VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P553/2023
Permit Application no.T220501 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 79 Planning and  Environment Act 1987; General Residential Zone; Double storey dwellings; Visual Impact; Tree retention; Landscape character; Biodiversity; Slope; Housing diversity.      	

Applicant	Mainline Property Investments Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Cardinia Shire Council	

SUBJECT LAND	74-76 Ahern Road
PAKENHAM VIC 3810	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	23 October 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	27 October 2023	

CITATION	Mainline Property Investments Pty Ltd v Cardinia SC [2023] VCAT 1194	

Order
Amend permit application 
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Thomas Anderson Design	
•	Drawing numbers:	1, 2, 2A, 3-19 inclusive	
•	Dated:	All 7 September 2023, except sheets 3 and 4 dated 14 April 2022	
Permit granted
2	In application P553/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application T220501 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 74-76 Ahern Road Pakenham VIC 3810  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot.

Joel Templar
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Michael Meyer, town planner of Urbis.	
For responsible authority	Hew Gerrard, town planner of Glossop Town Planning.	

Information
Description of proposal	A total of 15 dwellings is proposed, including three single storey dwellings with the remainder being double storey. A single access point at the north-west corner of the site provides access to the site. Most of the dwellings are detached, although some share common walls. All are proposed to have ground level secluded private open space. Most dwellings are proposed to have hipped tiled roofs although some are proposed to have skillion roof profiles. Materials include face brickwork, painted render and painted weatherboards.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.	
Planning scheme	Cardinia Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 1
Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.	
Land description	The review site is located on the south-eastern corner of Ahern Road and Allan Close. It is a large site by suburban standards at 4534 square metres and topographically has fall of 8.5 metres from south-west to north-east. A number of trees and other vegetation are located throughout the site, with most larger trees confined to the permitter of the site, and the occasional tree scattered around the existing dwelling which is positioned centrally on the site. An existing access point to Ahern Road is located at the northern end of the Ahern Road frontage. The site also currently supports a tennis court along the northern boundary and an outbuilding centrally along the eastern boundary.

Tribunal inspection	24 October 2023	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This proceeding concerns the review by the applicant of the council’s failure to determine a permit application within the prescribed time. 
2	The proposal is for the construction of fifteen dwellings across a site of just over 4500 square metres, in an established residential area in Pakenham. 

Figure 1: proposed development layout.
3	The council’s position was that had an appeal not been lodged, it would have determined to refuse to grant a permit on grounds relating to:
a.	Biodiversity;
b.	Accessibility and walkability;
c.	Response to existing character;
d.	Diversity in housing;
e.	Overdevelopment;
f.	Car parking design; and
g.	Various clause 55 objectives and standards.
4	The parties filed submissions prior to the hearing and presented these, along with verbal submissions at the hearing. Other material was also filed and relied upon.
5	The grounds of the council were substantiated through submissions at the hearing, except that related to accessibility, which the council advised it no longer sought to pursue based on the amended plans.
6	The applicant said that the proposal is acceptable having regard to the zoning of the land, policy that seeks diversity in housing, and the way in which the proposal has been designed. 
7	I inspected the site and surrounding area on the day following the hearing and have reviewed the material filed both before and during the hearing. Having had regard to all of that, and the relevant planning scheme provisions and policies, I have found that the proposal is an acceptable outcome. I explore my reasons for this below.
vegetation removal
8	The parties agreed that there was no permit trigger for vegetation removal. However, the council made submissions that from a character and biodiversity perspective, greater regard should have been given to retaining more vegetation through an alternate design response.
9	In making those submissions, the council relied on Clause 55.03-8, Landscaping objectives and the associated standard B13, as well as policy at clause 21.03-2, Urban established area – Beaconsfield and Pakenham, clause 21.02-3, Biodiversity, and clause 12.01-1S Biodiversity.
10	The objectives under clause 55.03-8 are:
To encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood.
To encourage development that maintains and enhances habitat for plants and animals in locations of habitat importance.
To provide appropriate landscaping.
To encourage the retention of mature vegetation on the site.
11	There are various elements to Standard B13 under this clause. The relevant ones to this proceeding are:
The landscape layout and design should:
•	Protect any predominant landscape features of the neighbourhood.
•	Take into account the soil type and drainage patterns of the site.
•	Allow for intended vegetation growth and structural protection of buildings.
•	In locations of habitat importance, maintain existing habitat and provide for new habitat for plants and animals.
•	Provide a safe, attractive and functional environment for residents.
Development should provide for the retention or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.
12	The review site is not affected by any overlays, and the council was unable provide any evidence or material that it is identified as being a site of biological or environmental significance. Therefore, when coupled with the absence of a permit trigger under clause 52.17 or any other provision that protects vegetation on this site, insofar as the existing vegetation ought be considered as part of this proposal, it is under clause 55.03-8 and associated local policy that any consideration be given.
13	Insofar as relevant policy is concerned, given the absence of any material or evidence that the site has any environmental significance, and the lack of any planning controls relating to environmental sensitivity or importance, I find it difficult to give any weight to biodiversity policy at clauses 12.01-1 and 21.02-3.
14	Other relevant policy with respect to landscaping is directed towards consideration of this from a character perspective. 
15	Further, given there is no stated preferred character set out anywhere in the planning scheme or reference documents, any such assessment must be made on a contextual basis, and based on the existing character.
16	In this case, I find the review site contributes significantly in terms of the wider landscape character. Otherwise, the surrounding area displays a modest landscape character, although some sites, and the road reserve, do contain some larger canopy trees. This means the review site is somewhat of an ‘outlier’ when viewed in the context of the broader landscape character of the area. This is also true with respect to the size of the review site when compared with all of its adjoining properties, as well as those in the surrounding area.
17	The site is zoned General Residential Zone (GRZ), and the council submitted that so is the vast majority of the established urban residential areas of Beaconsfield and Pakenham, as identified in clause 21.03-2.
18	So, without any specific built form provisions such as a Design and Development Overlay, or a preferred neighbourhood character statement, this proposal needs to respond to and respect the existing neighbourhood character, as sought by the Purpose of the GRZ. Furthermore, the Purpose of the GRZ also encourages diversity of housing.
19	There are a number of trees located on the site at present. The applicant provided an arborist report with the permit application. It identified and assessed numerous trees or groups of trees on the site, all of which were assigned either Low or Medium Arboricultural Value, and either Low or Moderate retention value.
20	Some of these trees are to be removed and some retained. The majority of existing trees are located around the perimeter of the site, although some are scattered throughout. Only trees on the perimeter of the site are proposed for retention.
21	The council was critical of this approach, and suggested that other trees could have been retained through a site layout that was more responsive to the existing trees more centrally located.
22	I do not disagree with the council in a general sense, however, when looking at the policy context of this site and the surrounding landscape character which is quite different to the review site itself, I do not find it necessary that a greater extent of vegetation should be retained.

Figure 2: plan showing the location of trees on the review site.
23	Some of the larger trees, such as Trees 57 (Wallangara White Gum) and 61 (Red Ironbark) which are situated along the north-western boundary facing Allan Street, are proposed to be retained.  These trees are 24 metres and 15 metres in height respectively, and have extensive canopy spread.
24	Another tree, Tree 59, also a Wallangara White Gum, is situated between Trees 57 and 61, is 14 metres high but is noted as having major deadwood. This was confirmed on my site inspection. This tree is earmarked for removal and this seems logical given its state and position between two larger, healthier trees.
25	Tree 17 (Silky Oak) is also proposed to be retained on the southern boundary. This tree is 16 metres in height, with a canopy spread of 12 metres.
26	All three of these trees (17, 57 & 61) are readily visible from outside the site, including from quite some distances away in various directions.
27	Perhaps the only other tree of significant visibility at present is Tree 46, an English Oak which the arborist report notes as being 12 metres high, with a 14 metre canopy spread and of Medium arboricultural value and Moderate Retention Value. This tree is towards the south-eastern corner of the site and approximately 10 metres from the eastern boundary. It is proposed to be removed.
28	Insofar as the largest trees on the site are concerned, three of the four largest trees are proposed for retention, with Tree 46 (the English Oak), to be removed. Whilst there are other examples located on the site, they are of lesser prominence in an area where landscaping and canopy trees do not dominate. That is not to say canopy trees and other lower storey vegetation are not readily apparent, but that the character of the area is one where development is mixed in with vegetation. Given evident examples are not all native trees, one must conclude that some of these examples would have been planted following the respective dwellings on those sites.
29	Given the zoning of the land, and the retention of three of the four largest trees on the site, along with the policy expectations for development in this location, I find that it is reasonable to expect that some of the vegetation on the site would be removed to facilitate an outcome that achieves overall policy objectives for this site.
30	I am therefore satisfied that, along with an appropriate landscape plan approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, that an acceptable landscape character outcome will be achieved on this site, in concert with the built form outcome, which I now turn to.
built form
31	The council said that the scale of the proposal, along with the topography will mean that the proposal will be visible from many areas and be a dominant visual form, despite the three single storey dwellings immediately fronting Ahern Road. It said that from oblique angles to the north, the proposal at first floor level would appear as ‘boxy’ and ‘dominant’.
32	Council was concerned that whilst double storey development per se is not unreasonable, the removal of vegetation and the ‘building up’ of most dwellings above the natural ground level would have an unacceptable visual outcome.
33	The council also said that the review site should not derive any advantages, or concessions because of its distant proximity from an activity centre and shops and services.
34	There was also dispute between the parties as to whether the proposal complies with standard B6 of clause 55.03-1, Street setback objective. The council said that although the adjoining site to the south contains a garage constructed within the front setback, this should not be used as the benchmark for the setback upon which standard B6 should be applied. It said that the dwelling on that site, which sits further setback from the street than the garage, should be used instead. 
35	The applicant accepted that the review site sits in a location where the predominant scale of development is single storey, but where this is not exclusively the case, and that double storey development, including more recent medium density development, also exists.
36	The applicant also said that the surrounding area is not one where residential development is invisible or substantially screened by vegetation, but one where residential development is readily apparent in close proximity as well as much further afield from the review site. It was also submitted that the retention of some vegetation, as well as new planting would help integrate the proposal into the surrounding area.
37	Further, the applicant submitted that the front setback does comply with standard B6, and that the existing garage on the adjoining site to the south, is the closest part of a building to the street on that site.
38	I am not persuaded that the proposal will present an unacceptable built form outcome on the review site. Rather, it will present as an acceptable level of change from the existing character, but whilst respecting that character, responding to the adjoining properties and increase the scale of built form by one storey over the predominant scale.

Figure 3: proposed first floor plan
39	With the GRZ zoning, and a contextual approach required by the purpose of the GRZ and relevant policy at clause 21.03-2 which seeks to: 
To create a functional, attractive, safe and sustainable urban environment for the existing and future community of the Urban Established Area.
which is sought to be achieved by the following relevant strategy:
•	Provide a distinct character and identity for urban areas through retention of existing vegetation, respect for topography, appropriate streetscaping and provision of adequate open space.
the proposal will be an acceptable response to the expectations of relevant planning scheme provisions and policies and the surrounding area.
40	In terms of Standard B6, it states for corner sites, that the minimum setback from the front street should be:
•	If there is a building on the abutting allotment facing the front street, the same distance as the setback of the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.
41	I accept that the council’s submissions endeavour to take a ‘purposeful’ approach to the application of the setback requirement by stating that the measurement should be taken to the front wall of the main dwelling, and not the front wall of the garage. However, the garage is an existing building and although somewhat excavated into the ground, it is the closest building to the street on the adjoining property, albeit perhaps not particularly prominent. To this end, I find that the proposal does meet the required setback under standard B6.
42	However, Standard B1 requires an assessment of the proposal from an overall neighbourhood character perspective and I find that the presentation to the street, and the surrounding area, in an overall sense to be an acceptable outcome. 
43	The proposal will be different to the existing buildings on the review site, they will be more visible and have more presence than many other developments in the street. However, the surrounding area has a very mixed character both in terms of form, setbacks, siting, architectural styles and landscaping. It is quite a varied character. 
44	Further, the topography, which is hilly and undulating, appears to be a significant factor in why development in the surrounding area is readily evident.
45	This is firstly because the rolling topography provides various vantage points than would otherwise be the case had it been completely flat. 
46	Secondly, development has not necessarily been more sensitively designed to respond to the topography. Whether this is good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it exists and forms the character of the area.
47	It is the case now that residential development is evident in the broader area, amongst the vegetation and landscaping. The proposal will not alter this. The proposal will be more visible and evident than the existing buildings on the site, but I find this will not be an unacceptable addition. 
48	Further afield, and particularly along the ridge further to the west of the site that runs in a north-south alignment, ‘boxy’ residential development is a prominent feature, and is absent of any screening vegetation of great effect. This might not be the yardstick upon which to base an assessment of this proposal, but neither is the more modest development closer by, based on the policy setting in which this site sits.
49	The council was also somewhat critical of the materials proposed, and submitted that they did not necessarily reflect what was found in the surrounding area. Further, the council was also critical of the skillion roof forms of some of the proposed dwellings, albeit the proportion of dwellings proposed with those roof forms is minimal. It said these roof forms did not reflect the existing character in the surrounding area.
50	In a context where there are no built form controls, no specific policy for a preferred character and a wide variety of architectural styles existing already, it is difficult to conjure a scenario where skillion roof forms could not be comfortably accommodated, especially when they are proposed on dwellings that are centrally located within the site, and comprise a small proportion of the number of dwellings proposed.
51	The surrounding area displays a wide mixture of external materials and colours, including face brickwork, render, weatherboards sheet metal roofing and tiled roofs. Colours also vary widely.
52	The proposal includes face brickwork, render and weatherboard with tiled roofs. The design detail is a contemporary style, and in my view, will be respectful of the wide variety of materials and colours found in the surrounding area.
53	I am therefore satisfied that the proposal will present an acceptable built form outcome on the site.
housing diversity
54	As far as the planning scheme calls for diversity in housing, this is a concept which may have different interpretations and applications. 
55	On the one hand, and as argued by the council at the hearing, diversity of housing should occur within the development itself, particularly on a site of this size and with the number of dwellings proposed. That is, there should be a variety of dwelling configurations and sizes as part of this proposal.
56	The applicant, on the other hand, argued that diversity in housing provision must be viewed at a higher level, and that even if this proposal were to provide 15 three-bedroom dwellings and all double storey, it would still be providing diversity of housing, when compared with the housing options already in existence in the broader area. 
57	It was further advanced by the applicant that the proposal provides diversity through the provision of smaller dwellings on smaller lots, with smaller areas of secluded private open space, providing choice for people who do not wish to have expansive backyards.
58	I find that both are apt interpretations in this case. 
59	I agree with the applicant that diversity means a comparison with other housing nearby. 
60	However, I also agree with the council that a proposal of this scale on a site of this size, should provide some level of diversity amongst the dwellings proposed. And it does. Whilst it might not be to the degree the council seeks, there are three single storey dwellings and two two-bedroom dwellings. This is not a high proportion of dwellings within this proposal, but there is some level of diversity provided and I find that this is acceptable in this case.
61	Additionally, and although not a driver to achieve diversity but for other reasons, units 3 and 4 will be required to be amended for internal amenity reasons (see next section below) such that they are two-bedroom dwellings. This will provide further diversity within the development, albeit I have required this for reasons completely separate from diversity considerations.
internal amenity
62	Although not a ground relied upon by the council, the matter of internal amenity for units 3 and 4 was raised by the Tribunal with the applicant at the hearing. Specifically, the size and dimensions of the living rooms were cause for the questions about how they were acceptable in dwellings comprising three bedrooms each.
63	Although on the ground floor plans these spaces are annotated as being 4.0 x 3.95 metres and 3.8 x 4.1 metres respectively, these dimensions also include the circulation space from the front door to the remainder of each dwelling.

Figure 4: ground floor plan of units 3 and 4.
64	When subtracting the accessway, the useable area of the living rooms of these units is more like 3.8 x 2.5 metres, with a total area of approximately 9.5 square metres. This space is more akin to an average bedroom, albeit with a smaller minimum dimension.
65	The planning scheme does not contain any specific standards or criteria for minimum room sizes for a development of this type. However, it does seek that internal amenity for future residents be to an acceptable level.
66	Clause 16.01-1S, Housing supply Objective, states the following: 
To facilitate well-located, integrated and diverse housing that meets community needs.
67	And has the following strategy:
Encourage the development of well-designed housing that: 
•	Provides a high level of internal and external amenity.
68	One must question whether a living room the size of a bedroom, and that is perhaps a generous comparison, is an acceptable outcome for a three-bedroom dwelling. I find that it is not. 
69	Although not applicable to this proposal, the standards of clause 58 (Apartment developments) require a minimum area of 12 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3.6 metres for a living room in a dwelling of two or more bedrooms. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that dwellings provide functional areas that meet the needs of residents. 
70	Again, whilst not strictly applicable to this case, this standard may serve as some guidance about what also might be acceptable in a unit development.
71	I find that the internal layout and future amenity for residents of these dwellings has not been of high consideration demonstrated in the layout of these proposed dwellings. The living rooms for each of these dwellings are very small and of poor minimum dimension to offer reasonable levels of internal amenity for future occupants. The planning scheme seeks to ensure the internal amenity for future residents is of a high level and I find that what is proposed here does not meet that expectation.
72	At the hearing I asked the applicant whether any changes could be made to increase the living areas of these two dwellings. Various options were put forward by the applicant which were essentially rearranging the internal layout, but none of which would have increased the minimum dimension of these rooms.
73	I then questioned the applicant as to whether the reduction of a bedroom from each of these dwellings, and therefore a reduction in the size of the garages was also a possibility. This would reduce the dwellings down to two-bedroom dwellings and therefore only necessitate the provision of one car parking space for these dwellings, freeing up floor area to provide greater internal amenity.
74	Whilst the applicant submitted that such changes were not necessary, there was no objection from a design perspective.
75	Therefore, I will require that one of the bedrooms from each of units 3 and 4 be deleted, the deletion of one of the car spaces from each dwelling and that the living areas be provided with a minimum of 12 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3.6 metres. The building footprint at both ground and first floor levels are not to be otherwise altered.
are there any other issues?
Sightlines
76	The council raised concerns with respect to sightlines from the proposed access point, for exiting vehicles and the ability for adequate sightlines up Allan Street due to an existing tree in the road reserve.
77	A road safety audit was provided with the permit application which recommended the removal of Tree 74 due to sightline constraints this tree posed for exiting vehicles. It also recommended that the existing fencing on the review site at this point be removed. The applicant confirmed that this fencing would be removed as part of the proposal and the proposed plans demonstrate this.

Figure 5: extract of road safety audit.
78	Although Tree 74 is not located on the review site and therefore not subject to this review, if the council sees it necessary that this tree be removed as a result of this permit being granted, as the relevant road authority, it should take whatever action it sees as necessary to ensure safety of road users. I do not find that this is a reason to refuse or otherwise modify the proposal.
Turning manoeuvres
79	The council was concerned that the exit manoeuvre for the cars in the garage for unit 9 require two corrective manoeuvres in order to exit. 

Figure 6: swept path diagrams for unit 9.
80	Based on this, and the applicant’s submission that only minor modifications would be required, I have included a condition to require modifications accordingly.
Conclusion
81	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Joel Templar
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	T220501	
Land	74-76 Ahern Road
PAKENHAM VIC 3810	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot.	

Conditions
Prior to endorsement of plans
1	Prior to the endorsement of plans, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Thomas Anderson Design, Revision J, dated 7 September 2023 (Sheets 1, 2, 2a, 5-19) and Revision C, dated 14 April 2023 (Sheets 3, 4), but modified to show:
(a)	The deletion of one bedroom and one car parking space from each of dwellings 3 and 4 and the internal rearrangement of these dwellings to provide ground floor living areas with a minimum of 12 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3.6 metres each. The kitchen and meals areas are not to be reduced in size and no other alterations to setbacks or building footprint at either ground or first floor levels are to be made.
(b)	Modifications to ensure safe and efficient vehicle egress from unit 9 through a maximum single corrective manoeuvre. 
(c)	An updated legend to identify ‘trees to be removed’. 
(d)	Plans in accordance with condition 2.   
2	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans under condition 1, an amended landscape plan prepared by a person suitably qualified and experienced in landscape design 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 must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Genius Landscape Architects (August 2022). The plan must show:  
(a)	Detail of canopy trees, smaller trees, shrubs and ground cover plants including the location of the species proposed.
(b)	An updated planting schedule to include pot sizes and quantities of each plant; and 
(c)	Quantities and species annotations. 
All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and should be drought tolerant and proven hardy cultivars suitable to the local conditions. 
All plantings must be consistent with the recommendations of the Road Safety Audit (prepared by Transafe dated 4 November 2023) to protect vehicle sight lines.  
General 
3	The layout of the buildings and works, as shown on the approved plans, must not be altered or modified without the consent in writing of the Responsible Authority.
4	Once the development has commenced, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Landscaping and vegetation
5	Before the development is occupied or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the areas set aside for landscaping must not be used for any other purpose. Any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
7	Before the development including demolition starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around trees 5, 7, 17, 18, 22, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 45, 50, 51, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 69, 70-74 as identified in the arborist assessment (prepared by Arbor Survey, Version 2, December 2022) to be retained outside the canopy zone of the tree to define a "Tree Protection Area".  The fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh or similar to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed.  No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Area without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Area. Any pruning that is required to be done to the canopy or roots of any tree to be retained is to be done with permission by a qualified arborist to Australian Standard – Pruning of Amenity Trees AS4373-2007.  
Engineering
8	Before the development starts, drainage plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plans must show the provision of a stormwater detention system. The stormwater detention system will become the responsibility of the property owner or body corporate to maintain to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9	Before the development starts, a site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved the CEMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  All works must be undertaken in accordance with the approved CEMP. The CEMP must address all environmental risks and include:
(a)	Temporary stormwater management including sedimentation control,
(b)	Provision of pollution and contamination controls including noise and dust,
(c)	Location of stockpiles and stockpile management,
(d)	Location of site office and facilities
(e)	Equipment, materials and goods management.
(f)	Tree protection zones, trees to be retained and trees to be removed;
10	Before the development is occupied, all proposed areas set aside on the approved plan/s for access, circulation and car parking must be constructed with concrete, asphalt or other approved hard surfacing material, and drained, and the parking areas must be delineated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once constructed, these areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	Before the development is occupied a residential standard concrete vehicle crossing/s as shown on the approved plans must be constructed to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Before the development is occupied any redundant existing vehicle crossing must be removed and the nature strip and kerb and channel reinstated at the cost of the owner and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
13	Sediment control measures must be undertaken during construction to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure that the development subject land is adequately managed in such a way that no mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones are washed into or allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system.
14	Stormwater must not be discharged from the subject land other than by means of an underground pipe drain discharged to an outlet in the street or to an underground pipe drain to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15	Stormwater works must be provided on the subject land so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.
16	All earthworks on the site must be undertaken in a manner that minimises soil erosion. Exposed areas of soil must be stabilised to prevent soil erosion. The time for which soil remains exposed and unestablished must be minimised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17	The slope of batters, both cut and fill, must not exceed 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or, where this is not practicable, batters must be stabilised by other means to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Amenity and Utilities
18	The development must not be occupied until the following works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	The premises are connected to a reticulated water supply, sewerage, drainage and underground electricity to the requirements of the relevant servicing authority.
(b)	Power and telephone lines to all new dwellings must be placed underground from the main point of service supplied by the relevant authority outside the boundaries of the subject land.
(c)	A bin storage area must be provided for each dwelling and must be located so as not to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the neighbourhood.
(d)	A mail box must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Australia Post.
(e)	A clothesline must be provided for each dwelling and must be located so as not to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the neighbourhood.
(f)	Lighting must be provided near the front entrance of each dwelling.
19	All residential waste must be stored within the specified bin storage area for each dwelling, and bins collected, all in accordance with the endorsed Waste Management Plan.
20	Any external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to not detrimentally affect the adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Development Contributions 
21	Prior to a building permit being issued under the Building Act 1993, a cash contribution to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided for the provision or augmentation of public infrastructure in accordance with the relevant approved Development Contribution Plan.  
Expiry
22	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.

– End of conditions –