VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P183/2023
Permit Application no.M/2021/1095 	
CATCHWORDS	
Five dwelling development; long lot; NCO5, SLO3, neighbourhood and landscape character response; visitor car space.	

Applicant	Berry 30 Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Maroondah City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	30 Berry Road
BAYSWATER NORTH VIC 3153	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	13 July 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	21 July 2023	

CITATION	Berry 30 Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2023] VCAT 832	
Order
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:	Monk Architecture	
Drawing numbers:	All Revision H	
Dated:	May 2023	
2	In application P183/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application M/2021/1095 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 30 Berry Road Bayswater North VIC 3153 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
•	Construction of five dwellings; 
•	A building greater than 8m in height within a Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3; and 
•	Removal of vegetation.

Michael Nelthorpe
Member			
Appearances
For applicant	Mr Panos Nikas, lawyer of Nickas Legal.  He called the following witnesses:
•	Mr Andrea Pagliaro, town planner of Urbis;
•	Ms Kylie May, arborist of John Patrick Landscape Architects; and 
•	Mr John Patrick, landscape architect of John Patrick Landscape Architects.	
For responsible authority	Mr John Klarica, town planner of Calibre Planning.	

Information
Description of proposal	4 two-storey dwellings and 1 one-storey dwelling.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Maroondah Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (‘NRZ3’)
Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 (‘SLO3’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-6: to construct two or more dwellings on a lot; and
Clause 42.03-2: to construct a building of more than two storeys or higher than 8m above natural ground level and to remove, destroy or lop any specified vegetation.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 12, 15, 16, 21.02, 21.06, 21.07, 22.10, 22.02, 22.15, 32.09, 42.03, 52.06, 55, 65 & 71.02.	
Land description	This long, rectangular lot is on the north side of Berry Street and is one property to the east of the creek side reserve.  It has an 18.29m frontage, a depth of 81.71m and an area of 1,494.5sqm.  A single storey dwelling occupies the site.
The site falls 3.3m from the south-east (front) corner to the north-west (rear) corner and has a cross-fall at the frontage of 1.3m.	
Tribunal inspection	30 June 2023	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Berry 30 Pty Ltd (‘the applicant’) seeks a permit for five dwellings at 30 Berry Street, Bayswater North.  Maroondah City Council (‘the Council’) refused to grant a permit on grounds relating to neighbourhood and landscape character.
2	The applicant seeks a review of this decision.  They rely on amended plans in which:
a	Dwelling 2 is reduced from three bedrooms to two bedrooms and the garage is reduced from a double width to a single width;
b	The passing bay at the front of the site is removed to provide additional landscaping;
c	Dwellings 2, 3 and 4 are narrowed to allow widened landscape strips on either side of the driveway of 500mm to the eastern boundary (previously 300mm) and 1000mm to the area in front of these units (previously 870mm);
d	The built form is redesigned to provide traditional hip roof style for Dwellings 2, 3 and 4;
e	The visitor parking space between Dwellings 4 & 5 is removed;
f	Tree Group 5 (along the rear boundary) and Tree 15 are removed;
g	Site coverage is reduced from 35.74% to 33.67%; and
h	Garden Area is increased from 35.47% to 39.49%.
3	The applicant also relies on evidence in the fields of town planning, arboriculture and landscape architecture.
What are the key issues?
4	The key issues are:
•	Is the proposal an acceptable response to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone?
•	Is the proposal an acceptable response to the Significant Landscape Overlay?
•	Should a visitor car parking space be provided on the site?
5	Having heard submissions and evidence, and having inspected the site, I find that the proposal is an acceptable response to the Zone and Overlay.  I have decided that a visitor car parking space is required, and that Tree Group 5 should be retained.  I provide my reasons for these findings after briefly describing the proposal.
the Proposal

Figure 1:  The proposed site plan with upper floor shown 
6	Four double-storey dwellings and one single-storey dwelling are proposed for the site.  Dwelling 1 has four bedrooms and a double garage, Dwelling 2 has two bedrooms and a single garage, and Dwellings 3, 4 and 5 each have three bedrooms and a double garage.  All garages are accessed from a shared driveway on the eastern (high) side of the dwellings.
7	The built form generally sits in the centre of the site with the areas of private open space on the western (low) side.  Dwelling 1 has 205sqm of private open space including 70sqm of secluded private open space.  Dwelling 2 has 90sqm of private open space including 80sqm of secluded private open space.  Dwelling 3 has 80sqm of private open space including 72sqm of secluded private open space.  Dwelling 4 has 97sqm of private open space including 90sqm of secluded private open space.  Dwelling 5 has 120sqm of private open space including 111sqm of secluded private open space.
8	Dwellings 1, 4 and 5 are free standing while Dwellings 2 and 3 are attached at ground and first floors.
9	The first-floor form of Dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4 are predominantly recessed from the ground floor form.  The first-floor form of Dwelling 1 is separated from the similar form of Dwelling 2 by 6.75m and the first-floor form of Dwelling 3 is separated from the similar form of Dwelling 4 by 5.48m.
10	The landscape plan shows three large canopy trees in the frontage and a medium-to-large canopy tree in each dwelling’s area of secluded private open space.  It also shows Tree Group 5 as being retained.
is the proposal an acceptable response to the neighbourhood residential zone? 
11	The Council says that the proposal is contrary to planning policy that identifies this site as being in an area of landscape significance.  It says that it does not provide sufficient space for landscaping and is too visible from the nearby creek corridor.  In all, it says that the proposal is an overdevelopment.
My findings
12	I find that Mr Pagliaro’s evidence and the applicant’s submissions are persuasive on this question.  Mr Pagliaro considers this to be a modest medium density development given the size of the lot.  He notes that the quantitative standards of Clause 55, including those varied by NRZ3, are comfortably met.  He gives considerable weight to these metrics as he believes they indicate that the Zone’s expectations are met.
13	Alongside this, the applicant takes issue with the Council’s reliance on Lamaro v Hume CC.  They acknowledge that this decision says that meeting a standard in Clause 55 does not necessarily mean that the related objective is met.  However, they distinguish the proposal before me from the decision in Lamaro.  They say that, in Lamaro, several quantitative standards were met but not exceeded whereas all quantitative standards in this case are comfortably exceeded.  In effect, they say that the Council has applied Lamaro without giving proper regard to the circumstances.
14	I agree.  I consider that the proposal is designed with the quantitative standards of Clause 55 in mind.  This has influenced its yield and intensity, and it supports the applicant’s position that the proposal meets the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the provisions of NRZ3.
15	Compliance with these standards is probably the reason why five dwellings are proposed rather than six.  The plans show that five conventional dwellings comfortably meet the quantitative standards whereas I suspect that six conventional dwellings would fail standards like the size and dimensions of secluded private open space.
16	I accept the Council’s submissions that this analysis is not the end of the statutory assessment.  Where I differ from the Council is that I regard this as an important element of the assessment.  It carries weight and it contributes to the broader test of integrating all relevant policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme and balancing conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit.
17	Given that the quantitative standards are met, the Council relies on neighbourhood character policy and the site’s physical context to say that the proposal is unacceptable.
18	The preferred neighbourhood character statement for this area is:
The Bungalook Neighbourhood Area will continue to evolve and accommodate a range of housing forms, while maintaining its leafy garden character. Continuous canopies will strengthen the sense of greenery in streets and backyards and native street tree planting will visually link residential streets with public open spaces, including those around Bungalook Creek. Dwellings within the vicinity of the creek will be responsive to the landscape character of the area and buildings elsewhere will be well articulated and responsive to site conditions. Low frontage treatments will maintain a sense of openness in the streets and development on the edges of the neighbourhood will be buffered from adjacent non-residential uses.
19	This character will be achieved by:
•	Ensuring buildings are setback from all boundaries a sufficient distance to allow substantial vegetation, particularly canopy trees. 
•	Ensuring the front setbacks are not dominated by impervious surfacing or car parking structures. 
•	Encouraging the use of additional indigenous and exotic canopy trees in private gardens. 
•	Encouraging native street planting to unify the neighbourhood and visually link public and private gardens. 
•	Ensuring development adjacent to the Bungalook Creek is responsive to the landscape character of the area. 
•	Ensuring low or no front fences. 
•	Ensuring development is well buffered from adjacent non-residential uses. 
20	I find that meeting the varied standards of NRZ3 goes a long way towards achieving this character.  By providing the required setbacks and open space, the proposal ensures that ‘buildings are setback from all boundaries a sufficient distance to allow substantial vegetation, particularly canopy trees’.  Apart from this, Mr Patrick persuades me that the space provided by these setbacks can accommodate ‘indigenous canopy trees in private gardens’.  As well as this, the amended plans show that the front setback is not ‘dominated by impervious surfaces’ and do not show a front fence.
21	Given these circumstances, the Council’s concern is limited to the question of whether the proposal is ‘responsive to the landscape character of the area’ given it is visible from the Bungalook Creek.
22	Based on this, the Council is critical of the limited articulation between floors, the cojoined built form, the extensive first floor areas and the excessive building heights.
23	I find that these submissions are not justified.  The site is not adjacent to the Bungalook Creek as required by this aspect of the policy statement.  It is one lot back, with the intervening lot being significantly underdeveloped given what could be reasonably anticipated under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.  As well as this, the creek corridor runs through an urban area thus is bordered by residential built form along much of its length.  Its landscape character is one where built form is visible amongst landscaping.
24	I disagree with the Council’s claim of limited articulation between floors given that some recession of the upper floors occurs over most of the built form.  I do not believe that the cojoined built form of the upper floors of Dwellings 2 and 3 is significant given this upper floor mass is relatively small and is well screened by the mature Algerian Oak on the adjoining lot.  I regard the first-floor area as being reasonably well balanced rather than ‘extensive’.  The gaps between the first-floor form and the use of a single-storey dwelling at the rear demonstrates this.  Finally, I am not persuaded that the building heights are excessive.  I accept that they are prominent due to the fall of the land, yet I consider this to be a legible and reasonable response.
25	Apart from this, I consider that the Council has not placed sufficient weight on the character of the long, narrow lots on the north side of Barry Street.  Over the past 50 years, many of these lots have been redeveloped as medium-density sites.  The balance between built form and landscaping on these lots varies, but canopy tree landscaping is mainly limited to the front and rear setbacks.  The proposal is a noticeable improvement on these developments and provides far more space for landscaping.
26	In summary, I find that the proposal is an acceptable response to the preferred neighbourhood character.
is the proposal an acceptable response to the significant landscape overlay?
27	The Council emphasises the fact that the proposal triggers a permit under this overlay due to its height and the proposed removal of nine trees.
28	It supports the removal of eight of the nine trees but submits that the permit trigger of the proposal’s height suggests that the proposal may be visually intrusive, and the permit trigger of vegetation removal accentuates the importance of an acceptable landscape response.
29	I am not persuaded by these submissions.  A permit is only triggered for the parts of the proposal that exceed 8m in height.  In this case, it is only the part of the first floor of Dwelling 1 that is 8.6m above natural ground level.  While the Council says that this exceedance allows consideration of the height, mass and bulk of the entire development, I regard the consideration is limited to the impact of the additional 0.6m height of Dwelling 1.  This is consistent with the principles espoused in National Trust of Australia (Vic) v Australian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd and followed in Boroondara City Council v 1045 Burke Road Pty Ltd.  Thus, the statutory test is whether this small part of roofline prejudices the achievement of the objectives of SLO3.  
30	On the second point, I am not persuaded that the removal of nine trees accentuates the importance of an acceptable landscape response.  The statutory test is whether the proposal will, in time, have canopy vegetation that is higher than the built form.  This is essential and does not need accentuation.  This is particularly the case when much of the existing vegetation is less than 8m in height and would not, of itself, screen an 8m high building.
31	I find that the 0.6m of Dwelling 1 that triggers a permit does not unduly prejudice the objectives of SLO3.  SLO3 seek to ensure that canopy vegetation dominates the ridgelines and that, as a backdrop, a landscape-rich outcome characterises the ridgelines’ lower slopes.  I consider that the small element on Dwelling 1 that is over 8m in height does not prejudice this outcome.  The site is in a valley well below the ridgeline thus, its impact on the ridgeline’s appearance is negligible.  In terms of a landscape-rich outcome on the lower slopes, I am satisfied that the site contains sufficient space in the front setback and the areas of secluded private open space to provide canopy trees that would be above the 8.6m high element of the proposal that triggers this permit.
should a visitor car parking space be provided on the site?
32	The applicant relies on a letter from a traffic engineer saying that there is sufficient on-street parking to allow a waiver of the visitor car parking space required by Clause 52.06.  They say that the Clause states that a traffic impact assessment is only required ‘as appropriate’ and that I should exercise my discretion to allow this letter and any empirical survey of current and historical aerial photography to serve as the assessment.  They also say that the site’s constraints mean that this space is most appropriately located deep in the site where it is unlikely to be used by visitors.
33	I am not persuaded by this.  I am not prepared to solely rely on existing and historical use of on-street parking.  This is likely to change over time as the lots on Berry Street are more intensively developed.  What is less likely to change is the dependency on private vehicles as a primary means of transport for visitors to residents of this neighbourhood.  The area is not rich in public transport options thus few visitors to the site are likely to arrive by this mode.  In saying this, I accept Mr Pagliaro’s evidence that there are reasonably convenient walking or cycling paths to shops and services yet I consider that residents, rather than visitors, are more likely to use these modes.
Are there any other issues?
34	The Council criticises discreet elements of the proposal in its grounds of refusal.  I will address these now.
35	It says that the proposal fails to provide north-facing living spaces or secluded private open space and has limited north-facing windows to habitable rooms.  I am not persuaded that this constitutes an unacceptable design response.  
36	The westward orientation of the living spaces and areas of secluded private open space is a reasonable consequence of the orientation of the lot.  Siting the proposed dwellings one behind one another on this long lot uses the site efficiently, distances the dwellings from its neighbours, and provides space for landscaping on the side of the site closest to the creek.  Apart from this, the secluded private open spaces gain northern sunlight for most of the day and the living rooms benefit from afternoon sunlight.  I find that the positive outcomes that I have described outweigh the negative impacts and that this aspect of the proposal is acceptable.
37	The Council also says that the proposal fails to provide adequate surveillance of the driveway.  It says that the slit windows above the kitchen benches in Dwellings 4 and 5 are an unacceptable response.  I disagree, as I consider that these windows provide a sufficient degree of passive surveillance of the end of the driveway.  The test is whether the end of the driveway is a secure, semi-private space.  To be so, I consider that it does not require complete visibility.  Rather, it is sufficient to provide some incidental, almost random surveillance.  I find that views from a kitchen window provide this.
38	The Council contends that Tree 15 – a 7m high Weeping Bottle Brush should be retained as, in the short term, it will screen the proposal from the creek corridor.  Ms May disagrees as she has observed insect infestation and poor structure in this tree.  She believes that the risk of failure and burden of proper maintenance of this tree outweighs the value of its retention.  I agree with Ms May.  This is not a healthy, structurally sound tree and it does not make a significant contribution to the neighbourhood’s vegetated character.  It can be replaced.
39	The Council notes that a permit to remove a significant canopy tree had previously been granted on the condition that a tree of a similar height was planted.  It queries whether the proposal accommodates this tree.  I agree with Mr Patrick that the canopy trees proposed in the frontage serve this purpose.
40	The Council says that a ‘gun barrel’ driveway with insufficient landscaping is proposed along the eastern boundary.  I am not persuaded that this is the case.  The driveway meanders slightly along its length and is screened at its frontage by a medium size canopy tree.  Due to the fall of the site, the lower reaches of the driveway will not be visible from the street, thus will have a lesser impact.  I am also satisfied that the landscaping of this driveway is appropriate.  I expect that the proposed landscaping along with the solid Pittosporum hedge on property to the east will provide landscaping that softens the appearance of the proposal.
What conditions are appropriate?
41	We discussed draft conditions at the end of the hearing.  The applicant contests several conditions and I have made the following changes based on my findings on the contested conditions.  As well as this, I have changed the conditions to reflect my reasons.
a	I have revised draft condition 1(d), which requires the removal of fill from the private open spaces of Dwellings 1 and 2 to reflect Ms May’s recommendation that any such fill should be clean garden soil;
b	I have deleted draft condition 1(e), which requires a 10sqm deck in each dwelling’s area of secluded private open space.  I have done so because I accept the applicant’s submission that this is not specifically required by Clause 55;
c	I have deleted draft conditions 1(f) and 7, which requires the vehicle crossing to be formed as a joint crossing with 28 Barry Road.  I have done so because vehicle crossings are regulated by legislation other than the Planning and Environment Act 1987.  As such, requirements for vehicle crossings should be made through a condition of a planning permit.  Apart from this, I have not changed the design or location of the driveway as I agree with Mr Patrick’s opinion that a ‘cut out’ from a tree between the driveway and the fence is a positive design outcome.
d	I have deleted draft condition 1(h), which requires the finished floor level of the garage of Dwelling 4 to be constructed 150mm above the applicable flood level because this contradicts the flood assessment that accompanied the permit application.
e	I have deleted draft condition 1(i), which requires the finished floor level of Dwelling 5 to be constructed 300mm above the applicable flood level, as this level is shown on the plan.  I do not accept the Council’s submission that this condition is required to indicate to future owners or residents that this is a flooding requirement.  Permit conditions that are ‘for information only’ are not valid conditions.
f	I have revised draft condition 1(i), which relates to flood requirements for the car port of Dwelling 5, to only require the materials of the supporting posts to be noted, as all other requirements of this draft condition are shown on the plans.
g	I have deleted draft conditions 1(g) 1(k), 1(l) 1(m) and 1(n) for the same reasons.
h	I have deleted draft conditions 1(o) and 1(q) as I have not required changes to the proposal’s finished floor levels.
i	I have deleted draft condition 1(r), which requires a schedule of materials and finishes, including obscured glazing, as I am satisfied that the relevant information is shown on the plans, excepting the colour of the driveway which I have left to the applicant.
j	I have replaced draft conditions 1(u) and 22, which require a Lighting and Illumination Plan.  Adequate lighting of the proposed common property areas is a matter for the site owner and any future Owners Corporation whereas the most pertinent planning issue is whether such lighting causes adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.  I see no reason why the lighting of this driveway would have the planning impact that I have described, thus I find that there is no reasonable basis for requiring such a plan.
k	I have deleted draft condition 4, which requires all utility services to be provided underground as this is a matter for the servicing authorities rather than the Council.
l	I have retained draft condition 5 despite the applicant’s objection because I disagree with their submission that the construction of the common property driveway is addressed by the building permit process.
m	I have removed the prescriptive elements of draft condition 12 and have amended it to refer to Mr Patrick’s Landscape Plan.  I consider that the prescriptive elements of this condition are guidelines that should be justified on a case-by-case basis.  I was given no reasons why, for example, a garden bed for a ‘rear open space’ must be a minimum of 1.5m wide, thus I am not prepared to impose it as a requirement of this landscape plan.  I have chosen, instead, to simply require the plan to be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority so that negotiations between the applicant and the responsible authority can take place and to ensure that the applicant can seek a review by the Tribunal of any requirement that it considers is unreasonable.
n	I have deleted draft condition 15, which requires a Construction Management Plan as I was given no reason why such a plan would be required at the planning permit stage for a development of this size.  Construction management is otherwise addressed through the building permit process and through the general environmental duty now at the centre of the Environment Protection Act 2017.
o	I have amended draft condition 16, which requires a Tree Management Plan, to refer to the recommendations of Ms May’s evidence as I am satisfied that this evidence should guide the recommendations of this plan.
p	I have retained draft condition 20, which requires the Project Arborist to maintain a log book of site visits as the applicant has not persuaded me that this is onerous.
Conclusion
42	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Michael Nelthorpe
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	M/2021/1095	
Land	30 Berry Road
BAYSWATER NORTH VIC 3153	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of five dwellings; 
•	A building greater than 8m in height within a Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3; and 
•	Removal of vegetation.	
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. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the VCAT substituted plans - dated May 2023, Revision H by Monk Architecture, but modified to show: 
(a)		Replacement of the landscaped area between the garage of Dwellings 4 and the south wall of Dwelling 5 with a visitor car space in the location shown on Revision G of the plans prepared by Monk Architecture (dated 26/9/2022);
(b)	The retention of Tree Group 5 at the rear of the site;
(c)	Any fill placed on the natural surface level of the open space areas of Dwellings 1 and 2 must be clean garden soil;
(d)	Notate that any gas units, air conditioning units, building vents or other electrical infrastructure must be installed above the applicable flood level of Dwellings 4 & 5.
(e)	Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 9.
(f)	Tree Protection Plan in accordance with Condition 12.
2	The layout of the development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
3	Before the occupation of any dwelling, the measures designed to limit overlooking as shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The measures must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority for the life of the building.
4	Before any building or works start, construction plans for all parking areas and access lanes to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. Once approved, the construction plans will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The construction plans must be consistent with the endorsed development plans and landscaping plans.
5	Before the development is occupied, the area(s) set aside for the vehicle parking, access lanes and driveways as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a)	Constructed.
(b)	Surfaced with a durable all-weather seal.
(c)	Drained to the nominated legal point of discharge.
(d)	to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
6	Before any building or works start, Drainage Plans (including calculations) prepared by a suitably qualified drainage engineer to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the Drainage Plans will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Drainage Plans must show:
(a)	All drainage works associated with the development including any drainage works required outside the land.
(b)	The nominated legal point of discharge.
(c)	The conveyance of stormwater runoff by means of underground drains to the nominated legal point of discharge.
(d)	The mechanisms used to prevent overland flows from having a detrimental effect on the land, the environment or adjoining properties;
(e)	The mechanisms used to limit the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to the lesser of: 
i	the equivalent of a 35% impervious site coverage; or
ii	the pre-developed discharge rate.
(f)	Stormwater detention storage that limits the maximum discharge rate to the PSD.
7	Before the development is occupied, the drainage and associated works shown on the endorsed Drainage Plans must be constructed in accordance with those plans. Within 14 days of the completion of the drainage works, certification from a suitably qualified engineer must be submitted to the responsible authority certifying that works have been completed in accordance with the endorsed Drainage Plans all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
8	During the construction of the development, methods to control sediment laden runoff in the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999) must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to minimise sediment laden runoff and stormwater pollution from leaving the land.
9	Before the development starts or use commences, an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  When approved, the amended landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.  The amended landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects and must reconcile with all other plans which form part of this permit and must show the visitor car parking space required by Condition 1.  
10	Before the development is occupied, the landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
11	Unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority, vegetation shown as retained on the endorsed landscape plans must not be felled, lopped, topped, ringbarked or otherwise destroyed or removed.
12	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans required by Condition 1 and prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  The TPP must generally reflect the recommendations of the Statement of Evidence prepared by Kylie May, dated June 2023 and be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist and clearly show:
(a)	for each tree shown to be retained on the land or on neighbouring land, a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) calculated in accordance with the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS4970-2009). 
(b)	the relevant aspects of the development layout and all built features, including: pavement, retaining walls; and drainage infrastructure.
(c)	tree protection requirements for retained trees within and adjoining the subject site (including the road reserve), in accordance with the Australian Standards for the Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS 4970-2009), including tree protection fence alignments and areas of ground protection, i.e. where fencing cannot adequately afford tree protection or access across the TPZ is required. 
(d)	any other specific tree protection requirements (eg low impact construction measures) or where these cannot be adequately shown reference to more detailed documentation/plans be provided.  
13	Prior to the commencement of any building and or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Measures as detailed on the approved Tree Protection Plan, must be established and subsequently maintained until completion of all buildings and works, including landscaping, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
(a)	The project arborist must advise the responsible authority in writing that the Tree Protection measures have been installed to their satisfaction. 
(b)	The TPP must be printed on A2 weatherproof paper.
(c)	The TPP must be highly visible on the site and be displayed at the site entry.
14	Before works start (including demolition and excavation), notice in writing must be provided to the responsible authority from the Project Arborist confirming his or her engagement to oversee all relevant tree protection works. The Project Arborist must be an appropriately experienced and qualified professional (minimum Cert IV or equivalent in experience).
15	Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation), the Project Arborist must advise the responsible authority in writing that the tree protection fences have been installed and pre-construction measures required to be implemented to their satisfaction.
16	The Project Arborist must visit the site and must maintain a logbook detailing all site visits. The logbook must be made available to the responsible authority within 24 hours of any request.
17	Before the development is occupied, an as-constructed certified survey plan must be submitted to Council, showing the floor levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD) to verify that the required floor levels have been met.
18	The Cultural Heritage Management Plan No.18109 by Heritage Insight Pty Ltd approved on 14/6/2022 must be readily accessible to the sponsor and their employees and contractors when carrying out the activity.
19	This permit will expire if any of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit, or
(b)	the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing: 
•	before the permit expires; or 
•	within six months afterwards if the development has not yet started; or 
•	within 12 months afterwards if the development lawfully started before the permit expired.
– End of conditions –