VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1251/2023
Permit Application no.P22/0771 	
CATCHWORDS
Section 82 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme; Green Wedge Zone; application to construct a shed; siting and shed height; landscape impact.	

Applicants	Rasa Jacks & Matt Jacks	

Responsible Authority	Mornington Peninsula Shire Council	
Respondent	Jambosa Pty Ltd	

SUBJECT LAND	148A Gardens Road
ROSEBUD VIC 3939	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	13 May 2024	

DATE OF ORDER	21 November 2024	

CITATION	Jacks v Mornington Peninsula SC [2024] VCAT 1111	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P1251/2023 and P22/0771 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. 
2	In planning permit application P22/0771 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 148A Gardens Road Rosebud VIC 3939 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Buildings and works which is within 20 metres of a road, and 100 metres from a dwelling not in the same ownership on land within a Green Wedge Zone. 
•	Buildings and works where the floor area of any building exceeds 40 square metres, and the building exceeds a height of 6 metres above natural ground level within the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedules 1 and 6.

Donna D’Alessandro
Member			
Appearances
For applicant	Glenn Kell, town planner, Planning Central Pty Ltd.		
For responsible authority	Tom Scudamore, town planner.		
For respondent 	Tom Buchan, town planner, Song Bowden Planning Pty Ltd. He called expert evidence from Leanne Dowey, landscape architect.		

Information
Description of proposal	It is proposed to construct a shed with a width of 12 metres, a length of 30 metres and an overall area of approximately 360 square metres.  The wall heights are 5 metres with an overall maximum building height of 6.5 metres.  The materials include metal sheet cladding in a Colourbond ironstone.  The shed will store hay and machinery associated with the agricultural use of the land (horse husbandry).
The shed is set back 17.8 metres from the eastern boundary with the applicant’s site and 12 metres from the front boundary to Jones Road.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Green Wedge Zone – Schedule 2 (‘GWZ2’)
Bushfire Management Overlay (‘BMO’)
Erosion Management Overlay - Schedule 1 (‘EMO1’) and Schedule 2 (‘EMO2’)
Environmental Significant Overlay - Schedule 9 (‘ESO9’), Schedule 17 (‘ESO17’) and Schedule 28 (‘ESO28’)
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1 (‘SLO1’) and Schedule 6 (‘SLO6’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 35.04-5 – Buildings and works within 20 metres of a road, and 100 metres from a dwelling not in the same ownership on land within the Green Wedge Zone. 
Clause 42.03-2 – Buildings and works where the floor area of any building exceeds 40 square metres, and the building exceeds a height of 6 metres above natural ground level within the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedules 1 and 6.	
Land description	The review site is a large rural parcel of land, generally rectangular in shape with an overall area of approximately 18.4 hectares. It contains a single dwelling with an associated horse husbandry, paddocks and sheds.
The review site is on the north side of Jones Road at the intersection with Gardens Road, Rosebud. 
The topography has a significant fall from the front south-east corner to the rear north-west. It is densely vegetated in the north-east, north-west and south-west corner of the site and the Murray-Anderson Creek runs across the full length of the northern boundary.	
Tribunal inspection	3 June 2024	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Mornington Peninsular Shire Council (‘council’) issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit (‘NOD’) for an agricultural shed at 148A Jones Road, Rosebud (‘review site’).  The NOD is subject to a number of conditions, which are unopposed by the permit applicant, Jambosa Pty Ltd  (‘respondent’).
2	Rasa Jacks and Matt Jacks (the ‘applicants’) own the property to the east of the review site and have lodged an appeal against the council’s decision. They say:
•	The proposed shed is inappropriately sited and designed having regard to the State and council strategies, polices and overlays, as well as the Green Wedge Zone provisions that apply.
•	The proposed shed will have a detrimental and adverse amenity impact on the landscape value and surrounding properties and land uses.
•	The proposal will have an adverse amenity impact by way of siting and design, neighbourhood character, landscape character and values, visual impacts, building bulk, responsiveness to the topography, context and surrounding properties.
3	The council says the proposal represents an acceptable response to the applicable planning policy and that a planning permit should be granted. 
4	The respondent, relies on grounds that essentially refute the applicant’s statement of grounds. They rely on the expert evidence of Ms Dowey with respect to the landscape response. It says that providing for an agricultural shed on this site should be uncontroversial in planning terms. It says that the location, height and size of the proposed shed has been carefully designed to be responsive to the physical attributes of the subject site, and responsive to the thrust of planning controls that apply. It submits that this proposal, supported by a high-quality landscaping theme prepared by Ms Dowey, is an acceptable planning outcome.
5	It is unfortunate that the neighbours have had a long and bitter dispute over the years. This is clear from previous Jambosa decisions that relate to the applicant’s site.  Whilst they have been helpful to understand the review site and the applicant’s site, I will not be drawn into any motivation that may have arisen from this proposal, by either party.   
6	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme (‘Scheme’), heard evidence from Ms Dowey, undertaken a site inspection of the review site and surrounding area, I have decided to affirm council’s decision, and direct the grant of a planning permit subject to conditions.  I find the proposal is an acceptable planning outcome.  More specifically, the proposed shed (both scale and siting) is consistent with the purpose of the relevant zone and overlays, the site and surrounds, and is appropriate in the context of the existing landscape setting.  I conclude that a permit should be granted.
7	My reasons follow.
Proposal and site context
8	The review site is shown below, as outlined in Near Map (July 2023).  

Figure 1 : Review site (blue arrow) and surrounding properties.
9	An extract from the proposed site plan is shown at Figure 2 below.  It shows the proposed shed located adjacent to Jones Road, and near the entrance to the review site and gravel driveway.  The shed is set back from the shared boundary with the applicant’s site by 12 metres and 17.8 metres from Jones Road.  As outlined, the review site is used for horse husbandry, including a series of horse paddocks, arena and round yard.  The shed is proposed to be located at the flattest part of the land, an area that is cleared of vegetation and adjacent to the driveway as shown above and in Figure’s 2 and 3 below.

Figure 2: Site / Floor Plan.

Figure 3: Floor Plan.

10	Proposed Landscape Plans were included in the application material.  The Landscape Plan is extensive, providing a 2 metre landscape buffer to both the rear and front of the shed that faces the road.  The landscape buffer (outlined blue shading in the plan below) is shown to be some 38 metres in length to the rear of the shed, with Grevillea 'Ivanhoe' (Grevillea) and Syzygium Firescreen (Firescreen Lilly Pilly) to be planted.  These are known to grow 2-5 metres high.
11	Along the common boundary with the applicant’s property, extensive tree and shrub planting is proposed plus a further 13 Platanus orientalis 'digitata' (oriental plane trees) trees planted to the west of the shed.  

Figure 4: Landscape Plan
12	Adjacent to the driveway, in addition to the trees along the shared boundary, is an existing double row of juvenile, semi-advanced Cut-leaf Plane trees, planted in 2022.  A number of these trees are to be removed from the boundary, but these do not require planning permission.

Figure 5: Approximate location of the proposed shed and the northwest of the paddock on the review site.

13	The applicant’s property is located to the east side of the review site, at the intersection with Jones Road and Gardens Road.  It is an irregular shaped allotment with a frontage to Jones Road, with a total area of approximately 5.65 hectares.  The site is heavily vegetated to its rear.
14	The site includes a recently constructed double storey dwelling, tennis court, swimming pool and pool house and associated garages/sheds in close proximity to the road and there is lesser vegetation in this part of the site.   The pool and pool house is located closest to the boundary with the review site, with the pool house set back 3.9 metres and the pool 1.4 metres from the boundary.  Fences and a hedge are located along the boundary, adjacent to the pool and pool house.  Immediately adjoining the boundary is the driveway along the review site, from Jones Road.  

Figure 6: Part applicants property (right) and review site (left).

why is a planning permit required?
15	The starting point in my deliberations is to understand what requires a planning permit under the Scheme, to understand the purpose of the zone and relevant overlays and the relevant decision guidelines.  In this case, the site is located in a Green Wedge Zone (‘GRZ2’) and covered by a number of overlays, being the Bushfire Management Overlay (‘BMO’), Erosion Management Overlay (‘EMO’) – Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, Environmental Significant Overlay (‘ESO’) – Schedule 9 (‘ESO9’), Schedule 17 (‘ESO17’) and Schedule 28 (‘ESO28’) and Significant Landscape Overlay (‘SLO’) – Schedule 1(‘SLO1’) and Schedule 6 (‘SLO6’).
16	Under the GRZ, a planning permit is required for buildings and works because the shed does not meet the minimum set back requirements.  This is because the siting of the shed is less than 20 metres from any other road and less than 100 metres from a dwelling not in the same ownership.  If these set backs were met, a planning permit would not be required under the zone.  The shed is set back 17.8 metres from the southern boundary with Jones Road and 12 metres from the eastern boundary with the applicant’s property.
17	A planning permit is also required under  SLO1 and SLO6 for buildings and works because the floor area is greater than 40 square metres and the overall building height is greater than 6 metres.   
18	A planning permit is not required under any other overly that applies to the land.
The Green Wedge Zone (GWZ)
19	Amongst other matters, the purpose of the GWZ is to provide for the use of land for agriculture and to protect and enhance the landscape of the area. In addition to clause 65, the relevant decision guidelines as it relates to the construction of a building, or the construction or carrying out works are to consider, as appropriate, the following:
General issues
The Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and the Planning Policy Framework (PPF).
The capability of the land to accommodate the proposed use or development.
How the use or development relates to rural land use, rural diversification, natural resource management, natural or cultural heritage management, recreation or tourism.
The need to minimise adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area or features of architectural, scientific or cultural heritage significance, or of natural scenic beauty.
Design and Siting
The need to minimise any adverse impacts of siting, design, height, bulk, and colours and materials to be used, on landscape features, major roads and vistas.
The location and design of existing and proposed infrastructure services which minimises the visual impact on the landscape.
The need to minimise adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area or features of archaeological, historic or scientific significance or of natural scenic beauty or importance.
SLO1 – Ridge and escarpment areas and SLO6 – National Trust Classified Landscapes
20	The purpose of the SLO is to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy (‘MPS’) and Planning Policy Framework (‘PPF’), to identify significant landscapes and to conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes. Each of the schedules contained in the SLO must contain a statement of the nature and key elements of the landscape and the landscape character objectives to be achieved.
21	In addition to the MPS and PPF, the decision guidelines at clause 42.03-5, with respect to considering an application for buildings and works require a consideration of:
The impact of the proposed buildings and works on the landscape due to height, bulk, colour, general appearance or the need to remove vegetation.
The extent to which the buildings and works are designed to enhance or promote the landscape character objectives of the area.
The impact of buildings and works on significant views.
Any other matters specified in a schedule to this overlay.
22	SLO1 refers to the Ridge and Escarpment areas.  The statement of nature and key elements of landscape for SLO1 includes the following:
Ridge and escarpment areas have been identified as key landscape features, providing landmarks that are visually prominent, and acting as scenic vantage points, enabling views of extensive coastal and rural landscapes. Ridge areas and escarpments also often retain substantial vegetation cover, which adds to the variety of the landscape.
The distinctive landscapes of the Peninsula have been shaped by geomorphological processes and features. These include the Selwyn and Tyabb Faults, the multiple smaller faults of the central and southern Peninsula and the basalt intrusions of Arthur’s Seat and Mt Martha. In this context the landforms of the Peninsula are culturally significant both in terms of the visual “sense of place” and in promoting an understanding of the natural processes. The high visual exposure of ridge and escarpment areas makes them particularly susceptible to visual intrusion from inappropriate development.
23	The relevant objectives in SLO include the following:
To protect and enhance the visual, natural and cultural heritage values of ridge and escarpment landscapes.
To maintain the natural skyline of ridge and escarpment areas and avoid obtrusive building silhouettes.
To avoid the construction of any buildings within 10 metres of a ridge area, unless no alternative site is available on the land.
To protect ridge and escarpment landscapes from visual intrusion resulting from inappropriate buildings and works, and their siting, design or materials.
To encourage siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works that is responsive to the landscape values of ridge and escarpment areas.
To maintain vegetation as an important element of ridge and escarpment landscapes.
24	There are no application requirements under the schedule.
25	In addition to the decision guidelines under clause 42.03, the decision maker must consider the decision guidelines of the schedule, relevant as follows:
The landscape character objectives of this schedule.
The need for a landscape impact assessment report, prepared by a properly qualified person and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The protection and appropriate enhancement of the landscape, having regard to:
•	Protecting landscape areas and vantage points of high quality.
•	Maintaining visual sequences along access routes.
The conservation of significant areas of natural vegetation and significant stands of trees in ridge areas and on escarpments.
Whether the siting, height, scale, materials and form of proposed buildings and works, including infrastructure service lines, has been designed to have least visual effect on the ridge and escarpment landscape and scenic views. (Tribunal emphasis)
Whether approval of the proposed buildings and works is compatible with maintaining the visual, natural and cultural heritage significance of the ridge and escarpment landscape. (Tribunal emphasis)
The availability of reasonable alternative sites, alternative building designs or alternative construction practices for proposed buildings and works that would better meet landscape character objectives of this schedule, having regard to the size and topography of the land and the form and nature of the proposed buildings and works.
The availability of reasonable alternative routes, alternative designs or alternative forms of installation for infrastructure service lines that would better meet landscape character objectives of this schedule.
Whether it is reasonable and practical to maintain a set back of 10 metres from a ridge area having regard to the size and topography of the land and the form and nature of proposed buildings and works.
The benefit of permit conditions requiring all building materials to be non-reflective and of colours which are complementary to those of natural landscape.
The benefit of conditions requiring the landscaping of buildings and works, while also having regard to the maintenance of existing view lines.
26	SLO6 refers to the National Trust Classified Landscapes.   The statement of nature and key elements of landscape is:
National Trust classified landscapes have been identified as key landscape features. The National Trust classification combines the immediate visual values of the landscape with an assessment of cultural heritage significance. Development within these areas may substantially effect the perception of landscape quality unless it is carefully sited and designed.
27	 The relevant objectives are:
To protect and enhance the visual, natural and cultural heritage values of classified landscapes.
To protect classified landscapes from visual intrusion resulting from the inappropriate siting, design or materials of buildings and works.
To encourage siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works which is responsive to the landscape values of classified landscapes.
28	The decision guidelines are similar to the decision guidelines outlined in SLO1, but add the following as relevant:
The comments of the National Trust where proposals may significantly effect the classified landscape.
Is the proposal acceptable under the Green Wedge zone?
29	The applicant’s submission argues that the proposed shed is not consistent with the purpose or provisions of the GWZ and associated schedule.  They argue that the purpose of the GWZ is to implement the MPS and PPF, to recognise, protect and conserve green wedge land for its landscape, to protect, conserve and enhance the character of open rural and scenic non-urban landscapes.  
30	A key purpose of the GWZ seeks to encourage use and development that it consistent with sustainable land management practises.  The current use of the land for domestic animal husbandry and grazing fits within the purposes and decision guidelines of the zone. The proposed shed adequately responds to the purpose of the zone, as it will be used to store hay and machinery, to assist with the ongoing use of the land for agricultural purposes. I agree with the respondent that the proposed agricultural shed will assist in the ongoing use of land for these rural purposes
31	The proposed shed does not meet the set back requirements as outlined at clause 35.04-5. I am satisfied on the material before me, and having regard to the purposes of the Green Wedge Zone (‘GWZ2’) and the decision guidelines at clause 35.04-6, that the siting and height of the proposed shed is acceptable for the following reasons:
•	given there is no significant vegetation removal nor significant earthworks required, I am satisfied that there will be minimal impact on the biodiversity of the environmental systems of the area;  
•	the siting is proposed adjacent to Jones Road and the existing driveway. It makes perfect sense to locate the shed on the flattest part of the land, and close to the existing infrastructure to allow for convenient deliveries of hay;
•	the additional landscaping scheme will provide additional screening to blend in with the already bushy character of the rural landscape; 
•	the proposed maximum building height of 6.5 metres combined with muted tones and colours ‘Ironstone’, will assist in blending the development into the landscape;
•	the shed will sit below the established canopy tree line; and
•	the combination of retained trees and planting surrounding the shed will enable appropriate screening of built form.
32	I am satisfied that the siting and scale of the shed is compatible with maintaining the long term natural, agricultural and landscape values of the area.
Is the proposal acceptable under the Significant Landscape Overlays?
33	The applicants say that the proposed shed is not consistent with the purpose or provisions of both SLO1 and SLO6 and that it will be located approximately 14 metres from their pool house, 15.2 metres from their swimming pool, and 36 metres from their dwelling.
34	They are concerned the shed is located on the highest point of the review site and will be visually prominent from multiple directions.  They say the proposed shed will cause a loss of amenity to the landscape value of the area.
35	The applicant took me through a range of photographs taken from the applicant’s property and surrounding area, including the nearby vineyard.  It is evident from the photographs included in the applicant’s submission and my site inspection that the proposed shed will be prominent when viewed from the applicant’s property, notably from the pool, pool house and entertainment area.  It is likely to be visible from the dwelling, which has been designed to absorb the panoramic views across the review site, of distant ocean views and the varying topography and landscape. 
36	I agree with the respondent that the objectives of the SLO1 and SLO6 call up considerations related to views to ridgelines and escarpments and the wider scenic landscape.  None of the applicable controls call up or seek explicitly to protect residential amenity or views from adjoining properties. The controls outlined in SLO1 and SLO6 do not specifically seek to protect view lines from private properties.  Equally, none of the controls applicable seek to protect views from the streetscape.
37	The objectives and decision guidelines of both SLO1 and SLO6 seek to protect, enhance and respond to ridge and escarpment landscapes.  The decision guidelines have no regard for the protection of views from private land.  
38	From the submissions and my site inspection, the land rises behind the review site. This means that the rising topography behind the proposed shed means it does not intrude above the skyline or ridgeline.
39	While the shed will be prominent from the street, this does not mean it does not meet the design objectives of the SLO1 and SLO6. These policies, in addition to clauses 11.03-5S, and 12.05-2S, place emphasis on the importance of distinctive areas and landscapes, and the role of ridges and escarpments as scenic vantage points which enable views of extensive coastal and rural landscapes. Related to this are strategies and objectives which seek to protect and enhance the visual and natural values of the landscape and to encourage design of buildings and works which are responsive to the landscape values of ridge and escarpment areas.
40	The proposed shed has a wall height of 5 metres and maximum building height of 6.50 metres, seeking a variation to the 6 metre height requirement. The proposed building height is similar to other rural buildings within the area which store large machinery associated with agricultural use. It is also proposed to be sited proximate to the structures on the applicant’s site, which themselves are visible from the streetscape. 
41	With respect to the reduced front and side set backs, I find that the proposed shed is in an appropriate location on the land given its flat topography, absence of existing vegetation in this location and the proposed vegetation. I do not consider that the proposed shed will constitute an inappropriate visual intrusion into the landscape. I am satisfied that the landscape character objectives of SLO1 and SLO6 would not be compromised by the proposal. 
42	While the proposed shed may change the immediate outlook when viewed from the adjoining property, having considered the provisions of the SLO1 and SLO6, I consider that the proposal responds appropriately to the existing site context and the wider landscape.  There is established vegetation between the proposed shed location and the adjoining dwelling at 150 Jones Road and the Landscape Plan proposes significant screen planting on the eastern side of the shed, which over time will assist in screening the development.
43	I have also not been persuaded that a permit should not be granted because of any unreasonable impact of the siting or scale of the proposed shed on the broader landscape. If viewing the property from the coastline, the proposed shed would not likely be highly visible as it is not located on a ridgeline and does not protrude above the ridgeline. 
44	The retention and enhancement of landscaping on the site will minimise any visual impact of the proposed shed in longer range glimpses within the broader landscape.
45	The building silhouette would not impact the natural skyline as both the skyline and treeline will still be visible behind the proposed shed. The siting of the shed in the location proposed also results in no vegetation removal or significant earthworks ensuring that the shed has been designed and sited to protect and conserve the environmental, landscape and habitat values of the site 
46	The Landscape Plan prepared by Ms Dowey is of a high quality and has been carefully designed having regard to the landscape and planning considerations applicable. The Scheme calls for the landscape values to not only be protected, but also enhanced. In other words, the Scheme seeks new development which improves the vegetated condition of sites, in respect to both the broader landscape and ridge locations. Having inspected the site, I agree that the area of the site proposed to contain the shed currently provides no benefit to the landscape or vegetative values of the area, being comprised of low grass with scattered immature exotic plantings. The opportunity to partially revegetate the area through planting as proposed on the Landscape Plan in a positive manner satisfies the objectives of the SLO’s to enhance existing vegetation.
47	Further, while the shed will be visible from Gardens Road due to its set back of 17.8 metres from the front boundary, this is not uncharacteristic of buildings along Gardens Road and adjoining Jones Road. It is noted the adjoining dwelling at 150 Jones Road is set back approximately 8 metres from its frontage. 
48	The proposed shed has been sited with the smaller end section facing the sites frontage allowing for views to continue across the site towards the west or north, around the shed. The proposed building height combined with muted tones and colours will assist in blending the development into the landscape. 
49	I find that the proposal is responsive to the landscape values identified in SLO1 and SLO6.  The proposal will not undermine the visual and natural values of the surrounding landscape, given the building materials proposed are generally non-reflective and are muted tones that area generally complementary to those of the natural landscape.
What conditions are appropriate?
50	The NOD forms part of the permit conditions to be applied are included in Appendix A.  I have deleted the water tanks on the plans, as confirmed by council, these do not require a planning permit.
51	I have included a condition to include an updated Landscape Plan which adopts some further change to the landscape schedule, such as responding to existing health of some of the trees, and planting of trees that respond to the clearance of the overhead powerlines.  
Conclusion
52	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Donna D’Alessandro
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	P22/0771	
Land	148A Gardens Road
ROSEBUD VIC 3939	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Buildings and works which is within 20 metres of a road, and 100 metres from a dwelling not in the same ownership on land within a Green Wedge Zone. 
•	Buildings and works where the floor area of any building exceeds 40 square metres, and the building exceeds a height of 6 metres above natural ground level within Significant Landscape Overlay	

Conditions Conditions
Amended plans 

1	Before the developments starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
(a)	Deletion of the water tanks from the plans.
(b)	Landscape Plan by Land Site Pty. Ltd, drawing No. L100 A, dated 30 May 2022 updated to reflect the landscape plan by Hansen, drawing no. LCD001 A dated 26 April 2024. 
(c)	Removal of fence notation from the landscape plan along eastern side boundary.
Approved development not altered
2	The approved development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority (Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this permit, consent is not required for any buildings or works which do not require a planning permit under the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme).

Colours/Materials
3	The materials and colours of the exterior finish of the approved development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless with the further permission of the Responsible Authority.
Finishes
4	Prior to the completion of the approved development, external finishes must be completed to a professional standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Landscaping
5	All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the development must be revegetated and stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6	Within 6 months of the practical completion of the development (or other time agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority), the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7	The landscaping referred to in Condition 6 above must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced as soon as practicable.
Expiry
8	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within three years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, (Vic) an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

– End of conditions –