VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P20/2023
Permit Application no.PLN21/0683 	

Applicant	Amri Singh	

Responsible Authority	Greater Dandenong City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	2 Moodemere Street
NOBLE PARK VIC 3174	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	10 July 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	19 July 2023	

CITATION	Singh v Greater Dandenong CC [2023] VCAT 804   	

Order
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Bates Smart	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP1/5 – TP5/5 Rev B, TP1/7 – 7/7 Rev B 	
•	Dated	15 April 2023	
 
2	In application P20/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application PLN21/0683 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 2 Moodemere Street Noble Park VIC 3174  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Development of two double storey dwellings

Jane Tait
Member			

Appearances
For Amri Singh	Simon Skinner, Planning Sense.  He called the following witness:
•	Robert Thomson, landscape architect, Habitat	
For City of Greater Dandenong	Janelle Battiller, development planner	

Information
Description of proposal	To construct two double storey dwellings on a lot.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Greater Dandenong CC	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (GRZ1)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot	
Land description	The subject site is on the south side of Moodemere Street, Noble Park.  It has a 15.85 metre frontage, depth of 34.24 metres and site area of 542.75 square metres.  
The site is occupied by a single storey brick detached house with a driveway along the west boundary.  There is a 2.44 metre drainage and sewerage easement along the south (rear) boundary.  The site is generally flat and contains no significant vegetation.
To the east are the rear yards and outbuildings of two detached houses at 42 and 44 Bloomfield Road and to the west are two single storey dwellings at 4 Moodemere Street.  Directly south is the rear yard and outbuildings associated with a single storey dwelling at 43 Rutherglen Street.	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied site inspection was conducted after the hearing.   	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Amri Singh (the ‘applicant’) applied for a planning permit to construct two double storey dwellings at 2 Moodemere Street, Noble Park.  The dwellings are in a side-by-side/duplex layout with a central party wall.  They are a mirror image and include ground floor living areas and first floor bedrooms and retreat.  Each dwelling has a single garage and tandem car space in the driveway. The layout of the dwellings and front elevation is shown on Figures 1-3.
Figure 1 – Ground Floor Plan

Figure 2 – First Floor Plan

Figure 3 – North Elevation

2	The City of Greater Dandenong (the ‘Council’) refused the application on six grounds.  These include the proposal fails to positively contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area.  They state the proposal is inconsistent with design objectives of the General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1) and State and Local neighbourhood character policies.  Council also refused the application on grounds the proposal does not meet the objectives and standards of Clause 55 in relation to residential policy, energy efficiency, landscaping, access, and design detail.
3	Council argues the built form outcome, site layout (including the location of the driveways) and inadequate landscaping opportunities fail to meet the urban design, neighbourhood character objectives in the Planning Scheme.  
4	The applicant submits the two dwelling development fulfils its responsibility in the Planning Scheme to provide a modest form of housing growth and diversity which is respectful of the surrounding physical context and preferred neighbourhood character expectations for the area.
5	Two statements of grounds were received from nearby residents who are not parties to this matter.  They are concerned about reduced safety from the additional crossover in the street and increased on-street parking.  The neighbour to the south considers there are inadequate setbacks to the rear boundary and insufficient screen trees are proposed along the south boundary to filter views from the first floor east and west facing windows.
6	Planning decisions do not seek ideal outcomes, or outcomes which respond positively to every relevant policy.  Rather, acceptable outcomes are the measure by which decisions are to be made.  I must decide whether the proposed development will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the Planning Scheme.  Clause 71.02-3 requires the decision-maker to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. 
7	I have decided to set aside Council’s decision and direct a permit be issued as I am satisfied the development is an appropriate response to the preferred neighbourhood character and it will complement the landscape character of the area.  My reasons follow.
What are the key issues?
8	Having undertaken an inspection of the subject site and wider area and taking into consideration the submissions and evidence regarding the applicable policies and provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, the key issues arising in this matter are:
•	Does the proposal respond to its zoning and policy context?
•	Is the development an acceptable response to the preferred neighbourhood character?
•	Does the proposal respect the landscape character of this neighbourhood?
•	Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to the objective and standards of Clause 55?
•	Will the development result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties?
Procedural issues 
9	After the application for review being lodged, the permit application was amended, through the substitution of amended plans.  The amended proposal includes several changes including the removal of the master bedroom and en-suite of both dwellings.  The commensurate reconfiguration of the dwellings increases the setbacks of the garages from the frontage and increases landscaping along the side boundaries.  The first floor setbacks from the frontage have also been increased.  No party or other person has objected to the amendment. Council did not amend any of its grounds of refusal in response to these plans.
What is the phyiscal context of the site?
10	Moodemere Street is within an established residential area comprising single storey and double storey detached houses on lots of between 500-600 square metres.  Dwellings are generally set back 6-8 metres from the frontage, with a driveway along one side boundary.  Whilst the street contains some mature street trees, dwellings generally have low to medium height shrubs and smaller canopy trees in front and rear yards.  
11	The subject site abuts the rear yard of a single storey house at 43 Rutherglen Street and the east boundary abuts the rear yards of two detached dwellings at 42 and 44 Bloomfield Road.  
12	Medium density housing is evident in this area including to the immediate west where there are two single storey detached dwellings at 4 Moodemere Street.  Further afield are five, two storey attached houses at 150 Buckley Street and three double storey dwellings at 13 Rutherglen Street.  The context of the site is shown in the aerial view in Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Aerial

Subject site

Does the proposal respond to its zoning and policy context?
13	The subject site is in a GRZ1 which has a purpose to encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth, particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport and to respect the neighbourhood character of the area.  Clause 1.0 to Schedule 1 of the zone contains the following neighbourhood character objectives that are relevant to my decision:
•	To ensure the scale, built form and setbacks of residential developments respond to the existing site circumstances by respecting the predominant built form, façade and street patterns. 
•	To provide appropriate front, side and rear setbacks, garden areas and significant private open space to allow for substantial high quality landscaping and canopy trees to protect the amenity of adjoining properties and to create a landscape character. 
•	To maximise the opportunities to create high quality landscaping, through minimal paving and the use of permeable ground surfaces. 
•	To ensure vehicle accessways and storage facilities do not visually dominate the streetscape. 
•	To ensure that residential development achieves high quality useable private open space outcomes for future residents, including the provision of secluded private open space at the side or rear of each dwelling.
14	The zone contains variations to Clause 55 for street setback, permeability, landscaping, private open space, and front fencing.  The proposal fully complies with the varied standards, except for landscaping that will be discussed further below in my findings.
15	Council outlined the relevant objectives and strategies of the Planning Policy Framework (‘PPF’) at Clauses 11, 15, 16 and 18 that provide guidance about the type, location, and anticipated density of new housing in the municipality.  
16	There are also various clauses in the Local Planning Policy Framework (‘LPPF’) relevant to this application.  This includes Clause 21.05 (Built Form) that has an objective to facilitate high quality development, which has regard for the surrounding environment and built form. 
17	The Residential Development and Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.09 is applicable for all residential development in a GRZ1.  The clause contains general design principles relating to safety, landscaping, car parking, setbacks, front boundary width, private open space, bulk and built form, site design, materials and finishes and internal amenity that must be considered.  
18	Map 1 at Clause 22.09-3.5 indicates the subject site is within an Incremental Change Area (‘ICA’).  Clause 22.09-3.3 states these areas have been identified as suitable to accommodate low and medium density housing because of their locational attributes, being further away from activity centres but reasonably close to services. 
19	The policy contains identified future character for ICA and specific Design Principles for sites within the ICA that will be discussed further below in my findings regarding neighbourhood character.
What do the parties say?
20	Council acknowledges the site can accommodate a medium density due to its size and location in an ICA.  It also says the site has locational attributes that could support a modest increase in density development in accordance with the objectives of Clauses 11.01-1R, 11.01-1S and 16 of the PPF.  However, it submits the proposal is inconsistent with the built form outcomes sought for landscaping and car parking in Clause 22.09, the neighbourhood character objectives of the GRZ1, and standards of Clause 55.
21	The applicant refutes this proposition and submits ICA areas do not exhibit the same level of intactness of Least Change Areas (‘LCA’) and the site is not isolated or remote from services/facilities necessary to accommodate a modest population increase.  The applicant argues that the GRZ has a purpose to encourage housing growth and diversity and there is a legitimate planning expectation that new housing will exhibit built form and site layout characteristics that are distinguishable from the more constrained parts of the municipality.
Tribunal findings
22	The construction of two dwellings on this site is in accordance with the objectives and strategies of the PPF and LPPF which encourage a modest increase in housing densities in Noble Park.  The proposal is also consistent with the purposes of the GRZ as it will increase the diversity of housing and housing growth in an area that is located near the Noble Park Major Activity Centre, Noble Park Train Station and within walking distance of two primary schools, public open space, and childcare centres.
23	The main issue is whether the amended plans have addressed the preferred neighbourhood character for ICA that is outlined in Clause 22.09.  I find the development is an appropriate response to the preferred neighbourhood character in terms of its layout and design.  I also consider there is sufficient space in the frontage setback and around the dwellings to accommodate landscaping which will enhance the landscape character of the area.  My reasons follow.
Is the development an acceptable response to the preferred neighbourhood character?
What is the preferred Neighbourhood Character?
24	Clause 22.09-3.3 applies to ICA in a GRZ.  It is policy in these areas to ensure new development respects the neighbourhood character and the identified future character: 
will evolve over time to contain a greater proportion of well designed and site responsive medium density infill development that respects the existing neighbourhood character. Future density will be at a lower intensity than in Substantial Change Areas, but a higher intensity than in Limited Change Areas. 
Residential development in these areas will generally be more reliant on the private car and less able to take advantage of public transport than in Substantial Change Areas. Residential development will comprise well designed houses, townhouses, units and dual occupancies of up to two (2) storeys or three (3) storeys with main living areas generally on the ground level. 
Residential development will give particular consideration to providing appropriate setbacks and private open space areas and high quality landscaping, including the planting of canopy trees, to protect the amenity of adjoining dwellings and to contribute to the landscape character.
25	The clause contains General Design Principles that relate to height, built form and site design and Design Principles for ICA that address landscaping, setbacks, private open space, and bulk and built form.  
26	Council argues its neighbourhood character policy is clear and specific.  It says the policy establishes unambiguous design principles to ensure the above preferred neighbourhood outcome is achieved.  Council submits the proposal fails to respond to principles relating to landscaping, built form and bulk and car parking.
27	The applicant submits the design principles for ICA are not individually tailored to every site or context and therefore a level of interpretation of the site characteristics and surrounding context is required when assessing the design response.  It says the design response has been carefully managed in a manner that is respectful of both context and character.
28	My findings will concentrate on design principles highlighted by Council in their grounds of refusal.  
Site Layout/Car Parking
29	Clause 55.03-9 (Standard B14 – Access) has an objective to ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighbourhood character.  
30	A relevant neighbourhood character objective of the GRZ1 is:
To ensure vehicle accessways and storage facilities do not visually dominate the streetscape.
To maximise the opportunities to create high quality landscaping, through minimal paving and the use of permeable ground surfaces.
31	Clause 22.09-3.1 contains a general design principle that the existing level of on-street car parking should be maintained by avoiding second crossovers on allotments with frontage widths less than 17 metres.  It recommends car parking be located to the side or rear of the site to not dominate the streetscape and to maximise soft landscaping opportunities at ground level.  
32	Council submits a substantial part of the frontage setback contains hard surfaces for the dual accessways and tandem car spaces.  It says the parking arrangement fails to respond to the overall neighbourhood character and existing dwellings as the paving and layout will visually dominate the development when viewed from the streetscape.  It also says this layout limits the availability of on-street parking given the lot is only 15.84 metres wide.  
33	Council submits dual crossovers are not a common characteristic of Moodemere Street, nor it is an aspiration for ICA in Clause 22.09.  It says that while the adjoining property to the west contains two crossovers, this is an anomaly as it was developed prior to the introduction of the local policy.  It submits that other examples of fully concreted frontages and dual crossovers at 37 Rutherglen Road and 5 Moodemere Street should be discounted as they are associated with single dwellings only.  It also tabled an aerial photograph that shows the distribution of single and dual crossovers in the immediate area.
34	The applicant argues the shallow depth of the subject site informed the initial design response process and provided a clear direction for a duplex form of development to achieve a respectful form of housing change.  It says this layout provides for a ‘green corridor’ to be maintained at the rear and the focus of the built form to the central and front portions of the site.  
35	The applicant submits the duplex layout allows both dwellings to have a direct street frontage which will provide the most effective sense of integration/surveillance of the public realm.  It says this makes a respectful and positive contribution to the streetscape character.  
36	The applicant notes the dual crossovers occupy 37.85% of the frontage and the short lengths of patterned driveway paving will ensure ‘that an appropriate volume and proportion of landscape space is preserved within the street setback adjacent to Moodemere Street.’
Tribunal findings
37	I am satisfied the duplex layout, that includes two driveways and crossovers in the frontage, will not visually dominate the streetscape for the following reasons:
•	The dwellings include single garages and single width driveways that allow for the provision of 1.6 metre wide landscape strips along the side (east and west) boundaries.  This landscaping will assist in softening the extent of paving across the site;
•	The plans indicate the retention of the existing crossover for Dwelling 2 and construction of a new crossover for Dwelling 1.  There is approximately 6.66 metres between the crossovers, which is reflective of the pattern of detached crossovers in the street;
•	The dwellings are set back a minimum of one metre from the side boundaries which will maintain the existing dwelling spacing in the street;
•	The ground floor layout includes a living room window facing the street which will maintain an active street frontage;
•	The two crossovers constitute 37.85% of the frontage which is below the maximum threshold in Standard B14 (i.e.40%);
•	The existing street tree is to be retained between the crossovers which will assist in softening the streetscape impact of the additional crossover;
•	The dwellings are set back 5.97 metres to 7.02 metres at ground floor level which will provide sufficient space for landscaping (including canopy trees) in the frontage to soften the built form and paving;
38	My site inspection of the area reveals that Moodemere Street does not contain an intact, homogenous nature strip and streetscape character.  Whilst there are dual crossovers associated with older style multi-dwelling developments nearby, they also contribute to the varied nature of the streetscape.
39	I agree with the applicant that given the limited depth of the site, the duplex layout is an appropriate design response in this context.  I find the open rear yard in the southern setback will provide a landscaped interface to the abutting properties.  The design also includes larger side setbacks at the rear and the first floor is recessed in from the ground floor footprint.  This provides a suitable transition to the adjoining rear yards and is consistent with the site layout of existing dwellings in the area.  
Landscaping
40	Clause 55.03-8 (Standard B13 – Landscaping) is varied and requires 70% of ground level front setback, and side and rear setbacks, planted with substantial landscaping and canopy trees.
41	Council submits the proposal fails to meet this standard as only 58.12% of the frontage setback contains landscaping.
42	Relevant neighbourhood character objectives of the GRZ1 are: 
To provide appropriate front, side and rear setbacks, garden areas and significant private open space to allow for substantial high quality landscaping and canopy trees to protect the amenity of adjoining properties and to create a landscape character.
43	These objectives are reiterated in Clause 22.09-3.1 that states residential development should provide substantial high quality landscaping along front and side boundaries.  The ICA design principles also state residential development should create a landscape character by providing canopy trees in front and rear gardens and to protect the outlook of adjoining properties.
44	Council argues there is a clear vision in the LPPF that new development provides well-proportioned setbacks and open space for meaningful landscaping to maintain the landscaped character of the area.  It says the proposal fails to provide opportunity for substantial landscaping, particularly in the frontage setback.  It is also concerned there is an inability to provide screen landscaping along the side boundaries due to the duplex layout.  It says this will also have amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.
45	Council also submits there is limited opportunity for soft landscaping in the frontage to help soften the visual bulk of the double storey dwellings when viewed in the streetscape and from adjoining properties.
46	The applicant submits that is erroneous for Council to suggest that the front, side, and rear setbacks will be unable to sustain a level of landscaping that is commensurate with a modest two dwelling development.  It says the landscaping plan will make a valuable contribution to the future character of the neighbourhood and is acceptable for a medium density development in this part of Noble Park.
47	The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Thomson.  He considers his plan will contribute to amenity and neighbourhood character as the site layout provides adequate space for the planting of a wide variety of species and canopy trees to meet the relevant policy directions.  
Tribunal findings
48	My inspection of this neighbourhood reveals that most dwellings have modest front gardens that comprise shrubs and small to medium canopy trees.  I agree with the applicant that large canopy trees are infrequently scattered throughout the neighbourhood and there is no continuous canopy coverage.
49	I find the landscape plan prepared by Mr Thomson will satisfy the neighbourhood character objectives of the GRZ1 as it will enhance the landscape character of the area.  I have come to this conclusion as the landscape plan includes:
•	Twenty-two small to large canopy trees, including eight trees capable of reaching 7-10 metres high;
•	Two Ash trees (10 metres at maturity) and two Banksias (5 metres at maturity) in the frontage.  These trees will filter views of the built form in the streetscape;
•	Understorey planting in the frontage that will soften the extent of paving for the two driveways;
•	Bottlebrush and Bangalow Palms in the east and west setbacks that will filter views of the side elevations for the abutting properties; and
•	A Lilly Pilly (9 metres at maturity), Lemon Scented Gum (9 metres at maturity) and two Agonis (4 metres at maturity) in the rear yards.  This planting will enhance the ‘green spine’ at the rear of dwellings in this area.
50	The neighbour to the south is concerned there is inadequate planting along the south boundary to screen views of the dwellings from his rear yard.  I am satisfied the Grevillia and Dononaea hedge (3 metres at maturity), in conjunction with the canopy trees, will provide dense screening of views from the adjoining open rear yard when the trees reach maturity.
Does the proposal respond acceptably to the objectives of Clause 55?
51	Objectives of Clause 55 relating to neighbourhood character, landscaping and access have been addressed in my previous findings.  Council has also refused the application on grounds the proposal fails to meet the following standards.
Energy Efficiency
52	Council submits the proposal fails the energy efficiency objectives of Clause 55.03-5 (Standard B10 – Energy Efficiency).  It says the main living areas and secluded open space are in the southern setback and the living area adjacent to the front door is unlikely to be used given its size and location.  Whilst it acknowledges the orientation of the site limits the design, it says the duplex layout does not maximise the number of north facing windows.
53	The applicant argues that due to the north/south orientation of the land, it is unlikely that any development will be capable of easily providing north facing to open space and living rooms.  It says the standard clearly acknowledges that lot orientation may be a consideration.  It submits the dwellings also have east and west facing windows to capture morning and afternoon sun.
Tribunal findings
54	The orientation of the site is a significant constraint to the provision of north facing windows for the dwellings.  However, I am satisfied the dwellings have been designed to maximise the energy efficiency for the following reasons:
•	The ground floor of each dwelling includes east and west windows that will provide additional daylight and sunlight to the living areas;
•	The duplex design includes a central party wall that enhances the energy efficiency of the dwellings; 
•	There is a ground floor north facing living room window and first floor bedroom north facing window for each dwelling; and
•	The setbacks of the south elevation of both dwellings exceed the minimum dimensions recommended in Clause 55.05-5 (Standard B29 - Solar Access to Open Space).  Therefore, there is adequate solar access in the secluded open space of the dwellings. 
55	Whilst Council is concerned about the living room, I consider this room has appropriate dimensions to be used as a secondary ‘break out’ space for use by the occupants.
Design Detail
56	Council argues the proposal fails to meet the objectives of Clause 55.06-1 (Standard B31 – Design Detail).  The clause specifically notes that garages and carports should be visually compatible with the development and the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
57	My previous findings in relation to site layout and car parking address this standard.
Will the development result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties?
58	Council’s grounds of refusal state the proposal does not provide a high quality design or positive amenity impacts.  Whilst it has not identified any performance-based standards have not been met (i.e. overshadowing or overlooking), it submits the site layout and lack of landscaping opportunities fails to soften the appearance of visual bulk when viewed from the adjoining properties.
59	The applicant argues the focus of the ground and first floor is in alignment with the existing dwellings to the east and outbuildings in the rear yard of the dwellings to the east.  It says this contextually responds to their amenity.
Tribunal findings
60	I agree with the applicant that the dwellings are sited to minimise the visual bulk impacts on abutting properties.  The garage and laundry of Dwelling 1 is sited primarily opposite the outbuildings in the rear yards of 44 and 46 Rutherglen Street.  The garage for Dwelling 2 is also facing the side elevation of the existing dwelling at 1/4 Moodemere Street.  
61	The rear of the dwellings is set back 2.4 metres from the side boundaries and provides a landscaped interface opposite the adjoining rear yards.  The upper floors of the dwellings are also recessed in from the ground floor footprint to reduce the scale/bulk of the dwellings when viewed from the neighbouring properties.  It is notable that there are no walls on boundaries and planting has been provided in all setbacks which will assist in filtering views of the built form.
are there any other matters?
62	One of the statements of grounds related to reduced safety from the additional crossover in the street and increased on-street parking.  Council referred the application to its Transport Planning Department who did not object to the site layout, subject to the inclusion of conditions.  Whilst an additional crossover will reduce on-street parking, this area does not contain any parking controls or exhibited high on-street parking demand at the time of inspection.
63	The neighbour to the south is concerned that screen landscaping is required to filter views from the first floor east and west facing windows.  I note there are first floor south elevation highlight windows that will prevent direct overlooking and the first floor side elevation windows do not have any oblique views to the south. 
What conditions are appropriate?
64	Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.
Conclusion
65	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Jane Tait
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PLN21/0683	
Land	2 Moodemere Street
NOBLE PARK VIC 3174	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	To construct two double storey dwellings	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The amended plans must be generally in accordance with the plans generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Design Build Pty Ltd, Sheet numbers 1-5/5, Revision B, dated 15/05/2023 but modified to show:
(a)	Details of the existing Council drainage pit on the plan;
(b)	A minimum 1m clearance will need to be provided between the edge of the existing pit and the proposed vehicle crossing for Dwelling 1;
(c)	The location of external lighting; 
(d)	Detail the splay area pursuant to Clause 52.06-1 Design standard 1 – accessways; and
(e)	Any changes to the Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 2.
2	Before the approved development starts, and before any trees or vegetation are removed, an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The amended landscape plan must be prepared by a person or firm with suitable qualifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, drawn to scale with dimensions. The amended landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Habitat Landscape Environmental Design Consultants, Sheet numbers 1 of 1, Issue D, dated June 2023 but modified to show:a.	
(a)	Plans to accord with Condition 1 of this permit;
(b)	The site at a scale of 1:100/200, including site boundaries, existing and proposed buildings, neighbouring buildings, car parking, access and exit points, indicative topography and spot levels at the site corners, existing and proposed vegetation, nature strip trees, easements and landscape setbacks;
(c)	Details of the proposed layout, type and height of fencing; 
(d)	Legend of all plant types, surfaces, materials and landscape items to be used including the total areas of garden and lawn; 
(e)	A plant schedule giving a description of botanical name, common name, mature height and spread, pot size, purchase height (if a tree) and individual plant quantities; 
(f)	At least one (1) advanced canopy tree with a minimum planting height of 1.5 metres within the secluded open space area of each dwelling;
(g)	At least one (1) advanced canopy tree with the minimum planting height of 1.5 metres within the front yard of each dwelling;
(h)	Any paving or deck areas within the secluded open space area of the proposed dwelling on a permeable base; 
(i)	Substantial landscaping to be provided along each boundary, where possible.
When approved, the amended landscape plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. 
3	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the landscape plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
4	Landscaping in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan and schedule must be completed before the building is occupied.
5	Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the layout of the land and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified. 
6	Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the approved buildings must not be occupied until all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit have been complied with.
7	Provision must be made for the drainage of the site including landscaped and pavement areas, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8	Stormwater discharge is to be retained on site to the pre-development level of peak stormwater discharge, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9	Before the approved building is occupied, all piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the building, except downpipes, must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10	Standard concrete vehicular crossing/s must be constructed to suit the proposed driveway/s in accordance with the Council's standard specifications. Any vehicle crossing no longer required must be removed and the land, footpath and kerb and channel reinstated, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	Provision must be made for the drainage for proposed development including landscaped and paved areas, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	The connection of the internal drainage infrastructure to the Local Point of Discharge must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13	Collected stormwater must be retained onsite and discharged into the drainage system at pre-development peak discharge rates as stated in the Local Point of Discharge approval letter. Approval of drainage plan including any retention system within the property boundary is required.
14	Access to the site and any associated roadwork must be constructed in accordance with Council’s standard drawing No. SD306 and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Note any redundant vehicle crossing will need to be removed and reinstated with kerb and channel in accordance with Council Standards.
15	Letterboxes and all other structures (including visually obstructive fencing and landscaping) should be constructed to a maximum height of 900mm or relocated clear of a splayed area (2m x 2.5m) along the frontage road at access points in accordance with Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-9.
16	Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, floor levels shown on the endorsed plan/s must not be altered or modified.
17	Before the approved building is occupied, the development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each garage, car parking space and pedestrian walkway. Lighting must be located, directed and shielded to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so as to prevent any adverse effect outside the land.
18	Before the approved building is occupied, the obscure glazing to the windows shown on the endorsed plans must be provided through frosted glass or similarly treated glass. Adhesive film or similar removable material must not be used. 
19	All glazing must at all times be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
20	This permit will expire if:
(a)	The development or any stage of it does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or
(b)	The development or any stage of it is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.
The owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date to complete the development or a stage of the development if:
(a)	the request for the extension is made within twelve (12) months after the permit expires; and
(b)	the development or stage started lawfully before the permit expired. 

– End of conditions –