VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P22/2023
Permit Application no.5/2022/379/1 	

ApplicantS	Jan Kreymborg, Dean Beavan & Others	

Responsible Authority	Bayside City Council	
Respondent	Petra Fotomaras	

SUBJECT LAND	1 Summerhill Road
BEAUMARIS VIC 3193	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	31 July 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	23 August 2023	

CITATION	Kreymborg v Bayside CC [2023] VCAT 976	

Order
Amend application 
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:	Stak Design 	
•	Drawing numbers:	Revision TP3	
•	Dated:	7 June 2023	
Permit granted
2	In application P22/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is varied.
3	In planning permit application 5/2022/379/1 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 1 Summerhill Road Beaumaris VIC 3193  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of one dwelling on a lot of less than 500 square metres including removal of native vegetation within a Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 3).

Megan Carew
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	M Cusdin, town planning consultant	
For responsible authority	A Bitmead, town planner	
For respondent	P O’Shea, town planning consultant
He called M Reynolds, arborist to give evidence.	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of a new double storey dwelling on a lot less than 500m2 and removal of vegetation.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)– to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Bayside Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone- Schedule 3 (‘NRZ3’)
Design and Development Overlay- Schedule 3 (‘DDO3’)
Vegetation Protection Overlay- Schedule 3 (‘VPO3’)
Development Contributions Plan Overlay- Schedule 1 (‘DCPO1’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-5 to construct one dwelling on a lot less than 500m2.
Clause 42.02-2 to remove vegetation (tree 2).	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 2, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 32.09, 42.02, 43.02, 45.06, 52.06, 54, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The review site is located on the north west corner of the intersection of Summerhill Road and Fairleigh Avenue in Beaumaris. The site has a total area of 334m2. It is presently developed with a single storey dwelling.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the review site and surrounds following the hearing.	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Council has supported a proposal to construct a replacement dwelling on this small corner lot of 334m2. 
2	The applicants for review say that the proposal is not consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character, would affect the amenity of the adjoining properties to the west and south and may affect tree retention.
3	Amended plans were substituted at the hearing. The amended plans increase setbacks to adjoining properties and alter proposed fencing. Council and the permit applicant submit that the proposal is a design response that balances the site constraints while respecting neighbourhood character and amenity. 
4	I must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the 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. 
5	Having inspected the site and its surrounds and considered the Bayside Planning Scheme and the submissions of the parties, I have determined to vary the decision of the responsible authority and grant a permit. I have required additional landscaping opportunities within the setbacks to each street. My reasons follow.
Is the proposal respectful of the Neighbourhood Character?
6	This is small site that is constrained by the presence of significant trees (Trees 9 and 10) and by the slope of the land from the south to the north. There are also opportunities afforded by the corner location and the presence of the golf course opposite. There was no dispute between the parties that the site is suitable for a replacement dwelling, rather it is a question of whether a suitable design response has been achieved.
7	The scheme seeks development that respects neighbourhood character. The land is included within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone- Schedule 3 (‘NRZ3’) which applies to minimal residential growth areas. The purposes of the zone include ‘to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics’. The schedule does not include any neighbourhood character objectives but varies selected clause 54 and clause 55 standards. Relevantly, these include standard A10 at clause 54.04-1 to state:
A new building not on or within 200mm of a boundary should be set back 2 metres from the side boundary, and 3 metres from the rear boundary, plus 0.6 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 2 metres for every metre of height over 6.9 metres.
8	The subject site is located within Neighbourhood Character Precinct H3 under the local planning policy at clause 15.01-5L of the Bayside Planning Scheme. The preferred character strategies are: 
•	Retain large established trees and understorey, and provide for the planting of new indigenous trees wherever possible (locate footings outside root zone) in order to strengthen the bushy garden character of the area.
•	Minimise impervious surfaces particularly in front garden spaces to ensure space for plantings.
•	Site buildings to create the appearance of space between buildings and provide adequate space to accommodate substantial vegetation.
•	Minimise loss of front garden space.
•	Locate garages and carports behind the line of the dwelling.
•	Minimise site disturbance and impact of the building on the landscape.
•	Design buildings to follow the contours of the site on sloping sites.
•	Minimise the use of retaining walls and battering of slopes near vegetation or near boundaries, unless it will facilitate a less intrusive built form.
•	Design buildings and extensions so as not to exceed the predominant tree canopy height.
•	Incorporate design elements into the front façade design of new dwellings such as recessed portions, projecting elements behind the front setback line, combinations of materials, textures or colours or other elements providing articulation.
•	Recess upper levels from the front façade.
•	Use a mix of materials, textures and finishes including render, timber, non-masonry sheeting, glazing, stone and brick.
•	Provide low, open style front fences, other than along heavily trafficked roads.
•	Use vegetation as an alternative means of fencing where possible.
9	There is also a specific preferred character policy guideline that requires me to consider as relevant:
•	Underground car parking accessed from the front of the site should only be provided where other options are not possible due to site constraints, the garage doors do not dominate the façade and the front setback area is retained as predominantly garden space.
10	The immediate area surrounding the subject land has seen infill development in recent years including large single dwellings (such as at 3 Summerhill Road). There is substantial variation in dwelling era, type and style, with a mix of two storey and single storey forms. There is variation in the front setbacks of dwellings in streets and the subdivision pattern influences this. However, the overall area retains a garden character that the preferred character statement seeks to maintain and enhance. This open garden context is assisted by the golf course in this location.
11	Traditionally, the frontage of this site based on the subdivision layout is to Summerhill Road, although the existing dwelling has its entry to Fairleigh Avenue. This is reflected in the street address. 
12	The new development will have its frontage to Fairleigh Avenue because this is the street that the new dwelling faces. The amended plans removed any front fencing along this frontage but include a retaining wall to the lower footpath. As there is no front fence proposed within 3m of the frontage, Council was satisfied that no specific permit trigger arose under the provisions of the zone for this element. Fencing remains to Summerhill Road enclosing what will be the secluded private open space for this dwelling. 
Presentation to Fairleigh Avenue
13	The front setback to Fairleigh Avenue does not comply with the standard A3 of clause 54. Rather the setback is equivalent to a side presentation, even though this is the street to which the building faces. Essentially the larger setback is to Summerhill Road. The objectors expressed concern about the setback to Fairleigh Avenue. They say the building is too close and that there will be limited opportunity for landscaping consistent with the neighbourhood character. 
14	The setback to Fairleigh Avenue is a minimum of 3m at ground level and 2.4m above (first floor cantilevers). The first floor elevation includes large windows designed to take advantage of views across the golf course to the north. This element is about 8m wide and at this point the building is 7.9m in height, raised over 1.2m above the footpath level. This compares to the existing dwelling which has about a 3m setback at ground level (excluding eaves). There are several small trees within this setback.
15	The presentation to Fairleigh Avenue will be a significant change to the current setbacks and presentation of dwellings along Fairleigh Avenue. It will create a significant physical presence within this streetscape which is emphasised by the contemporary design detail. 
16	Given the location of the review site opposite the golf course, I am satisfied that the additional dwelling bulk can be accommodated. The setback is staggered from the adjoining dwelling at 4a Fairleigh Avenue. This creates a sense of space between the dwellings. The corner position offers generous separation from the dwelling to the east.
17	However, I am not satisfied that the landscaping contemplated in the landscape plan dated June 2022 is sufficient in this location. There is room within this setback for a more substantial contribution to the garden character of the area, while still complementing the modern architecture adopted. I have required additional landscaping as a condition of permit.  
18	No concern was raised about the appearance of the basement garage from a streetscape or neighbourhood character perspective. The use of a basement is specifically contemplated in the neighbourhood character statement. Having regard to the policy guidelines, I find that the basement garage is an acceptable response and will not be dominant within the streetscape. There are some minor matters of detail as to how the retaining walls will be located. I am satisfied that this can be addressed through a permit condition.
Presentation to Summerhill Road
19	The dwelling is setback to Summerhill Road over 6m at the upper level. The retention of the two significant trees within this setback provides for softening of this elevation in an acceptable manner. 
20	Again, the landscape plan dated June 2022 shows very minimal landscaping and extensive paving within this setback. I find that this is not an acceptable outcome for this area and have required that the extent of paving be reduced by permit condition. I note that Council sought a reduced area of paving within the tree protection zones and I support this change. 
21	The objectors remained concerned about the height and appearance of fencing to Summerhill Road that is proposed to enclose an area of private open space. They submit that the Council’s Notice of Decision sought fencing below 2.2m (including the retaining wall below). The fencing is proposed to be a metal slat fence which is partly visually permeable at 1.5m in height above the retaining walls. It commences at the same height as the adjoining boundary fence and then gets higher towards the intersection because of the topography. It is set back about 500mm from the title boundary. The existing volcanic rock retaining wall is to be replaced with contemporary blockwork.
22	The setback to Summerhill Road provides the secluded private open space for this dwelling. I find that some fencing of this area is appropriate. The fact that it matches the height of the adjoining fencing, is semi permeable and does not extend to Fairleigh Avenue makes the fencing acceptable. The 500mm setback from the retaining wall will also allow for some planting that could soften the contemporary blockwork. 
Overall site layout
23	Council and the permit applicant consider that the location of the dwelling is akin to the existing dwelling and balances the constraints of this site. However, the applicants for review were concerned about the ability to achieve a sense of separation to adjoining properties and submitted that the side and rear setbacks should comply with the varied standard A10 within the NRZ3. They submit the proposed extension exhibits unacceptable visual bulk impacts when viewed from neighbouring properties.
24	The proposal seeks walls on boundaries at ground level. The relevant standard A11 for walls on boundaries is met for the southern interface, subject to clarification that no wall is proposed to the rear of the barbeque. To the west, the height of the wall is compliant, but the length of the wall is exceeded. In this case the wall is located to the side and rear of the adjoining dwelling, and I find that there will be minimal impact from this element. 
25	The proposal incorporates variations to the setback standard A10 of clause 54 at first floor. The objective of the standard is:
To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.
26	Figure 1 shows the position of the first floor. I am satisfied that from a neighbourhood character perspective the setbacks proposed are acceptable and will provide sufficient spacing between dwellings. The staggered setback to 4a Fairleigh Avenue will assist this interface. 
Figure 1 First Floor plan 

27	I am also satisfied that with respect to each of the review site’s residential abuttals visual bulk is acceptable, having regard to the decision guidelines of clause 54. The proposed dwelling is generally positioned adjacent to built form on the adjoining properties. The first floor will be visible from the rear open space area of 4a Fairleigh Avenue, but such views will be on an oblique angle due to the southern setback provided. 
28	The larger impact would be on the private open space and outlook from windows at 3 Summerhill Road, particularly the north facing ground level study which will have direct outlook towards the first floor (Figure 2). 
Figure 2 Alfresco and study window (Tribunal’s photo)

29	The provision of the first floor will be a significant change to the neighbour, but the fact that it is visible does not mean that it creates unacceptable visual bulk. I agree with the Council that the setbacks provided on the adjoining site, coupled with the 3m setback of the first floor on the proposed dwelling will minimise the impact of bulk. The extra visible built form is not excessive in the context of an established residential area in which double storey dwellings are common. 
TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
30	Trees on the site are protected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay- Schedule 3. The permit applicant relied on the evidence of Mr Reynolds in respect to arboriculture matters. He considered that the proposed dwelling was acceptable subject to the provision of a tree management plan. He noted that trees 9 and 10 were subject to a major encroachment but considered that this could be managed. In respect to the lemon-scented gum (tree 12) within the rear open space of 4a Fairleigh Avenue he noted that the encroachment was minor, but that this tree could also be included within the tree management plan (‘TMP’). He considered it was appropriate that a project arborist be appointed as part of any TMP.
31	Ms Cusdin questioned the weight to be given to the evidence of Mr Reynolds given that he had prepared a report to accompany the permit application. In considering the weight to be given, I acknowledge that Mr Reynolds was called as a witness and his evidence was open to cross-examination. I found this evidence to be of assistance and have given it some weight.
32	In addition, I had the internal referral comments of the Council’s arborist who supported the proposal and did not raise any significant issues. 
33	In respect to the lemon scented gum (tree 12) within the rear open space of 4a Fairleigh Street, I also had the benefit of a report prepared by Mr Howell who prepared a report for the applicants for review. Except for a discrepancy in the calculation of the extent of the tree protection zone for the lemon-scented gum, Mr Howell agreed with the evidence of Mr Reynolds that there would be a minor impact on this tree because of the proposed development.
34	The proposal retains the two large trees within the setback to Summerhill Road (trees 9 and 10). Both these trees will be subject to major encroachment from the proposed dwelling. Based on the material before me, I am satisfied that a TMP can address the retention of these trees. However, I find that the extent of hard paving shown in the landscape plans should be reduced. The extent to which it needs to be reduced can form part of the TMP. I have also required the extent of any cut and fill to be clearly identified on the plans and addressed in the TMP, noting the evidence of Mr Reynolds that this should not exceed 300mm within the tree protection zones.
35	Given the agreement of the experts in respect to tree 12, I find that the proposal is acceptable. It would be appropriate to include this tree within the TMP as recommended by Mr Reynolds. I note that the owner of 4a Fairleigh Avenue sought that her own arborist supervises the works within the tree protection zone of tree 12. This is not something a planning permit can require. 
36	I note that the four street trees are retained.
Are OTHER amenity considerations addressed?
37	I have addressed the question of visual bulk from the adjoining properties in my assessment above. 
38	I note that concern was expressed about the loss of views to the golf course from the first floor balcony of the adjoining dwelling at 3 Summerhill Road. Such views are not protected by the planning scheme and are fortuitously enjoyed over adjoining properties.
39	The objectors raised concern about the impact on the east facing ‘porthole’ window of the master bedroom of 4a Fairleigh Avenue. The amended plans increased the setback in this location so that it complies with standard A12 daylight to habitable room windows. I am satisfied that the impact on this window is acceptable given its role and the presence of larger north facing windows to this bedroom. 
40	Overlooking has been addressed to the southern and western interfaces in accordance with standard A15 of clause 54.
41	The objectors were concerned about overshadowing. I have carefully assessed the extent of shadow cast by the proposal and find that it will comply with the objectives of standard A14 of clause 54.
42	I note that the existing eastern fencing to the front open space of 4a Fairleigh Avenue is not located on the common boundary. It is a 1.2m high Ti-tree fence beyond an existing rock retaining wall along the title boundary. There is a small tree entwined in the fence. The rock retaining wall will need to be reconstructed as part of the proposed accessway. The applicant advised that the retaining wall would be located on the western edge of the driveway pavement. I am satisfied that if this is the case then the small tree and fence can be protected. I have required details of the location of the retaining wall and any reconstruction to be included in the plans. The location of the retaining wall on the accessway should also allow for some landscaping on west side of the driveway. 
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MATTERS?
43	The objectors raised a concern about the height of the fence on the corner in terms of pedestrian and traffic safety. I note that the fence is set back from the corner, with only the retaining wall retained like existing conditions. The title boundary accommodates a splay that will provide ongoing visibility to the corner. Council’s traffic engineers raised no objection.
44	As I set out at the hearing, concerns raised about construction in proximity to title boundaries and the basement are not planning considerations and will be considered at the building permit stage.
Conditions
45	In considering the conditions of permit, I have had regard to the draft conditions prepared by Council and discussed at the hearing as well as to the matters arising above.
Conclusion
46	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Megan Carew
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	5/2022/379/1	
Land	1 Summerhill Road
BEAUMARIS VIC 3193	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of one dwelling on a lot of less than 500 square metres including removal of native vegetation within a Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 3).	

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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans prepared by Stak Design, dated 07/06/2023 but modified to show:
(a)	A fencing detail of the proposed fence to the private open space area including the spacing between the vertical slats. 
(b)	No wall on boundary to be located to the southern side of the barbeque. 
(c)	The location and details of all retaining walls.
(d)	A cut and fill plan demonstrating that fill is limited in depth within the tree protection zones of Trees 9 and 10 or as recommended in the Tree Management and Protection Plan in accordance with Condition 15.
(e)	The retaining wall for the basement ramp access to be located on the west side of the pavement, not on the western boundary.
(f)	An updated Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 12
(g)	A Tree Management and Protection Plan in accordance with Condition 15.
(h)	Any changes required by the Tree Management and Protection Plan in accordance with Condition 15. 
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
2	The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Bayside Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	Before the occupation of the site commences or by such later date as is approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, all buildings and works must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4	No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5	All pipes (excluding downpipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6	Before the occupation of the site commences, screening of windows including fixed privacy screens be designed to limit overlooking as required by standard A15 and be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.
7	The walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8	Vehicle Crossings must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines and standard drawing unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. Separate consent/permit for crossovers is required from Council’s Asset Protection Unit. Kerb and channel to be constructed or reinstated to the satisfaction of Council. 
9	The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line. Any public assets (including service pits, poles and trees) that are required to be removed/relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the owner/applicant and subject to the relevant authority's consent. The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council. 
10	Prior to the commencement of any proposed works above basement level, all levels and gradients of the ramp must be checked by a qualified surveyor.
11	All basic services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage, telephone, NBN and cable TV but excluding any substation, meters or hydrants must be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the relevant servicing authority and the Responsible Authority.
Landscaping
12	Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, an updated landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be generally in accordance with the Bayside Landscaping Guidelines and be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plan must show:
(a)	All changes to accord with the plans in condition 1. 
(b)	A survey, including, botanical names of all existing trees to be retained on the site including Tree Protection Zones calculated in accordance with AS4970-2009.
(c)	A survey including botanical names, of all existing trees on neighbouring properties where the Tree Protection Zones of such trees calculated in accordance with AS4970-2009 fall partially within the subject site. 
(d)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees and shrubs, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. Plantings must be 80% indigenous by species type and count.
(e)	Landscaping and/or planting within all areas of the site not covered by buildings or hard surfaces.
(f)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
(g)	Details of all retaining walls.
(h)	The provision of new landscaping within the setback to Fairleigh Avenue including a minimum of two small trees. 
(i)	A reduction in the extent of hard paving within the tree protection zones of Trees 9 and 10 with any paving to be in accordance with the Tree Management and Protection Plan in accordance with Condition 15.  
(j)	Any changes required by the Tree Management and Protection Plan in accordance with Condition 15.   
13	Before the occupation of the development the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
Tree Protection Management Plan
15	Before the development starts, including any related demolition or removal of vegetation, a TPMP, prepared by a suitably qualified arborist, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. This report must be made available to all relevant parties involved with the site.
The TPMP must include:
a)	details of Tree Protection Zones, as per AS4970-2009, for all trees to be retained on the site and for all trees on neighbouring properties (including public open space trees) where any part of the Tree Protection Zone falls within the subject site
b)	protection measures to be utilised and at what stage of the development they will be implemented
c)	appointment of a project arborist detailing their role and responsibilities
d)	stages of development at which the project arborist will inspect tree protection measures 
e)	monitoring and certification by the project arborist of implemented protection measures.
Before any works associated with the approved development, a project arborist must be appointed and the name and contact details of the project arborist responsible for implementing the endorsed TPMP must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
Any modification to the TPMP must be approved by the project arborist.  Such approval must be noted and provided to the Responsible Authority within seven days.
The TPMP must include a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of Tees on Development Sites.
The TPP must:
f)	be legible, accurate and drawn to scale 
g)	indicate the location of all tree protection measures to be utilised
h)	include the development stages (demolition, construction, landscaping) where all tree protection measures are to be utilised
i)	include a key describing all tree protection measures to be utilised. 
16	All actions and measures identified in the Tree Management Report must be implemented.
17	Before any works associated with the approved development, the contact details of the project arborist responsible for implementing the endorsed Tree Management Report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
18	Any pruning that is required to be done to the canopy of any tree to be retained (specify particular tree/s) is to be done by a qualified Arborist to Australian Standard – Pruning of Amenity Trees AS4373-1996. Any pruning of the root system of any tree to be retained (specify particular tree/s) is to be done by hand by a qualified Arborist.
Protection of trees for services
19	All underground services must be located outside of Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of all trees to be retained. If this is not possible, any underground service installations within a TPZ must be bored beneath the entire TPZ to a minimum depth 800mm. If this is not possible, any excavation within the  TPZ required for the connection of services must be undertaken by approved non-destructive digging techniques, under the supervision of a project arborist and with the written approval of the Responsible Authority.
Street tree protection
20	Soil excavation must not occur within 2 metres from the edge of the four Coast Tea-tree street trees asset’s stem at ground level. 
21	A tree protection fence is for the protection of a tree’s canopy and root zone. Conditions for street tree protection fencing during development are as follows:
a)	Fencing is to be secured and maintained prior to demolition and until all site works are complete. 
b)	Fencing must be installed to comply with AS4970-2009, Protection of trees on development sites. 
c)	Fencing should encompass the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for all street trees adjacent to the development.
d)	Fencing is to be constructed and secured so its positioning cannot be modified by site workers. 
e)	If applicable, prior to construction of the Council approved crossover, TPZ fencing may be reduced to the edge of the new crossover to facilitate works. 
22	Prior to soil excavation for a Council approved crossover within the TPZ, a trench must be excavated along the line of the crossover adjacent to the tree using root sensitive non-destructive techniques. All roots that will be affected by must correctly pruned. 
23	Any installation of services and drainage within the TPZ must be undertaken using root sensitive non-destructive techniques. 
Drainage
24	Before the development starts, the permit holder must apply to Council for the Legal Point of Discharge for the development from where stormwater is drained under gravity to the Council network.
25	Before the development, detailed plans indicating, but not limited to, the method of stormwater discharge to the nominated Legal Point of Discharge (and On-Site Detention System where applicable) must be submitted to and approved by Council’s City Assets and Projects Department.
Permit Expiry
26	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a)	the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit
b)	the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

– End of conditions –