public lighting design scheme along the development’s road frontages demonstrating adequate lighting levels for pedestrians as per Australian Standard requirements must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Notations must confirm that the lighting scheme has been approved by CitiPower and all lighting infrastructure and hardware will be funded by the permit holder.
43	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, external lighting capable of illuminating access to the pedestrian and vehicular entrances must be provided on the subject site. Lighting must be:
(a)	located;
(b)	directed;
(c)	shielded; and
(d)	of limited intensity
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
General
44	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered (unless the Yarra Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
45	The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, including through:
(a)	the transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from land;
(b)	the appearance of any buildings, works or materials;
(c)	the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, or
(d)	the presence of vermin.
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
46	Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, delivery and collection of goods to and from the land may only occur between 7am and 10pm Monday to Saturday, or after 9am on a Sunday or public holiday except for those allowed under any relevant local law.
47	Finished floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
48	Before the building is occupied, any wall located on a boundary facing public property must be treated with a graffiti proof finish to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
49	The use and development must comply at all times with the  noise limits specified in the Environment Protection Regulations under the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the incorporated Noise Protocol (Publication 1826.4, Environment Protection Authority, May 2021) as may be amended from time to time.
50	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, all new on-boundary walls must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
51	All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
52	All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy
53	Prior to the issue of a building permit, commencement of the development, or issue of a Statement of Compliance (whichever occurs first) the Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Yarra City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, or the Owner must enter into an agreement with Yarra City Council to pay the amount of the levy within a time specified in the agreement.
Construction Management Plan
54	Before the development commences, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The plan must provide for:
(a)	a pre-conditions survey (dilapidation report) of the land and all adjacent road frontages and nearby road infrastructure;
(b)	works necessary to protect road and other infrastructure;
(c)	remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure;
(d)	containment of dust, dirt and mud within the land and method and frequency of clean up procedures to prevent the accumulation of dust, dirt and mud outside the land,
(e)	facilities for vehicle washing, which must be located on the land;
(f)	the location of loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes and crane/hoisting zones, gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street;
(g)	site security;
(h)	management of any environmental hazards including, but not limited to,:
(i)	contaminated soil;
(ii)	materials and waste;
(iii)	dust;
(iv)	stormwater contamination from run-off and wash-waters;
(v)	sediment from the land on roads;
(vi)	washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery; and
(vii)	spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery;
(i)	the construction program;
(j)	preferred arrangements for trucks delivering to the land, including delivery and unloading points and expected duration and frequency;
(k)	parking facilities for construction workers;
(l)	measures to ensure that all work on the land will be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan;
(m)	an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services;
(n)	an emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;
(o)	the provision of a traffic management plan to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads;
(p)	a Noise and Vibration Management Plan showing methods to minimise noise and vibration impacts on nearby properties and to demonstrate compliance with Noise Control Guideline 12 for Construction (Publication 1834) as issued by the Environment Protection Authority in November 2020. The Noise and Vibration Management Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
In preparing the Noise and Vibration Management Plan, consideration must be given to:
(i)	using lower noise work practice and equipment;
(ii)	the suitability of the land for the use of an electric crane;
(iii)	silencing all mechanical plant by the best practical means using current technology;
(iv)	fitting pneumatic tools with an effective silencer;
(v)	other relevant considerations; and
(q)	any site-specific requirements.
During the construction:
(r)	any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system must be in compliance with Environment Protection Authority guidelines;
(s)	stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the land enters the stormwater drainage system;
(t)	vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the land;
(u)	the cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on the land and not on adjacent footpaths or roads; and
(v)	all litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be disposed of responsibly.
55	If required, the Construction Management Plan may be approved in stages. Construction of each stage must not commence until a Construction Management Plan has been endorsed for that stage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
56	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Construction Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
57	Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, demolition or construction works must not be carried out:
(a)	Monday-Friday (excluding public holidays) before 7 am or after 6 pm;
(b)	Saturdays and public holidays (other than ANZAC Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday) before 9 am or after 3 pm; or
(c)	Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday at any time.
Time expiry
58	This permit will expire if:
(a)	the development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit; and
(b)	the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards for commencement or within twelve months afterwards for completion.
59	The signage component of this permit expires 15 years from the date of the permit.

- End of conditions -