VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P11992/2021
Permit Application no.TP-490/2018(2) 	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under Section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Maribyrnong Planning Scheme; Footscray Activity Centre Zone; amenity impacts, car parking and traffic impacts; Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1); Special Building Overlay (SBO); Parking Overlay (PO2).	

Applicant	Anplus Developments Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Maribyrnong City Council	
RespondentS	Benjamin Robert Hopper	
	Duncan Hillier	
	Michael Trotto	
	Vesna Dupor	

SUBJECT LAND	43-57 Buckley Street
SEDDON VIC 3011	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	27, 28 and 29 June 2022	

DATE OF ORDER	17 November 2022	

CITATION	Anplus Developments Pty Ltd v Maribyrnong CC (No2) [2022] VCAT 1311	
Order
1	The application is allowed. Pursuant to section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Planning Permit No TP-490/2018(2) issued by the responsible authority in respect of the subject land, is amended as follows.
(a)	Conditions in the permit are amended as set out in Appendix A. 
2	The responsible authority is directed to amend the permit and issue an amended permit to the owner of the subject land pursuant to section 91 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Shiran Wickramasinghe
Member		Stephen Axford
Member	

Appearances
For applicant	Jeremy Gobbo KC and Jennifer Trewhella, Barristers instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers
They called the following witnesses:
•	Stuart McGurn , town planner of Urbis
•	Justin Ganly, retail consultant, of Deepend services
•	Stephen Hunt, traffic engineer of Ratio Consultants
•	Matthew Shields, acoustic engineer of Acoustic Logic	
For responsible authority	James Lofting, Solicitor of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers	
For Benjamin Robert Hopper	In person	
For Vesna Dupor	In person	
For Duncan Hillier	No appearance	
For Michael Trotto	No appearance	

Information
Description of proposal	Application to amend the planning permit seeking changes within Stage 3 to Building 1 that is to be located in the north-west portion of the site.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to amend planning permit TP490/2018 (2)	
Planning scheme	Maribyrnong Planning Scheme (Planning Scheme)	
Zone and overlays	Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1)
Special Building Overlay (SBO1)
Parking Overlay (PO2)
Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO)	
Permit requirements	Clause 37.08-2 – permit required to use land for a retail premises within the ACZ1
Clause 37.08-5 – permit required to construct a building and construct or carry out works on land within the ACZ1
Clause 44.05-2 – permit required to construct a building and construct or carry out works on land in a SBO1
Clause 52.06-3 and Clause 45.09-3 permit required to reduce the minimum car parking requirement for residential visitors and to provide more than the maximum number of spaces for dwelling residents
Clause 52.17 – permit required to remove native vegetation
Clause 52.29 – permit required to alter an access to a road in a Transport Zone, Category 2	
		
Land description	The site is currently vacant, has an area of 1.43 hectares and is located at the southern boundary of the Footscray Major Activity Centre (MAC). 
The site is bounded by Buckley Street to the north, Albert Street to the east, Walter Street to the south and Arran Street to the west.
The site adjoins a low-scale residential precinct to the south and west which is predominantly developed with single dwellings and multi-dwelling developments. A pocket of four-storey apartment developments is located further to the west.	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied inspection on 29 June 2022  	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This application seeks approval to amend Planning Permit TP-490/2018(2) pursuant to section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act). The proposed amendments are to that part of the development known as Stage 3, Building 1, that is to be constructed in the north-west section of the site as shown in the plan below:

Figure (1) Overall site staging plan. Source: Council submission
2	The proposed amendments are summarised as follows: 
•	An additional four dwellings (an increase from 168 to 172) located within the upper seven levels.
•	Increased net leasable floor area for the commercial area (from 829.1sqm to 1,520.4sqm) by combining the (approved) lower ground floor and ground floor retail spaces (6) into (proposed) one larger and extended retail space on the lower ground floor as shown in the diagram below to be used as: 
o	a shop (1,001sqm) 
o	‘back of house’ preparation area (216.1sqm) and 
o	a loading dock area (198sqm) (including a waste storage area and compactor) 

Figure (2) Proposed upper ground floor plan showing location of supermarket, office and small retail to the west and car park entry and loading dock to the south. Source: Council submission
•	A loading dock to be accessed via Arran Street from Buckley Street and to use an 8.8 Medium Rigid Vehicle (MRV) for site deliveries and waste collection (retail premises). 
•	Proposed office (158.4sqm) on the eastern side of the building at the lower ground floor level adjacent to the retail premises along with a food and drink premises (144.9sqm), located adjacent to the proposed 'Central Plaza' in place of dwellings.
•	Inclusion of a basement level comprising 136 car spaces, 9 motorcycle spaces and 26 bicycle spaces. This results in an increase of residential car parking spaces from 160 to 182, an increase in visitor/retail customer car parks from 19 to 34 and increase in retail staff/office staff parking spaces from zero to 9.

Figure (3) Basement plan. Source: Council submission
•	Removal of the vehicle entrance to the building on Arran Street, with access consolidated into the central lane entrance between Buildings 1 and 2. 
•	Reconfiguration of the building entrance in the north-west corner and reconfiguration of the south-east corner entrance with a parcel collection area and building manager’s quarters. 
•	Relocation of bin rooms to basement. 
•	Reconfiguration of dwellings facing Arran Street to two-storey lot typologies. 
•	Awning along Arran Street extended along pedestrian walkway. 
•	Minor cladding and material changes, rooftop service locations and core location. 
•	Increase in roof height by approximately 0.65 metres through increases in internal floor to ceiling height levels. We were informed the increased levels were necessary mainly to accommodate structural requirements relating to conditions imposed by the previous Tribunal, although it was acknowledged that the decision to place parking in a basement also requires deeper structural elements that also contribute to the change.
3	The applicant argues that these changes are relatively minor, as the built form remains largely the same as approved by the previous Tribunal. As a result, it says the issues before us are confined to the changes proposed.
4	Council supports the proposed amendments subject to conditions. 
5	The respondents oppose the proposed amendments on grounds relating to the amendments constituting a transformation and not allowable under section 87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, impact on neighbourhood character, unacceptable increase in density and amenity impacts relating to increased building height, traffic, access, vehicle movement, car parking, overshadowing and policy relating to the establishment of a supermarket.
background
6	With respect to the planning permit history of the site the Council officer report states that Planning Permit TP490/2018 was issued on 17 September 2019 at the direction of the Tribunal and allowed: 
•	“In accordance with the endorsed plans: 
o	To use land for retail premises 
o	To construct a building and construct or carry out works 
o	To remove native vegetation 
o	To reduce the minimum car parking requirement for residential visitors and to provide more than the maximum number of spaces for three bedroom dwellings 
o	To alter an access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 
o	Waiving of Car Parking Requirement.” 
7	The permit applicant wrote to the Tribunal and sought consent from the parties to consider a correction shortly after and the Tribunal ordered that two of the conditions be corrected. A corrected permit was issued on 3 December 2020. 
8	The applicant sought minor amendments to the planning permit pursuant to section 72 of the Act to clarify the staging of the development and allow plans and particular documents to be endorsed as per staging. The amended planning permit (TP490/2018(2)) was issued on 8 July 2020. As part of this, Condition No. 16 was corrected to refer to public open space. 
9	Plans and supporting documents for Stage 1 (Building 3) were endorsed on 26 May 2021. 
10	Plans and supporting documents for Stage 2 (Building 2) have been submitted to the Council but are yet to be endorsed. 
11	The development has not commenced. The permit expires on 17 September 2023 for commencement of the development.

What are the key issues?
12	The key issues in this application are:
•	Scope of an application pursuant to section 87A of the Act.
•	Is the proposal consistent with the relevant planning policies of the Planning Scheme?  
•	Is the proposal an appropriate built form response to its context?
•	Are the change to the retail arrangements acceptable?
•	Will there be any unacceptable amenity impacts?
•	Will there be any unacceptable car parking and traffic impacts?
13	Having considered the submissions and evidence with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme, assisted by our site inspection, we have determined to allow the application and amend the permit. Our reasons are as follows.
What is the relevant planning context?
14	The subject site is located within the ACZ1 and the relevant purposes include:
•	To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	To encourage a mixture of uses and the intensive development of the activity centre:
o	As a focus for business, shopping, working, housing, leisure, transport and community facilities.
o	To support sustainable urban outcomes that maximise the use of infrastructure and public transport.
•	To deliver a diversity of housing at higher densities to make optimum use of the facilities and services.
•	To create through good urban design an attractive, pleasant, walkable, safe and stimulating environment.
•	To facilitate use and development of land in accordance with the Development Framework for the activity centre.
15	Pursuant to clause 3.0 of the schedule to the ACZ1, the use of the land for a dwelling does not require a permit (ie. it is ‘as-of-right’).
16	The ACZ1 outlines various objectives relating to land use and development of the whole ACZ1 area. Specifically, the site is located in Precinct 6: Peripheral Activity, Sub Precinct 6B. Objectives, requirements and guidelines apply to this precinct include:
•	Objectives:
o	To support the growing mixed-use character of the precinct with an emphasis on employment uses, commercial services and small businesses which support the regional role of the MAC.
o	To support development along main street frontages that provides for a variety of activity on ground floor that can accommodate a range of uses that will activate the street.
o	To encourage shops along Barkly Street that complement the retail core of the MAC.
o	To encourage medical, community and health services in Paisley Street.
o	To encourage employment related uses including offices and small business.
o	To encourage residential development which appropriately responds to surrounding land uses and provides good amenity for future residents.
o	To preserve identified heritage buildings and incorporate new developments.
o	To ensure new development is compatible with nearby dwellings.
o	To provide additional open space to serve the southern part of the activity centre as part of any redevelopment of the bus depot.
o	To ensure development in areas identified as Transition Areas is designed to make an appropriate transition in height, scale and built form to adjoining residential areas.
o	To increase pedestrian permeability between Barkly and Paisley Street and investigate related crossings over Paisley Street.
o	To facilitate provision of car parking thus minimising the need within the central precinct whilst ensuring parking provision minimises the impact on pedestrians caused by blank walls and accessways.
•	Requirements (preferred):
o	6 storeys (19.2 metres)
o	2 to 3 storeys (6.4-9.6 metres) at street frontage / podium level
•	Guidelines:
o	Buildings within the Transition Area should provide appropriate reductions in building height and mass toward the existing lower scale buildings at the interface and should not exceed 3storeys within the transition area.
o	Side setbacks should reflect the existing context within the MAC and should maintain a continuous street wall frontage, where appropriate along key streets such as Barkly Street and Buckley Street.
o	Larger sites should accommodate medium density development to maximise land use, whilst maintaining the existing fine grain, active streetscape presentation.
o	When new development adjoins heritage buildings, the design should take into consideration the height, scale, rhythm and proportions of the heritage buildings including characteristic, fine-grain frontage widths.
o	New development should seek to reflect the minor setback condition of residential streetscapes, such as Paisley Street and Buckley Street through landscape treatments or gardens, providing a point of difference between the retail core and peripheral activity precincts.
o	Tower forms at upper levels should be set back from the streetscape at least 5 metres, to reduce visual bulk and the effect of wind downdrafts.
17	The precinct map at clause 5.6-1 locates the site at the precinct and activity centre boundary. Transition areas to lower built form are shown along the south boundary, and along the west boundary (from the rear of properties fronting Buckley Street). An extract of the map is shown below.

18	The site is subject to the EAO1 at clause 45.03 which requires a preliminary risk screen assessment, environmental audit, certificate of environmental audit or statement of environmental audit to be completed before a sensitive use commences.
19	The site is within the PO2. This overlay seeks to limit car parking within the MAC area. Pursuant to clause 2.0 of the Schedule 2, a permit is required to reduce car parking below the rates set out at clause 3.0.
20	The site is within the SBO1. Pursuant to clause 44.05-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Additionally, an application must be referred to Melbourne Water as the relevant floodplain management authority pursuant to clause 44.05-6.
21	Clause 52.06 sets out car parking rates and car park design requirements. A permit is not required under this clause for the reduction of visitor car parking given it is located within 400 metres of the Principal Public Transport Network.
22	Clause 52.17-1 requires a permit to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation.
23	Clause 52.29, Land Adjacent to the Principal Road Network requires a planning permit to create or alter access to a road in a Transport Zone 2 (Clause 52.29-2). Further, an application must be referred to the Head, Transport for Victoria (clause 52.29-4).
24	Clause 52.34, Bicycle Parking  provides the bicycle parking rates for different uses.
25	Clause 58, Apartment Development sets out design objectives and standards for apartment buildings over 5 storeys.
26	Clause 66.02-11, Integrated Public Transport Planning requires a residential development comprising 60 or more dwellings to be referred to the Head, Transport for Victoria.
27	Clause 11.01-1R, Settlement – Metropolitan Melbourne  seeks to focus investment and growth in places of state significance, including in Metropolitan Activity Centres. The ‘Melbourne 2050 spatial framework’ at this clause nominates Footscray as a Metropolitan Activity Centre.
28	Clause 11.03-1R ‘Activity Centres - Metropolitan Melbourne’ seeks to support the development and growth of Metropolitan Activity Centres by ensuring they:
•	Are able to accommodate significant growth for a broad range of land uses.
•	Are supported with appropriate infrastructure.
•	Are hubs for public transport services.
•	Offer good connectivity for a regional catchment.
•	Provide high levels of amenity.
29	Clause 15.01-1S ‘Urban design’ encourages outcomes that contribute positively to the local character, enhance the public realm, and minimise detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties. Planning must consider the Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria and Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria ‘as relevant’ (clause 15.01-2S, Building design).
30	Clause 15.01-5S ‘Neighbourhood character’ encourages new development to respond to its context and the valued cultural characterises and features of the local environment.
31	Clause 16.01-1S ‘Housing supply’ promotes the provision of housing to meet community needs, in part by increasing ‘the proportion of housing in designated locations in established urban areas (including under-utilised urban land) and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield, fringe and dispersed development areas’. It also encourages higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to jobs, services and public transport’ and seeks to ‘Ensure an adequate supply of redevelopment opportunities within established urban areas to reduce the pressure for fringe development’.
32	Clause 16.01-1R ‘Housing supply - Metropolitan Melbourne’ identifies the opportunities for medium and higher density housing in various areas including ‘Metropolitan activity centres and major activity centres’.
33	Clause 17.02-1S ‘Business’ has the objective ‘To encourage development which meet the community’s needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services’ and to ensure ‘commercial facilities….provide net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities’.
34	Clause 21.03 ‘Council Vision’ establishes a vision for 2030 that the City of Maribyrnong will be ‘a popular inner city municipality with a vibrant and diverse community, a strong identify and a prosperous modern economy’. The Land Use Framework Plan at this clause identifies Footscray as a Principal Activity Centre.
35	Relevantly, Clause 21.04-1 ‘Activity Centre Planning’ includes the following objectives:
Objective 2
•	To transform the Footscray CAD, Highpoint PAC and Central West MAC into mixed use retail, commercial, residential and community services centres with a sense of place.
Objective 3
•	To develop centres in accordance with their place in the activity centre hierarchy.
36	Clause 21.04-2 ‘Housing Growth’ seeks to ‘accommodate between 14,000 and 16,000 additional households by 2031’ and ‘direct most of the residential development to identified substantial change areas, and substantial change activity centres’.
37	Clause 21.07-1 ‘Residential capacity and location’ identifies the Footscray Central Activities District as a ‘substantial change activity centre’ that will ‘assume a stronger role and greater capacity for substantial medium and higher density housing developments’.
38	Clause 21.08-1 ‘Retail’ and Clause 21.08-2 ‘Office’ encourages these uses in the Footscray Central Activities District.
39	Clause 21.11-1 ‘Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre’ identifies the Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre (FMAC) as the most regionally significant activity centre of Melbourne’s west. Relevant objectives and relevant strategies include:
Objective 1
To accommodate an increased residential population in Footscray MAC and a more diverse dwelling mix.
Strategies (selected as relevant)
Support increased residential densities in keeping with the level of change identified for precincts across the FMAC and increase opportunities to live close to transport and services.
Provide for a diversity of dwelling types, sizes and tenures across the FMAC, including higher density dwellings, shop top housing, affordable housing and student housing.
Objective 2
To support/generate local opportunities for employment and business through new development.
Strategies (selected as relevant)
Focus retail activity and growth within the core of the centre. Attract uses offering a mix of employment opportunities, including increasing the supply of office space and encouraging creative industries.
Objective 3
To ensure new development is of high quality design, environmentally sustainable and has regard for the existing built form context.
Strategies (selected as relevant)
Direct site responsive and sensitively designed higher density development and taller built form to transformational significant change precincts.
Objective 6
To ensure the centre is well served by accessible high quality public open space and community infrastructure to meet community needs.
Strategies (selected as relevant)
Provide for new community facilities, including within large new developments.
Ensure developers contribute towards the provision of community infrastructure.
Ensure new development enhances the open space network.
Provide for diverse sporting facilities.
40	The Footscray Metropolitan Activity Centre Framework Plan at clause 21.11-1 shows the site in Precinct 6 (South) which envisages moderate built form heights. A potential plaza is located in the north-east corner of the site.
41	The Footscray Structure Plan is a reference document at clause 21.12 ‘Reference Documents’ and formed the strategic basis for the ACZ1 provisions. It was prepared in 2013 and adopted in 2014. As with the ACZ1, the site is located in Precinct 6 (South) which is designated for peripheral activity with moderate heights. Key directives for the site include:
•	The site identified as a potential development site
•	Transition areas are noted along the east and south boundaries
•	A potential park and playground are shown in the north-east corner
•	The proposed height is noted as 1-3 storeys
42	The Footscray Structure Plan is a reference document at Clause 21.12 ‘Reference Documents’ and also informed the ACZ1 provisions. It was originally prepared in 2005, updated in 2010 and most recently revised in 2012. Key directives for the site include:
•	The site is in a medium scale area with an anticipated height of 2-6 storeys
•	Upper levels should be set back at least 5 metres from the streetscape and side and rear boundaries to reduce visual bulk and moderate wind effects
SCOPE OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO section 87A OF the act.
43	The respondents raised concern at the use of the amendment process under section 87A of the Act. They say the proposed amendment will constitute a transformation and is not allowable under section 87A as it increases retail space from 829.1 metres squared to 1520.4 metres squared, introduces a loading bay to be accessed from Arran Street that will be used by 8.8 metre long trucks and increases the number of car spaces for Building 1 from 179 to 225. The respondents made the following submissions with respect to  these matters.
17.	In determining if it is appropriate to amend a permit, the Tribunal does not have an unfettered discretion.
18.	The Tribunal must apply the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme (the Scheme) in this hearing, and must take account of the number of objectors. This is clear from the following. 
19.	In determining a request under P&E Act, s 87A, the Tribunal must take into account the matters set out in s 84B(2) as if the request were an application for review (P&E Act, s 90A). Section 84B(2) provides in relevant part:
In determining an application for review under this Act, in addition to the matters referred to in subsection (1), the Tribunal—
(a)	must take into account any relevant planning scheme;
(b)	must have regard to the objectives of planning in Victoria;
…
(f)	must (where appropriate) take account of the extent to which persons residing or owning land in the vicinity of the land which is the subject of the application for review were able to and in fact did participate in the procedures required to be followed under this Act before the responsible authority could make a decision in respect of the application for a permit;
…
(jb)	must (where appropriate) have regard to the number of objectors in considering whether the use or development may have a significant social effect. 
44	In response the applicant submitted as follows:
As this is an application pursuant to s 87A of the PE Act it is useful to set out the principles relevant to an amendment application. The Tribunal, in Gurner 26-56 Queens Parade Pty Ltd v Yarra CC  set out the principles as follows: 
We were referred to several Tribunal decisions which have considered the scope of the Tribunal’s powers to amend a permit under s 87A. The principles that emerge from those decisions were conveniently and accurately summarised for us by Ms Brennan QC as follows: 
•	Amendments which are quite substantial can be made, and new primary permissions can be granted by way of amendment to an existing permit. However, the power to amend does not include the power to change the permit into something that creates new, substantive rights that are fundamentally different to the permission granted by the permit (i.e. a ‘transformation’ of the permit or of the rights granted by the permit). 
•	In the absence of a change of circumstance or some other good and sound reason, key or core components of a Tribunal determination or mediated settlements should generally not be undone via a s87A application. 
•	The scope of consideration of a s87A proceeding is confined to the proposed changes. A debate about the entirety of the approved development is not re-opened. 
•	The amendments must be assessed on their own merits, and not by reference to whether they are “better” or “worse” than the situation approved under the current permit. 
•	In assessing the planning merits of the amendment, the relevant test in the exercise of the discretion is whether the proposal would result in an acceptable planning outcome as opposed to an ideal outcome when having regard to the relevant planning policies currently applicable to the subject land and not the policies that were in place at the time of the original grant of the permit. 
•	The applicant adopted the principles enunciated by the Council. The objectors did not in any substantive way challenge the principles outlined above. 
We have adopted these principles because they have emerged over many years from a long line of consistent Tribunal decisions, none of which have been challenged in higher courts, and because they represent a reasoned and balanced approach to the powers available to the Tribunal under s 87A.
Tribunal Findings
45	Section 87A, allows a permit holder to request the Tribunal to amend a permit issued at its direction, if it considers it appropriate to do so. When considering an application to amend a permit the Tribunal must have regard to the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme.
46	With respect to the relevant Planning Scheme provisions it is noteworthy the amendment amongst other changes as previously detailed seeks to include a “shop” use in addition to retail in what the permit allows to enable establishment of the supermarket and introduce an office use that is as-of-right in a ACZ1. 
47	We find the proposal to be within the scope of an application for amendment under Section 87A of the Act and generally consistent with the principles adopted by the Tribunal as submitted by the applicant. We find the inclusion of a shop use to enable establishment of the supermarket in the context of a retail use previously approved and the proposed office use (158.4 metres squared) which is an as-of-right use is not a transformation of the approved development. We regard the increase in the number of dwelling from 168 to 172, and changes to the parking and loading dock arrangements as not sufficient to constitute a transformation. In this context we must consider the acceptability of the proposed amendments having regard to the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme.

Is the proposal consistent with the relevant planning policies of the Planning Scheme?
48	The planning policy context of the site and the acceptability of the approved development was well documented in the in the previous Tribunal decision. With respect to the proposed amendments, the applicant submitted the planning controls and policies that applied to the site are essentially unchanged from those at the time of the previous Tribunal decision and stated the following:
32.	The Decision provides the following summary of the strategic context of the land: 
25.	The review site provides an exceptional opportunity to achieve all of these policy objectives. It is very large, at 14,300 square metres, surrounded on all four sides by roads, two of which are main roads. It is also underutilised land, being a former bus depot that has relatively recently closed down, and is now vacant. 
26.	With these attributes, the review site can assist in implementing the overarching policy themes for this part of the FMAC, playing its role of providing for more intense urban development in metropolitan Melbourne, including the provision of higher density housing. The key dispute in this proceeding is the extent to which the proposed built form should achieve those broader urban consolidation objectives, whilst balancing competing policies which seek an appropriate transition to the residential areas, and the provision of public open space. This key dispute is addressed in the analysis that follows.
49	The applicant further submitted that the land remains in the ACZ1 and is subject to: 
•	the Environmental Audit Overlay (whole site); 
•	the Parking Overlay – Schedule 2 (PO2) (whole site); and 
•	the Special Building Overlay (SBO) (north eastern corner of the site). 
50	The Land is located within Precinct 6: Peripheral Activity, Sub-precinct B south within the ACZ1. With respect to Precinct 6, the relevant objectives within the ACZ1 were detailed in an earlier section of these reasons.
51	The zoning of land surrounding Building 1 was stated by the applicant to be as follows: 
a)	land to the west, fronting Arran Street is in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (GRZ1) and is not affected by any overlay, and immediately behind the lots fronting Arran Street there is a pocket of land straddling Bute Street which is in the Mixed Use Zone. Given the land along Arran Street is within the GRZ1, is not affected by any overlay, and is immediately adjoined by a three and four storey building along the western boundary, it is reasonable to contemplate that this land may be redeveloped in the future for dwellings of 3 storeys and up to 11m in height; and 
b)	land to the north, over Buckley Street is in the ACZ1; and 
c)	land to the east, within the Site, is also in the ACZ1. 
Tribunal Findings
52	Having considered all the relevant matters, it is evident there is continued strategic support for the approved development and the development as proposed by the amendment in this location. The proposed amendments retain the residential and retail, uses previously permitted that also included residential and retail albeit now with the inclusion of a shop and office use. These uses are generally consistent with the relevant objectives of  Precinct 6, within the ACZ1 for the site that include support for the growth of the mixed use character of the precinct, activating street frontages, encouraging office uses, and encouraging residential development which appropriately responds to surrounding land uses. 
53	The key planning policy consideration from a land use assessment relates to the reconfiguration of the ground floor that seeks to consolidate the six approved tenancies into one and expand the retail area from 829.1 metres squared to 1,145.9 metres squared of net leasable area This matter is considered in the following section of our decision. 
Are the changes to the retail arrangements acceptable?
54	The amended plans propose to combine what was previously six small retail outlets addressing Buckley Street (with one having its entrance off Arran Street), a single larger retail space for a supermarket use, and an entrance lobby to the residential units. Both would have their entrances off Buckley Street. 
55	The Council supports this change because it finds the supermarket use as proposed is not of large enough floor area to compete with existing supermarkets such as the “full line” Coles supermarket in the Footscray MAC. Instead it accepts it falls into the category of a “convenience type” or “mini-major supermarket” which would complement rather than compete with the retail in the MAC. To ensure the proposed supermarket is not expanded to the point where it would compete with the Footscray MAC, it proposes a condition that sets limits on the retail offerings proposed: 
(i)	Except with the written permission of the Responsible Authority, the retail premises (shop) floor area in the north-east corner at the Lower Ground level within Building 1 must not exceed 1001 square metres (excluding retail lobby area). The associated ‘back of house’ area must not exceed 216.1 square metres.
(ii)	Except with the written permission of the Responsible Authority, loading / unloading (including waste collection) for the retail premises (shop) in the north-east corner at the Lower Ground level within Building 1 may only take place within the operating hours contained within this permit and must not be undertaken by vehicles larger than an 8.8 metre MRV. 
56	The Council accepts that the display style windows to Buckley Street would fulfill the need for activation to this street, while the introduction of an additional café/retail and a small office to the north-south pedestrian link (rather than residential units) is seen as a benefit.
57	The respondents question if the supermarket is acceptable in this location.  In summary, they say it is a major use that will bring traffic and congestion to the area compared to the small retail tenancies previously proposed, noting that it requires a separate loading bay for deliveries and rubbish collection that the previous retail stores did not require. 
58	Thus, the supermarket will bring with it large trucks that will add to the congestion in Arran Street, which they say is too narrow to accommodate such movements. 
59	They are also concerned that the supermarket would not be as effective as multiple small shops in activating and/or providing interest to the street, noting it has only one entry point and the slope of the street means the floor levels do not align with the street.
60	They say the supermarket will directly compete with the existing supermarkets within central Footscray and also the two smaller supermarkets in the Seddon shopping centre located in Victoria Street a short walk away. They note the success of the Seddon shopping strip is of great importance to the community of Seddon, so this proposal with the potential to undermine its feasibility should not be permitted.
61	The change to a supermarket use, together with an approximately 50% increase in retail floor area leads the respondents to say this is a significant change to the previous proposal that means this Tribunal should consider the overall proposal as a fresh application. In their submission, there are many disbenefits in the amended application with no net community benefit.

Figure (1) Ground floor layout of the approved proposal (top); Upper ground and lower ground floors of the present proposal (bottom)
62	The applicant maintains the change to the retail arrangements to include a supermarket results in an acceptable outcome and, although the floor area of retail has increased, this does not substantially change the intent of the original application. 
63	With respect to the question of the supermarket competing with the supermarkets within the Footscray MAC, the applicant acknowledges that policy does specifically seek to focus retail activity within the core of the centre (Precinct 1 and the Footscray Market site) including new supermarket uses. However it says the limited size of the proposed supermarket means it will have a local focus to serve the expected population growth in the Seddon area.  
64	The applicant relied upon the evidence of Mr Justin Ganly who provided an economic assessment of the likely catchment and characteristics of the proposed supermarket. 

65	Mr Ganly considers the proposed retail offer in the amended proposal:
… could not be regarded as a key shopping facility as the range of goods on offer would be significantly smaller than that available within a full-line supermarket and the resulting volume of sales would be less than one-third of the level typically required to support a full-line supermarket and therefore will not result in the dispersal of key shopping facilities out of Precinct 1 and the Footscray Market. 
66	Further, Mr Ganly's economic review of the site and surrounds concludes that the proposed development of a "small-format supermarket on the site will deliver a retail offer which will complement rather than compete with the retail core of the Footscray MAC and would result in a net positive community benefit"  providing a range of offerings and benefits to the local community.
67	Mr Ganly said that there is no formal definition of a “full line” supermarket, but it is generally accepted by the industry this would generally require a retail space approximately three times the size of that proposed here.  Further, he expected the location adjacent to the university campus would mean the supermarket would focus on this market, with a concentration on convenience foods and ready to heat meals.  This would be a distinct difference from a full line supermarket. 
68	The applicant also relied upon the evidence of Mr Stuart McGurn town planner. He observed that "from a land use perspective, the proposal is consistent with the ACZ1’s economic development policies as the shop use will complement the centre’s core by providing opportunities for convenience shopping for the development’s residents and surrounding streets given its small size and the limited visitor parking."
Tribunal Finding
69	We first turn our attention to the relationship of the proposed retail to the broader development, this being but one stage of the four considered by the previous Tribunal. We note that the successful activation of Buckley Street was a factor in the previous Tribunal’s overall support for the development (subject to conditions). At paragraph 38 the Tribunal stated:
38	We also consider that the proposed heights as they present to Albert and Buckley Streets form part of a high quality architectural and urban design response to these parts of review site’s context.  Varied building forms are proposed along both streets that include a range of building heights, complete breaks between them along each of the streetscapes, a range of podium heights, and the adoption of a singular tower form marking the intersection of the two main roads.  In addition, the buildings display a high level of articulation through a range of high quality building materials, interesting and varied façade treatments, and a good level of activation of the street frontages at the lower levels. (Emphasis added)
70	From the above it seems the Tribunal was persuaded at least to some degree by the articulation and activation of the address to Buckley Street, although the nature of this articulation and activation is not discussed in any detail. Given the limited attention to this matter, we are satisfied that the nature of the articulation was not a factor in determining that the overall height and form was acceptable, so as a consequence we are comfortable to deal with the acceptability of the retail arrangements as a separate matter.
71	With respect to the change of use from several small retail shops to a supermarket of limited area, we are persuaded this change is acceptable for the following reasons:
•	We agree the limited size of the supermarket results in a form of retail that will not undermine the policy to locate supermarkets in the retail core, which contains “full line” supermarkets. The size of the proposed supermarket will be defined by the plans approved by this permit, however we will include the proposed condition by Council to ensure it cannot be expanded beyond that proposed without further permission.
•	The location adjacent to the university campus and within a new residential development is in our view likely to mean the substantial proportion of its customers will be drawn from a local population, unlike the larger supermarkets in the retail core.
•	We are persuaded by the evidence of Mr Ganly that the supermarket use is likely to generate activity over longer hours than specialty shops in a location such as this. We find that this will offset the reduction in variety the previous proposal of multiple outlets offered, and so still meet the Planning Scheme objectives to activate the street. 
•	On our site inspection, we observed that this part of Buckley Street does not currently contain any small retail, with the uses opposite being the former swimming centre, now an aged persons’ facility and an automotive parts store. Combined with the density of traffic, we consider that an address to Buckley Street would likely be a challenge for small retail outlets. We find that the current proposal to relocate one small retail/café and a small office to address the north-south pedestrian link is likely to be a more appropriate location for such a use and will enhance the pedestrian character of the link.
•	We are persuaded the location of the entrance to the apartments via an expanded entrance lobby addressing the corner of Buckley and Arran Streets will bring movement and interest to this frontage and is likely to provide a source of activity similar or greater than the small retail outlets previously proposed.
72	Turning to the architectural expression, and concerns regarding the presentation of the supermarket to Buckley Street, we find that the proposed arrangement is acceptable for the following reasons:
•	The proposed street façade incorporates full height windows arranged with sections of wall between them in a typical shopfront pattern that will provide an interesting presentation to the street (as opposed to large areas of plate glass that can be the typical presentation for a supermarket).
•	The difference in floor level to the pavement is not excessive and the ramp is arranged so that the internal floor level is at the same level as the pedestrian pavement at approximately the halfway mark along the frontage, and is also at the same level at the entrance at the eastern end of the façade. This minimises the height difference and we agree with the applicant that this will provide a natural aspect into the retail activity and avoid a sense of looking down at people in the store.
•	We accept the intention is to keep shelving and other obstacles away from the windows to maintain views into the premises. The applicant also indicated they would accept a condition to ensure any signage applied to the window will be arranged to minimise any disruption to views into the store. We will include such a condition.
•	The expansion of the apartment lobby to address the street has also allowed for an enhanced landscape treatment to the Buckley Street / Arran Street corner. We agree that this will add interest to the presentation to Buckley Street.
73	As a result, we are satisfied the proposed architectural expression will provide an acceptable presentation to the street that will result in an attractive and safe pedestrian environment.
74	Lastly, we are not persuaded that potential competition with the existing small supermarkets in the Seddon shopping centre should alter our assessment. We agree with the respondents that the Seddon Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC) is of great value to the local community and it is important that it not be undermined, however we find this is unlikely for the following reasons:
•	We accept the evidence of Mr Ganly the catchments for the proposed supermarket and the Seddon NAC may overlap but are not identical, and the proposed supermarket is likely to draw the majority of its customers from its immediate locality.
•	We also accept the evidence of Mr Ganly the catchment for the subject site is likely to grow further in the future as other sites in the growth area develop.
•	We also note that the existing supermarkets in the Seddon NAC have the benefit of being located within a strong community-based shopping strip and so have their own locational advantages that the proposed development will not alter. Indeed, we consider that many of the new residents on the subject site are likely to be attracted to visit the Seddon NAC for its variety and character.
•	Finally, to the extent that the proposed development brings competition to the Seddon NAC, this may stimulate further enhancements in response. 
Is the proposal an appropriate built form response to its context?
75	The proposed amendment generally follows the built form of the scheme approved by the previous Tribunal, including incorporating changes required by conditions required by that Tribunal.
76	The condition that alters the building form involved an increased setback of Level 6 and 7 of the north wing (from the north-south pedestrian link), and a consequential increase in size of communal space on top of Level 5, resulting in a noticeable difference to the Buckley Street façade. 
77	The amended plans also include alterations to the finished floor levels (resulting in an increase of the podium height and overall height from 27.35 to 28 metres) as the building faces Buckley Street. We were informed that this is also partly a result of the above condition and the decision to remove the podium level car parking and introduce basement car parking. These two changes require structural changes to cater for transfer of loads, resulting in the overall increase in height of 0.65 metres.
78	This same increase applies to the wing addressing Arran Street, where the tallest element returns for approximately one third of the frontage, before reducing in height in two steps.  
79	The removal of the podium level car parking results in the rooftop communal space that was on Level 3 dropping down to Level 1. This has some increased shadow impacts into this space however we were informed that is compensated for by the increased area of communal space above Level 5 as a result of the increased setback. This area receives effectively unrestricted north sun. This aspect of the amended plans was not contested by the parties.

80	The reduction in the podium height results in visible changes to the “internal east” elevation and the “internal south” elevation. These are the façades that address the north-south pedestrian link and the access lane between buildings 1 and 2, respectively. The change lowers the height of the façade for the link between the north and south wings from four storeys to two and similarly to the south. The amendment would also change the architectural expression to give emphasis to the two-storey base as it presents to the west and south.
81	The respondents do not challenge the changes to the west elevation, but note the increased shadowing to the podium deck further reduces the value of open space on the site. They are concerned that the overall development does not provide sufficient open space for the proposed population, let alone contribute towards improving access to open space to the Seddon area generally, which they say is already under supplied.
82	They strongly object to the additional height, which they say should not be regarded as minor. In their view, the proposed built form that resulted from the previous hearing is already over-scaled with respect to the low-scale housing on the west side of Arran Street. They submit that the additional height will only make this worse, and it will also add to the shadow impacts upon these dwellings.
Tribunal Findings
83	Firstly, we find that the reduced “street wall” height of the base to the west and south is an appropriate “pedestrian scale” response that is suited to the spaces it addresses, and is a distinct improvement over the permitted form.
84	Secondly, we accept that the additional shading to the podium deck is not significant and is more than compensated for by the additional space to the rooftop plaza over Level 5. 
85	In other respects we find the implementation of the condition to increase the setback of the upper form from the north-south pedestrian link has been carried out appropriately and achieves the outcomes sought by the previous Tribunal.
86	We find that the changes to the architectural presentation to give greater emphasis to the street facades and the pedestrian link improve the presentation to these spaces and are an appropriate response.
87	Thirdly, with respect to the increased height of the tower, we are not persuaded that the increase is a significant change. This is informed by the shadowing evidence (that we discuss elsewhere) which demonstrates that any additional shadowing is unlikely to be perceptible and, in any case, does not impact any secluded private open space. We also agree with the applicant that the change would not be perceptible from the pedestrian viewpoint. In addition, we agree that the additional height is at least partly related to the changes sought by the previous Tribunal.  
88	To the extent that the additional height is related to other changes, we accept that these are largely related to the decision to place the car parking into basements. We find that this results in additional benefits including lowering the street wall façade heights as discussed above, and relocating the entrance to the car park away from Arran Street.
89	For the reasons discussed above, we find that the changes to the built form are acceptable.
Will there be any unacceptable amenity impacts?
90	The respondents are concerned that they will experience amenity impacts resulting from overshadowing, overlooking and noise. In our assessment of the proposed built form earlier in these reasons, we considered the potential visual impact of the built form impacts to the surrounding residential properties and find them to be acceptable. 
91	The applicant submits there are no unreasonable impacts caused by the original (approved) proposal and the change to amenity impacts arising from the proposed amendments is the increase to the extent of shadow due to the increased building height. The shadow diagrams included in the amendment drawings are said to demonstrate the increased shadow is minimal and will not unreasonably impact the amenity of the nearby residential dwellings. 
Tribunal Findings
92	As previously stated, the amended plans include alterations to the finished floor levels resulting in an increase of the podium height and overall height from 27.35 metres to 28.0 metres. We were informed that this is partly a result of conditions included on the original permit and the decision to remove the podium level car parking and introduce basement car parking. These two changes result in the overall increase in height of 0.65 metres.
93	The shadow diagrams submitted with the proposal show there will be some increase in shadow impact on the surrounding residential development located on the west side of Arran Street. We find the extent of shadow impact is generally acceptable as it will fall on the front gardens, driveways and roof areas of these dwelling between the hours of 9.00am and 10.00am at the September equinox. After this time the proposal does not shadow these properties. The shadow impact is generally not over the secluded private open space (SPOS) of these dwelling that is typically located at the middle or rear of these sites as shown in the diagram below.

Source: Applicant
94	With respect to the respondents concerns regarding overlooking, we note site is separated from their properties by Arran Street. As stated in the previous Tribunal decision, Arran street is wider than 9.0 metres and outlook from the review site will generally be over the public realm and the front yards of nearby dwellings that typically have their SPOS located at the rear. The island nature of the site is beneficial with respect to potential overlooking impacts as the immediate outlook from the site is over the public realm being the roads that bound it on all four sides. Therefore, we find the extent of overlooking  will not be unacceptable.
95	The applicant called acoustic evidence from Mr Shields regarding potential noise related amenity. It was Mr Shields’ evidence that on assessment the nearest potentially affected residential receivers are the future townhouses in Stage 2 (Building 2 opposite the loading dock to the south). His evidence went on to state that subject to specific noise attenuation measures, the noise impacts on the future residents on the site and the respondents’ properties would comply with noise limits excluding the periods when garbage, waste and compactor collection/return occurred. With respect to this matter his evidence included the following:

Source: Shields evidence statement
96	We are persuaded by the evidence provided by Mr Shields and note the proposed loading dock is accessed from an internal laneway and is located approximately 30 metres from Arran Street as shown below. In this context, we are persuaded that the mitigation measure that include design requirements for the loading bay, enclosure and equipment, limitations on the hours of access and use will limit unacceptable noise impacts on the respondents properties and the nearest noise sensitive receivers being the future townhouses in Stage 2 (Building 2) located opposite the loading dock to the south.

Source: Applicant
97	Having considered the proposed amendments with respect to amenity impacts we agree with the findings of the Tribunal in ANPLUS Development Pty Ltd v Maribyrnong CC [2019] VCAT 1385 where they state:
75.	The final area of potential off-site amenity impacts is that relating to noise impacts.  It is a reasonable expectation that a vacant site that is then subject to a relatively intense form of development as encouraged under the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme, will result in a level of increased noise to this residential neighbourhood, including from increased traffic, which we assess later in these reasons.  While we acknowledge that there will be an increased level of noise from new residents, we do not consider that there is anything unique about this site, such that we should seek to avoid the creation of noises associated with residents living adjacent to a residential area.  We do not consider that the proposed development of the review site will result in any unreasonable noise impacts to the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
76.	In summary we find that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts.
Will there be any unacceptable car parking and traffic impacts?
98	The respondents are concerned the proposed amendments will unacceptably exacerbate traffic congestion and worsen traffic conditions. 
99	The applicant called traffic evidence from Mr Hunt. It was his evidence that the provision of 225 on-site car spaces meets the requirements of clause 45.09 and each of the proposed uses are provided with car parking that meets or exceeds the minimum required under Parking Overlay 2 (PO2) and the spaces required for the dwellings do not exceed the maximum as shown in the table below:

Source: Stephen Hunt evidence statement
100	Further the traffic evidence stated the total AM and PM peak traffic generation from vehicles associated to Building 1 would be 771 vehicles per day compared with 766 vehicles per day for the approved building and the total daily traffic volumes in Arran Street would be 787 vehicles per day compared to the existing 215 vehicles per day. With respect to the surrounding street network, the operation of the Buckley Street/Albert Street intersection was expected to continue to operate within the ‘Good’ category during the AM peak period and ‘Very good’ during the PM period.
Tribunal Findings
101	The approved development will increase the volume of traffic to the site and the surrounding road network. Similarly the proposed changes to the approved development will result in a further increase in traffic volumes. Whilst we acknowledge the increase in traffic volume, we not persuaded by the respondents’ submissions that the change is unacceptable. 
102	We are persuaded by the applicant’s evidence and find the parking and traffic impacts to be acceptable for the following reasons:
•	The daily vehicle volume in Arran Street will be 787 vehicles per day (vpd). The volume is within the environmental capacity of Arran Street that is classified as a ‘Access Road’ under the Maribyrnong City Councils Road Register and has an environmental capacity of between 1000 and 2000 vehicles per day. There is no evidence to suggest that the street cannot accommodate this additional traffic.
•	The AM (8.00 am to 9.00 am) and PM  (5.00 pm to 6.00 pm) peak vehicle volume in Arran Street will be 64 vehicles per hour and 76 vehicles per hour respectively. The evidence before us indicates that this level of increase during the peak period will not have an unacceptable impact on the traffic function of the street.
•	The provision of 225 on-site car spaces meets the requirements of clause 45.09 and each of the proposed uses are provided with car parking that meets or exceeds the minimum required under Parking Overlay 2 (PO2).
•	The location of the loading bay and waste collection area including its access from the internal laneway assist to reduce vehicle congestion on Arran Street.
•	The surrounding street network and the operation of the Buckley Street/Albert Street intersection will continue to operate within the ‘Good’ category during the AM peak period and ‘Very good’ during the PM period and the Head, Transport for Victoria does not object to the proposed amendment.
Are there any other issues?
103	The respondents were concerned that the increase in the number of dwellings from 168 to 172 is an unacceptable increase in density on the site. We are not persuaded an additional four dwellings is an unacceptable outcome having regard to the limited off-site amenity impacts of the proposal and the evidence before us that indicates the additional height of the built form is unlikely to be noticeable to pedestrians in the area. In addition we note that the planning policy is supportive of increased density and variety of housing in this location. Further, we note Council is supportive of the proposal.
Conclusion
104	For the reasons given above, the application is allowed. Planning Permit No. TP-490/2018(2), issued by the responsible authority in respect of the subject land, is amended subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A.

Shiran Wickramasinghe
Member		Stephen Axford
Member	

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

VCAT Reference:	P11992/2021	
aPPLICATION nUMBER:	TP490/2018(3)	
site address: 	43-57 Buckley Street, Seddon	
pROPOSAL: 	In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	To allow for a staged development
•	To use land for retail premises (including shop)
•	To construct a building and construct or carry out works
•	To remove native vegetation 
•	To reduce the minimum car parking requirement for residential visitors and to provide more than the maximum number of spaces for three bedroom dwellings
•	To alter an access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1	

The following conditions apply to this permit:

1	Before any stage of the development start(s) (excluding any works associated with the remediation of the land associated with conditions 45 and 46), amended plans for that stage must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and provided in a digital format (where possible). The plans for that stage must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by DKO Architecture (marked TP001, TP300 to TP304, TP304a, TP305, TP306, TP400 to TP404, TP404a, TP405 to TP410, TP500 to TP512, TP600, TP601, TP701 to TP706, TP711 to TP715, TP721 to TP724, TP731 to TP734 and dated 25 June 2019, and TP100 to TP214 dated 16 December 2021) but modified to show:
(a)	A Staging Plan. 
(b)	A Public Realm Upgrade and Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 19.
(c)	Any modifications to the stages of the development to incorporate any changes required by the: 
i	Acoustic Report - Condition 13 and 14; 
ii	Tree Management Plan - Condition 25; 
iii	Wind Assessment Report - Condition 39;
iv	Sustainability Management Plan - Condition 40; 
v	Waste Management Plan - Condition 42; 
vi	Storm Water Assessment – Condition 44.
(d)	Building 1 Stage:
i	Reduction in the extent of the eastern ‘wing’ of levels 6 and 7 in building 1, by increasing the setback to the eastern edge of this building by 11.0 metres (to a setback of 30.1 metres), excluding the stairwell, amenities and storeroom. 
ii	Details of the external appearance of the Residents’ Amenity space provided on TP206, to be shown on the southern, western and eastern elevations of building 1.
iii	Modification of the roof plant screen on building 1 shown on elevations on TP211 and TP212 so that the height and extent of the roof plant shown on the elevations, matches the smaller extent and height of the roof plant shown on TP208.
iv	The columns within the car park area to be located in accordance with Diagram 1 of Clause 52.06-9 of the Planning Scheme, or otherwise located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
v	Elevations of the booster cupboard on the Arran Street frontage, with further details of treatment, colour and materials to ensure this does not detract from the building.
vi	Fencing and structures sited clear of the visual splays shown at the vehicle accessway entrance.
vii	Tandem car spaces to be allocated to a single dwelling.
viii	Notations for the inclusion of signs within the car parking area to indicate the spaces available for short-term parking for retail customers and avoidance use by residential building occupants.
ix	The proposed floor levels along the building’s eastern interface to meet Melbourne Water’s minimum freeboard requirements for the adjacent finished surface levels for the laneway and predicted 1% AEP overland flow paths.
x	The commercial tenancy in the north-east corner at Lower Ground nominated as “retail premises (shop)”.
xi	The following changes required in accordance with the expert witness report of Steve Hunt dated 9 June 2022 (Hunt Report):
xii	Horizontal bicycle parking spaces (bicycle hoops) to be provided with a length of 1.8m and hoops to be spaced 1.0 metre apart.
xiii	Angled bicycle spaces (bicycle hoops) at the southwest corner of the lower ground level angled at 45 degrees and to be spaced at 1m centres with two of the hoops to be relocated near the stairwell.
xiv	A ‘right turn only’ arrow to be marked on the ramp at the lower ground level.
xv	A ‘give way’ line to be marked at the one-way accessway adjacent to the ground level vehicle access.
xvi	Relocation of the tandem car space at ground level to accommodate 300mm clearances to the edge of the car spaces within the door opening area as shown in the Hunt Report at Appendix D.
xvii	Deletion of the habitable sitting room on Level 1 of the Loft A apartments generally in accordance with drawing SK57 prepared by DKO Architecture in Appendix B of the expert witness report of Stuart McGurn dated June 2022. 
xviii	The glazing for Building 1 retail space northern façade must be maintained at all times substantially free of obstruction so as to allow pedestrian visibility into the retail space.  
(e)	Building 2 Stage:
i	Further details of access to the roof terraces of Building 2 to avoid enclosing stair cases and raising the overall building height.
ii	Deletion of the roof top terrace to TH03 (Lot 1) to maintain a four storey form.
(f)	Building 3 Stage:
i	Alternative design treatment (such as use of glazing and/or urban art) to the blank eastern side elevation at ground floor level adjacent to Albert Street frontage on Building 3 currently indicated with ‘EF04’.
ii	The southernmost cars stackers (4 spaces) in the south-eastern corner of Building 3 shifted south so that they are not located under the ramp, which will allow a headroom clearance of 3.8 metres to be provided.
iii	The provision of a landscaping solution or screening to provide a level of privacy to the areas of secluded private open space in townhouses CGL07, CGL08, CG14 in Building 3, from people walking along the adjacent footpath. 
(g)	Building 4 Stage:
i	Two car spaces within Building 4 that are located adjacent to a stair case (being one on each of plans TP501 and TP502, which each have a stair case on their northern sides) signed as ‘Small Car Only’ spaces.
(h)	The Stages must include the following, where it relates to the particular building: 
i	The provision of a total of 24 residential visitor car parking spaces across the site.  This can be achieved by reducing the number of car parking spaces provided for residents on site, or by providing an additional 14 car parking spaces on site, or a combination of both approaches.
ii	Inclusion of solar panels to support lighting in common areas of Buildings 1, 3 and 4.
iii	Buildings 1 & 4 (including canopies) modified to ensure the existing street trees along Buckley Street (Trees 100 and 101 as identified in the Vegetation Survey & Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Dept October 2018) are retained, and the provision of a notation to show the retention of these trees.  Any changes must be in accordance with a Tree Management Plan as per Condition 25.
iv	The location of all bicycle parking spaces within the site (excluding the bicycle parking spaces associated with the town houses).
v	Section plans for each ramp demonstrating a minimum headroom clearance of 2.2m along the accessways in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1-2004.
vi	Demonstration of car stackers to provide minimum height clearance in accordance with Clause 52.06-9 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme.
vii	A maximum reflectivity of 20% for west facing external walls to Buildings 1, 3 and 4 and/or other design treatments to reduce sun glare towards the west.
viii	Any changes as required by Melbourne Water, VicRoads and the Head, Transport for Victoria as specified in the conditions of this permit.
ix	The allocation of storage cages in compliance with Standard D20 of Clause 58.05-4 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. 
x	An intercom be provided within the central island of each entrance accessway to enable visitor/customer access to the secure car parking areas.
2	The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clause 62 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. NOTE: This does not obviate the need for a permit where one is required.
3	Once a stage of the development has started, that stage must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4	Other than for any signage that is as-of-right pursuant to the provisions of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme, the external glazing associated to the Building 1 retail space must be maintained at all times free of obstructions so as to allow pedestrian views into the retail space.
5	All boundary walls must be cleaned and finished using a graffiti proof finish or alternative measure to prevent or reduce the potential of graffiti. Any graffiti that appears on the wall must be cleaned or removed as soon as practicable to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The cost of any clean-up or removal of the graffiti from the wall must be paid for by the developer and/or future owners of the land.
6	The use of the land for retail may operate only between the hours of 6.00 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. Monday to Sunday, except with the written permission of the Responsible Authority.
7	The use of the loading bay for waste collection for the retail premises may only occur between the hours of 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 6pm Saturday, with no waste collection to occur on Sunday. Waste collection must not be undertaken by vehicles larger than 8.8m Medium Rigid Vehicle.
8	Except with the written permission of the Responsible Authority, the retail premises (shop) floor area in the north-east corner at the Lower Ground level within Building 1 must not exceed 1001 square metres (excluding retail lobby area). The associated ‘back of house’ area must not exceed 216.1 square metres.
9	Except with the written permission of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	Loading / unloading (excluding waste collection) for the retail premises (shop) in the north-east corner at the lower ground level within Building 1 may only take place between 7.00am and 9.30pm and must not be undertaken by vehicles larger than an 8.8 metre Medium Rigid Vehicle.
(b)	The door to the loading bay to be kept closed except for access or during waste collection.
10	All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking to adjoining properties must be erected prior to the occupation of the buildings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Noise levels emanating from the retail premises must not exceed the noise levels as determined by EPA Publication 1826.4.
13	Before the plans for stage 3 of the development required by Condition 1 are endorsed, an acoustic report generally in accordance with the report prepared by Matthew Shields dated 9 June 2022 must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Responsible Authority.  The acoustic report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and address:
(a)	the impact of the commercial uses on the residential uses within the development and surrounds and provide solutions to mitigate these impacts;
(b)	the noise from the bin chutes which abut bedrooms; and
(c)	the impacts of traffic noise on dwellings abutting Buckley Street.
Once approved, the acoustic report will be endorsed to form part of the permit.  All of the recommendations and requirements of the endorsed acoustic report must be implemented prior to the occupation of building 1, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans for stages 1, 2 or 4 of the development, an acoustic report prepared by a qualified Acoustic Engineer for that stage must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. The acoustic report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must address a range of including the following:
(a)	the impact of the commercial uses on the residential uses within the development and surrounds and provide solutions to mitigate these impacts;
(b)	the noise from the bin chutes which abut bedrooms;
(c)	the noise from the car stackers on any sensitive uses; and
(d)	the impacts of traffic noise on dwellings abutting Buckley Street.
All of the recommendations of the acoustic report must be implemented prior to the occupation of the relevant building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15	Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance for any stage of the development, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, a report/letter from a qualified Acoustic Engineer with expertise in acoustic matters must be prepared. The report/letter must detail that all acoustic measures outlined in conditions 13 and 14 have been satisfactorily implemented for that stage, building or part of the development permitted by this permit (which ever the case may be). The letter/report must be provided to the Responsible Authority for its consideration. If satisfactory, the letter/ report will be approved by the Responsible Authority).
16	Before the non-residential uses within Building 1 commence, a Loading Bay Management Plan must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Loading Bay Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The Loading Bay Management Plan must include:
(a)	the maximum vehicle length to use the loading bay to be 8.8 metres.
(b)	loading and unloading to only occur during 7.00am to 9.30pm.  
(c)	compactor collection to occur between 7.00am to 6.00pm. 
(d)	staffing / management responsibilities.  
(e)	loading bay operational strategies. 
(f)	provision of directional signage and line marking, as necessary.
(g)	the maximum vehicle length and the hours as set out for waste collection at conditions 7 and 9.
17	The Staging Plan required by Condition 1(a) must include the provision of Public Open Space within the stage that includes the first 50% of dwellings ready for a Certificate of Occupancy.
18	Before the occupation of the buildings associated with any stage of the development, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the public realm upgrades and landscaping works shown on the endorsed Staging Plans for that stage must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
19	Before any stage of the development starts, a Public Realm and Landscape Plan must be prepared for that stage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be generally in accordance with Landscape Design Report prepared by Aspect (dated October 2018), drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
(a)	A minimum 50% selection of native trees for plantings within the site.
(b)	A three metre wide footpath/naturestrip along Buckley Street, adjacent to Buildings 1 and 4.
(c)	Raised threshold treatments at the intersections of Arran/Buckley Street (east-west), and Walter/Albert Street (north-south).
(d)	Bicycle spaces close to the Buckley Street frontage such as within the pedestrian plaza.
(e)	Details of all surface levels including finishes of pathways and features on the street frontage/s.
(f)	Details of all new kerbs, tree pits, parking control signage, etc. around the site.
(g)	A planting schedule for all streets and common areas, including the communal open spaces on all buildings (including the communal open space at Level 6 of building 1), which includes all proposed trees, shrubs, ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, quantities of each plant.
(h)	Any alterations to significant electrical assets, including removal of the electricity and light pole.
(i)	Any replacement, redesign or redesign of street lighting.
(j)	Infill planting of Plane Street trees along Buckley Street (which comply with any recommendations of the Wind Assessment required by Condition 39).
(k)	Inclusion of street tree planting along Albert Street (using Melia azerderach) in footpath cut outs.
(l)	Tree species within the internal laneways to be of a larger canopy including a mixture of deciduous trees, or in compliance with Melbourne Water’s Planting Near Sewers, Drains and Water Mains Guide.
(m)	All street trees to be selected from City of Maribyrnong Street Tree Strategy.
(n)	Street trees to be protected (including Trees 100 and 101 as identified in the Vegetation Survey & Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Dept October 2018).
(o)	Removal of the street tree pit and on-street car space north of the Arran Street crossover to Building 1, if required following detailed design. 
(p)	If necessary, the replacement of the street tree north of the Arran Street crossover to Building 1 in a location to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
20	All works outlined in the Public Realm and Landscape Plan for any stage of the development must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, aside from the works depicted within the area of public open space, where the land must be provided in a form described in Condition 22 (b)(i), plus the construction of paths to the south of building 2 and the west of building 3, with all costs borne by the owner/developer.
21	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, this includes the replacement of any dead, diseased or damaged plants within the land for a period of two years from the date of the completion of the development permitted by this permit.
22	Prior to the issue of:
(a)	a Statement of Compliance for a plan of subdivision, together with any previous plan of subdivision that creates 50% of the allotments permitted by this permit; or
(b)	Prior to the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy for not more than 50% of the dwellings permitted by this permit:
i	the public open space must be generally level, topsoiled, grassed and free of holes and tripping or other hazards, and able to be easily mowed and maintained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
ii	the land must be vested in Council and be made publicly available.
23	At the time of vesting in Council, the designated public open space must be remediated to be suitable for use as public open space (issued with statement or certificate of environmental audit) and in compliance with all requirements of the environmental audit (required by conditions 45 and 46) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
24	Unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority in writing, prior to the commencement of works associated with the first stage of the development,  the permit holder must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority made pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement must be in a form to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the permit holder must be responsible for the expense of the preparation of the agreement, including the responsible authority’s reasonable costs and expenses (including legal expenses) incidental to the preparation, execution, registration on title and enforcement of the agreement. The agreement must provide for the following:
(a)	Prior to the issue of:
i	a Statement of Compliance for a plan of subdivision, together with any previous plan of subdivision that creates 50% of the allotments permitted by this permit; or 
ii	a Certificate of Occupancy for not more than 50% of the dwellings permitted by this permit:
the public park must be generally level and grassed and be made publicly available. The land must be vested in Council and constitutes its public open space contribution as required by Clause 53.01 of the Planning Scheme.
(b)	The designated public open space must be remediated to be suitable for use as public open space and issued with statement or certificate of environmental audit in compliance with all requirements of the environmental audit (required by condition 45 and 46) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
(c)	The graded and grassed surfaces within the park must be maintained by the permit holder for a period of 2 years from the date it is constructed and made available for use. 
(d)	Before a Statement of Compliance is issued for any stage of the development, the public realm upgrades shown on the plans relevant to that stage as required by Condition 13 must be completed by the permit holder as outlined above.
(e)	The associated costs to install the public realm improvements in accordance with the plan must be borne by the permit holder.  
(f)	Any ongoing management requirements of the environmental audit are to be carried out by the Applicant or its successor in title, of the land not including the public open space.
25	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans for any stage, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) must be prepared for that stage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Tree Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist and must identify the Tree Protection Zone, volume of Tree Protection Zone encroachment (%) and how it is intended to carry out site works with minimal impact on tree health including tree protection measures that align with AS4970 in regard to street trees to be retained around the edges of the site. When approved, the Tree Management Plan will form part of the permit.
26	Before any stage of the development commences, a bond equal to the combined amenity value of the street tree(s) for that stage, an amount otherwise specified by the Responsible Authority must be paid to the Responsible Authority. The bond will be held for a period of 6 months after the Certificate of Occupancy for the last dwelling/building has been issued (associated with each stage of construction) and will be released pending a final inspection. If any tree (excluding any tree which is of dead or poor health as identified in the Vegetation Survey and Arboricultural Assessment prepared by Landscape Department dated October 2018) is damaged or goes into decline within the 6 month period the bond amount will be retained to recover the loss of amenity and establishment of new trees). 
27	Before any stage of the development commences (including any demolition works), tree protection measures in accordance with AS4970-2009 (Protection of Trees on Development Sites) must be erected around existing street trees associated with that stage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection measures must remain in place until construction is completed for each stage. 
28	Any pruning that is required to be done to the canopy of any tree to be retained along Buckley Street must be done by a qualified arborist to Australian Standard AS4373-2007 (Pruning of Amenity Trees). Any pruning of the root system of any tree to be retained must be done by hand by a qualified arborist.
29	Before any stage of the development starts a fee must be paid to the Responsible Authority for the removal of any existing street tree(s) as identified in the approved Public Realm and Landscape Plan for that stage.
30	Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed and/or modified to the road to suit the proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
31	All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated with either/or footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
32	Before the commencement of the use and/or occupation of each stage of the development, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and be:
(a)	constructed;
(b)	properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
(c)	surfaced with an all weather seal coat;
(d)	drained;
(e)	line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
(f)	clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways.
(g)	Over-bonnet storage must be provided with a suitable clearance for larger vehicles. 
(h)	Internal lighting within the car park and accessway areas.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
33	The mechanical stackers must be routinely serviced and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure satisfactory access to all car spaces and to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land by the emission of noise.
34	The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and is subject to any requirements, conditions and subsequent approval from the Head, Transport for Victoria.  Stormwater run-off from the site must not cause any adverse impact to the public, any adjoining site or Council asset. Stormwater from all paved area must be drained to underground stormwater system. Any cut, fill or structure must not adversely affect the natural stormwater runoff from and to adjoining properties, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
35	No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses during and after development.
36	Prior to the commencement of any works on the site for each stage of the development and/or subdivision of the land, the permit holder must submit for approval to the Responsible Authority drainage plans to the requirements outlined in the Stormwater Discharge Permit.
37	Prior to the commencement of any works on the site for each stage of the development, ‘Build Over Easement’ consent must be obtained from the Responsible Authority, and any relevant service or utility authority.
38	Prior to any works commencing on each respective stage, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) must be prepared for that particular stage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, detailing how the permit holder will manage the environmental and construction issues associated with the development. When approved, the CMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CMP must address a range of matters including:
(a)	the contact name and phone number(s) of the site manager,
(b)	bulk excavation,
(c)	management of the construction site,
(d)	land disturbance,
(e)	hours of construction,
(f)	noise mitigation measures in regard to breaking up of concrete and rock and at reasonable hours,
(g)	control of dust,
(h)	public safety,
(i)	traffic management,
(j)	construction vehicle road routes,
(k)	soiling and cleaning of roadways,
(l)	discharge of any polluted water,
(m)	security fencing, disposal of site waste and any potentially contaminated materials,
(n)	crane locations during construction,
(o)	location of site offices,
(p)	redirection of any above or underground services,
(q)	site lighting during any night works;
(r)	considerations as to how deliveries will be managed and to avoid blocking vehicle traffic in the laneway and maintaining access for existing users.
39	Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans for the first stage of the development, a modified wind assessment report must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for the whole site. When approved, it will form part of the permit. All of the recommendations of the wind assessment report must be implemented prior to the occupation of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
40	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans for any stage of development, a modified Sustainability Management Plan must be prepared for that stage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If approved, it will form part of the permit. All of the recommendations of the Sustainability Management Plan must be implemented prior to the occupation of the building and/ or stage (which ever as the case may be) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainability Management Plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.
41	Prior to the occupation of any dwelling under each stage as shown in the endorsed staging plan, a report must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, confirming all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan that forms part of the application, have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan. The author of the Sustainability Management Plan report that forms part of the application, or similarly qualified person or company must prepare the report. If satisfactory, the report will be approved by the Responsible Authority and form part of the permit.
42	Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans for any stage of the development, an updated Waste Management Plan must be prepared for that stage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and include the following matters:
(a)	Increased waste room dimensions to avoid temporary placement of bins outside of the room when changing bins.
(b)	Risk Management plan.
(c)	Hard waste collection point.
(d)	Bin chute deposit points in plan.
(e)	Acknowledgement that future occupants would still be required to pay the waste-surcharge despite private collection.
(f)	Improved bin room access Building 4 retail to avoid opening out onto the ramp and with internal access to it.
Once submitted, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit.
43	Waste management must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan approved as part of condition 42 of this permit.
44	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans for the first stage of development, a Storm Water Assessment for the whole site must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If satisfactory, the Storm Water Assessment will be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and form part of the permit. All of the recommendations of the assessment must be implemented prior to the occupation of the relevant building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
45	Before:
(a)	the use; and
(b)	the construction of the development,
authorised by this permit commences, an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 (EP Act) must undertake an Environmental Audit in accordance with the provisions of the EP Act and issue:
(c)	a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the land in accordance with Section 53Y of the EP Act (Certificate); or
(d)	a Statement of Environmental Audit for the land in accordance with Section 53Z of the EP Act (Statement),
and the Certificate or Statement must be provided to the Responsible Authority.
46	If, pursuant to the above condition, a Statement is issued:
(a)	the:
i	use; and 
ii	development,
authorised by this permit must not be undertaken unless the Statement of Environmental Audit clearly states that the land is suitable for that use;
(b)	the use authorised by this permit must not commence until compliance is achieved with all terms and conditions that the Statement states must be complied with prior to the use commencing;
(c)	the development authorised by this permit must not be undertaken until compliance is achieved with the terms and conditions that the Statement states must be complied with prior to development commencing;
(d)	prior to the commencement of the use authorised by this permit, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the EP Act which states that the terms and conditions contained in the Statement have been complied with must be submitted to the Responsible Authority; and
(e)	if any term or condition of the Statement requires any ongoing maintenance or monitoring, the Owner must enter into an agreement with Council pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Agreement). The Agreement must:
i	provide for the undertaking of the ongoing maintenance and monitoring as required by the Statement by the owner/ developer; and
ii	be executed before the development authorised by this permit commences.
The Owner must pay all expenses involved in the drafting (including legal expenses), negotiating, lodging, recording and execution and enforcement of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority.
47	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The first stage is not started within four years of the date of this permit.
(b)	The final stage is not completed within eight years of the date of this permit.
(c)	The use of the retail premises is not started within four years of the completion of relevant stage.
(d)	The use of the retail premises ceases to operate for a period of two years once started.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
Transport for Victoria
48	Before the development starts, or other time agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the 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 submitted with the application but modified to show: 
(a)	An annotation that identifies only the removal of the bus shelter from the existing bus stop on Buckley Street and hard stand area to be ‘made good’;
(b)	The proposed development awning over the footpath along Buckley Street to be setback 600mm from the back-of-kerb to the tactile indicators at the existing bus stop and be a minimum height of 3.6meters from the ground along Buckley Street;
(c)	The construction of a seat at the existing bus stop to service bus passengers;
(d)	An annotation showing a footpath clear zone for a distance equivalent to the ‘bus zone’ area on Buckley Street.
49	Prior to the commencement of the development, or other time agreed in writing with Public Transport Victoria, the permit holder may remove the bus shelter at the existing bus stop on Buckley Street and must make good the existing concrete hard stand area. The works must be done at the cost of the permit holder and be to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria
50	Before the use of the land commences, or other time agreed in writing with Public Transport Victoria, a seat must be constructed to replicate the existing seat at the bus stop on Buckley Street, for bus passengers. The works must be done at the cost of the permit holder and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Public Transport Victoria.
51	Prior to the commencement of the development and after the commencement of the use, the permit holder must ensure that the footpath along Buckley Street is kept clear of any obstacles or street furniture at all times for a distance equivalent to the ‘bus zone’ area along Buckley Street, to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.
52	Before the occupation of the development all works to the bus stop and associated infrastructure as shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed at a cost borne by the permit holder to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria and deemed compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.
53	The permit holder must ensure that public transport infrastructure is not altered without the consent of Public Transport Victoria or damaged. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria and at the full cost of the permit holder.
54	The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus operation along both Buckley Street and Albert Street are kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to bus operations and mitigation measures must be communicated to Public Transport Victoria eight (8) weeks prior by telephoning 1800 800 007 or emailing customerservice@ptv.vic.gov.au.
Melbourne Water
55	All building Finished Floor Levels must be set 300mm above the graded flood level.
56	All common paths/easements must be built at the levels identified in the hydraulic modelling submitted, to convey overland flows through the site.
57	The applicant must enter into a Works Offer with Melbourne Water for the realignment of the Melbourne Water drain crossing the site within 14 days of the Planning Permit being granted.
58	A 14 metre-wide easement aligned with the building structures and covering the full extent of the drain must be created within the property boundaries in favour of Melbourne Water for drainage purposes at the time of subdivision in accordance with Melbourne Water’s Developer guides and resources, land development reference 5.3.3.
59	A Build Over agreement is required to be entered into for temporary structures within the lateral clearance zone.
(a)	All structures located within the easement must be designed as a simple pinned connection that facilitates for ease of removal within a reasonable time of <4 hrs;
(b)	All overhangs must be either easily removable or retractable to provide an easy access to the MW drain;
(c)	Street furniture and wind barriers elements must be independent and self-supporting;
(d)	Where manholes are located within the proposed site, a 2.0 metre clearance zone is required surrounding the manhole.
60	The owner shall remain responsible for both removal of the structure and its reinstatement resulting from works by MW, as per the Build Over agreement. MW’s responsibility is limited to reinstating to surface level.
61	All connections to the newly constructed Melbourne Water asset must be as per standard drawing 7251/08/324 if direct connection to the pipe or 7251/08/424 if the connection is to a junction pit.
62	A post construction CCTV inspection of the underground drain is required to be carried out at the cost of the developer in accordance with WSA 05-2013 Conduit Inspection Reporting Code of Australia.
63	When the construction is completed, “As-Constructed” plans must be submitted to MW for future record.
64	Any damage caused to MW’s assets due to the development shall be paid for by the developer.
65	New trees must comply with Melbourne Water’s Planting Near Sewers, Drains and Water Mains Guide (trees must be set minimum of 3m clear of the outside edge of the drain to the mature canopy).
66	Prior to undertaking any works on or near a MW asset, the contractor must be in receipt of a MW Permit to Work. A Permit to Work can only be issued to contractors who have undertaken MW’s permit recipient training. This requirement is to be included as part of the general notes on the final drawings.
67	Melbourne Water must still have access unrestricted access to the underground drain at all times, during construction and after.
68	Any works to be conducted surrounding the underground drain must be undertaken in a manner that protects adjacent Melbourne Water asset(s) (i.e. minimum vibration and loading). It is suggested that a peak particle velocity of 2mm/sec be adopted for limiting vibration in the vicinity of high risk assets (brick/masonry drains). A limit of 10mm/sec can be adopted for reinforced concrete structures subject to a structural condition assessment.
VicRoads
69	Before the works associated with the development starts, functional layout plans for the intersection Buckley Street and Albert Street must be submitted to and approved by the Roads Corporation and the Responsible Authority. When approved by the Roads Corporation and the Responsible Authority the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must demonstrate the proposed works identified in the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared with the application, including the following:
(a)	The proposed lane changes on Albert Street, signal modifications and any associated works.
70	Prior to the commencement of the use or the occupation of the works hereby approved. A functional layout plan must be submitted to and approved by the Roads Corporation showing:
(a)	The proposed lane changes on Albert Street, signal modifications and any associated works.
71	Prior to the commencement of the use or the occupation of the works hereby approved. The approved road works must be completed at no cost and to the satisfaction of the Roads Corporation including:
(a)	The proposed lane changes on Albert Street, signal modifications and any associated works.
72	Within 12 months upon occupation of the proposed building, a Transport Impact Assessment Report must be submitted to the Roads Corporation. This report must address traffic and access issues at the intersection of Buckley Street and Albert Street in relation to the changes made to the intersection and any recommendations to mitigate any issues. Based on the findings of such report and any other independent assessment, the Roads Corporation may make recommendations for improvement works to make the road safe and at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the Road Corporation.
Essendon Fields Airport
73	The Applicant must obtain consent under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 for any activity in the prescribed airspace for Essendon Fields Airport (i.e. buildings, antennas or cranes during construction). Approval will be required for any activity 227 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD) in this location.

– End of conditions –