VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P298/2023 & P459/2023
Permit Application no. PP22/0521	
CATCHWORDS	
Boroondara Planning Scheme; Amendment VC243 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme; operation and effect of Standard B17 now that the objective is deemed to be met; visual bulk and neighbourhood character outcomes along rear boundaries; landscaping outcomes and Standard B38 at Clause 55.07-4 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.	
APPLICANT – P298/2023	Roberto D’Andrea & James Armstrong	
applicant – P459/2023	570 Riversdale Road Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Boroondara City Council	
Referral Authority	Head, Transport for Victoria	
RESPONDENT – P298/2023	570 Riversdale Road Pty Ltd	
respondent – P459/2023	Roberto D’Andrea, James Armstrong, Christina Branagan, Annette Cooper	
SUBJECT LAND	570 Riversdale Road, Camberwell	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	
DATE OF HEARING	27 & 28 September 2023	
DATE OF ORDER	11 October 2023	
CITATION	D'Andrea v Boroondara CC [2023] VCAT 1148	
Order
1	In applications P298/2023 & P459/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is varied. 
2	In planning permit application PP22/0521 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 570 Riversdale Road, Camberwell in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	The construction of two or more dwellings on a lot
•	The construction of a front fence
•	The creation and alteration of access to a road in a Transport Zone 2

Michael Deidun			
Member			
Appearances
For Roberto D’Andrea & James Armstrong	Jo Harrison, Town Planner of Urban Planning Advisory
She called the following witness:
•	Lachlan Williams, Arborist of Tree Response 	
For responsible authority	Daniel Murphy, Planning Appeals Coordinator of Boroondara City Council	
For referral authority	No appearance	
For 570 Riversdale Road Pty Ltd	Damian Loughnan, Town Planner of G2 Urban Planning
He called the following witnesses:
•	Robert Galbraith, Arborist of Galbraith & Associates
•	Jack Merlo, Landscape Designer of Jack Merlo Design & Landscape	
For other respondents	Jo Harrison, Town Planner of Urban Planning Advisory also appeared on behalf of Annette Cooper
She called the following witness:
•	Lachlan Williams, Arborist of Tree Response	

Information
Description of proposal	The construction of 15 apartments in a three storey building above a basement car park	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the conditions contained in the permit.
Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Boroondara Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone 3	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 to construct two or more dwellings on a lot, and construct a front fence, on land within the General Residential Zone
Clause 52.29 to create or alter an access to a road in a Transport Zone 2	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 02, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 32.08, 52.06, 52.29, 53.18, 55, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The land is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage to Riversdale Road of 30.1 metres, a depth of 67.0 metres, and an overall area of 2023 square metres.  The land presently supports a single storey detached dwelling and an outbuilding.	
Tribunal inspection	The Tribunal inspected the site and surrounding area prior to the hearing, on 22 September 2023	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This application for review involves two proceedings that result from the decision of the Boroondara City Council (the ‘Council’) to grant a planning permit allowing the construction of a three storey apartment building on land at 570 Riversdale Road, Camberwell (the ‘review site’).
2	Roberto D’Andrea & James Armstrong (the ‘applicants’) seek to review the Council’s decision to grant a planning permit.  Their grounds raise concerns regarding the scale and bulk of the building and the transition provided to the adjoining properties to the rear of the review site, overshadowing of those adjoining properties, daylight to existing windows, the provision of south facing areas of private open space, and the impact on neighbourhood character.
3	Their grounds also raise concerns in relation to the potential for overlooking to their properties to the rear of the review site.  The grounds relating to overlooking were resolved at a Compulsory Conference in the following manner:
Pursuant to section 84AB of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the agreement of all parties to the proceeding, the hearing will be confined to the following particular matters in dispute: 
In application P298/2023, the grounds for review concerning overlooking to the south from the proposed building is resolved between the parties as follows:  
i. 	At the ground floor the rear fence is raised to a height of 2.4 metres.  
ii. 	At levels 1 and 2, the planter-boxes are retained as shown in the Revision A plans dated 13/9/2022, with the southern external screen height increased to 1.5 metres and the additional height constructed of obscure glass.  
All other matters in the statement of grounds from the applicants for review in P298/2023 and P459/2023 remain in dispute.  
4	570 Riversdale Road Pty Ltd (the ‘permit applicant’) seeks to review the following conditions sought to be imposed on the planning permit by the Council.
1. 	Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and electronic copies provided (unlocked PDF). When the plans are endorsed they will then form part of the permit. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the advertised plans but modified to show: 
	…
v) 	Changes to private open space areas in the southeast and southwest corners of the property to facilitate replacement tree planting as required in the Landscape Plan conditions of this permit. 
3. 	A landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and electronic copies provided (unlocked PDF). When endorsed, the plan will form part of the permit. 
The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the advertised landscape plan and must show:
…
d) 	Two (2) canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when planted and must achieve a minimum mature height of 12 metres and canopy spread of 5 metres) in the Southeast and Southwest corners of the site; 
e) 	Each canopy tree must be provided a minimum of 49 sqm of deep soil, with the available soil area clearly shown on the landscape plan; 
…
h) 	All canopy trees must be planted more than 2 metres away from any above ground structures, paving, decking, property boundaries, easements, existing trees or shrubs; 
i) 	All small trees must be planted more than 1 metre away from any structures, paving, decking, property boundaries, easements, existing trees or shrubs; 
j) 	All trees within side and rear setbacks adequately setback from common boundaries to avoid mature canopy overhang of neighboring spaces. 
5	Four nearby residents oppose the conditions appeal, two of which are the applicants in the other proceeding.  These residents seek to retain the landscaping outcomes that are sought to be achieved by these various conditions.
6	The issues or questions for determination are:
a.	Is the proposal an appropriate response to the surrounding neighbourhood character, including the existing trees?
b.	Will there be any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
c.	Is an appropriate level of internal amenity provided?
d.	Does the proposal appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements?
7	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, I have decided to vary the Council’s decision, and direct the grant of a planning permit subject to conditions.  My reasons follow.
Is the proposal an appropriate response to the surrounding neighbourhood character, including the existing trees?
8	The review site is located adjacent to the Camberwell Junction Activity Centre, and on a main road that carries a tram route.  As a result, the review site enjoys a very high level of access to a range of services and facilities, and also enjoys strong policy support at both the State and regional level for the achievement of urban consolidation and higher density housing.  Examples of this strong policy support are set out below.
Encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres.
Increase the proportion of housing in designated locations in established urban areas (including under-utilised urban land) and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield, fringe and dispersed development areas.
Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to jobs, services and public transport.
Identify opportunities for increased residential densities to help consolidate urban areas.
Facilitate diverse housing that offers choice and meets changing household needs by widening housing diversity through a mix of housing types.
Facilitate increased housing in established areas to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods close to existing services, jobs and public transport.
9	The review site is identified as within a Moderate Change Area, which is described as an “Eclectic inner urban/eclectic suburban precinct” on the Housing Framework Plan at Clause 02.04-3 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.  As such, the following policy guidance is applicable to this area:
Support moderate change reflecting a mixture of detached dwellings, villas and townhouses as well as apartment buildings in the following precincts identified in the Housing Framework Plan at Clause 02.04: 
•	Contemporary townhouse / general inner urban. 
•	Eclectic inner urban / eclectic suburban.
10	Clause 02.03-4 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme contains policies relating to Built environment and heritage.  It contains the following guidance:
Council’s strategic directions are to:
•	Ensure high quality urban design standards in development. 
•	Protect and respect the preferred neighbourhood character and ensure development makes a positive contribution while minimising adverse impacts. 
•	Protect all individual places, objects and precincts of cultural, aboriginal, urban and landscape significance. 
•	Ensure development respects, and is sensitive to, the significance of heritage places.  
11	In the decision of New Merger Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2023] VCAT 190, I made the following observations about the Moderate Change Areas in the Boroondara municipality, and the relevant policy context.
[21]	Moderate Change Areas comprise restricted parts of the municipality, as depicted in the following extract of the Housing Framework Plan.  This plan, and the restricted distribution of the Moderate Charge Areas, also needs to be understood in the context that some of the Moderate Change Areas are covered by Heritage Overlays, which would add a further layer of restriction on new development.  Also some residential neighbourhoods identified for Moderate Change are covered by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, which restricts new development to a maximum height of two storeys.  As the review site and surrounding properties are included in the General Residential Zone, a height limit of three storeys applies to this neighbourhood.  The extent of the Boroondara municipality that is identified for Moderate Change at a potential height of three storeys is restricted to a very limited number of neighbourhoods.

[22]	The following policy guidance is provided at Clause 15.01-5L for all land within the General Residential Zone Schedules 2 and 3, which comprises some of the land identified for Moderate change.
General Residential Zone Schedule 2 and 3 
Objective 
To facilitate development that integrates with and complements the varied scale and type of development in the precinct. 
Strategies 
Design building facades to be consistent with those that are characteristic of the streetscape. 
Set development back from the front, side and rear boundaries, consistent with the preferred character of the precinct. 
Provide a transition in building scale and setbacks to residential properties located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 and public open space areas. 
Design and site development adjacent to a property in an individual Heritage Overlay fronting onto the same street so that it provides for a transition in scale and does not detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the place. 
Policy guidelines 
Consider as relevant: 
•	To facilitate development up to three storeys. 
•	Ensuring that building facades are no more than 2 storeys high to the street frontage, unless higher front facades are a consistent characteristic of the streetscape.
…
[24]	It is evident from this policy guidance that this is a rare residential neighbourhood in Boroondara that has been identified for moderate change, and an increased housing supply that includes the provision of townhouses and apartment buildings.  The policies for this confined area specifically seek to facilitate development of up to three storeys in height, not consider but rather facilitate…  
12	The part of the quote above which I have excluded is that which refers to the relevant Precinct from the Neighbourhood Character Precinct Statements (City of Boroondara, 2013), which are a reference document to Clause 15.01-5L.  The review site and adjoining land that has a frontage to the southern side of Riversdale Road, falls within Precinct 32.  This precinct is noted as already being characterised in part by 2 and 3 storey apartment buildings, and is provided with the following preferred character statement.
To facilitate development of a diverse range of housing that integrates with the scale and form of buildings in the precinct, which respects the historic houses in the area and enhances the landscape setting of dwellings.
This will be achieved by:
•	Encouraging the retention of large trees;
•	Ensuring low or open style front fences;
•	Ensuring buildings are consistently setback from the front boundary to retain and enhance the existing streetscape rhythm;
•	Ensuring new developments and additional respect the predominant scale and form of buildings in the streetscape;
•	Encourage design that integrates with the heritage styles of the precinct;
•	Ensuring car parking structures do not dominate the streetscape; and,
•	Maximising soft landscaping and minimising areas of hard surfaces.
13	Ms Harrison submits that the proposal fails to achieve an appropriate built form outcome, as encouraged by the Boroondara Planning Scheme, for the following reasons:
a.	The proposal to demolish the existing building, and not re-use the bricks from the existing building in the proposed development, fails to achieve the policy encourage for the adaptive re-use of buildings.  It will also result in poor climate change outcomes, having regard to the energy used in the construction of the new building, the landfill caused by the demolition, and the dark exterior proposed on the new building.
b.	The scale, setbacks and design of the proposed building contrasts with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character, and will not sit comfortably adjacent to the individually significant heritage place to the immediate east of the review site.
c.	The proposed building does not provide an appropriate transition in scale or setbacks between the review site, which is within a moderate change area, and the properties to the rear, which are within a minimal change area.
d.	The proposal fails to appropriately provide for the retention of an existing canopy tree, and for the establishment of new landscaping.
14	I am not persuaded by these submissions, for the following reasons, responding to the four matters outlined above.  
Demolition of the existing building
15	Firstly, while I recognise the environmental benefits of retaining and re-using existing buildings and their materials, the Boroondara Planning Scheme does not restrict the demolition of the existing buildings on the review site.  This is a location where the Boroondara Planning Scheme strongly supports urban consolidation that involves urban renewal and the provision of additional housing, and an acceptable approach to that guidance is the provision of contemporary housing that meets modern day standards.  Further, the proposal to demolish the existing building that comprises nine flats, and replace it with 15 apartments, represents some of the increased housing that is sought in this locality, and the achievement of planning policy that is outlined earlier in this decision.  For these reasons, the proposal to demolish the existing three storey flats to make way for a modern three storey apartment building, is a form of development that is encouraged by the Boroondara Planning Scheme, when read as a whole.
Broad neighbourhood character assessment
16	Secondly, I come to a broad neighbourhood character assessment of the proposal.  This is an assessment that takes into account the relevant references to neighbourhood character in the policies of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, as well as all components of Clause 55.02-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.  I say ‘all components’ of Clause 55.02-1, as the Neighbourhood Character objectives, Standard B1 and the associated Decision guidelines are all before me in my discretion as a decision maker.  The content of Clause 55.02-1 is set out below.
Neighbourhood character objectives
To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.
To ensure that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.
Standard B1
The design response must be appropriate to the neighbourhood and the site.
The proposed design must respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.
Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider:
•	Any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in this scheme.
•	The neighbourhood and site description.
•	The design response.
17	I find that the proposal will, subject to one change, result in a built form outcome that will sit comfortably in this neighbourhood, and respond in an appropriate manner to both the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.  I make this finding for the following reasons:
a.	The proposed three storey scale is an appropriate response to the policy support at Clause 15.01-5L for three storey development in this moderate change area.  The three storey scale is also an appropriate response to the scale of buildings in the neighbourhood, noting the three storey buildings that already exist to the immediate east at both 576 Riversdale Road and 578-580 Riversdale Road, and the nearby three and five storey building at 6 Butler Street.
b.	The three storey scale of the building as it will appear in the streetscape is heavily articulated, with the front setbacks ranging from 6.8 to 21.8 metres, with the larger setback accommodating the retention of an existing large canopy tree.  Further, the front façade comprises a range of materials and a high level of articulation that will present as a visually engaging architectural form.
c.	The proposed front setbacks are varied between 6.8 metres and 21.8 metres, with the larger setback to accommodate the retention of an existing large canopy tree.  The one concern I have with the front setbacks is in relation to the component that will be setback 6.8 metres, and which will sit forward of the heritage building to the immediate east of the review site, which is setback 9.25 metres to its closest element.  Standard B6 would require a 6.9 metre setback, and policy at Clause 02.03-4 seeks to:
Ensure development respects, and is sensitive to, the significance of heritage places. 
Further, policy at Clause 15.01-5L, in respect of sites in the moderate change area, provides the following guidance.
Design and site development adjacent to a property in an individual Heritage Overlay fronting onto the same street so that it provides for a transition in scale and does not detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the place. 
The adjoining property to the west is an individually significant heritage place (HO723), which is provided with the following Statement of significance.
•	Hatfield Flats represents a fully-fledged flats design which is clearly recognisable as such, but which seeks in its stepped design to minimise its visual impact on the surrounding streetscape as well as provide a high level of amenity to the occupants 
•	The 1935 eastern and central wings demonstrate typical features of the Moderne, including the use of contrasting clinker brick and render to the walls, horizontal speed lines to solid balconies and horizontal glazing bars to windows, which is balanced by a number of vertical elements such as the parapeted stair tower. 
Given the policies that apply to this heritage context, and the recognition by the Street setback objective at Clause 55.03-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme that it does not address heritage matters, I consider it appropriate that a greater front setback be required on the review site.  This is required in order to protect views to the front façade of the heritage place at HO723, and retain the ability for the public to appreciate the significant aspects of its architecture, as described in the Statement of significance.  I note that apartments G.05, 1.06 and 2.04 are those which have a 6.8 metre front setback, and that the floor plan for each of these apartments could accommodate an increased setback, while not reducing the number of apartments.  In respect of Apartments 1.06 and 2.04, it is apparent that the number of bedrooms will also not need to be decreased, but one bedroom may be lost from apartment G.05, which is currently a three bedroom apartment.   For these reasons I find it appropriate that a setback of 9.05 metres be required for these apartments, which will align the front wall of these apartments with the planter box to their balconies, and provide an appropriate setback adjacent to the heritage place.
d.	The proposed materials, which include a range of masonry, render and metal cladding, will complement these materials that are commonly used in the contemporary architecture already found in this neighbourhood.
e.	The proposal achieves the outcomes sought by the preferred character statement for Precinct 32, due to the following design features:
i.	The large canopy tree in the front setback of the review site is to be retained, as is encouraged in this precinct;
ii.	While the proposed front fence will not be low, this is common for Riversdale Road where high solid fences abound in response to the noise from traffic and trams.  This proposal will achieve an appropriate balance by providing some openness through hit and miss bricks and some sections of laser cut metal fencing, as well as a landscaping area in front of the fence, that has a width of between 1.8 and 2.85 metres;
iii.	As a result of the increased front setback that I will require for the reasons set out above, the proposal will now have a front setback that enhances the existing streetscape rhythm, as it will be consistent with the setback of the adjacent heritage place, while also accommodating the retention of a large and valued canopy tree;
iv.	For the reasons set out above, the proposal will respect the predominant form and scale of buildings in the streetscape, noting that this is a neighbourhood where policy specifically encourages three storey residential development;
v.	The proposal will comprise a contemporary building sitting outside of the Heritage Overlay, but with a range of front and side setbacks that will complement the individually significant heritage place located immediately to the east of the review site;
vi.	The use of a basement car park with an appropriately designed basement ramp will ensure that the car parking structure does not dominate the streetscape; and,
vii.	The proposal will provide a high level of soft landscaping across the review site, with permeable space of 28.26%, well over the standard requirement of 20%.
Scale and bulk to the side and rear interfaces
18	Thirdly, we come to the issue of visual bulk and neighbourhood character impact of the proposed development on the interface to the side and rear boundaries of the review site.  In their written submissions, each of the parties that lodged submissions stated that the proposed height and setback of the proposed building from the rear boundary of the review site complies with Standard B17.  At the commencement of the hearing I raised concerns that two small elements of the proposed second floor did not comply with Standard B17, in terms of their height and setback from the eastern side boundary of the review site,  after careful examination of the natural ground levels depicted on a site survey.  In response, the permit applicant proposes a permit condition that Standard B17 is achieved, and asks the Tribunal to assess the proposed development on the basis that there is compliance with Standard B17.  None of the other parties opposed this approach.
19	The question of whether the proposed development complies with Standard B17 took on added significance following the gazettal of Amendment VC243 on 22 September 2023, that is, the week prior to the scheduled hearing dates for this proceeding.  Amendment VC243 made a number of significant changes to the Victorian Planning Provisions, following the release of the Victorian Government’s Victoria’s Housing Statement (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2023) a few days earlier.  While at the commencement of the hearing parties flagged the potential desire to make further written submissions after the conclusion of the hearing on the impact of Amendment VC243, during the course of the hearing the advocates for the parties were able to adjust their oral submissions accordingly.  As a result at the conclusion of the hearing, in response to my question, none of the parties sought an opportunity to make further submissions.
20	Among the significant changes introduced under Amendment VC243 are the addition of the following words to Clause 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme (and similar words at Clause 54).
If a development meets standard B6, B7, B8, B17, B18, B19, B20, B21, B22, B27, B28, B30 or B32, it is deemed to meet the objective for that standard. 
Where standard B6, B7, B8, B17, B18, B19, B20, B21, B22, B27, B28, B30 or B32 is met the decision guidelines for that standard do not apply to the application. 
21	I note the reference in the quoted words above to a development that meets Standard B17.  This is to be contrasted with the words at Clause 32.08-4 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme which states that, “An application to construct or extend a dwelling or residential building on a lot must provide a minimum garden area…”  In relation to the Garden area requirement, compliance must be shown at the application stage.  However, the words added to Clause 55 by Amendment VC243 instead refers to the development achieving a certain outcome.  A development is not complete until after a permit is issued and the permit conditions have been complied with.  As such, the development of land can achieve certain outcomes, as required by way of permit conditions.  For these reasons, I find that the permit applicant’s proposal that Standard B17 compliance is achieved by permit conditions, to be an acceptable proposition to trigger the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions at Clause 55.  That is particularly the case here in the context where compliance with Standard B17 was intended to be achieved, and indeed was believed to have been achieved by the parties represented at the hearing. 
22	The effect of the words added to Clause 55 by Amendment VC243 are explored in the following extract from the Explanatory Report which accompanies Amendment VC243:
Codifying residential development 
The amendment is required to ‘codify’ specified residential development standards at clauses 54 and 55 of the VPP and all planning schemes, to facilitate assessment of these standards. 
The operation of the provisions is modified to state that where the standard is met, the objective is deemed to have been met, and the associated decision guidelines for the standard are not required to be considered. Two standards in clause 54 and 55, Building height objective (A4/B7) and Front fences objective (A20/B32), are also modified by deleting requirements that involve a discretionary assessment, to codify these standards. 
Codifying residential development requirements will create a more certain planning permit process and reduce permit approval timeframes. Removing the requirement to consider decision guidelines for a standard where the requirements are clearly met will make assessment against these standards clearer and faster. Codification increases certainty and clarity for applicants and the community about acceptable siting and design requirements for residential development. 
The changes support proportional assessment requirements that reduce the administrative cost and resources for the responsible authority. 
Reduced approval timeframes and improved certainty and clarity around assessment supports the provision of housing in established areas.
(my emphasis)
23	The underlined words above clarify that the codifying of certain ResCode standards is intended to provide, “certainty and clarity… about acceptable siting and design requirements for residential development.”  In other words, it removes the discretion associated with a qualitative assessment informed by the relevant objective and decision guidelines, coupled with the context of a review site and the merits of a design response.
24	Under the same Amendment, the following words were deleted from Standard B7, relating to Building height:
Changes of building height between existing buildings and new buildings should be graduated.
25	The effect of these changes, particularly those at Clause 55, are to give added importance to a finding that a proposed development complies with particular ResCode standards, including those found at Clause 55.  In this proceeding, a finding that Standard B17 is or will be met, would also deem that the Side and rear setbacks objective has been met, which is set out below.
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	The key question now in the context of Standard B17 and the effect of the changes to Clause 55 as a result of Amendment VC243, is whether a proposal that complies with Standard B17, therefore automatically results in a finding that a proposal achieves acceptable neighbourhood character and amenity outcomes across the side and rear boundaries of a review site.
27	The answer to this key question relies on a clear understanding of what the Side and rear setback objective and Standard B17 addresses, and what they fail to address.  This has been well explored by the Tribunal in the past, in the following extract from the decision of Burke Vue Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC (Includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1723, which in turn references an earlier decision of Global Alpha Group Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2013] VCAT 1929.
[35]	Clause 55 is specifically designed for the assessment of applications for medium density development of up to four storeys in height and provides guidance as to what is acceptable. Compliance with the relevant ResCode standard is deemed to be compliance with the related objective. Decision guidelines must also be considered. Where compliance with a numeric standard is not achieved then a judgement needs to be made as to whether the related objective has been met. Whilst it is not a question of ticking all, or most, of the ResCode boxes in order to receive a permit, compliance with all the numeric ResCode standards is a good indication that a proposal is not an overdevelopment and that off-site amenity impacts have been well managed.
[36]	Aside from neighbourhood character which I have already discussed, Council has not identified any of the ResCode requirements that are not met. These include standards B8 (site coverage), B17 (side and rear setbacks) and B18 (walls on boundaries) that are varied for the GRZ7. I also note that none of the expert witnesses or submissions identified technical non-compliances with ResCode requirements, particularly those dealing with off-site amenity impacts such as overlooking and overshadowing.
[37]	I have also observed in many decisions that compliance does not prevent any loss of amenity; rather it ensures that any loss is within what has been decided by the formulators of the planning scheme as reasonable. For example, the overshadowing standard (B21) only requires an assessment at the equinox. Overshadowing at the winter solstice is not assessed, although the loss of sunlight at that time of the year would have a much greater impact compared to spring and autumn. The same applies to amenity impacts (Clause 55.04) where compliance with standards such as B17 (side and rear setbacks) and B18 (walls on boundaries) ensure that impacts on the amenity of existing dwellings are limited to what has been deemed acceptable or reasonable.
[38]	One of the key concerns for neighbours is the visual bulk of a building that extends for approximately 55 metres deep into the rear part of the lot, with upper level walls setback as little as 3 metres and balconies setback at 2.5 metres. The concept of visual bulk and how it should be measured is a common issue in applications for medium density developments. It is often the case that the side and rear setback standard (B17) is used as a tool to measure visual bulk. However the side and rear setback objective (Clause 55.04-1) makes no reference to visual bulk but instead aims 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.
[39]	Parties made reference to the comment I made about the B17 standard in a decision for a three storey medium density development in Cotham Road Kew:
[39] 	Inadequate side and rear setbacks and unreasonable visual bulk to neighbouring properties were other matters raised in submissions opposing the development. It is often argued that compliance with the B17 side and rear setback envelope demonstrates that a building does not cause unreasonable visual bulk when viewed from neighbouring properties. Nothing could be further from the truth since simple use of the B17 setback envelope takes no account of the length of wall being measured. For example, the visual impact of a short 10 metre length of wall achieving the B17 envelope is likely to be entirely different to a 40 to 50 metre length of wall, particularly where that length of wall occupies a significant length of boundary with neighbouring properties. In this case, the review site abuts six neighbouring properties and therefore has the potential to have a significant visual impact on the rear yards of these properties. The rear yards of Nos 143 and 147 Cotham Road and 3 Ermington Place are most affected as the upper levels of the building are recessed away from Nos 5 and 7 Ermington Place and No 1 Hillcrest Avenue. During the hearing Mr Scally produced a number of plans that further recessed the building from the northern end of the site. Whilst these represent an improved built form for neighbours at the northern end of the site, the building still extends for a considerable length along the site.
[40]	I do not resile from those comments which were borne out of my concern that submissions often simplistically argue that compliance with the B17 side and rear envelope demonstrates that a building does not cause unreasonable visual bulk. Although visual bulk is not specifically referred to in the objective or decision guidelines for standard B17, there is reference to limiting the impact on the amenity of adjoining dwellings. The decision guidelines refer to the impact on the amenity of habitable room windows and secluded private open space. Amenity is not defined but could reasonably include outlook given ResCode otherwise includes specific standards for walls on boundaries, daylight to existing windows, north facing windows, overshadowing and overlooking.
[41]	If we consider that outlook is an existing amenity, then the height, setbacks, length of a building, level of articulation, materials and colours will all impact on that outlook. Any new building on the review site, including a large double or triple storey dwelling that could be constructed without a planning permit, will occupy space and affect the existing outlook from habitable room windows and secluded open space in neighbouring properties. The proposed building will also affect the existing outlook and in order to assess whether the impacts are unacceptable I have separately considered the northern, southern and western interfaces.
28	As set out in this quoted extract, the Side and rear setback objective only deals with the height and setback of a building from a boundary.  It follows therefore that Standard B17 only seeks to deal with the same aspect of a proposed development, that is the height and setback of a building from a side or rear boundary.  Therefore compliance with Standard B17, and deemed compliance with the objective, can only mandate that a proposal achieves acceptable neighbourhood character and amenity impacts arising from the height and setback of the building from a boundary.  It cannot and does not seek to deal with other aspects that relate to how a building is viewed across a side or rear boundary, including the length of walls, articulation in the built form, and the use and arrangement of colors and materials.  Those aspects are not covered in either the Side and rear setbacks objective or Standard B17, and so are still before a decision maker, even where Standard B17 is achieved.  Neighbourhood character and amenity related policies are still relevant where Standard B17 is achieved, but only insofar as they relate to the aspects of a built form that are still before the discretion of a decision maker, including the length of walls, articulation in the built form, and the use and arrangement of colors and materials.
29	As the Side and rear setbacks objective deals with both neighbourhood character and amenity impacts from a building, I have found it appropriate to consider separately what the deemed to comply provisions mean for both of these aspects in the analysis that follows.
Amenity impacts
30	Ms Harrison submits that the proposed building exhibits a height and a series of setbacks that will result in an unreasonable level of visual bulk to the adjoining properties to the rear of the review site.  She submits that a tick the box approach to Standard B17 can’t be where amenity considerations stop in such a planning assessment.  Ms Harrison submits that such an approach does not take into account changes in levels between sites as caused by sloping land, and other contextual matters, and therefore a more qualitative assessment needs to be undertaken, then extends beyond mere compliance with Standard B17 when assessing the height and setback of a proposed building.
31	Insofar as the height and setback of walls from a boundary is concerned, I am not persuaded by these submissions.  Compliance with Standard B17 now fully resolves all relevant assessments of the height and setback of a building from a boundary.  Those assessments include those which relate to amenity impacts and visual bulk, which is also often referred to as built form and scale, on neighbouring properties across the side and rear boundaries of a review site.  As set out above, the effect of Amendment VC243 is to mandate that compliance with Standard B17, achieves acceptable amenity outcomes for existing dwellings, in relation to the height and setback of a building from a side or rear boundary.  
32	Planning policy in the Boroondara Planning Scheme encourages the protection of residential amenity, and other related amenity outcomes.  However, where compliance with the Side and rear setback objective is now mandated once Standard B17 is achieved, I must find that a building’s height and setback from a side or rear boundary achieves an acceptable amenity outcome.  I cannot implement this mandated outcome on the one hand, and then turn my mind to the achievement of related amenity based policies on the other hand, insofar as they seek to influence the height and setback of a building from a side or rear boundary.  
33	However, this does not mean that there can be no further assessment of the visual bulk impact of a proposal on its context.  That is because it still remains the case that Standard B17 only deals with the height and setback of walls from a side or rear boundary, it does not deal with all matters or relevant considerations that influences visual bulk.  In accordance with the quoted decision above of Burke Vue Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC (Includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 1723, which in turn references an earlier decision of Global Alpha Group Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2013] VCAT 1929, other matters that relate to the visual amenity impact of a building are not addressed by the Side and rear setbacks objective, and are therefore still before me.  These include building length, articulation, colors and materials, which are not covered by Standard B17 or the Side and rear setbacks objective.  
34	In this proceeding, the proposed development effectively manages its building length, articulation, colors and materials to the side and rear boundaries.  It is the rear elevation which is the focus of the parties to this proceeding, given the siting of the properties belonging to the s82 applicants.  This rear elevation is positioned such as to be sited adjacent to only part of the respective rear boundaries of 7 and 11 Butler Street, such that part of the rear aspect of these properties will also be adjacent to the generous side setbacks on the review site, that contain significant new landscaping.  This reduces the visual impact associated with the width of the rear elevation, on the adjoining properties at 7 and 11 Butler Street.
35	Further, the proposed building has a rear elevation with a ground floor width of 21.2 metres, which narrows to 17.1 metres at the top floor.  On a site with a width of 30.1 metres, and in a neighbourhood where buildings are often much wider, this is a relatively narrow built form in this context, given the policy encouragement that applies to this moderate change area.  Again, the relative narrow width of the rear elevation successfully reduces the visual impact on the adjoining properties to the rear of the review site.
36	While the property at 9 Butler Street will have its rear boundary adjacent to the middle of the proposed building on the review site, this middle section of the proposed rear elevation has a greater ground floor setback and therefore more room for landscaping, and also has an increased level of articulation at all three levels.  For these reasons I find that the length of the proposed built form will not result in an unreasonable visual bulk or amenity outcome.
37	Further, the rear elevation has a high level of articulation, provided by a variation of setbacks at all levels, incorporation of inset balconies and projecting planter boxes, and a significant variation in setbacks to the two apartments at the upper level (5.66 and 10.26 metres) which will ‘hide’ half of the top floor on some views.  Finally, a range of colors and materials are proposed which reflect those found in contemporary architecture in this neighbourhood, and which will provide for engaging and visually interesting rear and side elevations.
38	Ms Harrison argues that a further factor which should influence a visual bulk assessment is the slope of the land, and the relative lower position of her clients’ rear yards in relation to the review site.  However, these submissions are based on concerns regarding the height and setback of the proposed building on the review site.  As noted above, these matters are fully covered by the Side and rear setback objective, and so are now deemed to comply.  So long as Standard B17 is achieved, having regard to the natural ground level at the boundary of the review site, the relative changes of levels on surrounding land will not affect compliance with Standard B17, and therefore will not affect a decision as to whether the Side and rear setbacks objective is achieved.
39	Turning away from the rear elevation, the side west elevation faces a medical centre, and therefore cannot cause an unreasonable amenity impact.  However even if this medical centre were to be developed for residential uses in the future, the proposal represents an appropriate response to this interface.  I make this finding having regard to the generous side boundary setbacks including a minimum 4.5 metre ground floor setback, and the high level of articulation included within the proposed western elevation.  Turning to the east side elevation, ground floor setbacks of between 3.4 and 7.6 metres provide a high level of articulation, as well as generous setbacks for landscaping.  The rear part of the adjoining property to the east is used for communal open space, and the building provides a 4.5 metre ground floor setback to this part of the interface, that will allow a generous landscaped setting to be established on the review site.
40	For these reasons I find that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the surrounding properties, by way of visual bulk.
Neighbourhood character considerations
41	Ms Harrison submits that neighbourhood character considerations relating to the height and setbacks of the walls that comprise the rear elevation are still a relevant consideration, to which I have discretion.  Ms Harrison makes these submissions on the basis of the following references to neighbourhood character in the Boroondara Planning Scheme:
a.	Neighbourhood character policies at Clauses 15.01-5S and 15.01-5L, particularly where these policies seek to encourage a development to respond to its context and sense of place;
b.	Housing – Boroondara policy at Clause 16.01-1L, particularly the first strategy that seeks to, “Provide housing that protects the preferred neighbourhood character and adjoining residential amenity.”
c.	Schedule 3 to the General Residential Zone, which contains a decision guideline that directs one to the Boroondara Neighbourhood Character Study Precinct Statements 2013;
d.	Clause 55 which has different guidance for the application of Clause 55.07 to Apartment developments; 
e.	Standard B1, and the Neighbourhood character objectives found at Clause 55.02-1; and,
f.	The precinct brochure for Precinct 32.
42	Having regard to the assessment conducted earlier in these reasons, insofar as the height and setback of walls from a boundary is concerned, I am not persuaded by these submissions, for the following reasons.  The effect of the deemed to comply provisions in respect of Standard B17, is that the Side and rear setbacks objective has been met.  That objective is repeated below.
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.
43	If this objective has been met, it means that the height and setback of the proposed building from the rear boundary of the review site respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.  That is the only logical conclusion of the deemed to comply provision in relation to Standard B17, and the matters covered by the Side and rear setbacks objective.  What the submissions of Ms Harrison are asking of the decision maker, is on the one hand to accept that as a result of the deemed to comply provision, the height and setback of the proposed building from the rear boundary of the review site respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.  But on the other hand, I am asked to still consider whether the application of policy leads to a finding of an acceptable neighbourhood character outcome with respect to the height and setback of the proposed building adjacent to the rear boundary.  
44	With respect, it appears to be illogical and indeed impossible to on the one hand have no discretion over whether the neighbourhood character outcomes covered by the Side and rear setbacks objective are met, and then on the other hand to go ahead and apply that discretion and carry out an assessment.    
45	Indeed, what Ms Harrison asks me to do, is to apply a neighbourhood character assessment to the scale and bulk of the rear elevation, that might then impact the rear setbacks and building heights beyond that required by Standard B17.  This process would stand in contrast to both the deemed to comply provisions, and the certainty sought to be achieved by the Explanatory Note for Amendment VC243.
46	Further, the matters raised under the Side and rear setbacks objective, cover the relevant neighbourhood character considerations relating to built form and scale, insofar as those neighbourhood character policies and provisions address or seek to influence the height and setback of a building from a side or rear boundary.  This includes those policies and provisions in the Boroondara Planning Scheme sought to be relied upon by Ms Harrison.  I make this finding for the following reasons, addressing the components of the Boroondara Planning Scheme identified at paragraph 41 of these reasons.
a.	The requirement in the Side and rear setbacks objective for a building to respect the existing and preferred character of the neighbourhood that surrounds a review site, takes into account the  context of the review site, and its sense of place.  While Standard B17 may be consistent across Victoria, the schedules for the various residential zones allow it to be varied on a neighbourhood or precinct basis.  As such, compliance with Standard B17 means that a development has wall heights and setbacks from a boundary that achieves the neighbourhood character policies at Clause 15.01-5 of the Victorian Planning Provisions, and the local policies in various planning schemes.  Note that this is different from a finding that a proposal has an acceptable scale and bulk, as Standard B17 and the Side and rear setbacks objective only deals with the height and setbacks of walls from a side or rear boundary, and this is only one element that may contribute to an overall decision as to whether a proposal achieves an appropriate scale and bulk.
b.	The neighbourhood character considerations addressed in the Side and rear setbacks objective covers the neighbourhood character related policies at Clause 16.01-1L, insofar as they relate to the height and setback of a building from a side and rear boundary.
c.	The decision guideline in Schedule 3 to the General Residential Zone and the precinct brochure for Precinct 32 both address the preferred neighbourhood character, a matter that is covered by the Side and rear setbacks objective, in respect of the height and setback of a building from a side or rear boundary.
d.	The different provisions for Clause 55.07 Apartment developments at Clause 55 elevates the application of the standards at Clause 55.07 above any different requirement in a zone, zone schedule or overlay schedule.  None of the standards at Clause 55.07 address the height and setback of a building from a boundary.  Further, apartment developments are not treated differently in the Side and rear setbacks objective and Standard B17.  Therefore, I do not regard the words at Clause 55 relied upon by Ms Harrison as having any relevance to this part of my assessment.
e.	While Standard B1 and the Neighbourhood character objectives raise broad neighbourhood character considerations, these cannot override the deemed to comply provisions, and the lack of discretion I now have in relation to whether the height and setbacks of this proposed building from the side and rear boundaries achieve appropriate neighbourhood character outcomes.  As I have already addressed, compliance with the Side and rear setbacks objective is mandated where Standard B17 is satisfied, and does not leave any discretion to a decision maker in respect of whether the height and setback of walls from a side and rear boundary achieves an appropriate neighbourhood character outcome.  This is to be contrasted with a broader neighbourhood character assessment of the proposal as a whole, which is to be undertaken in the context of Standard B1, the related objective and decision guidelines at Clause 55.02-1, and the range of relevant planning policies.  This broader neighbourhood character assessment was undertaken commencing at paragraph 16 of these reasons.
47	For these reasons I find that compliance with Standard B17, and deemed compliance with the Side and rear setbacks objective, results in compliance with the neighbourhood character considerations relating to the height and setback of a building to the side and rear boundaries of the review site.  It therefore follows that I must conclude that this development which will meet Standard B17, consequently achieves appropriate neighbourhood character outcomes, in relation to the height and setback of a building from a side and rear boundary.
48	As identified earlier in these reasons, this still leaves other components of the proposed built form open for assessment, including the length of the proposed building elevations, its level of articulation, and the proposed colors and materials.  I have already made findings that these elements of the proposal that is before me, are successfully resolved so as to not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts.  Many of those findings and reasons are also appropriate to rely upon in a neighbourhood character assessment.  In addition, I note that the review site is on the doorstep of an activity centre, and is proximate to a range of buildings that are of a similar width and scale, to that now proposed for the review site.  For these reasons, I find that the proposed development is an appropriate response to the relevant neighbourhood character policies and provisions, having regard to the length of the proposed building elevations, its level of articulation, and the proposed colors and materials.
Conclusion
49	It follows therefore that a finding that a proposal complies with Standard B17, means that the proposed building also has a height and setback from the side and rear boundaries that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character, and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.  In effect, a finding that a proposal complies with Standard B17, now negates the ability for parties to argue whether a proposal achieves appropriate outcomes in terms of visual bulk and neighbourhood character, insofar as the height and setback of a building from the side and rear boundaries is concerned.
50	One might say, how can this be when the character of different neighbourhoods have different qualities.  Further, one might also question how this operation of Clause 55 could have regard to the type of policy that applies to this neighbourhood, which encourages development to:
Provide a transition in building scale and setbacks to residential properties located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 and public open space areas.
51	The answer to these questions is that the operation of Clause 55 and the Victorian Planning Provisions allows such neighbourhood character variations and policy guidance to influence the side and rear setbacks, through a variation to Standard B17 in the Schedule to the zone.  It is in such Schedules that the outcomes for visual bulk, and neighbourhood character, could be varied from the usual metrics in Clauses 54 and 55, to achieve a particular outcome in a particular neighbourhood or interface.  Without such variations to Standards in the Schedule to the residential zones, the effect of Amendment VC243 is to mandate that the achievement of particular Standards at Clauses 54 and 55, will deem that a component of a proposal is a satisfactory response in relation to the matters set out in the relevant Objectives.
52	In this case, the review site is included in Schedule 3 to the General Residential Zone under the Boroondara Planning Scheme, which does not make any variations to any of the Clause 55 Standards.  As such, compliance with Standard B17 as found at Clause 55.04-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, is deemed to be a satisfactory response in relation to the issues of visual bulk and neighbourhood character outcomes insofar as they relate to the height and setback of a building from the side and rear boundaries of the review site.   
53	I need to identify, that simply because a proposal complies with Standard B17, and is therefore deemed to comply with the Side and rear setbacks objective, does not mean that a planning permit must be granted for a proposal.  In making this point, I am in agreement with the analysis conducted in the Tribunal decision of Belokozovski v Port Phillip CC [2015] VCAT 1046.  The Side and rear setbacks objective remains just one element of a broad range of provisions and policies in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.  An additional provision is the Neighbourhood character objectives at Clause 55.02-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, which I have applied in my decision making task as part of a broader neighbourhood character assessment earlier in these reasons.  However the effect of Amendment VC243, in relation to the words added at Clause 54 and 55, is to remove the discretion as to whether certain objectives are met, where a development complies with the corresponding Standard.
Existing trees and landscaping
54	The final issue raised by Ms Harrison is the protection of existing trees, and the opportunities provided for new landscaping.  In detail, Ms Harrison submits that:
a.	The proposal fails to provide sufficient areas of deep soil for landscaping, and compliance with the Landscaping objective is not achieved;
b.	An insufficient setback is provided between trees that are proposed as part of the future landscaping, and the site boundaries.  As such, the roots and the canopies of these future trees are likely to extend into neighbouring properties;
c.	If the conditions appeal is successful, then an insufficient setback is also provided between trees that are proposed as part of the future landscaping, and construction elements of the proposed development on the review site.  It is submitted that this will likely result in roots damaging paving and retaining walls, and also require regular pruning for tree canopies;
d.	The proposal fails to provide an adequate rear setback to provide for landscaping, particularly having regard to the guidance provided in the relevant precinct brochure; 
e.	The proposed landscaping, “does not support the preferred urban context, is not climate responsive, does not support biodiversity, and does not do enough to reduce urban heat to acceptable levels for a site of this size. In fact, the substantial increase in built form on site will exacerbate the urban heat island effect.” and,
f.	The proposed building and basement car parking should be reduced in size to provide for more generous landscaping areas.
55	In contrast with the submissions of Ms Harrison, I find that the proposal presents a generous landscaping response that will enhance the surrounding landscape character.  My assessment in this regard is properly made in the context that the review site is identified for moderate change, and is encouraged to accommodate residential development up to three storeys in height.  Sites which are so identified, and located on the doorstep of a higher order activity centre, will rightly be prioritised for their potential housing contribution, with the landscaping to provide a setting for the building.  As such, the proposal that is before me, which is for a large residential building within a landscaped setting, is an appropriate and reasonable outcome.
56	The landscape setting that is proposed for the review site is also a generous one that exceeds the expectations set out in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.  Standard B38 applies to this proposal, and the Standard comprises three quantifiable elements.  The first is that the site comprise a certain level of canopy coverage, which for the size of the review site, equates to 254.6 square metres of canopy coverage.  In comparison, the proposal that is before me comprises 656.4 square metres of canopy coverage, not including those parts of the proposed canopy trees that will overhang the boundaries of the review site.  The extent to which this element of the Standard is exceeded, demonstrates the extent of canopy vegetation that is proposed for the review site.
57	Secondly, as the proposal provides for the retention of one Type C tree, and the planting of 21 Type A trees, it exceeds the requirement in Standard B38, which on a site of this size is to provide or retain two Type B trees, or one Type C tree.  Further, as Standard B38 specifically states that, “Existing trees can be used to meet the canopy cover requirements of Table B5,” I am not persuaded by the submissions of Ms Harrison that somehow the retention of the large canopy tree in the front setback of the review site should not contribute to the achievement of this Standard.  In contrast, I note that all parties in this proceeding place a high value on this existing canopy tree, and the Applicant should be applauded for setting aside so much of the review site to ensure its retention.
58	Finally, the proposal easily complies with the deep soil requirement of Standard B38, providing 744.8 square metres of deep soil, compared to a requirement under Standard B38 of 202.3 square metres.  Primarily this is achieved by providing generous setbacks from the basement to all boundaries, which will allow a comprehensive landscaping response to be established to all interfaces of the review site.
59	Ms Harrison’s focus was on the proposed landscaping outcome in the rear setback, where her clients would prefer to see larger trees and more landscaping in a deeper setback with additional deep soil.  While I understand why Ms Harrison’s clients would hold those objectives, it is my finding that the existing landscaping proposal along the rear interface, including through the provision of setbacks and deep soil, will achieve an appropriate landscaped setting.  I make this finding for the following reasons.  The proposed development is setback between 3.26 and 4.76 from the rear boundary.  All of that rear setback is available for landscaping, save for a small path of stepping stones.  This contrasts with the development at 578-580 Riversdale Road, where part of the rear setback on that site is used for vehicular access to the basement.
60	The rear setback on the review site is proposed to be planted with 10 trees, growing to a height at maturity of between 7.0 and 12.0 metres.  Further, as all of these trees are to be planted in deep soil, they will enjoy good growing conditions.  This combination of setbacks and proposed landscaping will present a rear landscaped setting that contributes well to the surrounding landscape character, and will achieve a highly vegetated landscaped setting to the proposed building.  
61	This is to be contrasted to those properties to the rear of the review site which, despite the presence of deep rear setbacks, contribute little to tree canopy coverage in this neighbourhood.  In comparison to surrounding properties, the proposed development of the review site will result in a substantial contribution to the existing and future landscape character of this neighbourhood.
62	Both Mr Murphy and Ms Harrison in their submissions address the guidance provided by Clause 12.02-1L Protection of biodiversity – Boroondara.  This Clause includes the following guidance:
Strategies
…
Retain significant trees and canopy trees. 
Provide sufficient space in front and rear gardens to accommodate large canopy trees. 
Support the use of indigenous planting in development. 
Policy guideline
Consider as relevant:
•	Providing at least one canopy tree in backyard and front yard areas. 
63	A number of the parties focused on the strategy that is to accommodate large canopy trees, and made submissions that the proposed landscaping does not comprise large canopy trees.  The proposal does provide for a large canopy tree, being the existing Pin Oak that is located within the front of the review site. Given that the review site exists within the moderate change area where increased housing is encouraged, I do not regard this as a site where multiple large canopy trees should be expected.  The proposal provides the planting of 21 new canopy trees around the perimeter of the review site, and for the reasons set out above I find that to be a more than adequate landscaping response for this context.
64	Ms Harrison also focused on the policy guideline at Clause 12.02-1L, however this is clearly achieved here having regard to the number of canopy trees that are proposed in both the front and rear of the review site.
65	In addition, I make the following findings and reasons in relation to Ms Harrison’s submissions, as previously summarised.
a.	For the reasons set out above compliance with Standard B38, including the provision of deep soil, is achieved and well exceeded on the review site.  While Ms Harrison may be concerned with the extent of deep soil that is proposed along the rear boundary of the review site, I note that the basement is setback from all boundaries, and I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Merlo that sufficient deep soil is provided along the rear boundary to ensure the successful establishment of canopy vegetation along this interface.
b.	The written evidence of Mr Williams raises some concerns in relation to the setback of various buildings and works from existing trees, both on the review site and surrounding land.  However, many of those concerns are able to be addressed by the permit applicant, and when put orally to Mr Williams, he agreed that minor changes to the proposal, combined with a set of rigorous permit conditions, will ensure the adequate protection of existing trees.  These changes and permit conditions were reinforced by the evidence of Mr Galbraith.  I am persuaded by the combined evidence of Mr Williams and Mr Galbraith that adequate protection of existing trees can be achieved through some of the changes discussed orally by both the expert witnesses.  The parties were given additional time after the conclusion of the hearing to resolve the draft permit conditions and the recommendations made by all expert witnesses, and I have had regard to those further submissions in finalising the conditions that are to apply to the permit.
c.	I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Merlo and Mr Galbraith that sufficient setbacks are provided in the updated landscape plan between the proposed trees on the review site, the boundaries of the review site, and elements of the proposed development.  I accept that some trees might be sited close to proposed barbecues, pergolas, or access paths.  However, I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Merlo and Mr Galbraith that once the development is complete, the landscaping can be undertaken in a sensible manner that places the future canopy trees in positions where they will not cause future damage, while providing adequate room for root and canopy growth.  
In relation to the potential for canopy trees to overhang the boundaries of the review site, I regard this as a positive element of the proposed landscaping regime for the review site.  That is, large canopy trees that ignore the position of property boundaries is an element of the existing landscape character that exists in this neighbourhood, and indeed in many neighbourhoods in the leafy suburbs of eastern Melbourne.  A contrasting position where people are only allowed to plant trees which would have canopies that are contained within the boundaries of the review site, would have a profoundly negative long-term effect on the garden character of many of Melbourne’s most valued neighbourhoods.  For these reasons I do not consider it reasonable to expect that new canopy tree plantings on the review site, will be positioned away from boundaries such that there be no overhang of canopies onto the surrounding land.
For these reasons, I will agree to the deletion of Conditions 3 (h), (i) & (j) that are subject to the s80 review, that seek to have minimum setbacks between canopy trees, the boundaries of the review site, and elements of the proposed development, as well as having no tree canopies overhang the boundaries of the review site.
d.	I am not persuaded by the submissions of Ms Harrison that the proposed rear boundary setbacks are inadequate to accommodate an appropriate landscape setting, for the reasons set out above.  Further, I note that the design response from the Precinct statement relied upon by Ms Harrison, and repeated below, does not seek 4 metre setbacks to all interfaces, only 4.0 metre wide areas of private open space.  In the proposal that is before me, each of the ground floor apartments are provided with areas of secluded private open space that exceed 4.0 metres in width, and which have opportunities for meaningful landscaping.  The rear setback, which will not be the primary area of secluded private open space for any apartment, is to be more narrow than 4 metres in part, which is appropriate given that it will available for landscaping only. 
Provide a secluded private open space with a minimum dimension of 4m to enable the planting and retention of large trees.
e.	For the reasons set out above, and in contrast to the submissions of Ms Harrison, I find that the proposal comprises a generous landscaping response to this context, that comprises deep soil, canopy coverage, and large canopy trees that far exceed the amount required under the Boroondara Planning Scheme.  As a result of these findings, I am not persuaded by Ms Harrison’s submissions that the proposal is not climate responsive, and does not do enough to reduce the urban heat effect.  I am also not persuaded by Ms Harrison’s submissions in relation to biodiversity, given that the review site sits in a context where exotic canopy trees are a dominant character element, which makes it reasonable that a certain proportion of the proposed landscaping on the review site is of exotic species.
f.	For the reasons set out above, there is no reason to contemplate reductions in the size of the building, including the basement car parking, in order to provide additional room for landscaping.
66	For these reasons I find that the proposal achieves a comprehensive response to the site and the surrounding landscape character.  Further, for these reasons I will agree to the deletion of Conditions 1(v), 3(d) and 3(e) as drafted by Council, as I am not persuaded that the additional canopy trees and deep soil areas sought by these conditions are necessary in order to result in an appropriate landscaped setting for the proposed development.
Conclusion
67	For these reasons I find that the proposed development is an appropriate response to its context, the existing and preferred neighbourhood character, and the guidance provided by the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
Will there be any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
68	Off-site amenity impacts are considered at a residential interface in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk.  The potential for visual bulk has already been assessed, with the finding that no unreasonable visual bulk will occur.
69	No unreasonable levels of overshadowing will be cast to the adjoining properties, with the extent of shadow cast on the secluded private open space on the properties to the south of the review site well in accordance with the relevant Standard.
70	Overlooking is intended to be addressed by way of obscure glazing to windows where required, and planter boxes and obscured glazing to balconies.  The plans indicate that there will be some east facing windows on the first and second floors to apartments 1.06 and 2.04 which will enable overlooking into a habitable room window in the adjacent property to the east.  For this reason, it is appropriate that these windows be provided with a level of screening, that I will require by way of a permit condition.
71	In relation to the potential to overlook the properties to the rear of the review site, which are associated with the applicants for review in one of the proceedings, there was an agreement reached between the parties at the Compulsory Conference.  The applicant has then sought to detail that agreement in a set of plans (dated 11 May 2023).  However, at the hearing the parties agreed that there needed to be some refinement to these plans, namely through changing the obscure batten screen to obscured glazed screens, and by notating that the obscured glazed screen is to be positioned on the outside of the respective planter boxes.  In addition, the parties have agreed that the rear boundary would be fenced to 2.4 metres in height, and that in respect of the interface to 11 Butler Street, the new fence is to go on the northern side of the existing brick retaining wall and cyclone fence.  I will provide for these matters by way of permit conditions.
72	Subject to these conditions, for the reasons set out above I find that the proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the surrounding properties.
Is an appropriate level of internal amenity provided?
73	At the hearing, the Council raised a concern regarding the extent of solar access that will be enjoyed by those balconies that have a southern orientation.  This applies to three of the 15 proposed apartments on the review site.  I find that this orientation is acceptable for this small number of apartments, despite the lower level of solar access that will result.  I make this finding having regard to the generous size of the balcony space provided to one of these apartments on the top floor, as well as the provision of two generously proportioned areas of communal open space at ground level to the building, which will provide alternative sources of solar access for the occupants of the affected apartments.  As a further consideration, I also note the location of the review site on the doorstep of the adjacent activity centre, which provides a range of outdoor areas where people can enjoy solar access at different times of the year.
74	In addition, I raised a concern with Mr Loughnan regarding the room depth of the open plan living area for Apartment 2.02, which has a depth of 10.2 metres.  This room depth does not comply with Standard B47.  At the hearing, I suggested to Mr Loughnan that the extent of daylight to be enjoyed by the rear section of this living area could be improved by the installation of skylights, given this is a top floor apartment.  He agreed to the requirement of skylights by way of permit condition.  I am satisfied that such a solution will enable the objective to be achieved, which seeks to allow adequate daylight into single aspect habitable rooms.
75	Turning to the other usual considerations, I find that an appropriate level of internal amenity will be provided.  I make this finding having regard to the size of the individual rooms and apartments, their ability to receive direct sunlight and daylight, the size of the areas of secluded private open space, the convenient car parking, bicycle parking and storage facilities provided in the basement, and the accessibility provided to the adjacent activity centre.  
Does the proposal appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements?
76	Car parking is sought to be provided at a rate above that which is required by Clause 52.06 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.  In accordance with the decision of Justice Quigley in Brunswick Investments v Morleand CC [2021] VCAT 1191, I cannot require the surplus car parking to be removed from the proposed development of the review site.
77	The layout of the car parking and the access arrangements to and from the review site have been found to be to the Council’s satisfaction.  These matters cannot be reviewed as part of the s82 application for review brought by objectors, and are not the subject of the conditions under review in this proceeding.  The layout of the car park and the access arrangements are therefore not before me.  In any case, they appear to be appropriately designed, and allow for safe and efficient traffic movements.
78	For these reasons I find that the proposal appropriately provides for car parking and traffic movements.
What conditions are appropriate?
79	A number of other matters about permit conditions were raised by the parties.  With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:
a.	The written submissions made by parties after the conclusion of the hearing in relation to the final form of Conditions 1, 3 and 6 have been considered in the final form of the conditions that appear at Appendix A.  Where the applicant has taken this opportunity to oppose an additional condition (Condition 1(n) in Appendix A) from Council’s Notice of Decision to grant a permit, that was not the subject of the Conditions review, I have not allowed that opportunity to essentially review additional conditions without any notice.
b.	I endorse the suggestion made by Ms Harrison that Condition 8 be expanded to ensure that people involved in the demolition and removal of hard paving, are informed as to the tree protection measures in place.  I will not endorse however the further suggestion that each contractor and tradesperson be provided with a copy of the Tree Management Plan.  Rather, I consider that a briefing is sufficient.
c.	I also do not see the need for the Tree Management Plan to be attached as part of the Construction Management Plan, as requested by Ms Harrison.  These are separate documents which will both apply to the development of the review site, and it is the responsibility of the Council to ensure consistency between the two documents.
d.	I will not agree to Ms Harrison’s request for a separate condition that requires the screening to restrict overlooking to be installed prior to occupation of the building.  Rather, I regard the presently drafted Condition 2 to be sufficient, a view that is shared by Council.
e.	Finally, I will apply the permit expiry condition that is applied as standard by the Tribunal.

Conclusion
80	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Michael Deidun			
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PP22/0521	
Land	570 Riversdale Road, Camberwell	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	The construction of two or more dwellings on a lot
•	The construction of a front fence
•	The creation and alteration of access to a road in a Transport Zone 2	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and electronic copies provided (unlocked PDF). When the plans are endorsed they will then form part of the permit. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the advertised plans but modified to show:
(a)	The entire building achieving full compliance with Standard B17, as found at Clause 55.04-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
(b)	The provision of a minimum of two skylights to the rear section of the living area of Apartment 2.02, in order to improve the daylight to this area, and the subsequent relocation of any rooftop plant and equipment to facilitate the provision of these skylights.  Any relocated rooftop plant and equipment must be sited in a centralised location and away from property boundaries.
(c)	Relocation of the water and gas meters further away from tree 5, and sited along the northern side of the basement access ramp, generally in accordance with the manner depicted in the sketch plan contained at Attachment 5 to Mr Loughnan’s submissions in the VCAT hearing, marked G2 Urban Planning and dated 15 September 2023.
(d)	The provision of a minimum 9.05 metre front setback to apartments G.05, 1.06 and 2.04.
(e)	The provision of screening to restrict overlooking from the east facing first and second floor bedroom windows at Apartments 1.06 and 2.04, as well as the eastern edge of the balcony to Apartment 1.06.
(f)	The provision of screening to restrict overlooking consistent with that depicted in plans prepared by Rothelowman and dated 11 May 2023, but with the following changes:
i	Replacement of the obscure batten screen to balconies with an obscure glazed screen;
ii	Confirmation that the obscure glazed screen to balconies, is to be installed to the outer edge of the respective planter boxes;
iii	Confirmation that the 2.4 metre high fence to be erected along the southern boundary of the review site, will for the extent of the common boundary with 11 Butler Street, be installed inside the existing retaining wall and cyclone wire fence, allowing these existing elements to remain.
(g)	The location of site services and retaining walls must be located in accordance with the ,marked up plan’ prepared by G2 Urban Planning and dated 15 September 2023.
(h)	Replace the soldier brick coursework above the top window of the central 3 storey façade with a dark grey metal finish and aligned with the recessed glazing.
(i)	The fire booster unit at the eastern end of the street frontage to be metal battens (MC03).
(j)	The dark brick finish of the front fence to continue to cover the driveway sideways, the eastern boundary wall and any visible basement walls.
(k)	Details of all service enclosures to be shown on the plans.
(l)	Physical samples of all finishes and colours to be submitted to Council for verification and approval.
(m)	The top of the basement ramp showing 150mm above the base of the kerb in front of the crossover.
(n)	Electric vehicle charging infrastructure to all car parking spaces.
(o)	The raingarden relocated so it is no longer on-site boundary adjacent to neighbouring properties.
(p)	The Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone of Tree Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 29 (as identified in the Arborist Report submitted with the application prepared by Tree Radar Australia (dated 16/06/2022) shall be shown in the Tree Management Plan and drawn on all site and floor plans.
(q)	Notation on all site and floor plans that Tree Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 29 are to be retained and protected in accordance with the endorsed Tree Management Plan required by this Permit.
(r)	Any modifications to the location or layout of buildings and/or works recommended in the endorsed Tree Management Plan required by this Permit.
(s)	The siting of any necessary stormwater detention pit, underground services and pits, and/or rainwater harvesting tank to be located outside any area set aside for deep-soil planting and outside the Tree Protection Zone of any trees to be retained/protected.
(t)	Deletion of paving within the Structural Root Zone of Tree 10. 
(u)	Notation on all site and floor plans that the existing levels within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 10 must be maintained (excluding building footprint).
(v)	Notation on all site and floor plans that the existing concrete driveway and permeable concrete structure must be retained within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 10 until commencement of the landscape stage.
(w)	Notation on all site and floor plans that no services are to be located within the Tree Protection Zones of Tree Nos. 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
(x)	Notation on all site and floor plans that all excavations within the Tree Protection Zone of Trees 5 and 10 must be undertaken with hand tools or hydro-vacuum and that all excavation works must be supervised, documented and certified by the AQF level 5 qualified Project Arborist (excluding building footprint).
(y)	Notation on all site and floor plans that existing levels must be maintained within the Tree Protection Zones of Tree Nos. 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 29. between the Eastern boundary and paved areas.  
(z)	Notation on all site and floor plans that existing levels must be maintained within the Tree Protection Zones of Tree Nos. 25 between the boundary and building footprint. 
(aa)	Permanent fencing within the Tree Protection Zone of Trees 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 25 constructed on pier foundations with any required plinths constructed above existing grade.
(bb)	Changes to private open space areas in the southeast and southwest corners of the property to facilitate replacement tree planting as required in the Landscape Plan conditions of this permit.
(cc)	Any changes as required by the Landscape Plan in accordance with this permit.
(dd)	Any changes as required by the Waste Management Plan in accordance with this permit. 
(ee)	Any changes as required by the Tree Management Plan in accordance with this permit. 
(ff)	Any changes as required by the Sustainability Management Plan in accordance with this permit. 
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 Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	A landscape plan generally in accordance with the Jack Merlo landscape plan Revision G (dated 21 August 2023) and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and electronic copies provided (unlocked PDF). When endorsed, the plan will form part of the permit.
The landscape plan must show:
(a)	All landscaping proposed at first floor and second floor levels;
(b)	A survey (including botanical names) of all existing trees to be retained and of those to be removed. The intended status of the trees shown on the landscape plan must be consistent with that depicted on the development layout plan;
(c)	All hard surfaces proposed within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree Nos. 1,2,3,4,10, 17, 18, and 25 (as identified in the Arborist Report submitted with the application Tree Radar Australia (dated 16/06/2022) must be constructed of permeable materials; be constructed above current grade; and be constructed on foundations that maintain appropriate permeability for each tree, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; 
(d)	Detailed construction specifications for all permeable surfaces that include cross-section diagrams (including first and second floor areas);
(e)	All trees must comply with Australian Standard AS2303:2015 - Tree Stock for Landscape Use;
(f)	All canopy trees must be planted by an AQF Level 3 Qualified Arborist, Landscape Gardener or Horticulturist; and,
(g)	The proposed irrigation system.
4	Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development. 
5	All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plants replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
6	Concurrent with the submission of amended plans required by Condition 1 of this Permit and prior to any demolition or site works, a Tree Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Tree Management Plan must be prepared by a minimum AQF Level 5 qualified and experienced Arborist in relation to the management and maintenance of Tree Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 29 (as identified in the Arborist Report submitted with the application prepared by Tree Radar Australia (dated 16/06/2022). The Tree Management Plan must make specific recommendations in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4970: 2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites and detail the following to ensure that all retained trees remain healthy and viable during demolition and construction:
(a)	A Tree Protection Plan drawn to scale that shows:
i	Tree 5 accurately located;
ii	Tree Protection Zones and Structural Root Zones of all trees to be retained; 
iii	All tree protection fenced off areas and areas where ground protection systems will be used;
iv	The type of foundations (illustration or notation) within each Tree Protection Zone;
v	Any services to be located within the Tree Protection Zone and a notation to state that all services will either be located outside of the Tree Protection Zone, bored under the tree protection zone, or installed using hydro excavation under the supervision of the project arborist; and
vi	A notation to refer to the Tree Management Plan for specific detail on what actions are required within the Tree Protection Zone.
(b)	Details of how the root system of any tree to be retained will be managed. This must detail any initial non-destructive trenching and pruning of any roots required to be undertaken by the project arborist; and details of how any permeable surfaces within the Tree Protection Zone of retained trees will be constructed;  
(c)	Supervision timetable and certification of tree management activities required by the Project Arborist to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(d)	All remedial pruning works that are required to be performed on trees during demolition and development of the site. The pruning comments must reference Australian Standards 4373:2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and provide a detailed photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur. 
(e)	The recommendations contained in the approved Tree Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any changes to the endorsed Tree Management Plan will require written authorisation from the Responsible Authority.
7	If a Construction Management Plan is required as a condition of this permit it must be in accordance with the Tree Management Plan and Tree Protection Plan.
8	The owner and occupier of the site must ensure that, prior to the commencement of buildings and works, including demolition and the removal of any hard paving, all contractors and tradespersons operating on the site are advised of the status of trees to be retained and protected as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan and are advised of any obligations in relation to the protection of those trees. A written record must be maintained on site of all contractors inducted regarding this condition.  At the request of an authorized officer of Council this written record must be provided to council.
9	No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Area as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone. 
10	Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and excavation, the Responsible Authority must be provided with evidence that a project arborist has been engaged as part of the ongoing consultant team to oversee the design and construction, and to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact on the ongoing health and stability of the trees to be retained. The project arborist must hold suitable qualifications and experience to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Evidence of the appointment of the project arborist must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (quoting the Planning Permit number and site address, emailed to Boroondara@boroondara.vic.gov.au) not less than seven (7) days before the commencement of works on site.
11	Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and excavation, a timetable for the supervision and certification of tree management activities which is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be prepared by the project arborist and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. A signed and dated copy of each stage of the supervision timetable certified by the project arborist (quoting the Planning Permit number and site address, emailed to Boroondara@boroondara.vic.gov.au) must be submitted to the Responsible Authority  not more than seven (7) days following the completion of each stage.
12	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of Clause 53.18 ‘Stormwater Management in Urban Development‘ to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The response must include: 
(a)	A site plan showing the location of proposed stormwater treatment measures and the location and area (square metres) of impermeable surfaces that drain to each treatment measure. 
(b)	A written statement outlining how the application achieves current best practice performance objectives for stormwater quality as contained in the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (1999). Please note that for the modelling requirement you can use the following free program to demonstrate best practice, which is equivalent to a score of 100% or more: http://storm.melbournewater.com.au/
(c)	If any water tank is proposed, the plans must indicate the tank’s capacity in litres and what the tank is connected to (e.g. toilets). 
13	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction by the Responsible Authority. The Sustainability Management Plan must demonstrate a best practice standard of environmentally sustainable design and be generally in accordance with the report by GIW Environmental Solutions dated 14 September 2022, but modified to include the following changes:
(a)	Preliminary energy rating for apartment 2.03 demonstration compliance with clause 55.07 cooling load limits 
Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in conditions above (including condition 1), the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.
14	All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability   Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  No alterations to these plans may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
15	The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16	All disused or redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the area reinstated with footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
17	The external faces of walls on or facing boundaries must be cleaned and finished to an acceptable standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
18	All pipes (except down-pipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from external view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
19	All bins and receptacles used for the collection and storage of solid waste, recyclables and other wastes must be kept in a designated area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This storage area must be: 
(a)	Properly paved and drained to a legal point of discharge; 
(b)	Screened from view with a suitably designed enclosure; 
(c)	Supplied with adequate hot and cold water; and 
(d)	Maintained in a clean and tidy condition free from offensive odours 
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
20	Collection of waste must be conducted so as not to cause any unreasonable disturbance to nearby residential properties and may only take place during the following times: 
Monday to Friday: 7:00am to 6:00pm 
Saturday & Public Holidays: 9:00am to 6:00pm 
Sunday: No collection allowed 
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  Once satisfactory, such plan will be endorsed and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The plans must be substantially in accordance with the advertised plan but modified to show:
(a)	the type/s and number of waste bins;
(b)	screening of bins;
(c)	type/size of trucks;
(d)	frequency of waste collection;
(e)	delivery of bins to waste collection points and retrieval of bins once collected;
(f)	Include that all town houses be provided with kitchen caddies and compostable liners for the storage of FOGO.
(g)	Waste Collection, Arrangement and Vehicle access -note that each waste stream is to be collected in separate trucks and taken to the respective waste processors and not to be placed in one truck.
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
22	Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and excavation, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed, the construction management plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be prepared in accordance with Council’s Construction Management Plan Template and provide details of the following: 
(a)	Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit; 
(b)	Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff; 
(c)	Measures relating to removal of hazardous or dangerous material from the site, where applicable; 
(d)	A plan showing the location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on and surrounding the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises. Any basement car park on the land must be made available for use by sub constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay; 
(e)	A Traffic Management Plan showing truck routes to and from the site; 
(f)	Swept path analysis demonstrating the ability for trucks to enter and exit the site in a safe manner for the largest anticipated truck associated with the construction; 
(g)	A plan showing the location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site; 
(h)	Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the construction management plan;
(i)	Contact details of key construction site staff; 
(j)	A site plan showing the location of any site sheds, on-site amenities, building waste storage and the like, noting that Council does not support site sheds on Council road reserves; and 
(k)	Any other relevant matters, including the requirements of VicRoads and Yarra Trams. 
23	All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated        with the approved development must take place only during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority: 
Monday to Thursday: 		7:00am to 6:00pm 
Friday: 					7:00am to 5:00pm 
Saturday:			 		9:00am to 5:00pm 
Sunday & Public Holidays: 	No construction 
24	Provision must be made on the site for letter boxes and receptacles for papers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
25	This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
The Head, Transport for Victoria conditions
26	Prior to the occupation of the development all disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed, and the area reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Head, Transport for Victoria.
27	Prior to the occupation of the development, the crossover and driveway generally in accordance with the Ground Floor Plan TP01.03 dated 16/06/2022, are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria and the Responsible Authority and at no cost to the Head, Transport for Victoria. 
28	Prior to the occupation of the development, the access lanes, driveways, crossovers and associated works must be provided and available for use and be:
(a)	Formed to such levels and drained so that they can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans.
(b)	Treated with an all-weather seal or some other durable surface.
29	Any security boom, barrier, gate or similar device controlling vehicular access to     the premises must be setback a minimum of 7 metres inside the property boundary to allow vehicles to store clear of the Riversdale Road pavement and footpath.
30	All vehicles must enter and exit the site in a forward direction.
31	The level of the footpath must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.
– End of conditions –