VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1298/2022
Permit Application no.MPS/2021/907 	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Review the decision to grant a permit; Merri-bek Planning Scheme; Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1; Clause 15.01-5L ‘Minimal and incremental change areas’; Construction of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling; Neighbourhood character; Amenity impacts; Rear yard context; Visual bulk.	

Applicants	Katherine Millard, Andrew Richardson & Others	

Responsible Authority	Merri-bek City Council	
Respondent	Adam Costanzo	

SUBJECT LAND	1 Flannery Court
OAK PARK VIC 3046	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	6 June 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	13 June 2023	

CITATION	Millard v Merri-bek CC [2023] VCAT 647	

Order
Amend permit application 
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Wardle Design Pty Ltd	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP1 – TP7 (inclusive)	
•	Version:	‘C’ VCAT amendments to comply with NOD conditions	
•	Dated:	01/03/2023	
and

•	Landscape plan prepared by:	Habitat landscape & environment design consultants	
•	Drawing number:	Sheet 1 of 1	
•	Version:	Issue B	
•	Dated:	March 2023	
Permit granted
2	In application P1298/2022 the decision of the responsible authority is varied.
3	In planning permit application MPS/2021/907 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 1 Flannery Court, Oak Park, VIC 3046, in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling house in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1.

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appearances
For applicants	Terry Quinn, John Millard, and 
John Humphrey	
For responsible authority	Alex Osborne, senior urban planner, 
Merri-bek City Council.	
For respondent	Paul Connolly, Director, 
Aspect Planning Services	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling (house).	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Merri-bek Planning Scheme (Scheme).	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (NRZ1); Development Contributions Plan Overlay.	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-6: To construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the NRZ1.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 01, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 32.09, 45.06, 52.06, 55, 65, and 71.	
Land description	The subject land is on the western side of Flannery Court.  The site has a frontage of 15.75 metres, a depth that is 53.53 metres, and an area of 843 square metres.  The site is a rhombus shape with equidistant diagonal east and west boundaries.
The land slopes away from the street frontage to the rear.  From the north-east of the site to the south-west rear corner the ground level drops by 3.2 metres.  A 1.83 metres wide sewerage easement runs north-south across the rear of the land.
A single storey detached house occupies the land.  The rear yard is occupied by a large outbuilding and lawn/landscaping.
The surrounding area is residential, comprising a mix of single detached houses and multi-dwelling developments.
Flannery Court slopes steeply from Devereaux Street to the north down to the court bowl to the south.	
Land description
(continued)	Along the southern side boundary the subject land adjoins the property at 3 Flannery Court.  It is occupied by a single storey detached house.  Along the northern side boundary the subject land adjoins the rear boundaries of the properties at 71, 73 and 75 Devereaux Street. These properties are occupied by detached houses.  The dwelling at 71 Devereaux Street is a single storey house, the houses at 73 and 75 Devereaux Street are single storey at the front and double storey at their rear.  Along the rear boundary the subject land adjoins the land at 3 Chris Court.  It is occupied by a multi-dwelling development comprising three townhouses.  The front and middle townhouses are double storey and the rear townhouse, adjacent to the boundary with the subject land is single storey.	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied inspection of the subject land and surrounding area was undertaken before the hearing.	

Reasons
Oral reasons for this decision were given at the conclusion of the hearing.  The following are the oral reasons in written form, with minor editing.
What is this proceeding about?
The application
1	This is an application under section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) (PE Act) to review the decision to grant a permit for the construction of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling/house (proposal) on the land at 1 Flannery Court, Oak Park (subject land).
2	The proposed dwellings are to be constructed one behind the other down the length of the land, with a shared driveway along the southern side boundary.
3	The applicants for review oppose the proposal on grounds relating to neighbourhood character, amenity impacts, car parking, and the previous VCAT decision relating to the development of the subject land.
4	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted, and if so, what conditions should be applied.
Procedural issues
Amended plans
5	My decision is based on the amended plans that have been substituted for the permit application plans:
•	Plans prepared by Wardle Design, plan references TP1 – TP7 / Revision C - VCAT Amendments / dated 01/03/23;
•	Landscape plan prepared by Habitat landscape & environment design consultants,  Sheet 1 of 1 / Issue B / March 2023.
What are the relevant facts of the case?
6	In the determination of the proceeding I have considered:
•	the submissions of the parties;
•	the supporting exhibits given at this hearing; 
•	the statements of grounds filed;
•	the relevant policies and provisions of the planning scheme; and
•	taken into account all the relevant matters as directed under the PE Act.
7	In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal I will not cite or refer to all this material in my reasons.
8	I have been provided with a detailed description of the review site and its environs, the proposal, and the relevant policies and provisions of the scheme.  It is not necessary for me to repeat that material other than to record the following:
i	The subject land is zoned ‘Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1’ (NRZ1).
ii	A planning permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the NRZ1.
iii	The ‘neighbourhood character objective to be achieved’ in the NRZ1 is–
To promote a preferred neighbourhood character where the design and siting of new dwellings include generous landscaping through the retention of existing canopy trees (where practicable) and the planting of new canopy trees and vegetation.
iv	The NRZ1 Schedule varies the landscaping standard B13 (at clause 55.03-8).
v	Under the provisions of the NRZ1, a development must meet the requirements of clause 55.
vi	The land is subject to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay, although that is not relevant to the key issues in dispute.
vii	Council’s Housing Framework Plan at Clause 2.04 designates this location for minimal housing growth.
viii	The key planning policy relevant to the issues in dispute is 
•	Clause 15.01-5L (Minimal and incremental change areas).
ix	The car parking provisions at clause 52.06 also apply to the proposal.
x	A previous proposal for the development of one dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling on the subject land was refused in the VCAT decision Gattini v Moreland CC [2016] VCAT 2007 (previous VCAT decision).
xi	I have also been referred to a previous VCAT decision Quinn v Moreland CC [2017] VCAT 2142 which approved the three-dwelling development on the land at 2 Flannery Court, opposite the subject land.
9	I undertook a viewing of the subject land and surrounding area prior to the hearing.
10	I have also been provided with a range of photographs, aerial photographs, and plans that enable me to arrive at a decision about the matters in dispute.
What are the key issues to be determined?
11	Based on the submissions and relevant policies and provisions of the scheme, I consider the key issues to be determined are:
•	Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character?
•	Will any amenity impacts be acceptable?
•	Does the proposal provide acceptable car parking?
•	Does the proposal respond to the criticisms of the previous development proposal in the previous VCAT decision?
What are the Tribunal’s Findings?
Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character?
12	The applicants for review take issue with, in summary:
•	the proposed double storey building form in the rear yard of the subject land;
•	inconsistency of the proposal with the surrounding properties and character; and
•	the visual bulk.
13	The key issue is whether the proposal provides an acceptable response to the policy guidelines for incremental and minimal change areas at clause 15.01-5L.
14	This policy guideline requires consideration of the following, as relevant:
•	Designing development in rear yards to be single storey unless either:  
-	The prevailing context is not one of open rear yards and garden outlooks. 
-	The building envelope respects the existing character of open rear yards and garden outlooks though provision of: 
•	Generous side and rear setbacks. 
•	Private open space at ground floor that provides space for screen tree planting around the development. 
•	Sensitive design of the upper levels with adequate articulation, setbacks and materials to minimise visual bulk impacts as seen from neighbouring rear secluded open spaces. 
15	Both proposed dwellings are double storey.
Rear yard context
16	There is dispute between the parties as to whether the area surrounding the subject land is or is not one of open rear yards and garden outlooks.
17	I am persuaded that the rear yard context in the surrounding area is mixed.
18	Where there are multi-dwelling developments, they include dwellings located in close proximity to the rear boundaries – the ‘rear yard’ areas.  These include the developments at numbers 2 and 5-7 Flannery Court, and 3 Chris Court (immediately to the rear of the subject land).
19	Many of the properties that are occupied by single dwellings have large sheds and other outbuildings in their rear yards.  This includes the subject land that has a large shed that extends along most of the length of the rear boundary of 75 Deveraux Street, and the adjoining property to the south, at number 3 Flannery Court.
20	While the adjoining properties along the northern side boundary, at 71, 73 and 75 Devereaux  Street, have setbacks from their rear boundaries that adjoin the subject land, they are not landscaped spaces.  They are occupied by decks and swimming pools (in the case of numbers 73 and 75) and a large garage/shed building (in the case of number 71).
21	I am satisfied that in this context, having regard to the policy guidelines at clause 15.01-5L, there is scope for double storey buildings in the rear yard area of the subject land.
22	I am also satisfied that the proposal provides an acceptable response to the policy guideline at clause 15.01-5L for the following reasons:
i	The building envelope respects the existing character of open rear yards and garden outlooks of the properties along the northern side interface by locating the private open space areas of the existing and proposed dwellings along this boundary interface.
ii	The siting of the proposed dwellings providing generous setbacks at both ground floor and first floor levels to the side and rear boundaries.
iii	The private open space areas at ground floor of the existing and proposed dwellings provides space for screen tree planting around the development.  The landscape plan demonstrates that a combination of hedge planting and canopy trees can be provided around both the side and rear boundaries.
iv	The areas of the private open spaces provide for canopy tree planting in accordance with the requirements of the local variation to standard B13, and the proposed trees meet the requisite heights and canopy widths at maturity required by the local variation to this standard.
v	While the opportunity for landscaping along the southern side of the existing dwelling, is minimal, the amended proposal and proposed landscaping plan includes landscaping where possible along the side of the driveway.  This includes hedging plants and canopy trees along the boundary on the southern side of the driveway.
Visual bulk
23	I am satisfied that the upper levels are sensitively designed with adequate articulation, setbacks, and materials to minimise visual bulk impacts as seen from neighbouring rear secluded open spaces.  This includes:
i	the staggered setbacks of the upper floor levels of the proposed dwellings;
ii	the separation between the upper floor levels of the proposed dwellings;
iii	the varied skillion roof forms that reduce the roof mass of the proposed dwellings; and
iv	the window fenestration and variations in building materials, finishes and colours.
24	I am not concerned with the skillion roofs of the proposed dwellings being different to the prevailing character of hipped roof forms evident in the area.  I am satisfied that the skillion roof forms provide an acceptable balance between reflecting the angled hipped roof forms of surrounding dwellings and minimising the height and visual impact of the proposed dwellings as they will be viewed from surrounding properties.
25	For these reasons I find that the proposal does provide an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character.
Will any amenity impacts be acceptable?
26	The key issues raised by the applicants for review regarding amenity impacts relate to visual bulk, access to daylight, privacy (overlooking), and loss of views.
Visual bulk
27	In relation to the matter of the amenity impacts of visual bulk, I rely on my findings outlined previously that the upper levels are sensitively designed with adequate articulation, setbacks and materials to minimise visual bulk impacts as seen from neighbouring properties.  
28	The visual bulk impacts of the proposal are further minimised or tempered by:
i	the separation of the proposed dwellings from the rear of the existing dwelling that is to be retained;
ii	the side and rear setbacks at ground floor and upper floor level exceeding the minimum setbacks required by standard B17 at clause 55.04-1 ‘Side and rear setbacks objective’; and
iii	the proposed landscaping, including canopy trees, which will filter views of the proposed dwellings from surrounding properties.
29	I consider that the presentation of the double storey form of the proposed dwellings will not be dissimilar to that of the existing dwellings at 73 and 75 Devereaux  Street.  However the visual impact of the proposed dwellings will be less due to the skillion roof forms (compared to the gable end roof forms of the dwellings at 73 and 75 Devereaux  Street as they face the subject land), and the ground level of the subject land being lower than the adjoining properties to the north.
Access to daylight
30	In relation to the amenity impact on access to daylight, I am satisfied that the substantial setbacks of the proposed dwellings from the property boundaries and dwellings on the adjoining properties will ensue that there are no unacceptable impacts on access to daylight.  The setbacks are far in excess of what is required to satisfy Standard B19 at clause 55.04-3 ‘Daylight to existing windows objective’. 
Privacy (overlooking)
31	In relation to privacy impacts and overlooking, the siting and design of the proposal limits views into neighbouring secluded private open spaces and habitable room windows in accordance with the requirements of standard B22 at clause 55.04-6 ‘Overlooking objective’.
Loss of views
32	To the extent that the properties at 71, 73 and 75 Devereaux  Street enjoy views over the subject land and towards the Moonee Ponds Creek, these views are not protected by an overlay or policy under the Scheme.
Summary
33	For these reasons I find that any amenity impacts will be acceptable.
Does the proposal provide acceptable car parking?
34	The proposal provides the number of car parking spaces for each dwelling as required by the car parking provisions at clause 52.06 of the Scheme.
35	The applicants for review take issue with the previous proposal to locate a car parking space in the front setback of the proposed dwelling.  The amended plans have removed the car parking space previously proposed in front of the existing dwelling.  This area is now proposed to be set aside for landscaping.
36	I note the concerns of the applicants for review about the reliance on converting one bedroom in the existing dwelling to an open plan study area to reduce the number of bedrooms in this dwelling and to therefore reduce the car parking requirement to only one space for the existing dwelling.  I am satisfied this is an acceptable design response.  If the development is not undertaken or maintained in accordance with the plans that will be endorsed under the permit that is a matter for enforcement by the Council. 
37	For these reasons I find that the proposal does provide acceptable car parking.
Does the proposal respond to the criticisms of the previous development proposal in the previous VCAT decision?
38	The applicants for review submit that the key issues which formed the basis for the Tribunal refusing the proposal for a double storey dwelling on the subject land in the previous VCAT decision still exist.
39	Key issues on which the Tribunal based its decision in that previous VCAT decision related to, in summary:
•	no articulation of the building facing the open rear yards of dwellings facing Devereaux  Street;
•	the elevated floor level of the proposed dwelling;
•	limited space for landscaping along the side and rear boundaries; and
•	the extent of built form and extensive paving along the southern interface.
40	I am satisfied that the proposal is a significantly different proposal to that considered in the previous VCAT decision.
41	I am satisfied that the proposal has responded to the criticisms of the Tribunal in the previous VCAT decision, including:
i	substantially increasing the setbacks and creating staggered setbacks along the northern side interface;
ii	removing the need for an elevated floor level, and lowering the overall building height;
iii	significantly increasing the opportunity for landscaping along the side and rear boundaries, to the extent possible given the constraint provided by retaining the existing dwelling and driveway; and
iv	reducing the extent of built form and hard paving along the southern boundary.
42	For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal in this current proceeding has responded in an acceptable way to the key issues raised in the previous Tribunal decision.
Are there any other issues?
43	While other issues with the proposal have been raised, I am satisfied that these are not determinative as to whether a planning permit should be issued.  As such I will not elaborate my findings on these other issues.
Conclusion
44	For the reasons I have given, the decision of the Council is varied.
45	I direct that a permit is granted subject to conditions.
46	The permit conditions are to be in accordance with the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit subject to the changes discussed at the hearing.
47	In giving my oral reason I reserved my decision with respect to the detailed changes to the conditions and reserved the right to make refinements to the detailed drafting of the permit conditions in the written Order that do not change the substance of my findings.
48	The permit conditions are set out in Appendix A to this Order.

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	MPS/2021/907	
Land	1 Flannery Court
OAK PARK VIC 3046	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling house in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1.	

Conditions
Amended plans
1	Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Wardle Design Pty Ltd, plans TP1–TP7, Revision C ‘VCAT Amendments to comply with NOD conditions’ dated 01/03/2023, but modified to show:
(a)	The dimension of the minimum setback of bedroom 3, Dwelling 3 at first-floor level from the western (rear) boundary.
(b)	The partition wall between the entry area and south-east bedroom of the existing dwelling shown and annotated to be removed to create a two-bedroom dwelling.
(c)	The south facing window of the stair landing/hall area at first floor level of Dwelling 2 to be obscure glazed or screened in accordance with standard B22 at clause 55.04-6 of the Merri-bek Planning Scheme.
(d)	Fencing, kerbing, or garden edging between the southern edge of the open space in the front setback of the existing dwelling and the northern edge of the driveway, sufficient to prevent vehicles being driven/parked on the front setback open space.
(e)	Any changes to the plans arising from the Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.
(f)	Tree protection zone(s) in accordance with Condition 6 of this permit, to the Council street tree.
(g)	The Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives that are required to be shown on plans, as contained within Condition 7 of this permit.
Compliance with Endorsed Plans 
2	The 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 Clauses 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Merri-bek Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition. 
Landscaping 
3	Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended landscape plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.  The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Habitat landscape and environment design consultants, Sheet 1 of 1, Issue B dated March 2023, but amended to show: 
(a)	Any changes required to align with the plans for endorsement. 
(b)	Identification of any existing tree(s) and vegetation on site and adjoining land proposed to be removed and retained, including the tree protection zone(s) of trees to be retained and protected. 
(c)	Strategies for the retainment of vegetation (i.e. barriers and signage during the construction process) consistent with any conditions of this permit.
(d)	Notes and diagrams detailing the establishment and maintenance of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers. 
(e)	Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Porous/permeable paving, rain gardens and other water sensitive urban design features must be in accordance with the Sustainability Design Assessment. 
When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the landscape plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit\.  No alterations to the plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, all landscaping works must be completed in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5	All landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the endorsed landscape plans.  Any dead, diseased or damaged plants must be replaced with a suitable species to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Tree Protection
6	Prior to development commencing (including any demolition, excavations, tree removal, delivery of building/construction materials and/or temporary buildings), all council trees must have a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in accordance with AS4970 Protection of Trees on Development Sites to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The TPZ must meet the following requirements:
(a)	Tree Protection Fencing
Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) is to be provided to the extent of the TPZ, calculated as being a radius of 12 x Diameter at Breast Height (DBH – measured at 1.4 metres above ground level as defined by the Australian Standard AS 4970.2009).  The TPF may be aligned with roadways, footpaths and boundary fences where they intersect the TPZ.
If works are shown on any endorsed plan of this permit within the confines of the calculated TPZ, then the TPF must be taken in to only the minimum amount necessary to allow the works to be completed.
The TPF must be erected to form a visual and physical barrier, be a minimum height of 1.5 metres above ground level and of mesh panels, chain mesh or similar material.  A top line of high visibility plastic tape must be erected around the perimeter of the fence.
(b)	Signage
Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TPF clearly stating “Tree Protection Zone – No entry. No excavation or trenching. No storage of materials or waste.”.  The TPF signage must be complied with at all times.
(c)	Irrigation
The area within the TPZ and TPF must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1cm of trunk girth measured at the soil/trunk interface on a weekly basis.
(d)	Provision of Services
All services (including water, electricity, gas and telephone) must be installed underground, and located outside of any TPZ, wherever practically possible.  If underground services are to be routed within an established TPZ, this must occur in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970.
Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)
7	Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) and plans must be submitted to the satisfaction by the Responsible Authority.  The Sustainable Design Assessment must demonstrate a best practice standard of environmentally sustainable design and be generally in accordance with the SDA by Wardle advertised 20th April 2020 but modified to include the following changes:
(a)	Amend the BESS report (and any other corresponding documentation) to:
i	Any changes to the plans arising from the amended plans in accordance with Condition 1 of this permit.
ii	Annotate Management credit 4.1 'Building Users Guide' to provide a short description of what information will be included in the guide.
iii	Amend Urban Ecology credit 2.1 'vegetation' to accurately reflect the percentage of the site that is vegetated (planted), in accordance with the landscape plan.
iv	Amend the BESS water category to include rainwater tank connection to toilets.
(b)	A STORM report and stormwater management response that maintains a minimum STORM score of 100% but is modified so that:
i	The allotment site area only includes the area associated with the new works (dwellings 2 and 3, dwelling 1 garage and new driveways);
ii	Include dwelling 1 new garage area roof;
(c)	Show the following ESD initiatives on the development plans:
i	External operable shading devices to the east facing dwelling 3 bedroom 1 glazing to block peak summer sun.  A product diagram or section detail of the proposed device must be provided.
ii	External shading must be provided for all north facing habitable room glazing.  Where an external fixed horizontal shading device is being specified; the depth of the device should be equal to 25% of the distance from sill height to the base of the device and extend horizontally by the same length to both sides.  A product diagram or section detail of the proposed device must be provided.
iii	Double glazing to all rooms to be annotated on each individual glazing unit on elevation plans and specified on the material/colour schedule.
iv	Annotate the type of window operation on all elevation plans (e.g. arrows for a sliding window, a V for an awning…).
v	Details of the permeable paving annotated on plans including a cross sectional drawing as per Merri-bek WSUD guidelines.
vi	The rainwater tank annotation to state that tanks will be servicing all the toilets within each dwelling.
(d)	An amended stormwater catchment plan that is consistent with the STORM report, clearly showing:
i	The site area associate with the new dwellings, garage, and driveway.
ii	All stormwater catchment areas (all new impervious areas and roofs) clearly marked and dimensioned and connected to corresponding Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) treatment measures;
iii	Running charged rainwater pipes under slabs is not supported.  The catchment plan should have downpipe locations demonstrating how the stormwater initiatives will be achieved without the need for charged rainwater piping systems underneath dwellings footings or slabs.
Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in this condition, 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.
When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the amended SDA and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.  No alterations to the SDA may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
8	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, all works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment (including any BESS and STORM reports) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9	Prior to the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy or Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report/checklist must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.  The report/checklist must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm (with suitable evidence) that measures specified in the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment have been implemented in accordance with the approved plans.
10	All stormwater treatment devices (e.g., raingardens, rainwater tanks etc.) must be maintained, to ensure water quality discharged from the site complies with the performance standard in the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment.
Development Contributions
11	Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Merri-bek City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan.  The Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy is charged per dwelling.
If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following:
i	a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit; or
ii	prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision;
When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.
Car Parking and Vehicle Access
12	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, a vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Merri-bek City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
13	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of a proposed vehicle crossing must be relocated or modified at the expense of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the relevant service authority.
Undergrounding cables
14	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, all telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Stormwater
15	All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Note: Please contact Merri-bek City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
General Amenity
16	Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views.  This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater down pipes.
17	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, bollard lighting standing no higher than 1.2 metres above ground level is to be installed and maintained on the land to automatically illuminate pedestrian access to the dwelling(s) between dusk and dawn with no direct light emitted onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
19	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Permit Expiry
20	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit;
(b)	the development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of issue of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or;
•	within six months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date;
•	within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.

– End of conditions –