VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P11268/2021
Permit Application no.TP-2020-596 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Melbourne Planning Scheme, HO3, Amendment 396, Demolition, New Addition, Clause 22.04, Clause 43.01     	

Applicants	Michael Tate, Helen Lorino & Others	

Responsible Authority	Melbourne City Council	
Respondent	Alcahosa Pty Ltd	

SUBJECT LAND	4-6 Princess Street
NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	

DATE OF HEARING	26 & 27 April 2022	

DATE OF ORDER	18 May 2022	

CITATION	Tate v Melbourne CC [2022] VCAT 507	

Order
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal: 
Prepared by: 	Ark Studio	
Drawing numbers: 	Rev C TP-008 
Rev F TP-004, SK1001-2 
Rev H TP-006, TP-011 
Rev G TP-007, TP-009 	
Dated: 	28/02/22 	
2	In application P11268/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application TP-2020-596 no permit is granted.

Tracey Bilston-McGillen
Member			
Appearances
For Michael Tate, Helen Lorino & Others	Ms Joanne Lardner, Barrister, instructed by Jackson Lane Legal.  The following witness appeared:
•	Ms Robyn Riddett, Heritage, Anthemion Consultancies	
For Melbourne City Council	Mr Craig Murphy, Manager Planning Appeals.	
For Alcahosa Pty Ltd	Ms Dianne King, King Planning.  The following witness appeared:
•	Mr Bryce Raworth, Heritage, Bryce Raworth Heritage consultants.	

Information
Description of proposal	Partial demolition and construction of a multi-dwelling apartment building.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Melbourne Planning Scheme.	
Zone and overlays	Capital City Zone Schedule 5 (CCZ5).
Heritage Overlay HO3 – North and West Melbourne Heritage Precinct (HO3).
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 61 (DDO61).
Parking Overlay Schedule 1 (PO1).	
Permit requirements	Clause 37.04 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Clause 43.01 a permit is required to demolish or remove a building and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Clause 43.02 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 15, 16, 18, 21.04, 21.06, 21.07, 21.14-1, 22.04, 22.19, 22.23, 52.06, 53.18, 58 and 65.   	
Land description	The site comprises of three titles.  It is rectangular with a site frontage of 10 metres to Princess Street, a depth or eastern boundary of 18 metres to Little Cobden Lane and a total site area of 185 square metres.  
A private lane runs along the site’s northern boundary.  It is identified as a carriageway easement.
The site accommodates two single-storey brick workers cottages fronting Princess Street with vehicle access to the rear of the buildings accessed from Little Cobden Street.  It is understood that the buildings are currently used as dwellings.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the site and surrounds.   	

  Reasons
Background 
1	Alcohosa Pty Ltd (permit applicant) proposes to partially demolish the existing building and construct a three storey development to the rear to accommodate two car parking spaces, four apartments and a roof terrace.  Council issued a notice of decision to grant a permit (NOD) subject to conditions requiring some minor design changes including the maximum building height reduced to 14 metres, apartment 1.01 converted to a studio, a change in colour, internal reconfigurations and screening to north-facing bedroom windows.  A number of these changes were included in the amended plans that were substituted at the hearing.
2	A number of objectors (objectors) oppose the decision and have asked the Tribunal to review Council’s decision.  The objectors submitted that the proposal would result in the erosion of the valued heritage fabric of the heritage place, the heritage precinct within which the subject site is located and the broader heritage significance which assists in making Melbourne the valued place it is.

Figure 1: Review site.  Source Heritage evidence Mr Raworth.

3	The applicant submitted that the proposed development is acceptable having regard to the heritage grading of the building, the physical context of the site and that the impact on adjoining properties has been minimised. 
4	The key issue for discussion relates to the appropriateness of the proposal including demolition and the new addition having regard to the heritage provisions of the Melbourne planning scheme (planning scheme).  
5	I first want to say something about the criticism directed to the heritage advice and evidence.  I was provided with internal Council heritage advice of Ms Gould and heritage evidence from Ms Riddett and Mr Raworth.  
6	As it applies at the time of the decision, the site requires a permit under the HO at clause 43.01 and the applicable policy is at clause 22.04 Heritage Places in the Capital City Zone.  Clause 22.05 Heritage Places Outside the Capital City Zone does not apply.  This site is also part of Amendment C396 (the amendment) to the planning scheme.  The amendment is currently ‘at the Minister’s office’ for approval and all parties agreed that it is a seriously entertained document.  The amendment proposes to replace the previous alphabetical gradings system A, B, C and D graded buildings, with a new 3 tier gradings system that categorises sites as either significant, contributory, or non-contributory, and removes both the streetscape grading and Part B of the heritage policy in clause 22.04.
7	The efficacy of the various heritage statements was questioned but, in my view, there appeared to be some confusion amongst all of the heritage advisers.  In summary, each of the advice and evidence before me included some form of confusion in the assessment including an incorrect assessment made against clause 22.05, the re-submission of evidence to provide an assessment against the relevant clause 22.04 and the absence of an assessment against Part B of clause 22.04 referring only to Part A.  
8	These failings in the heritage assessment were unhelpful, but the issues were not isolated to one person and are reflective of the status of the amendment.  In considering the heritage advice and evidence before me, I note two factors.  First, other than the internal advice, the experts were available to answer questions to all parts and provisions of the planning scheme.  Secondly, experts are called to give their opinion to the Tribunal which assists the Tribunal in its decision making.  I have heard and read the heritage advice and evidence, I have noted the errors and give the advice and evidence the weight in my decision making that I consider appropriate.  
9	Having regard to the submissions, the provisions of the planning scheme and my site inspection, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Council and order that no permit is granted.  Ultimately, my decision came down to the impact of the proposed demolition of part of the roof and the impact of the new addition on the heritage place.  My reasons for this decision follow. 
Reasons for decision
10	This is a case where the planning scheme through the zoning and policies encourages a mid-rise scale of buildings whilst also seeking to conserve and enhance Melbourne's heritage places.  It was put that the management of heritage places in the CCZ5 faces the challenge of the greater intensity of development and different built form outcomes relative to other parts of the city.  I agree with these submissions.  It is important to establish what the planning scheme inform about the vision for the review site, taking into account the suite of policies and provisions applying to the site.
Amendment C396
11	Currently the site is a ‘C’ graded building(s) in a Level 2 streetscape and is to be considered under Part B of clause 22.04.  The following definitions apply:
‘C’ Graded Buildings
These buildings demonstrate the historical or social development of the local area and/ or make an important aesthetic or scientific contribution. These buildings comprise a variety of styles and buildings types. Architecturally they are substantially intact, but where altered, it is reversible. In some instances, buildings of high individual historic, scientific or social significance may have a greater degree of alteration.  
Level 2 Streetscape
These streetscapes are of significance either because they still retain the predominant character and scale of a similar period or style, or because they contain individually significant buildings.
12	The amendment proposes to change the grading of the site to a ‘Contributory heritage place’, it removes the streetscape level grading and also removes Part B of clause 22.04.  The modified policy would only reference Part A.  A ‘contributory’ place is proposed to be defined as: 
‘Contributory’ heritage place: A ‘contributory’ heritage place is important for its contribution to a heritage precinct. It is of historic, aesthetic, scientific, social or spiritual significance to the heritage precinct. A ‘contributory’ heritage place may be valued by the community; a representative example of a place type, period or style; and/or combines with other visually or stylistically related places to demonstrate the historic development of a heritage precinct. ‘Contributory’ places are typically externally intact but may have visible changes which do not detract from the contribution to the heritage precinct. 
13	Given that the amendment proposes to remove Part B and it was agreed the amendment is a seriously entertained document, I find it relevant to consider both Part A and Part B of clause 22.04 in this matter.  
Capital City Zone Schedule 5
14	The CCZ5 seeks to develop City North as a mixed use extension of the Central City and provide for a range of uses.  There is little guidance in the zone regarding development and the zone does not call up any specific objectives or standards for amenity issues such as overlooking or overshadowing but the decision guidelines require consideration as appropriate to consider: 
•	The impact a new development will have on the amenity of existing dwellings on adjacent sites and how this impact has been minimised. 
•	The effect of the proposed works on solar access to existing open spaces and public places.  
•	The provision of solar access to private open space areas in residential development. 
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 61
15	The site is included in DDO61 City North.  This overlay encourages City North to develop as a central city precinct characterised by university, research and medical buildings.  The following design objectives are noted:
•	To establish a mid-rise scale of buildings (6 to 15 storeys) that is distinct from the tall built form in the Hoddle Grid area to the south, which steps down at the interface to the lower scale surrounding established neighbourhoods in North and West Melbourne.
•	To ensure development responds appropriately with suitable building scale, heights and setbacks to the existing character, context, and interfaces with established residential areas, and immediate amenity.
•	To ensure that new buildings respect the rich heritage fabric of the area and that new buildings that adjoin the heritage buildings respect their height, scale, character and proportions.
16	The preferred building height for Princess Street is 24 metres with a 20 metre street edge height and any part of the building above 20 metres must be setback 4 metres from the street.  In relation to building heights, scale and setbacks, a design objective (Table 2) reads:
To ensure that new buildings and works adjoining individually significant heritage buildings or buildings within a heritage precinct respects the character, form, massing and scale of the heritage buildings.
17	It is noted that whilst planning provisions allows a certain height such as 24 metres, this does not automatically mean that height can be achieved on all sites as it is a well-established principle that planning is to be contextual.
Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay
18	Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay seeks to conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance, to conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places and ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.  
19	The review site is located within HO3, the North & West Melbourne Precinct.  The precinct covers a large area, with irregularly shaped boundaries, being defined by the suburbs North Melbourne and West Melbourne.  It is noted that external paint controls apply as a result of this heritage listing, although internal alteration and tree controls do not.  A number of decision guidelines within clause 43.01 include:
The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.
Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.
Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
20	The statement of significance for the North & West Melbourne Precinct is extensive.  Without repeating the entire citation, I have included sections of the citation that were referred to in the hearing:
What is significant?
North and West Melbourne Precinct was developed from the mid-nineteenth century as part of the extension of Melbourne to its north and west during a period of significant population growth. Significant and contributory development in the precinct dates from the mid nineteenth century through to the interwar period, although Victorian development predominates. Some places of heritage value may also be outside this date range. The precinct is mainly residential, but with historic mixed use development, and several commercial streetscapes. Mature street plantings and rows are also part of the significant development of the precinct. 
21	The statement goes on to identify ‘key attributes’ of the precinct which support the significance including but not limited to, the use of materials, hipped roof forms with chimneys, type of buildings including modest workers’ cottages and street layout.  Some of the identified key attributes include:
The following are the identified ‘key attributes’ of the precinct, which support the assessed significance: 
•	Typical nineteenth century building characteristics including: 
o	Use of face brick and rendered masonry building materials, with timber and bluestone indicating earlier buildings. 
o	Hipped roof forms with chimneys and parapets; verandahs which are simply detailed or have more decorative cast iron work; iron palisade fences on stone plinths; and limited or no front and side setbacks. 
o	Comparatively high number of buildings of the 1850s and 1860s.
o	Modest workers’ cottages as the common housing type, often in consistent and repetitive terrace rows, with simple forms and detailing. 
…
Why is it significant?
…
The aesthetic/architectural significance of the North and West Melbourne Precinct largely rests in its Victorian-era development including workers’ cottages, rows of simply detailed modest dwellings, and two- storey terrace houses. 
Clause 22.04 Heritage Places in the Capital City Zone
22	Part B of clause 22.04 applies to buildings graded A to D within the Heritage Places Inventory February 2020 Part B.  It is policy that the following be taken into account when assessing the proposal:
•	The demolition or alteration of any part of a heritage place should not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that that action will contribute to the long-term conservation of the significant fabric of the heritage place
•	All development affecting a heritage precinct should enhance the character of the precinct as described by the following statements of significance.
23	It is noted that clause 22.04 includes a Part A which applies to properties categorised significant, contributory or non-contributory in an incorporated document to this scheme.  Part A is a more detailed provision providing guidance on matters such as new buildings, additions and demolition.

Summary
24	The planning scheme has identified that the review site is in a location where change is encouraged and anticipated.  This part of the city is seen as a mixed use extension of the Central City.  But the heritage overlay seeks to ensure that the proposed development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.  One planning provision such as the encouragement of medium rise development cannot be considered without having regard to other provisions such as the call to ensure the heritage place is not adversely impacted.  The issue here is how competing provisions and policies are balanced.  There is no doubt that the site can be developed, but it must be in a way that does not adversely affect the heritage place.  
Does the proposal represent an acceptable heritage outcome?
25	In considering the proposed development, I highlight the policy basis for clause 22.04 Part B which reads:
Policy Basis
The heritage of the Capital City Zone area, comprising individual buildings, precincts, significant trees, and Aboriginal archaeological sites, is a significant part of Melbourne’s attraction as a place in which to live, visit, do business and invest. It is also important for cultural and sociological reasons, providing a distinctive historical character and a sense of continuity. Much of Melbourne’s charm is provided by its older buildings, which, while not always of high individual significance, together provide cultural significance or interest, and should be retained in their three dimensional form, not as two dimensional façades as has sometimes occurred.
26	The policy informs us that Melbourne’s historical character and sense of community is created from its older buildings, which are not always individually significant but together ‘provide cultural significance or interest, and should be retained in their three dimensional form, not as two dimensional façades as has sometimes occurred’.  The review site comprising of the two workers cottages are not individually significant but together contribute to the historic character of Melbourne and the precinct.  Further policy reads:
The demolition or alteration of any part of a heritage place should not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that that action will contribute to the long-term conservation of the significant fabric of the heritage place.
27	I find that the proposed part demolition and addition are not ‘needed’ to ensure the long-term conservation of the buildings.  I further find, as discussed below, that the proposed part demolition and addition fails to achieve policy that seeks to ensure that historic buildings are retained in their three dimensional form.
Demolition

Figure 2: The east elevation of Little Cobden Street looking south.  Source Ms Riddett evidence statement.
28	A key issue is the proposed extent of demolition.  It is proposed to demolish part of the building commencing north of the chimney which includes a portion of the roof.  In other words, it is proposed to retain the front part of the building to a depth of 7 metres from the front façade.  The roof form is retained at the front but truncated to the rear. 

Figure 3: Red line details the proposed extent of demolition to the existing roof and proposed development.
29	It was put in submission that Council’s delegate Planner supported the extent of demolition submitting that the retention of the front 7 metres including the chimneys is considered acceptable and avoids a ‘facadism’ outcome.  Council further stated that whilst the demolition will comprise a small section of the existing hipped roof, this section will be reconstructed and subsequently concealed when viewed from Little Cobden Street by the new building.  Council’s internal heritage advisor held a different view recommending that the ‘whole of the front wing for each dwelling, complete with the hipped roof, should be retained (approximately 8.2 metres in depth) and the east elevation complete with double hung windows should be retained for the depth of the front wing’.  It was further put that: 
•	The partial demolition in the case of significant buildings, and of significant elements or the front or principal part of contributory buildings will not generally be permitted.  
•	Retention of the three dimensional form is encouraged; facadism is discouraged. 
30	It was Mr Raworth’s evidence that the extent of demolition is appropriate because (in summary):
•	The front portion of the heritage building is to be retained to a depth of 7 metres.  Whilst this does not strictly comply with the 8-10 metres depth encouraged by policy, given the length of the site at 18.32 metres, it is considered acceptable. 
•	Largely the fabric to be demolished comprises the later rear additions. 
•	The roof form above is retained, with the rear hipped form to be slightly remodelled to a shortened form, aligning with the retained fabric below. 
•	Council’s delegate supported the extent of demolition.  It was further noted that the proposal allowed for the continued use of the heritage building. 
31	Ms Riddett on the other hand submitted that the extent of demolition was not supported because (in summary):
•	The extent of demolition will affect the appearance of the streetscape and area. 
•	The demolition will not contribute to the long-term conservation of the significant fabric of the buildings.  A lesser degree of demolition might be acceptable. 
•	Demolition as proposed is not essential to adaptive re-use of the property. 
•	Demolition as proposed is not respectful of the existing buildings.  It was submitted that a section of the skillion to the north of the downpipe could be removed as it appears to be an addition.  Further, the demolition as proposed would not be respectful, will not be reversible and would distort the physical evidence of the place as it existed/s. 
•	Demolition as proposed does not comply with clause 22.04 Part B.
32	I do not support the extent of demolition proposed.  I am persuaded by the evidence of Ms Riddett and the Council’s internal Heritage advisor that the extent of demolition would detract from the heritage place and from the existing building(s).  I make this decision for the following reasons.
33	Should the whole roof be retained as it currently exists or can it be partly removed and retain 7 metres?  It is my view that a 7 metre retention results in the existing hipped roof being altered and I am persuaded that such a proposal/extent of demolition, would distort the ‘physical evidence of the place as it existed/s’.  
34	I am persuaded that the angle of the roof slope to the north is visible from Little Cobden Street, as a result of the proposed demolition, this would change and no longer reflect the slope of the southern part of the roof.  The fabric of the original roof would be altered permanently.  This is a corner property where the whole building is visible from several vantage points including Little Cobden Street.  It is relevant that the existing building and roof will be visible from Little Cobden Street.  The significance of the site is not only viewed from Princess Street but due to its corner location, it is visible, almost, ‘in the round’.  Whilst it is a small site, it has several viewing points.  
35	In considering the proposed demolition in the context of heritage policy, as stated earlier, I will refer to clause 22.04, the current Part B as well as the proposed Part A.  Referring to clause 22.04 Part B, policy reads:
•	The demolition or alteration of any part of a heritage place should not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that that action will contribute to the long-term conservation of the significant fabric of the heritage place.
36	Clause 22.04, Part A reads:
•	To encourage retention of the three dimensional fabric and form of a building.
•	To discourage facadism.
37	In terms of demolition, Part A states:
•	Full demolition of significant or contributory buildings will not generally be permitted. 
•	Partial demolition in the case of significant buildings, and of significant elements or the front or principal part of contributory buildings will not generally be permitted.
•	Retention of the three dimensional form is encouraged; facadism is discouraged. 
38	The definition of front or principal part of a building as contained in clause 22.04 Part A is:
Front or principal part of a building  
The front or principal part of a building is generally considered to be the front two rooms in depth, complete with the structure and cladding to the roof; or that part of the building associated with the primary roof form, whichever is the greater. For residential buildings this is generally 8-10 metres in depth. 
For most non-residential buildings, the front or principal part is generally considered to be one full structural bay in depth complete with the structure and cladding to the roof or generally 8-10 metres in depth.  
For corner sites, the front or principal part of a building includes the side street elevation.  
For sites with more than one street frontage, the front or principal part of a building may relate to each street frontage. 
39	Policy seeks the retention of the front or principal part of a building and for residential buildings, this is generally 8-10 metres.  I find that policy seeking the retention of the front part of the contributory building should be complied with as I am not persuaded there should be a departure from this policy.  The site is currently a ‘C’ graded building with a future identification as a ‘contributory building’.  The building has heritage value to the street and the heritage place HO3 and this should be further recognised in the proposed development.  The site is also a corner site with the definition of a front or principal part of a building including the side street elevation.  
40	The site is appreciated as two 1870s workers cottages, a form that is described in the Statement of Significance for HO3.  As the Statement of Significance details, the site appears as modest worker’s cottages with simple forms and detailing, has hipped roof forms with chimneys and limited or not front or side setbacks.  Due to the proposed change to the roof, I find the original fabric of the cottages would not be appreciated.  The roof is proposed to be distorted therefore the proportions of the cottage as viewed from Little Cobden Street will alter.  I find that the proposed extent of roof demolition (and subsequent new development impact discussed below) is not supported by current or proposed heritage policy. 

New addition 
41	The heritage issue with the new addition is the relationship between the workers cottages and the new three storey building.  Specifically, is the separation sufficient to ensure the workers cottages remain legible and that there is no adverse impact on the heritage place.
42	The site is located in an area that under DDO61 can be developed up to a height of 24 metres.  The proposed new building is approximately 14 metres.     

Figure 4: Proposed southern elevation to Princess Street.  Source Plans prepared by Ark Studios. 

43	The applicant submitted that the proposed development is appropriate as it retains the three dimensional form including the chimneys and it is visually separated from and does not project over the heritage building.  It was further submitted that clause 22.04 does not seek to conceal higher rear parts (of heritage buildings).  It was noted that the backdrop from Princess Street presents with modern buildings up to 5 storeys high. 
44	It was the evidence of Mr Raworth that the proposed new building is appropriate because:
•	The proposed upper levels, when viewed from Princess Street, will read as distant rear-built form, in accordance with heritage policy.
•	The massing of the upper levels of the scheme is set back from the front facade of the heritage building by 7 metres. The proposed 7 metre setback is sufficient to allow the heritage building to retain its prominence as viewed from Princess Street.
•	The development to the rear, while proposed to be appreciably taller than the existing building and the ‘low scale character of one and two storeys, with some larger three storey buildings’ of the North and West Melbourne Precinct, can be considered acceptable from a heritage perspective.  It was further noted that the site is not located within a fine grain streetscape.  
•	The taller surrounding built form provides a setting within which a development of scale can reasonably be considered, as do the considerations arising from the applicable Design and Development Overlay, that includes a maximum height of 24 metres for the area which the development does not exceed with a proposed height of 14 metres.
45	It was contended that the primary value of the building(s) within the streetscape primarily rests with the front parts, which are to be retained with minimal alteration.  I agree that within the surrounding area there is considerable height, noting that it is within the area developed with some of Melbourne’s premier educational, research and medical uses.  I also acknowledge that the CCZ5 refers to a height of 24 metres applying to this site.  However, the key constraints of the site include not only its heritage status but its size.  It is small and accommodates two workers cottages which constrain future development.  
46	As part of the permit applicant’s overall submission, it was also put that the new building would be read as a ‘distant rear built form’.  I am not persuaded by this submission.  The proposed four storey building proposed to be setback 7 metres from the front façade (which is the front boundary) of the cottages.  There were no sight lines provided of the proposed addition from Princess Street but nevertheless I do not consider 7 metres to be a sufficient enough distance to be considered ‘distant rear’.  The proposed addition is a taller building to 14 metres with minimal separation from the existing cottages.  Whilst the building does not cantilever the existing cottages, the proposed separation as detailed in Figure 3 is minimal.
47	It was submitted that the addition is acceptable as the insertion of glazing between the existing building and the proposed addition ensures that the heritage building will be read as a separate, distinguishable component.  The proposed building has been provided with a separation from the existing cottages before it rises to three storeys.  The separation of the new addition is possible because of the modification to the existing roof and the roof is truncated to allow for a glass entry.  A separation is appropriate however, as I have concluded above, my key concern with the proposed development is the extent of demolition to the existing roof and having regard to the new addition, it will overwhelm the two cottages detracting from their significance.  
48	It was submitted that the backdrop from Princess Street already presents with modern building form up to a height of five storeys along Little Cobden Street and the surrounds.  I acknowledge that there are higher forms behind and around the review site but the five storey building is setback on a different site and without heritage buildings.  As proposed, I find that the new building will distort the view of the original cottages because it will have a modified roof and is only setback 7 metres from the front façade of the existing building.  The building will be visually imposing particularly from Little Cobden Street and this would impact their visual impact in the heritage HO3 place.  
49	I acknowledge the area is a mix of heritage and contemporary built form and some built form of varying heights.  I agree with the submissions that planning is contextual, but despite the varying height of surrounding built form, I find the proposed addition will overwhelm the existing cottages in its current form.  I find that the proposed addition would not enhance the heritage place.  
Summary
50	As discussed above, I find that the proposed part demolition and new addition fails to achieve policies contained in clause 22.04 and the proposed overlay at clause 43.01 that seek to ensure that the proposed part demolition and new building would not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.  
Other matters
51	There were a number of other matters raised including the discussion of windows on boundaries, car parking and a discussion of conditions.  Given I have refused the proposed development on matters of heritage, I will not provide comment on these other matters but I make the observation that these issues such as car parking and the windows on the boundary were not contested could have been addressed by condition.  
Conclusion
52	This is a challenging site to develop.  The CCZ5 zoning offers opportunities for development given its location as an extension of the Central City.  However, the site is also included in the HO3, the North & West Melbourne Precinct.  The site has limitations due to the accommodation of the two workers cottages dating around 1870s and it is a small site of 185 square metres.  
53	I agree with the proposition that the site can be redeveloped, but it must do so in a more respectful way to the existing workers cottages.  Whilst it may appear the case focussed on the extent of demolition of the roof, 7 metres versus 8.2 metres, the implications of the demolition were ‘more than a mere 1.2 metres’.  I find that it is possible to retain the roof in its current form and develop the site to the rear, albeit a smaller footprint.  
54	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside and no permit is issued.

Tracey Bilston-McGillen
Member