VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P705/2024
Permit Application no.P.2023.148 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Alpine Planning Scheme; Commercial 1 Zone; Indoor recreation facility (bathhouse); Car parking.	

Applicant	AAH Altitude Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Alpine Shire Council	

SUBJECT LAND	117 Gavan Street
BRIGHT VIC 3741	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	31 October 2024 and 1 November 2024	

DATEs OF INTERIM ORDER	1 November 2024	

DATE OF ORDER	16 December 2024	
CITATION 	AAH Altitude Pty Ltd v Alpine SC [2024] VCAT 1194	

Order
Amend permit application 
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Chamberlain Architecture & Interiors	
•	Drawing numbers:	Revision 2	
•	Dated:	10 September 2024	
Permit granted
2	In application P705/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application P.2023.148 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 117 Gavan Street Bright VIC 3741  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Planning scheme clause	Matter for which the permit has been granted	

Clause 34.01-1
	To use of the land for a leisure and recreation facility.	
Clause 34.01-4	To construct a building or construct or carry out works.	
Clause 44.-06-2	To construct a building or construct or carry out works.	
In accordance with the endorsed plans.

Megan Carew
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	T Rath, solicitor
He called L Furness, traffic engineer to give evidence	
For responsible authority	R O’Neill, town planner
She called J Garretty, traffic engineer to give evidence.	

Information
Description of proposal	To use and develop the land for an indoor sports and recreation facility (bathhouse) for 120 patrons. Hours of operation will be 8:00am to 10:00pm daily during peak times. An ancillary cafe is proposed that will operate within the hours of the bathhouse and will close if only the roof area (sky bathing) is operational.
The contemporary building has two levels with the upper level containing a roof level, sky bathing opportunity. 
A plant room and loading zone will be sited at the rear of the building and accessed by a crossover from Riverside Avenue. Two car spaces for staff are proposed in tandem within the loading area.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.	
Planning scheme	Alpine Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 1 Zone (‘C1Z’)
Bushfire Management Overlay- Schedule 1 (‘BMO’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 34.01-1 – to use of the land for a leisure and recreation facility in C1Z. 
Clause 34.01-4 - to construct a building or construct or carry out works in C1Z.
Clause 44.-06-2 - to construct a building or construct or carry out works in the BMO.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 2, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 34.01, 44.06, 52.06, 52.34, 65, 71.02	
Land description	The review site is located on the corner of Gavan Street, Howitt Lane and Riverside Avenue in Bright’s town centre, opposite the visitor information centre (Figure 1). The land is presently vacant but has been used for informal car parking in the last few years. It was formally the Rosedale Guesthouse that burnt down in the early 2000s. Mature street trees extend adjacent each street frontage.	

Figure 1 Site and surrounds (source: Nearmap 19 November 2024)

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	AAH Altitude Pty Ltd (‘applicant’) seeks a review of the failure of the Alpine Shire Council (‘Council’) to decide whether to grant a permit for a bathhouse facility within Bright township. The premises would offer a range of spas and pools for up to 120 patrons and operate daily until 10:00pm in peak times.
2	Council submitted that had it decided within the prescribed time, that it would have refused the application. While Council accepted that the use would support tourism policies for Bright, it had concerns with the extent to which the proposal sought to use public land to the rear of the site, the potential impacts on street trees and lack of car parking provision. 
3	Amended plans were substituted at the hearing that removed any works from the public land to the rear of the site and reduced the impact on the street trees. Council was satisfied with these changes. The concerns of the Council regarding the minimal provision of car parking for the use and the layout and size of the loading facilities remain. Council submitted that:
Whilst the amended plans satisfy Council’s concerns in relation to the rear deck, the Responsible Authority maintains its position in relation to car parking and submits that the proposal is not worthy of approval.  Ms Jo Garretty of SALT3 will provide traffic engineering evidence to support the Council’s case.  
4	Based on the submissions and the relevant planning scheme provisions I consider the key issues to be determined to be:
•	Will car parking impacts of this proposal be acceptable?
•	Are the loading arrangements acceptable?
•	Whether the proposal has responded to the public realm appropriately.
5	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted, and if so, what conditions should be applied. Having regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the planning scheme I have determined to set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and grant a planning permit subject to conditions requiring an operation management plan addressing car parking and public realm improvement plan. My reasons follow.
What are my findings?
6	Bright is described as a ‘large township’ on the Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 2.04. The policy at Clause 11.01-1L-02 relating to Bright seeks to ‘maintain and enhance the character of Bright as a vibrant tourist town in a rural setting’. The Bright Structure Plan includes the land within the primary commercial activity area near other tourism uses including the visitor information centre. The applicant submits that the proposal is an acceptable response to the strategic directions for Bright’s commercial centre and will specifically enhance the year-round tourism offering within the township. They say that the amended proposal has addressed Council’s concerns about the public/ private interface and that the built form is acceptable. 
7	Council supports the proposed use as one which will contribute to the tourism offering within the commercial area of Bright. It also supports the built form and design detail of the building as a good response to the streetscape and area. There was no dispute that the design detail of the new building was an acceptable fit within the streetscape. 
8	The new building is of a low scale, using sympathetic materials and has active interfaces to each street (including to the rear) to maintain passive surveillance (Figure 2). The roof top sky bathing facilities are recessed and subject to amenity conditions are acceptable The proposed building form is also integrated well with the public realm. Some minor matters of pedestrian accessibility from Howitt Lane were raised at the hearing and I have addressed these in my discussion about the public realm below.
Figure 2 Artist’s impression from Gavan Street
9	Council submitted that, despite the support for the land use and building form, that new tourism land uses need be balanced against impacts on amenity and pressure on infrastructure such as car parking. In Council’s written submission: 
71	It is clear that support for the proposed development and use is found in the planning policy framework, particularly in relation to tourism and built form outcomes. However, put simply, the proposed use is not appropriate for this site because of the impost it will place on existing car parking within the township that is already nearing capacity at peak times.  
10	I turn my mind to the car parking matters below.
Will car parking impacts of this proposal be acceptable?
11	Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the planning scheme sets out the provisions for car parking, including requirements for the number of car parking spaces to be provided for a new use. As no car parking requirement is specified for the proposed use, clause 52.06-6 provides that car parking spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
12	The proposal proposes to provide two car spaces in tandem for staff on the land. It does not include any car parking for visitors, but rather relies on the publicly available car parking within the broader activity centre. The proposal seeks a patron limit of 120 persons and a maximum of 10 staff. The premises would operate from 8am to 10pm daily in peak periods. The applicant estimates an average length of patron stay of less than 2 hours. 
13	The application was accompanied by a traffic assessment undertaken by Application report One Mile Grid dated 16 November 2023 (‘application report’). The report provided the results of car parking surveys were undertaken on Friday 7th July 2023 and Saturday 8th July 2023 during the July school holiday period. The survey demonstrated that parking demand peaked in the middle of the day and were lower in the morning and later afternoon times. The report adopted a car parking demand of 0.3 spaces per patron, with an additional demand of eight spaces for staff (total demand 44 spaces). The study found that in July, there was available car parking capacity to accommodate the use within proximity to the site (250m radius). 
14	Council’s traffic engineers accepted the demand estimate of 44 spaces in the application report but disagreed that there was sufficient car parking available in the town centre. Council submits that the high reliance on publicly available parking is not acceptable as this resource is already in high demand, particularly at peak times. Council noted that Bright is a regional centre, with far different characteristics to municipal activity centres, which have good access to public transport, and which may be supported by a local community that can walk or cycle to the activity centre. 

Figure 3 One Mile Grid parking survey area July 2023
15	Council has sought over the last few years to investigate these issues and take steps to address them. As part of Council’s work, it prepared the Bright Strategic Traffic Assessment (‘BSTA’) prepared by One Mile Grid in July 2022. In my interim order dated 1 November 2024, I provided the parties with the opportunity to consider this study. This was an assessment undertaken for Council and was available on its website. The study was not referred to by any party in the hearing. The study included collection of parking survey data on Thursday 20th January 2022 and Saturday 22nd January 2022. It considered a slightly different area of parking than the application report (Figure 4), including the review site.  
16	The assessment concludes that:
Car parking demands within the Activity Centre are relatively high during the early afternoon peak periods, with most on-street parking fully occupied within the central areas. Off-street parking opportunities are limited, and wayfinding signage could be improved, which can contribute to additional traffic circulating for parking. Consider improving wayfinding to parking areas as shown in Figure 26, and establishing additional off-street parking locations. Wayfinding signage will ensure that visitors unfamiliar with the area are aware of off-street parking locations, and do not need to continue circulating looking for on-street parking.

Figure 4 One Mile Grid parking survey area January 2022
What do the witnesses say?
17	In addition to the application report and BSTA, I had the benefit of the evidence of Mr Furness for the applicant and Ms Garretty for Council. On 8 November 2024, the parties circulated addendums to the expert evidence reports responding to the BSTA. 
18	There are areas of commonality between the two experts including:
•	That the design and layout of the two on-site car spaces was acceptable for staff subject to conditions.
•	That bicycle parking should be provided in accordance with Clause 52.34.
•	There was no dispute that the car parking within the area was in demand in peak times, on weekends, during holiday times and public holidays. The evidence diverges on the calculation of demand for car parking and the availability of parking within the activity centre. 
•	Both witnesses were satisfied that in off-peak times car parking demand could be comfortably accommodated.
19	Mr Furness calculated the car parking demand for the use based on:
•	A centre-wide approach to sharing car parking and that supply does not have to cater for the peak.
•	A broader area of catchment (mirroring the general extent of the town centre), generally reflecting a 400m distance and including privately owned but publicly accessible car parking such as the supermarket car park and the Cobden Street community centre car park (Figure 5). This was larger than the application report. The BSTA and the area included by Ms Garretty.
•	A demand of 0.3 spaces per patron (arguing that the place of assembly rate has staff already built in) requiring the provision of 36 car spaces, inclusive of both staff and customer demands.
•	The surveys undertaken on Friday 27th September 2024 (AFL Grand final public holiday), Saturday 28th September 2024 (AFL Grand final day), 11th October 2024 (weekday in school term) and Saturday12th October 2024 (weekend in school term).
•	Demand peaks at the lunchtime period. The absolute peak occupancy occurred at 1pm on Saturday 28th September 2024 when there were 178 vacant car spaces (76% occupancy).
•	There was more demand for on-street parking than off-street parking, possibly because of the location of the off-street parking towards the periphery of the centre.
•	Mr Furness concluded that many patrons would undertake multi-purpose trips to the bathhouse, that some would walk and ride if staying in town and that there is sufficient capacity within the surveyed area.
His evidence concludes that the proposal is acceptable from a car parking and traffic engineering perspective, and there is sufficient car parking available within the vicinity of the premises to accommodate the car parking demands associated with the use.

Figure 5 Furness parking survey area
20	Mr Furness also undertook a useful comparison between his findings, the application report and the BSTA in his addendum (Figure 6), concluding that while the survey areas differed, the results show that throughout the year there is capacity within the centre and that ‘you will get a car park in Bright’. The comparison shows that there is capacity other than for the grand final weekend within the September School holidays.

Figure 6: Furness comparision
21	Council relies on the evidence of Ms Garretty. In Council’s written submission:
73	Based on parking surveys, both experts agree that at the peak period, approximately 46 spaces were available.  However, the Council submits that the Tribunal should prefer Ms Garretty’s evidence, which provides a more nuanced assessment to discount spaces that are on privately owned land and for spaces which allow 1-hour parking, which is based on the nature of the use, as provided in the application material.
22	Ms Garretty considered that there would be:
•	A relatively consistent demand for parking in the activity centre throughout the year, with the bathhouse acting as a destination.
•	A smaller catchment based on distance equating to ‘about a 3 minute walk’ to the site (Figure 7) similar to the area in the application report and the BSTA. She excluded privately owned off-street car parks such as the supermarket and parking less than 1 hour (noting patrons were expected to attend the site for 1-2 hours).
•	A higher demand of 0.37 to 0.5 spaces per patron inclusive of staff equating to 44-60 spaces which will exceed the vacant car park supply in the smaller area surveyed. She considered that a higher demand was warranted as the bathhouse was intended to be adult only, removing family groups.
•	She also undertook a survey on the Grand final weekend. She noted that on Friday the peak was at lunchtime with only 46 on-street spaces vacant at 1:00pm, equating to an occupancy of 83%. On Saturday shed concluded that the peak also occurred around lunchtime with an occupancy of 85% and only 42 car spaces available. 
•	She considered that parking areas a ‘typically designed to be occupied at maximum 85% at peak times such that drivers do not have to continuously circulate the area in search of an available parking space’ and that cars circulating would add to traffic within the town centre.
•	That long term parking by staff would reduce turnover.
•	That the BSTA included the supermarket car park which should be excluded.
23	Ms Garretty concluded that the parking would ‘place additional pressures on an already busy township and impact the availability of public parking’ and would result in adverse impacts, particular to staff and patrons of surrounding businesses. She concludes that the proposal would result in the car parking being saturated at peak times, with cars circulating for a space within the centre creating ‘unnecessary parking pressure’. 

Figure 7 Garretty parking survey area 
Tribunal’s findings
24	I accept that there is an existing issue with the availability of car parking within the Bright town centre at peak periods such as a grand final weekend coinciding with school holidays. It is demonstrated in the informal car parking that has occurred on the nature strips around the site visible within the aerial photography tabled at the hearing. Council has undertaken work over the last few years to understand and address the issue across the centre. This is consistent with a centre-based approach to supply and management of parking. This is discussed in detail by the Tribunal in Save Bright Action Group v Alpine SC [2008] VCAT 1425. That decision considered the then proposed supermarket in Gavan Street (‘supermarket decision’). The Tribunal found that:
103	In broad terms, each of the witnesses agreed that the proposed provision of car parking is sufficient to accommodate the retail component of the proposed development, for all except peak times.  Because of Bright’s tourist function, evidence was presented that peak times will vary from those typical for supermarkets and activity centres in other locations.  Our attention was also drawn to the prospect of peak parking demand times being affected by special events which are conducted throughout the year as part of Bright’s tourist experience.  Ms Donald and Ms Dunstan were also of the view that overflow car parking from the hotel would not be able to be accommodated within the supermarket car park because of the prospect of the peak parking demand times for the two uses corresponding with each other.  It was the evidence of Ms Donald and Ms Dunstan that the capacity of the activity centre to absorb peak time overflow car parking is affected by a limited supply of suitable on street parking or public parking in the centre, or at least in close proximity to the review site. 
104	The Tribunal has over many years accepted that a centre based approach to the provision of parking in activity centres is appropriate and preferable to adopting an approach which considers the provision of parking on a site by site basis.  Member Liston summarised the principles of the centre based approach in Hubbard v City of Boroondara:
The basic approach in these decisions is that in important activity centres car parking considerations should not be determinative, instead the land use mix in a centre should arise from a combination of strategic planning and economic forces at work in the centre.  Car parking issues have a part to play in this but should not dominate. At the level of the individual site where there is a change of use or an extension to an existing building in most circumstances car parking shortfalls should be waived if it is consistent with the strategic plan for the centre, firstly because the most equitable solution is to deal with car parking on a centre wide basis, and secondly because even in saturated car parking conditions a balance will occur between the level of activity and the car parking supply.
105	We note that Morris J (as he then was) and Ms Taranto adopted the principles espoused by Mr Liston in a recent case in which they determined to grant a permit for a supermarket in an activity centre in Sorrento.
106	In the present case we were urged not to adopt a centre based approach to the consideration of car parking issues, primarily because it was submitted that because of the scale of the development it ought to be required to be fully self sufficient in the supply of parking, and because of the site’s isolated location.  It was the evidence of Ms Dunstan that the review site is too removed from overflow parking opportunities within the activity centre and that as a consequence, overflow parking generated by the proposal would then need to be accommodated in inappropriate locations.
107	For reasons we have outlined previously, we do not consider the review site to be isolated from the activity centre, and indeed, we have found that the site falls within the boundaries of the defined activity centre. We therefore reject the submissions that the adequacy of car parking provision for this proposal ought not be considered in the context of a centre based approach.  
25	While some time has passed since the supermarket decision, the concept of a centre-based approach to car parking within activity centres (including in regional areas) remains the contemporary method of assessment. I agree with the findings of the Tribunal above that this is the correct approach to apply. There are benefits to providing shared public car parking rather than requiring each development to provide on-site car parking. This is consistent with other land uses within the centre, such as the brewery.
26	To this end I prefer the evidence of Mr Furness which adopts a more wholistic view of the activity centre and a slightly larger walkable catchment. In terms of demand, I also accept that a rate of 0.3 spaces per patron is a good starting point as consistent with the rate for Place of Assembly, including staff requirements. I give weight to the fact that the use is located within the town centre and not in a more remote location.
27	I also adopt the evidence of Ms Garretty in respect to the exclusion of the short term parking and the supermarket car park (111 spaces) as directed by the practice note. While the supermarket does substantially contribute to the parking supply in Bright, it was provided primarily to serve patrons of the supermarket. 
28	I have extensive car parking data for the summer, winter and spring school holidays to assist me, as well as a comparison ‘off-peak’ survey in October. At times the centre would be busier (say between Christmas and New Year) and at times less busy. The highest demands occurred on the long weekend in school holidays. I consider this a worst-case scenario. I find that it is not necessary to provide car parking for such a specific peak, especially in a policy context that seeks to encourage alternative modes of transport.
29	The capacity of this activity centre to accommodate this new land use is affected by a limited supply of on street parking proximate to the site. Off-street car parks are less used, particularly those on the edges of the activity centre. The proposal would potentially occupy a high proportion of available spaces at peak times, but I am satisfied that the reduction in car parking is warranted considering the full range of matters set out in Clause 52.06 because:
•	There is likely to be shared trips that include this use and other uses such as food and drink premises within the centre.
•	Off-peak times, the use is expected to have lesser patron numbers and the demand for this use can be comfortably accommodated across the area surveyed by Mr Furness other than for the peak (even removing the supermarket).
•	Even in the peak period, there is capacity in the morning and evenings, with the difficulties arising during the middle of the day. 
•	There is capacity in the car parking located on the periphery of the centre. This is demonstrated in the relatively low occupancy for the Mountbatten Avenue off-street car park. 
•	The use is one to which staff and patrons could be directed to these opportunities through a booking system with a condition requiring patron management plan.
•	There is a potential for the development to contribute (with Council approval) to some new car parking spaces, discussed below.
•	The centre is also walkable and there is a focus on bicycles within Bright. 
•	Both witnesses agreed that the full bicycle parking requirement should be provided. Suitable locations were identified in Mr Furness’s evidence. End of trip access is available. 
30	I also need to balance the car parking concerns with the overall range of policies and provisions of the planning scheme which otherwise support the proposed use and built form. 
31	While I find that a reduction can be supported in this case, I note that a centre-based approach is also about managing the distribution of car parking throughout the centre. It is an approach that Council already applies in this centre providing a balance between on street and off street car parking facilities throughout the centre, with associated management strategies.
32	I agree with the evidence of Ms Garretty that patrons would seek to park close to the site. The review site does not benefit from good access to on-street parking. Immediately abutting the site in Howitt Lane is a disabled bay (2P) plus three, 15 min spaces which may possibly be to service the visitor information centre opposite. There is a loading zone on the other side of Howitt Lane. There are three 2P car spaces along the site’s frontage to Gavan Street and no formal spaces to the rear. The off-street car parks along the river would also serve the visitors to the open space as well as town centre and had high utilisation in the surveys.
33	There is a car park next door on the medical centre site, but this is private car parking. Only a few of these spaces are nominated as for the medical centre, the remaining appearing publicly available. I consider that there is a real possibility that people park in the car spaces allocated to these businesses (such as the medical centre car park and in an opportunistic manner). This would be a matter to be addressed through appropriate signage and/or line marking.  
34	The proposal will place a disproportionate burden on the publicly available car parking proximate to the site. As discussed at the hearing there is an opportunity for this development to contribute to the overall car parking within the centre through the provision of formal spaces at the rear of the site. The applicant tabled a sketch plan of this option. The opportunity to provide an additional space in Howitt Lane in the location of the current cross over was also discussed. The applicant was happy to provide these spaces with the agreement of Council. Each of these solutions presented design difficulties. These would not be insurmountable and could be considered in a public realm improvement plan subject to Council consent. 
PUBLIC REALM integration
35	As this proposal relies on access to the broader public car parking supply, it is important that pedestrian access to the building is facilitated. Both traffic engineers supported consideration of pedestrian movement. There are presently no footpaths provided along Howitt Lane or the rear of the site. The footpath on Howitt Lane is located on the opposite side.
36	The proposal seeks to provide a raised publicly accessible walkway along the side of the building that would serve as a link from the rear to the front of the site along Howitt Lane. Access to this walkway from Howitt Lane is constrained due to the level difference between the ground level within the public realm and the walkway which can be seen in Figure 8. This would require a balustrade to the northern end of the walkway. Stairs are also proposed to the rear.
37	At the hearing the applicant submitted that it would be possible to ramp the walkway to the rear to improve accessibility. It would also be possible (subject to Council support) to provide pedestrian links across the nature strip to the rear and to Howitt Lane. I find that there would be benefit in exploring improved integration with the public realm given the reliance on off-site car parking. I have required a public realm improvement plan as a condition of permit which allows this to be pursued with the Council, together with the location of suitable visitor bicycle parking and the potential provision of additional on-street parking in the locations discussed above. 
38	I have also required a landscape plan to provide further detail of the proposed planters/ water features shown on the plans.
Figure 8 Raised walkway along Howitt Lane side.
Tree protection
39	The proposal is to remove all vegetation on the review site. The land also abuts street trees within each of the road frontages. Council’s grounds of refusal included concerns about protection of these street trees. On the amended plans at the hearing, Council was satisfied that conditions could address the protection of the street trees.
Are the loading facilities acceptable?
40	The applicant submits that the loading facility at the rear of the site will accommodate a small-ridged vehicle (‘SRV’) subject to design changes set out in the evidence of Mr Furness. The applicant submits that this will be suitable for most of the deliveries to and from the premises. To the extent that a larger vehicle may be required from time to time, the applicant says that this will be infrequent and can be accommodated within the existing on-street loading bay opposite the site in Howitt Lane. 
41	Ms Garretty based her evidence on a medium ridged vehicle and demonstrated that this cannot be accommodated within the loading bay. Council submits that the use would require a larger vehicle.
42	I am satisfied that it is acceptable to accommodate an SRV on the review site subject to conditions. I note that there is also an on-street loading bay provided opposite the site in Howitt Lane.
43	It was not clear how waste was to be managed. The officer report assessed the application on private contractor, while the evidence of Mr Furness says council collection is suitable. A waste management plan is required as a condition of permit which can resolve this matter. 
What conditions are appropriate?
44	In determining the conditions of permit, I have had regard to the draft conditions prepared by Council and discussed at the hearing, the submissions and evidence before me and my reasons set out above.
45	I have included a series of operational conditions including the patron limit and hours of operation. I have included a general amenity condition and given the roof top sky bathing areas I have included a condition requiring any music to be managed as part of the operation management plan.
46	The conditions of the fire authority are included.
47	The applicant requested a three year commencement and five year expiry which was not contested by the Council at the hearing
Conclusion
48	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Megan Carew
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	P.2023.148	
Land	117 Gavan Street
BRIGHT VIC 3741	
the permit allows:
Planning scheme clause	Matter for which the permit has been granted	

Clause 34.01-1
	To use of the land for a leisure and recreation facility.	
Clause 34.01-4	To construct a building or construct or carry out works.	
Clause 44.-06-2	To construct a building or construct or carry out works.	
In accordance with the endorsed plans.
Compliance with documents approved under this permit
1	At all times what the permit allows must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of any document approved under this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Approved and endorsed plans – changes required 
2	Before the development starts, plans must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, be drawn to scale with dimensions, submitted in electronic form and be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Chamberlain Architects (known as Revision 2 and dated 10 September 2024) but modified to show:
(a)	Bicycle parking to be provided in accordance with Clause 52.34 of the Alpine Planning Scheme and designed in accordance with AS2890.3-2015.
(b)	The elevated walkway along the Howitt Lane side of the building to be provided with a ramp rather than stairs.
(c)	Design detail of any balustrade or safety treatment to the elevated walkway along the Howitt Lane side of the building.
(d)	Details of any public realm works in accordance with the Public Realm Improvement Plan in accordance with Condition 4
(e)	A landscape plan that provides details of the planting for and dimensions of the proposed planters and any water features.
(f)	Garage and accessway to be redesigned to accord with the requirements of AS2809.2-2018 for a Small Rigid Vehicle with changes generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Chamberlain Architecture & Interiors, Rev 3, dated 11th October 2024). 
(g)	A Bushfire Management Plan in accordance with Condition 9.
(h)	A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 20.
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Layout not altered
3	The layout of the subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan must not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any statute, statutory rule or Local Law, or for any other reason) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 
Public realm improvement plan
4	Before the development starts (other than demolition, works to remediate contaminated land and excavation), a Public Realm Improvement Plan is to be prepared and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Public Realm Improvement Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Plan must show: 
(a)	Treatment of the public realm within Howitt Lane, Riverside Avenue and Gavan Street.
(b)	Location of visitor bicycle parking.
(c)	Details of pedestrian connections from Howitt Street and Riverside Drive to the use.
(d)	Details of any formalisation of new on-street car parking spaces abutting the site’s street fronatges to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
All works shown in the approved Public Realm Improvement Plan must be carried out to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Patron Numbers
5	There must be no more than 120 patrons on the land at any one time to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Hours of operation
6	The use may only operate between the hours of 8.00am-10.00pm daily to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
7	The ancillary cafe must be closed if only the roof area (sky bathing) is operational.
Operation Management Plan 
8	Before the use commences, an operation management plan must be prepared and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Operation Management Plan (OMP) will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The OMP must show: 
(a)	Details of a booking system that considers staggered facility access times to encourage turnover of car parking. 
(b)	Details of measures that direct patrons and staff to car parking available on the periphery of the activity centre during peak times and encourage use of these spaces.
(c)	Details of how the roof top sky bathing areas will be managed.
(d)	Details of management of amplified music including to the roof top sky bathing areas.
The use must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the approved and endorsed operation management plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
General Amenity
9	The use and development hereby permitted must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the:
(a)	transport of materials, good or commodities to or from the land;
(b)	appearance of any building, works or materials;
(c)	emissions of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;
(d)	presence of vermin.
Mandatory Bushfire Management Overlay Condition
10	The bushfire protection measures forming part of this permit or shown on the endorsed plans, including those relating to construction standards, defendable space, water supply and access, must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority on a continuing basis. This condition continues to have force and effect after the development authorised by this permit has been completed.
Fire authority conditions
Endorsement of Bushfire Management Plan
11	Before the development starts, the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Baxter Ecology & Associates, Version 2, dated 16th February 2024 must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed the plan must not be altered unless agreed to in writing by CFA and the Responsible Authority. 
Bushfire Emergency Plan
12	Before the development is occupied or the use commences, a bushfire emergency plan (BEP) must be prepared. The BEP must clearly describe the emergency management arrangements that will be implemented to reduce the risk of bushfire and should address the following matters:
(a)	Describe property and business details. 
(b)	Identify the purpose of the BEP stating that the plan outlines procedures for:
i	Closure of premises on any day with a Fire Danger Rating of Catastrophic.
ii	Evacuation (evacuation from the site to a designated safer off-site location).
iii	Shelter-in-place (remaining on-site in a designated building).
(c)	Review of the BEP
i	Outline that the plan must be reviewed and updated annually prior to the commencement of the declared Fire Danger Period.
ii	Include a Version Control Table.
(d)	Roles & Responsibilities
i	Detail the staff responsibilities for implementing the emergency procedures in the event of a bushfire and the triggers for acting. For example, when the facility will be closed and the circumstances under which guests and patrons will shelter in place or evacuate.  
(e)	Emergency contact details
(f)	Bushfire monitoring procedures
i	Details the use of radio, internet and social networks that will assist in monitoring potential threats during the bushfire danger period.
ii	Describe and show (include a map) the area to be monitored for potential bushfire activity.
ASC Engineering conditions
Drainage
Urban Drainage Works
13	Prior to commencement of use, all stormwater and surface water discharging from the site, buildings and works must be conveyed to the legal point of discharge by underground pipe to the satisfaction of the Alpine Shire Council. No effluent or polluted water of any type may be allowed to enter the Council's stormwater drainage system. All roof water from buildings and surface water from paved areas must be collected, as practicable and discharged to the LPOD to avoid any nuisance discharge to adjacent land.
Drainage Discharge Plan
14	Prior to commencement of construction, a properly prepared drainage discharge plan with computations must be submitted to, and approved by, Alpine Shire Council. 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 information submitted must show the details listed in Council's Infrastructure Design Manual and be designed in accordance with the requirements of that manual. The information and plan must include:
(a)	details of how the works on the land are to be drained and/or retarded.
(b)	underground pipe drains conveying stormwater to the legal point of discharge.
(c)	Measures to enhance stormwater discharge quality from the site and protect downstream waterways including the expected discharge quality emanating from the development and design calculation summaries of the treatment elements.
Prior to commencement of use, all works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with the drainage discharge plans to the satisfaction of Alpine Shire Council.
Construction Phase
Defect identification - Council's Assets
15	Prior to commencement of construction, the owner or developer must submit to the Alpine Shire Council a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. As applicable, listed in the report must be the condition of kerb and channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to Alpine Shire Council's assets/public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit. 
Construction Management Plan
16	Prior to commencement of construction, a construction management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Alpine Shire Council. The plan must outline how issues such as mud on roads, dust generation and erosion and sediment control will be managed, on site, during the construction phase. Details of a contact person/site manger must also be provided, so that this person can be easily contacted should any issues arise.  
Street Trees
Street Tree Protection during Construction
17	Before the development starts, tree protection zone fencing must be erected around the existing street trees from the base of the trunk to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. The fences must be constructed of (star pickets and chain mesh or similar) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The tree protection fencing must remain in place until construction is completed. The tree protection zone fencing is to be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970.
18	No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within any Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the responsible authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within any Tree Protection Zone.
19	No excavation is allowed within the drip line of any existing street tree unless otherwise approved by the responsible authority. This permit does not authorise the applicant to remove, trim or otherwise damage street trees within the vicinity of works. Should a tree be damaged, all replacement or arborist’s costs shall be borne by the applicant.
20	Any pruning that is required to be done to the canopy and/or root system of any street tree is to be done by a qualified arborist to Australian Standard – Pruning of Amenity Trees AS4373-1996.
21	The existing street tree(s) must not be removed or damaged.
Vehicle Crossings
Urban Vehicle Crossing Requirements
22	Prior to commencement of use, vehicular crossings shall be constructed in accordance with the endorsed plan(s) to the satisfaction of the Alpine Shire Council, and shall comply with the following:
(a)	standard vehicular crossings shall be constructed at right angles to the road to suit the proposed driveways, and any existing redundant crossing shall be removed and replaced with concrete kerb and channel to match into the surrounding profile. The vehicle crossing must be constructed of plain grey concrete.
(b)	Any proposed vehicular crossing shall have satisfactory clearance to any side-entry pit, power or Telecommunications pole, manhole cover or marker, or street tree.  Any relocation, alteration or replacement required shall be in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Authority and shall be at the applicant's expense.
(c)	crossings shall be constructed of concrete and be generally in accordance with IDM drawing SD240.
Waste Management Plan 
23	Before the development starts, a waste management plan must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The waste management plan must:
(a)	be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority 
(b)	be submitted in electronic form 
(c)	include the following:
i	anticipated volumes of waste and recycling that will be generated and how they are determined.
ii	the type and number of waste bins.
iii	the type and size of trucks required for waste collection.
iv	a plan detailing adequate areas for waste bin storage and collection for the required type and number of bins.
v	frequency of waste collection.
vi	hours for waste collection.
The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary these requirements.
Waste management and collection
24	Waste management and collection must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the approved and endorsed waste management plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Expiry
25	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:  
(a)	If the development is not started within three years of the issued date of this permit.
(b)	If the development is not completed within five years of the issued date of this permit.
(c)	The use does not start within two years of completion of the development.
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 –