VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P2/2023
Permit Application no.MPS/2021/402 	

Applicant	Vural Yildirim	

Responsible Authority	Merri-bek City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	5 & 7-9 Nicholson Street
COBURG Vic 3058	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	10 July 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	11 July 2023	
citation	Yildirim v Merri-bek CC [2023] VCAT 777	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P2/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application MPS/2021/402 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 5 & 7-9 Nicholson Street Coburg Vic 3058 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Use and development of the land for the purpose of multiple triple-storey dwellings (plus rooftop terraces) and offices (with caretaker dwellings above) and a reduction to the standard car parking requirement.

Tracey Bilston-McGillen
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Russell Hocking, town planning consultant, Cityshire Planning.	
For responsible authority	Luke Rogers, town planner.	
For referral authority	No attendance.	

Information
Description of proposal	Use and development of the land for the purpose of multiple triple-storey dwellings (plus rooftop terraces) and offices (with caretaker dwellings above) and a reduction to the standard car parking requirement.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Merri-Bek Planning Scheme (planning scheme).	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z).
Design & Development Overlay (DDO24).
Parking Overlay (PO1).	
Permit requirements	Clause 34.01-4, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to reduce the standard number of car parking spaces required.  	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 15.01-1S, 15.01-1R, 15.01-1L, 15.01-2S, 15.01-2L, 15.01-4S, 15.01-4R ,15.01-5S, 15.02-1L, 15.02-1L, 16.01-1S, 16.01-1R, 16.01-2L, 45.06, 52.06, 55., 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The review land comprises of two lots on the western side of Nicholson Street. The site is approximately 16 metres to the north of the intersection of Moreland Road and Nicholson Street.
The lots comprising the site are each irregular rectangles in shape.  The combined lots have a frontage of approximately 24 metres, a rear boundary of 23.43 metres, a northern side boundary of 20.73 metres and a southern side boundary of 17.12 metres.  The subject site has a total site area of 444.11 square metres.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the site and surrounds.   	

  Reasons
1	At the conclusion of the hearing, I gave an oral decision to set aside the decision of the Merri-bek Council and ordered that a permit be issued subject to conditions.  The reasons given are set out below.
2	Vural Yildirim (‘applicant’) applied to the Merri-bek Council (‘council’) to develop the review site at 5 and 7-9 Nicholson Street Coburg for the use and development of the land for the purpose of multiple triple-storey dwellings (plus rooftop terraces) and offices (with caretaker dwellings above) and a reduction to the standard car parking requirement. 
3	Council refused the proposed development for a number of reasons which I will not repeat here as the parties are familiar with the grounds.  
4	The parties agreed on a number of matters including:
i	The site enjoys strong strategic policy support for its redevelopment.  Council stated that the site is located within the Nicholson Street/Holmes Street/Moreland Road Neighbourhood Centre where the strategic direction at clause 02.03-1 is to accommodate an increase in density and scale of built form but despite this strategic support, the proposed built form is not considered acceptable.  I agree with the parties that the site has strong strategic support for redevelopment.  The site is located in a C1Z, within an activity centre and is identified as a Neighbourhood Centre.  It is located on public transport and has access to a range of services.
ii	Both parties agreed that the provision of car parking including the proposed reduction in the statutory requirement was acceptable.  I agree with these submissions noting that the site is located within the Principal Public Transport Network.  A reduction in car parking is appropriate.
5	The key issues in dispute and for my assessment include:
•	Presentation to the street – active frontages.
•	Presentation to the street – architectural expression.
•	Building height and setbacks and equitable development.
•	Internal amenity.
6	I will address each of these issues.  In making my decision, the applicant reminded me of a decision of Senior Member Baird who made the observation in Little v Yarra CC and reads:
[7]	In accordance with the provisions of the scheme, I must determine whether the proposal is acceptable. If the proposal is acceptable as designed, I am not required to find ways to produce a better outcome.[4]
7	Having regard to the submissions, the provisions of the planning scheme, the context of the site and my site view, I will set aside the decision of the Council and order that a permit be granted subject to conditions.
Presentation to the street – active frontages.
8	The proposed development has its primary frontage to Nicholson Street between two roads located to the north and south of the site.  The ground floor is provided with two office spaces each with an office area and window to Nicholson Stret and service area (bins) located on the corner to the roads.  Council stated that the extent of glazing is inadequate and fails to comply with the DDO24 requirements for active frontages seeking development to incorporate a commercial display windows or entrance measuring 65-80% of the width of the street frontage to each premise.  I was advised that numerically the proposal provides approximately 50% of display window or entrance, falling short of the requirement.  Council further highlighted that on corner lots, DDO24 states that active frontages should address both streets.  
9	The site and design must be considered in its context.  The site is located a lot away from the intersection of Nicholson Street and Moreland Road.  The commercial centre can be described as ‘tired’ but has had some limited redevelopment. The proposed development is supported by the zoning and the strategic policy framework.
10	I am persuaded by the applicant that the design of the ground floor is acceptable.  I say this for the following reasons.
•	I find the extent of glazing to the front façade acceptable.  Whilst it does not meet the 65% glazing, the context of the site is to be considered.  This is an extremely busy intersection and road and it is my view that whilst the façade treatment may be restrained, it offers two office spaces which will improve the level of perceived activity to the street.
•	It is my view that Council have over emphasised the role of the adjoining roads.  I agree that they are technically roads as identified, but in the case of the southern road, it serves a few properties including the review site and is a dead-end road.  Its purpose is limited.  It is my observation that the role or hierarchy of the road is part of the consideration.  Having said that, I find that the way the development interfaces the adjoining roads as acceptable. To the south, the ground floor is provided with timber doors for a waste storage area but the first floor caretakers unit is provided with a balcony at the first floor.  This balcony is orientated to the corner and will provided active surveillance.  It is my observation that whilst this corner is currently exposed, this is due to the adjoining car park.  If the adjoining site to the south is redeveloped, any view to this corner of the building, at least to the ground floor will be restricted and limited.  I do not find that the building needs to treat this corner and interaction with the roads as it would Nicholson Street.
•	To the north, the proposal also provides a storage cupboard but this is reflective of the development to the north which provides no glazing or sense of entry.  
Presentation to the street – architectural expression.
11	Council stated that the proposed development fails to provide for a ‘fine grain architectural expression with detailed street frontages’.  Council further put that the sheer wall, lack of articulation through materials or built form and horizonal proportions of the façade to Nicholson Street contribute to the façade reading as a side façade.  DDO24 states that building facades should be designed with an appropriate rhythm and proportion that respond to the buildings uses and context and contribute to a fine grain urban character and new buildings should adopt solid architectural expression that emphasises the street edge through the use of recessed balconies, framed elements and solid balustrades.
12	Notwithstanding the submission of Council regarding the DDO24 requirements, I have also reviewed the DDO24 provisions and in particular the design objectives of the DDO24 which read:
•	To implement the Moreland Neighbourhood Centres Strategy, 2017.
•	To ensure built form outcomes are appropriate to the context of Merri-bek's Neighbourhood Centres.
•	To improve the quality of higher density and mixed use developments by providing appropriate built form guidance.
•	To improve amenity outcomes for residents in higher density and mixed use developments and for residents in adjacent buildings.
•	To ensure that new development makes a positive contribution to the public realm.
13	DDO24 calls for the built from outcomes appropriate to the context of the centre.  I am persuaded by the applicant that the proposed design is acceptable for the following reasons:
•	Whilst it was submitted that the front façade may read as a horizontal development, the proposed design offers verticality through the use of vertical metal cladding and the façade provides a black metal feature frame which will provide a small design recess to the windows.  A render finish further introduces some variation to the facade.  
•	At the ground floor the site accommodates two office spaces with some variation to the location of windows at the first floor.  
•	The development is not fine grain in the traditional small terrace house sense, but on a site located on a busy intersection, I find the detailing acceptable.  
14	I find the proposed development has had regard to the design objectives of DDO24.
Building height and setbacks.
15	The proposed building height was not the concern but it was the lack of a side setback to the south that concerned Council.  The concern was equitable development. 
16	DDO24 sets the following side setback requirement:
With Outlook
•	Primary outlook (living/balcony outlook): 4.5 metres from the property boundary should be planted with trees.
•	Secondary outlook (bedrooms outlook): 2 metres from the property boundary should be planted with trees.
•	Any part of a building abutting any other zone must comply with the side setback requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode Standard A10 or B17).
Separation of buildings within sites should have regard to the building separation distances in the Moreland Apartment Design Code, September 2015.
Architectural features, sunshades and artworks may encroach into the side and rear setbacks. No other part of a building, including balconies, may encroach into the setback.
17	The key concern was the lack of setbacks to the south, opposite the property 53-55 Moreland Road.  
18	Council described the proposed southern setbacks as modest, noting that the setback at ground floor is for the purpose of vehicle access to the garages.  A zero lot line is generally proposed at first (external wall) and second-floor (balcony balustrade) levels. The roof terraces above are setback 2 metres from the respective side boundaries of the site.  The proposal fails to meet the requirements as stated above.  
19	Council put that appropriate siting and setbacks would be expected at both the review site and adjoining to the south to ensure appropriate amenity and outlook for occupants of both developments.  Council further stated that any future development at 53-55 Moreland Road would reasonably be expected to make use of the northern aspect for daylight, ventilation and outlook and therefore in order for equitable development rights to be maintained, the proposed development should be designed to allow for future development.  
20	Equitable development does not mean equal as not all sites are equal.  I am persuaded by the applicant that in this case, the size of the site at 53-55 Moreland Road means that its development opportunities are limited.  It is a small site.  It would likely gain access from the same road as the proposed development but even if it orientated residential development to the north, screening would be likely required for dwellings to the south and a 9 metre setback would be unlikely (to prevent screening of windows).  That is because the size of the sites are small.  It is an area where development will be cheek-by-jowl.  
21	I do not agree that the proposed form of development would restrict the future development of the site to the south.  The ground floor is proposed to be setback to allow for access to the garages, which would likely be replicated opposite.  The development at the first and second floors is located on the boundary whilst the roof top terrace is setback two metres from the boundary.  The 3 metre road provides sufficient distance to provide breathing space between any future development.  These are small sites and as such, the development potential is limited.
Internal amenity
22	I do not share the concerns of Council with regard to internal amenity.  Whilst I agree there is a level of screening proposed, all units with the exception of one has access to a roof top terrace.  This terrace will provide a high level of amenity to these modestly sized units.  I have also required by condition, a change to the type of screening to be external upward facing louvres which will allow for views out and up and improves the level of daylighting to internal spaces.  
Conclusion
23	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Tracey Bilston-McGillen
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	MPS/2021/402	
Land	5 & 7-9 Nicholson Street
COBURG Vic 3058	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Use and development of the land for the purpose of multiple triple-storey dwellings (plus rooftop terraces) and offices (with caretaker dwellings above) and a reduction to the standard car parking requirement.	

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 advertised 21 September 2022 but modified to show:
(a)	Screening to north and south facing habitable room windows, balconies and the roof top terraces to comprise of external upward facing louvres in accordance with Standard B22.
(b)	A letterbox provided for each of the premises at the Nicholson Street frontage.
(c)	Each office with caretakers dwelling above provided with two resident bicycle parking spaces.
(d)	20% of the bicycle parking devices in each dwelling designed to provide ground level horizontal (i.e. 1800mm long) bike parking devices in accordance with the Australian Standard for Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3).
(e)	Bicycle parking devices dimensioned as 500mm wide and the horizontal bike spaces 1800mm long and the vertical bicycle spaces 1200mm long, with every space accessed from a 1500mm wide access aisle as required by the Australian Standard for Parking Facilities – Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3).
(f)	The inclusion of a note stating “Slope floor to match existing footpath” at each entrance to the public footpath in Nicholson Street.
(g)	The Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives that are required to be shown on plans, as contained within Condition 7a) of this permit. 
(h)	Any changes to the plans arising from the:
i	Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit. 
ii	Acoustic Report in accordance with Condition 11 of this permit. 
iii	Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 14 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 advertised 21 September 2022 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)	A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity, botanical names and common names. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Merri-bek Landscape Guidelines 2009.
(e)	Notes and diagrams detailing the establishment and maintenance of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers.
(f)	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 or Sustainability Management Plan.
(g)	Details of all planter boxes, above basement planting areas, green walls, rooftop gardens and similar, including:
i	Soil volume sufficient for the proposed vegetation 
ii	Soil mix
iii	Drainage design
iv	Details of an automatic irrigation system, including maintenance program and responsibility for maintenance.
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, including installation of automatic irrigation, must be completed in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
5	All landscaping and irrigation systems 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 Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) and plans must be submitted to the satisfaction by the Responsible Authority. The SMP must demonstrate a best practice standard of environmentally sustainable design and be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Ark Resources dated 14 September 2022, but modified to include the following changes:
(a)	Show the following ESD initiatives on the development plans:
(b)	Annotate double glazing on each window on the elevation plans.
(c)	Install fixed horizontal shading device to the first floor north facing glazing. 
(d)	The first-floor internal living room windows are not show as operable. This must be operable on both the north and south to create cross ventilation.
(e)	Provide planter boxes at the base of the structure for climbers on the roof and north balcony with irrigation and drainage to support future occupant to grow plants on the structure. 
Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in the conditions above, 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 Sustainability Management Plan and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit. No alterations to the plan 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, the development must be constructed in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment (including any BESS and STORM reports and NatHERS Ratings) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm (with documented evidence) that all measures specified in the SMP have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.
10	All stormwater treatment devices (e.g., raingardens, rainwater tanks etc.) must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure water quality discharged from the site complies with the performance standard in the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan.
Acoustic Attenuation
11	Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Acoustic Report prepared by a qualified Acoustic Engineer must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Acoustic Report will be endorsed to form part of this permit. No alterations to the Acoustic Report may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
12	The building must be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the recommendations contained within the approved Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.
13	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, a report from the author of the Acoustic Report approved pursuant to this permit or similarly qualified person or company must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Acoustic Report have been implemented in accordance with the approved Acoustic Report.
Waste Management
14	Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Waste Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The plan must be generally in accordance with the report prepared by Leigh Design dated 30 September 2021 but modified to either:
(a)	Engage a private waste company to issue individual waste bins to each dwelling and collect the waste each week; or
(b)	Redesign the waste system of the development to use Councils shared bin waste service and provide areas to store the shared bins on common land.
When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the WMP will be endorsed to form part of this permit. No alterations to the WMP may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Engineering Matters
15	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).
16	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, any existing vehicle crossing not to be used in this use or development must be removed and the kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Merri-bek City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
17	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, access to the site, any vehicle crossover and any ancillary road and road drainage works must be constructed in accordance with any requirement of the Responsible Authority (Merri-bek City Council, City Infrastructure Department). 
18	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.
19	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, the garage roller doors must be automatic and remote controlled.
Stormwater
20	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).
21	The surface of all balconies are to be sloped to collect the stormwater run-off into stormwater drainage pipes that connect into the underground drainage system of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car Parking
22	The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes shown on the endorsed plan must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: 
(a)	Be completed prior to issue of an Occupancy Permit or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever occurs first.  
(b)	Be maintained.
(c)	Be properly formed to such levels that it can be used according to the endorsed plan.
(d)	Have the boundaries of all vehicle parking spaces clearly marked on the ground to accord with the endorsed plan.
(e)	Not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
(f)	Be numbered to facilitate management of the car park.
General
23	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.
24	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.
25	The office window must not be painted or blocked out in any way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
26	All external lighting, other than balcony lighting, must be no higher than 1.2 metres above ground level with automatic or sensor-controlled lighting installed and maintained on the land to illuminate pedestrian access between dusk and dawn with no direct light emitted onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.	
27	All lighting of external areas must be designed not to emit direct light onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
28	Provide appropriate lighting to the adjoining north and south roads, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Privacy screens to be installed and maintained
29	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
30	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;
i	within six months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date.
ii	within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.

– End of conditions –