VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P645/2022
Permit Application no. D/738/2020 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Darebin Planning Scheme; 
Construct Five Dwellings:  Neighbourhood character, amenity & parking impacts
(GRZ2; Incremental Change Area; Clause 22.02 – Precinct E3)	

Applicant	Mario Borg	

Responsible Authority	Darebin City Council	
Respondents	George Capozza & Nick Capozza	

SUBJECT LAND	42 Elizabeth Street
COBURG VIC 3058	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	2 February 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	23 March 2023	

CITATION	Borg v Darebin CC [2023] VCAT 306	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P645/2022 the decision of the Responsible Authority is varied. 
2	In planning permit application D/738/2020 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 42 Elizabeth Street Coburg VIC 3058 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	The construction of five dwellings, a reduction of the statutory car parking requirement (the waiver of one visitor car parking space) and the alteration of access to a road in a Transport Zone 2.

Tracy Watson
Member			

Appearances
For Applicant	Mario Borg, in person.	
For Responsible Authority	Carmela Tornatore, town planner.	
For Respondent	Daniel Bowden, town planner.  Mr Bowden called expert evidence from Damien Hancox, traffic engineer.	

Information
Description of proposal	It is proposed to construct five dwellings on the subject site, in a one-behind-the-other layout.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Darebin Planning Scheme.	
Zone and overlay	Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 (Darebin General Residential Areas).  Schedule 2 does not contain any local variations.
Clause 45.06 – Development Contributions Plan Overlay, Schedule 1.
Elizabeth Street is in a Transport Zone 2.	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Clause 52.06-3 – Reduce the number of visitor car spaces from one to zero.
Clause 52.29-2 – Create or alter access to a road in a Transport Zone 2.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Includes Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21.03, 22.02, 32.08, 45.06, 52.06, 52.29, 53.18, 55, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The subject site is located on the east side of Elizabeth Street in Coburg.  The subject site is currently developed with a single dwelling, has an irregular shape with a frontage of 15.16 metres and a depth of 52.12 metres, yielding a site area of 765m2.	
Tribunal inspection	3 February 2023.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	The Darebin City Council issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit (NOD) for the proposal in May 2022, subject to a range of conditions.  It is a decision which Mr Borg has requested be reviewed by the Tribunal.   
2	The key issues raised in Mr Borg’s Statement of Grounds relate to the proposal’s neighbourhood character, amenity and parking impacts.  
3	I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions and evidence, together with the applicable policies and provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme, I have decided to vary the decision of the Responsible Authority.  My reasons follow.
Is the proposal respectful of neighbourhood character?
4	The applicant submitted that the proposal is not respectful of the neighbourhood character of the area, particularly in regards to its three-storey scale and its upper level setbacks to Elizabeth Street.
5	The purpose of the General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 (GRZ2) includes to: support diverse housing growth in this location which offers good access to services and public transport; encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area; and implement the relevant planning policies contained in the planning scheme.
6	The Strategic Housing Framework at Clause 21.03-1 of the planning scheme identifies the subject site and surrounding land as being located in an ‘Incremental Housing Change Area’ (as opposed to other locales within the municipality which have been identified as being in either Substantial or Minimal Housing Change Areas).  Clause 21.03-1 of the planning scheme also distinguishes between Incremental Housing Change Areas which are within an 800 metres walkable catchment of an activity centre and public transport services; as compared to those areas located outside of this 800 metres catchment.  The areas located beyond the 800 metres catchment are identified as only being suitable for ‘limited scale and density’, compared to the other Incremental Change areas which do not have this policy caveat.  The subject site is within the identified 800 metres catchment and thus has not been identified as only being suitable for ‘limited scale and density’.  Clause 21.03-2 of the planning scheme also supports contextually responsive developments which provide for ‘moderate housing growth and diversification over time’.
7	This policy distinction (between Incremental Change areas) is reflected in the subject site being included in the GRZ2, as compared to, for example, other areas which are included in the General Residential Zone, Schedule 1 (Modest Change Areas) [GRZ1].  This is a notable difference as, whilst Schedule 2 does not contain any local variations, Schedule 1 essentially seeks an enhanced landscaping outcome by providing local variations to increase the amount of private open space areas provided and to reduce the desired site coverage.  In other words, the GRZ2 supports the proposed development intensity which includes a building sited deep into the allotment, with a proposed 3.095 metres rear setback.
8	In addition, based on the existing physical context (including the five-dwelling development located at no. 40 Elizabeth Street), I find that the proposed intensity of the development is consistent with the incremental/ moderate level of change sought by the planning scheme.
9	More specific guidance regarding built form and landscaping outcomes is provided in the local policy at Clause 22.02 of the planning scheme.  This local policy includes an objective to ensure development responds to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area.  This preferred character is identified in the relevant Precinct E3 Neighbourhood Character Statement and Design Guidelines document.  Pursuant to Clause 22.02-3 of the planning scheme, it is policy to assess the proposal against the Precinct E3 Design Guidelines document.  However, it is not a requirement of the planning scheme that the proposal must comply with every associated design response statement and avoid statement contained in the Precinct E3 Design Guidelines.  I have considered this document as part of my deliberations.
10	In relation to height, the Precinct E3 Design Guidelines have an objective, “To ensure that buildings and extensions respect the predominant height and form of buildings in the streetscape.”  The associated Design Response is that, “Upper levels should be setback a substantial distance from the front façade (e.g. the distance of one room) or accommodated within the roof spaces.”  The zoning of the land provides for a permissible maximum building height of three storeys, and 11 metres (or 12 metres if the slope of the natural ground level, measured at any cross section of the site of the building wider than 8 metres, is greater than 2.5 degrees).  The proposed maximum height of the building is to an architectural feature at the front of the building and is 9.21 metres, which is well below the maximum permitted height under the GRZ2 provisions.
11	In this neighbourhood there is mostly a mixture of one and two storey high buildings, and a number of two-storey high medium density housing developments are also located within this neighbourhood.  There are a limited number of existing three storey high buildings in this neighbourhood, such as at no. 46 Elizabeth Street and the medium density housing development located at the north-east corner of Ada and Eric Streets, which includes undercroft parking that has a three-storey high presentation.  A two storey high townhouse development abuts the subject site to the south, and two storey high buildings are also located abutting the subject site at nos. 9 and 11 Hodson Street.
12	Importantly, the proposed development primarily reads as a two-storey high development, with only the ‘semi-basement’ element reading as three storeys high.  Ms Tornatore, in her submission, demonstrated that the carparking level has a maximum projection above ground level of approximately 1.7 metres, and that it reduces to 1.2 metres above ground level by approximately half way through Dwelling 1, and that by the rear of Dwelling 1 it reduces further such that it only projects 0.7 metres above ground level.  This demonstrates the modest extent of the three-storey element of the proposed development.  The three-storey element of the proposed building is also located closest to the two-storey high townhouse development at no. 40 Elizabeth Street, so that the interface with the single storey dwelling at no. 44 Elizabeth Street reads as a two-storey high building.
13	I think that the proposed design response, including the three-storey element, is a logical response to the slope of the subject site (which features an approximate 5.5 metres fall from the eastern rear boundary to the Elizabeth Street frontage).  The proposed design response is also respectful of the existing building heights in the area, including the heights of the buildings immediately abutting the subject site.  In addition, the use of steps to access the proposed dwellings is acceptable given the existing slope of the subject site.  I am therefore satisfied that the Clause 55.05-1 objective is met.
14	The proposal generously exceeds Standard B17, and there are no proposed boundary walls.  Mr Borg was not critical of the ground level front setback (which is proposed to be a minimum of 8 metres compared to the 7 metres ground level setback of no. 40 Elizabeth Street), but rather argued that the upper level setback should be increased as per the ‘one room’ setback of the Precinct E3 Design Guidelines.  The proposed upper level setbacks of Dwelling 1 are 9.0 metres closest to no. 44 Elizabeth Street and 10.5 metres closest to no. 40 Elizabeth Street.  This means that the proposed upper level of Dwelling 1 is well setback behind the upper level of the front dwelling at no. 40 Elizabeth Street.  I consider this to be an appropriate outcome given the existing physical context of the subject site and am satisfied that the street setback objective at Clause 55.03-1 of the planning scheme is met.
15	The proposal also integrates well with the street by orientating the front entry to Dwelling 1 directly to Elizabeth Street, and by providing a dedicated pedestrian entrance and accessway along the southern edge of the site for proposed Dwellings 2 to 5.  I am therefore satisfied that the objectives at Clauses 55.03-7 and 55.05-2 of the planning scheme have been met.
16	Overall, I find that the proposal meets the neighbourhood character related objectives at Clauses 55.02-1 and 55.06-1 of the planning scheme.
Are the proposal’s amenity impacts acceptable?
17	Mr Borg argued that the proposal has a detrimental impact on the sunlight and daylight penetration of the living areas and terraces of the dwellings at no. 40 Elizabeth Street, and that it also has unreasonable overshadowing impacts on these dwellings.  He also submitted that the proposal provides for inadequate private open space areas.
18	Both Ms Tornatore and Mr Bowden went through in detail in their submissions how the proposal is fully compliant with Standard B20 in relation to the existing north-facing windows of the development at no. 40 Elizabeth Street.  I agree with their submissions that Standard B20 is met, and that therefore the associated objective at Clause 55.04-4 of the planning scheme has been met.
19	Similarly, on the basis of Mr Bowden’s submissions, I am satisfied that the proposal complies with Standard B21 in relation to its overshadowing impacts.  Indeed, the proposal does not result in any additional overshadowing impacts to the first floor terraces of the dwellings at no. 40 Elizabeth Street on 22nd September.  I am therefore satisfied that the objective at Clause 55.04-5 of the planning scheme is met.
20	The primary secluded private open space areas for Dwellings 2 to 5 are provided in the form of 25m2 north-facing terraces.  The primary secluded private open space for Dwelling 1 is a front-located terrace (with vegetation screening to the street) which has an area of 9.3m2.  In addition, Dwelling 1 has a 7m2 terrace that is accessible from the living area.  Each of the dwellings also have service yard areas, and Dwellings 1 and 5 have additional front and rear open space areas respectively.  I think that the size, accessibility and orientation of these areas will provide a good level of amenity for future occupants, notwithstanding that they are less than the Standard B28 specifications.  I am therefore satisfied that the objective at Clause 55.05-4 of the planning scheme has been met.
Are the proposal’s parking arrangements satisfactory?
21	Mr Borg submitted that the proposed accessway is too narrow, at 4.575 metres, and that it should be 4.80 metres to comply with Clause 52.06-9 of the planning scheme.  He also submitted that the proposal should provide for the visitor parking on-site.
22	Mr Hancox’s expert evidence has reviewed the proposal’s parking layout and access/ egress arrangements against the Design Criteria contained in Clause 52.06-9 of the planning scheme.  His evidence confirmed that the proposal meets all of the applicable criteria, including in relation to the proposed accessway width.
23	Mr Hancox’s evidence also confirmed that the 1:16 proposed grade within the garages and along the accessway satisfies the applicable design criteria which requires a maximum gradient of 1:20 measured parallel to the parking angle and 1:16 in any other direction.  On the basis of his evidence, the Council agreed that the proposed permit condition requiring a 1:20 ramp within the first five metres of the entryway is not required and can be deleted.
24	The only modification of the proposal that Mr Hancox recommended was that the bins inside proposed Garages 1 and 5 should be relocated to maximise the efficiency of the accessibility of the car spaces within these two garages.  I have therefore included this recommendation as a permit condition.
25	Mr Hancox’s evidence also included a car parking demand assessment to address the matters that I need to consider when deciding if no on-site visitor car parking is appropriate.
26	In this locality there is unrestricted kerbside parking on both sides of Elizabeth Street; on-road bicycle lanes in both directions of Elizabeth Street; and good access to train, tram and bus services.  Furthermore, the parking demand surveys included in the expert evidence statement demonstrate that currently, at typical visiting times, there is in excess of nine on-street spaces available proximate to the subject site.  Also, the proposed vehicle crossing changes (being the removal of an existing crossing, and the installation of a new 5.5 metres wide crossover) cause no loss of on-street parking.
27	I therefore agree with Mr Hancox’s evidence that the parking waiver of one visitor space is appropriate, particularly given the ready availability of existing unrestricted, on-street spaces proximate to the subject site.
28	In summary, Mr Hancox’s evidence confirms that the proposal is compliant with the applicable provisions of Clause 52.06 subject to one minor change regarding the positioning of bins within Garages 1 and 5.
What conditions are appropriate?
29	The draft permit conditions were discussed at the hearing, and the conditions that have been included in the permit at Appendix A reflect these discussions as well as my findings in regards to the traffic engineering evidence.
30	In addition, a new condition has been included to require the payment of an Infrastructure Levy in accordance with the requirements of the Development Contributions Plan Overlay, Schedule 1 (DCPO1).  This is necessary to reflect the recent application of the DCPO1 to the subject site, which occurred on 25 January 2023 via the gazettal of planning scheme amendment C170dare.
Conclusion
31	For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is varied.  A permit is issued subject to conditions.

Tracy Watson
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	D/738/2020	
Land	42 Elizabeth Street
COBURG VIC 3058	

What the permit allowS	
•	The construction of five dwellings, a reduction of the statutory car parking requirement (the waiver of one visitor car parking space) and the alteration of access to a road in a Transport Zone 2 in accordance with the endorsed plans.	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans received by Council on 9 January 2022 (submitted in conjunction with the Section 50 Declaration for Amendment received 19 January 2022) (plans identified as TP01, TP03, TP04, TP05, TP06, TP07, dated 19 October 2021, project no. 3104-381, prepared by Mazark and Associates Architects) but modified to show:
(a)	Dimensions of the proposed crossover delineated on all floor plans.
(b)	Relocation of the bins in Garage 1 and Garage 5 to maximise efficiency when accessing these garages.  
(c)	A comprehensive schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (including colour samples).
(d)	The location of all plant and equipment (including air-conditioners, condenser units, rainwater tanks, solar panels, hot water units and the like). These are to be:
i	co-located where possible;
ii	located or screened to be minimally visible from the public realm;
iii	air conditioners located as far as practicable from neighbouring bedroom windows or acoustically screened; and
iv	integrated into the design of the building. 
(e)	The location of gas, water and electricity metres. Where metres would be visible from the public realm, these are to be:
i	co-located where possible;
ii	positioned on a side boundary or adjacent to the accessway; and
iii	screened from view using either landscaping or durable screening that integrates with the development.
(f)	Any fencing visible from the street, other than fencing along common boundaries shared with an adjoining site, to be of a design, colour and quality of material (not timber palings) that matches the character of the development.
(g)	Any modifications required as a result of the approved Landscape Plan required by Condition No. 3 of this Permit.
(h)	Annotations detailing Tree Protection Zone(s), associated tree protection fencing and tree protection measures in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 4 and 5 of this Permit.
(i)	The provision of adequate bicycle storage facilities for each dwelling. 
(j)	Details of the Tree Protection Zones (2 metres) and Structural Roots Zones (1.5m) of Tree 2 to the north within No. 44 Elizabeth Street. 
(k)	Any modifications required as a result of the approved Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) required by Condition No. 8 of this Permit.
(l)	Any modifications required by the Stormwater Management System Plan and Water Sensitive Urban Design Plan required by Condition No. 8 of this Permit.  
(m)	The provision of a Site Management Plan in accordance with Standard W3 of Clause 53.18-6 of the Darebin Planning Scheme. Refer to Condition No. 9 of this Permit.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, the submitted landscape plan must be amended and re-submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. When approved, the Landscape Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be amended to incorporate:
(a)	Tree protection measures in accordance with Condition No. 4 and 5 of this Permit.
(b)	A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) (2 metres from the trunk edge) and Structural Roots Zone (1.5m) of Tree 2 as identified as being located within the front setback of 44 Elizabeth Street, Coburg. 
(c)	Updated landscaping works within the front setback of Dwelling 1 as well as the updated lanscaping areas in lieu of the removed decking (in accordance with the proposed development plans formally submitted with the application via Section 50 Declaration received by Council on 19 January 2022). 
(d)	The landscape plan must clearly demonstrate how trees within ‘confined’ POS areas will successfully establish and remain viable for the long-term (adequate soil volumes, irrigation etc). 
(e)	At a minimum, the landscape plan must contain:
•	Two (2) medium canopy trees within the front setback.
•	Three (3) small ‘upright’ trees along the front northern boundary.
•	Five (5) small ‘upright’ trees within the private open space or common areas. 
(f)	A notation on plan that:
i	Tree 2 must be protected in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970 – 2009: Protection of trees on development sites and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
ii	All works within the Tree Protection Zone must be supervised by a qualified arborist.
iii	Any roots uncovered must be pruned with sharp/sterile tools.
iv	Any fencing within TPZs must be of light timber construction with manually excavated stump holes.
v	Any service installation within TPZs must be bored to a minimum depth of 0.6m below existing grade. There must strictly be no ‘open trench’ excavation within TPZs.
vi	TPZs must remain at existing grade and be permeable.
vii	Any pruning works to Tree 2 must be undertaken by a qualified arborist in accordance with AS4373-2007.
(g)	Any modifications relating to landscaping required as a result of the Sustainable Design Assessment required by Condition No. 8 of this Permit. 
(h)	Any modifications relating to landscaping required as a result of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Plan/Report required by Condition No. 8 of this Permit.
(i)	Details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed, including overhanging trees on adjoining properties and street trees within the nature strip.  The genus, species, height and spread of all trees must be specified. All existing trees to be retained must be retained and protected in accordance with Australian Standards.
(j)	A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity, pot size and quantities of all plants.
(k)	A diversity of plant species and forms. 
(l)	Annotated graphic construction details showing all landscape applications and structures including tree and shrub planting, retaining walls, raised planter bed and decking. 
(m)	Type and details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and permeable and/or hard paving (such as pavers, brick, gravel, asphalt and concrete) demonstrating a minimum site permeability of 20%.  Percentage cover of permeable surfaces must be stated on the plan. Where paving is specified, material types and construction methods (including cross sections where appropriate) must be provided.
(n)	Hard paved surfaces at all entry points to dwellings.
(o)	The location of all plant and equipment as shown (including air conditioners, letter boxes, garbage bins, lighting, clotheslines, tanks, storage, bike racks and the like). 
(p)	Type and details of edge treatment between all changes in surface (e.g. grass (lawn), gravel, paving and garden beds).
(q)	An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of entry doors, windows, gates and fences. 
(r)	The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services.  Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided.
(s)	Clear graphics identifying trees (deciduous and evergreen), shrubs, grasses/sedges, groundcovers and climbers.
(t)	Scale, north point and appropriate legend. 
(u)	Landscape specification notes including general establishment and maintenance requirements.
The requirements of the endorsed Landscape Plan must be complied with and implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The development must not be occupied, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, until the landscaping works shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
The landscaping shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including by replacing any dead, diseased, dying or damaged plants to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
All landscaped areas must be provided with an appropriate irrigation system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4	Before the development (including demolition) starts, tree protection fencing (TPF) must be erected in accordance with the following requirements to provide a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):
Tree 2*	Location	TPZ (radius from the base of the tree trunk)	
Small exotic specimen  	Adjoining property at No. 44 Elizabeth Street (north)	2 metres	
*as defined in internal referral comments from Council’s Planning Arborist dated 19 March 2022	
5	The following tree protection measures must be implemented for trees identified in the table to Condition No. 4 of this Permit:
(a)	Tree protection measures must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970 – 2009: Protection of trees on development sites or as otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
(b)	Tree protection fencing 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 or unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority in writing.
(c)	The tree protection fencing must be maintained at all times and may only be moved the minimum amount necessary for approved buildings and works to occur within a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).  The movement of the fencing to allow such buildings and works shall only occur for the period that such buildings and works are undertaken, after which time the full extent of the fencing must be reinstated. 
(d)	Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority: 
i	The area within the TPZ and Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1cm of trunk girth measured at the soil/trunk interface on a weekly basis.
ii	The area within the TPZ of Tree 2 within No. 44 Elizabeth Street adjacent the proposed works must be provided with 100mm layer of coarse mulch.
iii	No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within a TPZ, save for that allowed to complete the approved development.
iv	No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within a TPZ.
(e)	All excavation works within the TPZ of trees within No. 44 Elizabeth Street are to be supervised by a suitably qualified arborist.
(f)	Any pruning works must be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4373 - 2007: Pruning of Amenity Trees and undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist.
(g)	Open space areas within the TPZ of Tree 2 within 44 Elizabeth Street adjacent the proposed works must remain at or above existing grade and remain permeable.
(h)	Where applicable to a tree on a neighbouring lot, a TPZ only applies where it is within the site.
(i)	Before any development (including demolition) starts, all existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plan(s) to be retained must be marked and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6	Tree 1 (the nature strip tree - Eucalyptus sp.) is to be removed by the owner/permit holder using a suitably qualified professional. Once removed, the Responsible Authority must be notified of the completed works. Once the Responsible Authority is notified, Council arborists will inspect the site for possible replacement planting opportunities. 
7	An amenity value/tree replacement fee of $517.00 is to be paid by the owner/permit holder to the Responsible Authority for the removal of Tree 1 (Eucalyptus sp.). This is to occur prior to the removal of Tree 1 (Eucalyptus sp.).
8	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No.1 of this Permit, the submitted ESD/SDA report (inclusive of BESS and STORM reports) must be amended and re-submitted to be approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the ESD/SDA will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The ESD/SDA must be amended to:
(a)	Provide external operable sun shading devices (excluding roller shutters to windows that face the street or common areas at ground floor) to all west facing habitable room windows/glazed doors. Where sun shading devices are used a dimensioned section diagram or photograph must be provided.
(b)	Outline proposed sustainable design initiatives within the development including energy efficiency, water conservation, stormwater quality, waste management and material selection. It must be clearly shown where the shading will be located on the plans and elevations. Ensure windows that have external adjustable shading can open when using the blind.
(c)	Fixed shading to north facing windows. 
(d)	Maximise operable windows including to bathrooms, hallways and stairwells. Clearly draw and label how all windows open. Install windows that allow for greater ventilation such as louvres, casement followed by double-hung and sliding. Avoid awning windows where possible as they allow for the lowest level of ventilation.
(e)	The trafficable areas (pedestrian paths/balconies) cannot drain to water tanks as they are connected to toilets and the water may be contaminated and could stain.  As such, the provided stormwater management report must be updated accordingly.
The requirements of the endorsed SDA must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No.  1 of this Permit, a Site Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Site Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Site Management Plan must be generally in accordance with Melbourne Water’s Keeping Our Stormwater Clean – A Builder’s Guide (2002) and must describe how the site will be managed prior to and during the construction period, including requirements for:
(a)	Erosion and sediment.
(b)	Stormwater.
(c)	Litter, concrete and other construction wastes.
(d)	Chemical contamination.
The requirements of the endorsed Site Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
10	At the completion of the constructed ground floor level(s), and before the starting of the building frame or walls, a report prepared by a licensed land surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to the Responsible Authority, confirming the ground floor level(s). The report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days from the date of the inspection.  
The development must not be occupied until a report prepared by a licensed land surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority is submitted to the Responsible Authority, confirming the floor level(s). 
11	Before the use starts, an automatic external lighting system capable of illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining and nearby land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13	All guttering, rainheads, pipes including downpipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site including those associated with a balcony must be:
(a)	Concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view; or
(b)	Located and designed to integrate with the development,
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14	No plant, equipment, services or structures other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
15	The plant and equipment proposed on the roof of the building must be located to be minimally visible from the public realm or screened in a manner that integrates with the design of the development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16	The clothesline to each dwelling must be free-standing. 
17	Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and a slot for newspapers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18	Before occupation of the development, the areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
(a)	Constructed;
(b)	Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
(c)	Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat;
(d)	Drained;
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
19	Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose. 
20	Before the occupation of the development, the proposed vehicular crossing must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The redundant crossing must be removed and replaced with footpath, nature strip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21	Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Community Infrastructure Levy and/or Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Darebin City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan Overlay.
22	This Permit will expire if either:
(a)	The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this Permit; or
(b)	The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing:
(a)	Before this Permit expires;
(b)	Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
(c)	Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion of the development or a stage of the development.

– End of conditions –