VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST	VCAT REFERENCE NO. P1491/2023 PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 329/2023/06P	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Review the refusal to grant a permit; Nillumbik Planning Scheme; Low Density Residential Zone; Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1; Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 & Schedule 7; Extension of a veterinary centre, increase in practitioners, use part of site as a car park, and removal of vegetation; Size of veterinary centre; Impact on Eltham Gateway; Visual impact; Landscaping; Dwelling amenity.	

APPLICANT	Tasprop Pty Ltd	
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY	Nillumbik Shire Council	
RESPONDENT	Eltham Community Action Group Inc.	
SUBJECT LAND	644 Main Road & 6 Mount Pleasant Road ELTHAM VIC 3095	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	15, 16, 17 & 29 May 2024	
DATE OF ORDER	16 April 2025	
CITATION	Tasprop Pty Ltd v Nillumbik SC [2025] VCAT 310	

ORDER
Permit application amended
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:	Michael Angus Architecture	
Drawing references:		
•	TP01 & TP04, Issue D ‘VCAT Issue’, dated 19 February 2024;	
•	TP02, TP03, TP05–TP13, Issue E ‘Revised VCAT Issue’, dated 27 March 2024.	

2	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the permit application is amended by adding the following permit requirements:
•	Use as a car park in conjunction with another use in section 2 of clause 32.03-1 (veterinary centre) in the Low Density Residential Zone.
•	Carry out works associated with accommodation (a dwelling) in the Bushfire Management Overlay.
Permit granted
3	In application P1491/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
4	In planning permit application 329/2023/06P a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 644 Main Road and 6 Mount Pleasant Road, Eltham VIC 3095, 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 32.03-1	Use as a veterinary centre in the Low Density Residential Zone.	
Clause 32.03-1	Use as a car park in conjunction with another use in section 2 of clause 32.03-1 (veterinary centre) in the Low Density Residential Zone.	
Clause 32.03-4	Construct a building and construct or carry out works associated with a use in section 2 of clause 32.03-1 (veterinary centre and car park) in the Low Density Residential Zone.	
Clause 42.03-2	Construct a building and construct or carry out works in the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2.	
Clause 42.03-2	Construct a building and construct or carry out works (buildings and works within 5 metres from the base of a ‘substantial tree’) in the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 7.	
Clause 42.03-2	Remove, destroy or lop vegetation (a ‘substantial tree’) specified in the schedule to the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 7.	
Clause 44.06-2	Carry out works associated with accommodation (a dwelling) in the Bushfire Management Overlay.	

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Andrew Natoli, lawyer, Equipe Lawyers Pty Ltd.
He called the following witnesses:
•	Dr Steve Pryor, Director, Tasprop Pty Ltd
•	John Glossop, town planner, Glossop Town Planning
•	Rob Galbraith, arborist, Galbraith & Associates
•	Matthew McFall, landscape architect, MemLa Pty Ltd.	
For responsible authority	Gareth Gale, town planning advocate, Gareth Gale Consulting Pty Ltd.	
For respondent	Carlotta Quinlan, Eltham Community Action Group Inc.	

Information
Description of proposal	Buildings and works to extend an existing veterinary centre, increase the number of practitioners, use part of the site as a car park, and remove vegetation.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the refusal to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Nillumbik Planning Scheme.	
Zone and overlays	Low Density Residential Zone (‘LDRZ’); Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (‘SLO2’); Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 7 (‘SLO7’); Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (‘DDO1’); Bushfire Management Overlay (‘BMO’); Designated Bushfire Prone Area.	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.03-1: Use as a veterinary centre in the LDRZ.
Clause 32.03-1: Use as a car park in conjunction with another use in section 2 of clause 32.03-1 (veterinary centre) in the LDRZ.
Clause 32.03-4: Construct a building and construct or carry out works associated with a use in section 2 of clause 32.03-1 (veterinary centre and car park) in the LDRZ.
Clause 42.03-2: Construct a building and construct or carry out works in the SLO2.
Clause 42.03-2: Construct a building and construct or carry out works (buildings and works within 5 metres from the base of a ‘substantial tree’) in the SLO7.
Clause 42.03-2: Remove, destroy or lop vegetation (a ‘substantial tree’) specified in the schedule to the SLO7.
Clause 44.06-2: Carry out works associated with accommodation (a dwelling) in the BMO.	

Land description	The site is located to the southeast of the intersection of Main Road and Mount Pleasant Road, Eltham. It consists of two lots – 644 Main Road (the western lot) and 6 Mount Pleasant Road (the eastern lot). The site’s frontage is to the Main Road service road.
The site has a combined frontage of 60.43 metres, and a depth of between 41.04 metres and 50.29 metres. It is about 2,983 square metres in area. The land rises about 9 metres from the front to the rear.
The lot at 644 Main Road is occupied by a single storey building towards the front of the lot.  It is used as a veterinary centre.  A car park is located immediately to the rear of this building. A single storey house is to the rear of the car park.  Due to the slope of the land, the existing veterinary centre, car park, and house are each at different terraced levels of the land.  The existing veterinary centre is at the lowest level, the car park on the middle level, and the house on the upper level.
There is a planning permit to use the existing house on 644 Main Road as a cattery and caretaker’s house.  At the time of the hearing, the cattery and caretaker’s house had not been established, other than the construction of its associated car park on the adjoining lot at 6 Mount Pleasant Road.
The lot at 6 Mount Pleasant Road has a house on the front part of it and the car parking area to the rear associated with the cattery and caretaker’s house.
The surrounding area to the south and east is an established low density residential area.  The properties that adjoin the western and southern (rear) boundaries of the site are each developed with a house.  The land that adjoins the eastern boundary of the site is vacant. The land on the opposite corner of Main Road and Mount Pleasant Road is developed with a service station. 	
	The land on the western side of Main Road is a public reserve, Wingrove Park, which extends along the Diamond Creek.  The Eltham Major Activity Centre and train station are about 1.2 kilometres to the north, along Main Road.
The site’s location and surrounding context is shown at Figure 1.	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied inspection of the site and surrounding area was undertaken after the hearing.	

Figure 1: Site & surrounding context

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Tasprop Pty Ltd (‘applicant’) is seeking a planning permit to extend the existing veterinary centre on the land at 644 Main Road and 6 Mount Pleasant Road, Eltham (‘site’).
2	The ‘proposal’ includes, in summary:
•	increasing the number of veterinary practitioners from two to four;
•	alterations to the existing veterinary centre building on the site;
•	construction of an extension to the rear of the existing veterinary centre building, built over the existing car park;
•	removal of the existing house at 6 Mount Pleasant Road;
•	construction of a new driveway along the eastern side of the site;
•	construction of two car parking areas, one to the east of the veterinary centre (‘lower car park’) and one to the east of the existing house at 644 Main Road (‘upper car park’), accessed from the new driveway; and
•	areas of cut and fill on the site to facilitate the development.
3	The Nillumbik Shire Council (‘Council’) refused to grant a permit for the proposal. Its grounds for refusal relate to, in summary:
•	the scale of the use and development;
•	unsatisfactory landscape outcomes, including insufficient space for planting canopy trees and other landscaping;
•	dominance of the car parks; and
•	the application does not include the use of the land at 6 Mount Pleasant Road as a veterinary centre, which requires a permit in the Low Density Residential Zone (‘LDRZ’).
4	The applicant has sought this review of the Council’s decision. Its grounds for review refute the grounds for refusal.
5	The Eltham Community Action Group Inc (‘ECAG Inc’) objected to the permit application and are the respondent in this application for review. It opposes the proposal on grounds relating to scale of the use, built form and development, the dominance of the building and carparking, removal of trees, unsatisfactory landscaping outcomes including insufficient space for canopy trees and other landscaping, and the access to the road network.
6	Statements of Grounds opposing the application have been received from two other people who objected to the permit application but who are not parties to this proceeding. Their statements raise concerns relating to the visual impact of the proposal, the impact in the location of the Eltham Gateway, the demolition of the existing dwelling on 6 Mount Pleasant Road, and the potential for pollution from noise and light. Although they are not parties to this proceeding I have had regard to these statements.
7	The applicant relies on amendments to the permit application and plans of the proposal. The amendments include:
•	changing the description of the permit application to include use of 6 Mount Pleasant Road as a veterinary centre;
•	retaining the existing house on 644 Main Road as a dwelling (rather than using it as a cattery); 
•	deleting six car parking spaces from the lower car park; and
•	reallocating five car parking spaces in the upper car park that were designated for the cattery, to be used by the veterinary centre.
8	The layout of the amended proposal on the site is shown at Figure 2, below.

Figure 2: Proposed site layout
9	The orders made above amend the permit application to change the description of the application and substitute the amended plans for the permit application plans. This decision is based on the amended permit application.
10	The applicant submits the amended proposal represents an acceptable planning outcome and will deliver a net community benefit. It submits that, in summary:
•	The proposed development will support the continued operation of a long-established business that has provided important veterinary services to the local Eltham community.
•	The site provides ample space to accommodate a modest extension to the practice in a manner that will improve its contribution to the landscape character of this location.
•	The proposed development is consistent with planning policy relevant to this location.
•	The scale and intensity of the proposed development is entirely appropriate to its Main Road context and location.
•	The design and scale of the proposed development is consistent with residential built forms on surrounding sites.
•	The proposed development has been designed to successfully retain significant vegetation and incorporates comprehensive landscaping.
•	The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties.
11	In support of its application, the applicant relies on the expert evidence of John Glossop, a town planner, Rob Galbraith, an arborist, Matthew McFall, a landscape architect, and Christopher Goss, who has prepared photomontages of the proposed development. The applicant also relies on the evidence of Dr Steve Pryor, a Director of the company and senior partner of the veterinary centre.
12	Despite the amendments to the proposal, the Council and the respondent maintain that a permit should be refused. However, the Council no longer relies on its ground of refusal relating to the application not including the use of 6 Mount Pleasant Road as a veterinary centre.
13	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. In doing so I must consider whether the proposal will produce ‘acceptable outcomes’, rather than optimal or preferable outcomes, in relation to the relevant provisions and policies of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme (‘Scheme’). 
What are the key issues to be decided?
14	The key issues to be decided are:
•	Is the proposed scale of the veterinary centre use acceptable in this location?
•	Is the visual impact of the proposed building and car park on 644 Main Road acceptable in the Etham Gateway context?
•	Is the visual impact of the proposed car parks on 6 Mount Pleasant Road acceptable?
•	Is the proposed landscaping acceptable?
•	Will the amenity of the existing house that is to be retained be acceptable?
What has the Tribunal decided?
15	In summary, I find that the expansion of the veterinary centre is supported by the Scheme, that the visual impact of the proposed building and car parks is acceptable, and that the proposed landscaping is acceptable. In this regard I am satisfied that the proposal provides an acceptable response to the provisions of the Low Density Residential Zone, Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2, Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 7, Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1, and relevant planning policies.
16	I have also found that, subject to some minor changes to the plans, the proposal provides acceptable amenity for the existing house that is to be retained. I am satisfied that these changes can be addressed by permit conditions that require amendments to the plans.
17	I therefore find that a permit should be granted, subject to conditions. My detailed reasons follow.
What is the relevant planning context?
18	The Council’s grounds for refusal rely on the LDRZ at clause 32.03, the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedules 2 (‘SLO2’) and 7 (‘SLO7’) at clause 42.03, the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (‘DDO1’) at clause 43.02, the strategic directions at clause 2.03, and the local ‘Land use and development in the Eltham gateway’ policy at clause 11.01-1L-02 of the Scheme.
19	While both lots at 644 Main Road and 6 Mount Pleasant Road are zoned LDRZ, different overlays apply to each lot under the Scheme. Due to the differences in how each lot is to be used and developed and the overlays that apply to each lot, different permit requirements, provisions and policies apply to each lot.
Low Density Residential Zones
20	The purpose of the LDRZ is:
To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
To provide for low-density residential development on lots which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater.
21	Under the LDRZ, a permit is required to:
•	use land in the LDRZ as a ‘veterinary centre’;
•	use of land in the LDRZ as a ‘car park’; 
•	construct a building and construct and carry out works for these uses.
22	As relevant to this application, the decision guidelines at clause 32.03-6 of the LDRZ require consideration of the Municipal Planning Strategy (‘MPS’) and Planning Policy Framework (‘PPF’).
Overlays
Significant Landscape Overlay
23	While both lots are affected by a SLO, different SLO schedules apply to each lot. The SLO2 schedule ‘Bush and Semi-Bush Residential Areas’ applies to 6 Mount Pleasant Road. The SLO7 schedule ‘Eltham Gateway’ applies to 644 Main Road.
24	Both SLO schedules contain a ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’ and ‘Landscape character objectives to be achieved’ that are specific to the areas that they apply to. They also include different requirements for a planning permit for buildings and works, and for the removal of vegetation.
25	Under the SLO2 a permit is required to construct the works associated with the new driveway and car parks.
26	Under the SLO7, a permit is required to:
•	remove trees that are ‘substantial trees’ under the SLO7 schedule; and
•	construct buildings and works within 5 metres of trees that are ‘substantial trees’ under the SLO7 schedule.
27	Many of the trees on 644 Main Road are substantial trees under the SLO7 provisions. Although seven substantial trees are proposed to be removed from this lot, for reasons I outline later, the only substantial tree that requires a permit for its removal is tree 21.
28	Buildings and works are also proposed within 5 metres of five of the substantial trees on this lot. These are trees 12, 18 and 18A, along the western side boundary of the site, and trees 22 and 23, immediately to the east of the existing veterinary centre and to the north-east of the proposed extension.
Design and Development Overlay
29	The lot at 644 Main Road is affected by the DDO1 schedule, which applies to the ‘Eltham Gateway’. The Eltham Gateway, as delineated by the DDO1, applies to properties along Main Road between Fitzsimons Lane (about 1 kilometre to the south of the site) and the southern edge of the Eltham Major Activity Centre (‘Eltham MAC’) (about 1.25 kilometres to the north of the site).
30	The DDO1 sets out extensive design guidelines and built form outcomes sought for the Eltham Gateway area. The ‘design objectives’ at clause 1.0 of the DDO1 schedule are extensive but generally seek to protect the vegetated character of the Eltham Gateway area and ensure buildings do not visually dominate the landscape or interrupt view lines.
31	Under the DDO1, a planning permit is required to construct a building and construct or carry out works. This includes a building proposed to be externally altered by structural work, painting, plastering, sand blasting or in any other way. All of the buildings and works at 644 Main Road therefore need a permit, including the changes to the existing veterinary centre and the existing house to be retained.
32	The buildings and works provisions at clause 2.0 of the DDO1 schedule state that:
Buildings and works are considered to meet the design objectives if they are consistent with the design guidelines specified in the table to this schedule. An application that varies from the design guidelines must demonstrate how the design continues to meet the design objectives and built form outcomes.
33	The table to the DDO1 schedule includes ‘design guidelines’ and corresponding ‘built form outcomes’ for a range of matters. As relevant to the key issues these include building appearance, setbacks, siting, landscaping and fencing, vehicle access and parking.
34	The decision guidelines at clause 6.0 of the DDO1 schedule require consideration of:
•	The design objectives, guidelines and built form outcomes of this schedule.
•	Whether the proposal achieves the design objectives and built form outcomes of this schedule.
•	The objectives and design guidelines and directions of the Eltham Gateway Design Guidelines 2013.
35	The Eltham Gateway Design Guidelines 2013 have informed the content of the DDO1.
Bushfire Management Overlay
36	The Bushfire Management Overlay (‘BMO’) applies to both lots. Under the BMO provisions at clause 44.06, a permit is not required for buildings and works associated with the veterinary centre. However, a permit is required under clause 44.06-2 for the buildings and works in the car parking area to the east of the house that is to be retained as two of the car parking spaces in that car park are associated with this house. The key issues do not relate to the permit requirement under the BMO.
Car parking
37	Clause 52.06 of the Scheme sets out the requirements for car parking to be provided on the site for the proposed uses. Mr Glossop’s evidence is that the veterinary centre requires 15 car parking spaces, including six car parking spaces for the existing veterinary centre, and the house to be retained at 644 Main Road requires two car parking spaces.
38	Mr Glossop’s evidence includes that, as the cattery is to be retained as a house, the five car parking spaces required for the cattery are to be reallocated to the veterinary centre.
39	The amended plans provide a total of 18 car parking spaces. Sixteen of these spaces are allocated to the veterinary centre, and two car parking spaces are allocated to the house. As such, the veterinary centre will have one more car parking space than is required under the Scheme.
Decision guidelines.
40	Clause 65 requires the decision maker to consider whether the proposal will produce ‘acceptable outcomes’ in terms of the decision guidelines of this clause. These decision guidelines include, among other things, the MPS and the PPF, the purpose of and any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision, the orderly planning of the area, and the effect on the amenity of the area. 
Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework
41	The decision guidelines of the LDRZ and the overlays, require me to consider the MPS and the PPF.
42	The parties’ submissions and evidence refer to various strategies and policies under the MPS and the PPF.
43	The MPS includes strategic directions at clause 02.03 for settlement, environmental and landscape values, built environment, and economic development, among others.
44	Under the settlement strategy at clause 02.03-1 and the Strategic Framework Plan at clause 02.04-1, Eltham is identified as a Major Activity Centre.
45	As I have mentioned, the DDO1 applies to the Eltham Gateway. The strategic directions for ‘settlement’ at clause 02.03-1 include the following regarding the Eltham Gateway:
The Eltham Gateway is a precinct with cultural and landscape significance to the local community and forms the entrance to the Eltham Major Activity Centre.
The Gateway provides services for the local community with a mix of residential, small-scale office and community uses, transitioning to more predominantly residential uses south of Mount Pleasant Road.
The Gateway contains a range of historic buildings that influence the architecture of the area. Its topography allows significant vegetated views from Main Road towards the Diamond Valley. Its high levels of indigenous vegetation, which often substantially screen built form from public view, and its modest scale of development, particularly along Main Road, provides a transition from the urbanity of the suburbs to the semi-rural character of Eltham.
Council seeks to:
•	Protect and enhance the cultural and landscape significance of the Eltham Gateway.
46	Clause 11.01-1L-02 of the PPF is a local policy regarding ‘land use and development in the Eltham Gateway’ (‘Eltham Gateway policy’). The objective is ‘To support low scale use and development that reinforces the cultural significance of the Eltham Gateway.’ This objective is supported by a range of strategies and policies guidelines. 
47	The built environment policies at clause 15 include a ranges of policies regarding urban design, building design and neighbourhood character. Under the local ‘Neighbourhood character – Nillumbik’ policy (‘local character policy’) at clause 15.01-5L the site is in a ‘Semi Bush precinct’. The policy objectives for the Semi Bush precincts are:
To maintain the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy.
To maintain the precinct’s rolling and hilly topography and its bushy vegetation character with significant indigenous or native canopy trees.
48	Under the provisions relating to the operation of the PPF at clause 71.02, the decision maker must endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
Summary
49	My findings and decision are based on the relevant Scheme provisions as they apply to each lot and as they apply to the buildings, works and/or tree removal that require a permit under those provisions.
50	I refer to relevant purposes, provisions, objectives, strategies and policies of the zone, overlays, MPS and PPF in my findings.
Procedural issues and rulings
Use of 6 Mount Pleasant Road as a car park for the veterinary centre
51	The proposal includes two car parking areas on 6 Mount Pleasant Road that are to be used in conjunction with the veterinary centre and house to be retained on 644 Main Road.
52	Mr Glossop’s evidence includes that:
…‘Car park’ is listed as a Section 2 use with an associated condition ‘Must be used in conjunction with another use in Section 1 or 2’. In this matter, the proposed car park is ancillary to the Veterinary centre it is not an independent use. 
53	His evidence also includes that:
… as a result of changes made under [the amendment to the permit application], the application should be amended to include approval for the development of Car park, as follows:
Use and development for a veterinary centre and associated car park, buildings and works to extend the existing veterinary centre building, increase in the number of practitioners, and removal of vegetation. 
[My emphasis]
54	This has been addressed in the orders made above.
55	At the hearing, a draft permit condition requiring an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) that requires the car parking at 6 Mount Pleasant Road must be maintained for the exclusive use of the veterinary centre and house at 644 Main Road was discussed. After the hearing I required the applicant to circulate a revised draft of this proposed condition and any comments on this from the Council. The applicant circulated an alternative condition that had been agreed with the Council. The alternative permit condition requires the two lots at 644 Main Road and 6 Mount Pleasant Road to be consolidated.
56	I am satisfied that the proposal for the two lots to be consolidated is an appropriate way to manage the ongoing use of the car park on 6 Mount Pleasant Road in conjunction with the veterinary centre, and that this is an acceptable and orderly planning outcome.
Tree removal
57	A number of trees are to be removed from the site as part of the proposal. These include a tree at the front boundary of 644 Main Road, trees that are in front of the existing house that is to be retained on this lot, trees along the eastern side boundary of 6 Mount Pleasant Road, and trees on this lot that are in the location of the proposed car parks.
58	Mr Glossop’s evidence includes that:
In terms of the permit triggers under the SLO for vegetation removal from the review site, it must be considered in the context of Clause 52.12 which applies exemptions. Clause 52.12 exempts the removal of any vegetation within 10 metres of the existing dwelling and the removal of any vegetation except trees within 50 metres of the existing dwelling and the removal of vegetation within 4 metres along a boundary between properties of different ownership. This exemption applies to many of the trees to be removed from the review site. The arborist evidence prepared by Mr Galbraith indicates only one tree (Tree 21) requires a permit to remove under SLO7 after considering the Clause 52.12 exemptions. 
59	Mr Galbraith’s evidence statement includes that ‘after taking account of the exemptions of the [BMO], only one of the trees proposed to be removed requires a permit, namely Tree 21’. However, the Council’s written submission includes that two trees need a permit for removal – tree 21 and tree 24. 
60	At the hearing the applicant provided a table (‘tree summary table’) summarising the trees to be retained and removed, the permit requirements that apply to these trees under the SLO, and the exemptions from requiring a permit for removal under the bushfire protection exemptions at clause 52.12. The tree summary table indicates that tree 21 is the only tree that requires a permit for its removal that is not exempt from requiring a permit under clause 52.12. In giving his oral evidence, Mr Galbraith agreed this table is correct with the exception of the information regarding tree 9A, which is incorrectly annotated as not being a ‘substantial tree’. Tree 9A, however, is not proposed to be removed.
61	In relation to tree 24, the tree summary table indicates that its removal is exempt under the provisions of clause 52.12 in relation to its proximity to the existing house on 6 Mount Pleasant Road. I am persuaded by Mr Galbraith’s evidence in this regard.
62	I am persuaded by Mr Galbraith’s evidence and the applicant that tree 21 is the only tree that requires a permit for its removal. Tree 21 is a Yellow Gum tree that is located in front of the existing veterinary centre. A permit is required for its removal under the SLO7.
63	There was some discussion about whether tree 21 is within the title boundaries of the site, or in the road reserve in front of the site. The amended application plans show this tree to be outside the front boundary of 644 Main Road. In his oral evidence Mr Galbraith stated that this tree is only about 1.2 metres from the front wall of the existing veterinary centre building and is well within the site. Mr Galbraith advised that he had measured the distance several days before the hearing. I am persuaded by Mr Galbraith’s evidence in this regard.
64	I outline my findings on the acceptability of the tree removal later in these reasons.
Landscape evidence and landscape concept plan
65	Mr McFall prepared an evidence statement and landscape concept plan for the proposal. There are some discrepancies with Mr McFall’s evidence and landscape concept plan. During Mr McFall’s evidence and cross examination, it became clear that the plan on which Mr McFall’s landscape concept plan is based is a different version to the amended plans that have been substituted for the permit application plans. The most obvious difference is that Mr McFall’s landscape plan includes an external set of steps and access paths adjacent to the north-eastern corner of the proposed veterinary centre extension that are not on the amended plans.
66	Despite this, I am satisfied that the extent to which there are differences in the plans does not justify me giving little or no weight to Mr McFall’s evidence or his landscape concept plan. Rather, I am satisfied that the landscape concept plan shows the areas of the site available for landscaping consistent with the amended plans, and that the landscape concept plan refers to the levels of the ground and proposed buildings and works consistent with the amended plans.
67	I am satisfied that the differences in the details between the plans can be resolved through permit conditions that require amendments to the plans to reconcile any inconsistencies.
Is the proposed scale of the veterinary centre use acceptable in this location?
What is the issue?
68	The existing veterinary centre is permitted to have a maximum of two practitioners. It is proposed to increase the number of practitioners to four.
69	The plans of the existing veterinary centre endorsed under the existing permit are shown at Figure 3. The layout of the existing veterinary centre is to be reconfigured as shown in Figure 4. The proposed extension to the existing veterinary centre is to be constructed on the middle terraced level between the existing veterinary centre and house on 644 Main Road. The Council refers to the proposed building as a ‘first floor’ extension. The two parts of the veterinary centre are to be joined by a lift and stairs at the rear of the existing building. The proposed layout of the extension is shown at Figure 5.
70	The key changes proposed to the size of the veterinary centre are the addition of two consulting rooms (resulting in a total of four), a pathology lab, pharmacy, grooming room, and second waiting area.

Figure 3: Existing veterinary centre floor plan

Figure 4: Proposed veterinary centre floor plan – Existing building

Figure 5: Proposed veterinary centre floor plan – Proposed extension

71	The Council takes issue with the proposal to expand the existing veterinary centre in the LDRZ and the Eltham Gateway.
72	Among other things and in summary the Council submits that:
•	The key purpose of the LDRZ is to provide for residential development at a low scale.
•	The absence of a purpose in the LDRZ to accommodate a variety of uses relative to other zones suggests there is less encouragement for non-residential uses within the LDRZ.
•	A veterinary centre is not listed within ‘section 1 – permit not required’, under clause 32.03-1 of the LDRZ, so there is no express support for this use.
•	The proposal removes a dwelling from the LDRZ and replaces it with a car park, which appears to directly contradict the purpose of the zone.
•	The proposal is for a medium to large scale veterinary centre which has outgrown its location. Its expansion will undermine the core values of the LDRZ, the overlays, and the area in general.
•	Under the Eltham Gateway policy at clause 11.01-1L-02, uses such as the proposal are clearly not encouraged in the area south of Mount Pleasant Road.
•	Medium and large scale commercial uses may undermine the Eltham MAC.
•	As 6 Mount Pleasant Road does not form part of the Eltham Gateway, and does not have a main road address, it is arguably more sensitive with respect to medium to large scale commercial uses.
73	The ECAG Inc similarly takes issue with the scale of the proposed commercial use. It submits that the proposal to double the number of practitioners and extensively increase the built form makes the scale of use and development unsuited to this site south of Mount Pleasant Road in the Eltham Gateway. The ECAG Inc argues that the scale of the use is greater than that required by a local community clinic.
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
74	The LDRZ purpose seeks to provide for low-density residential development. Even though the zone purpose does not include a purpose relating to non-residential uses and developments, the zone provisions at clause 32.03-1 provide for a permit to be sought for a veterinary centre.
75	I do not interpret the fact that the LDRZ does not list a veterinary centre within ‘section 1 – permit not required’ as there being no express support for this use. The suggestion that a use not being listed in the ‘section 1 – permit not required’ uses in a zone is akin to there being less encouragement for or no support for such use is misguided. The provisions relating to the operation of the zones at clause 71.03 include the following about making decisions about section 2 uses:
Because a use is in Section 2 does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The responsible authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the Municipal Planning Strategy, the Planning Policy Framework, the purpose and decision guidelines of the zone and any of the other decision guidelines in Clause 65.
76	There is no condition under clause 32.03-1, or any other provision of the Scheme that I have been referred to, that limits the scale of or specifies requirements for a veterinary clinic in the LDRZ. The Council suggests that the 250 square metre size referenced for medical centres in section 1 at clause 32.03-1 ‘could be considered a low scale use’ and that the proposal is nearly twice that size. I am not persuaded this is relevant. To the extent that a veterinary centre may be similar to a medical centre, the 250 square metre size specified for a medical centre is the threshold above which a permit is required for that use in the LDRZ. It is not a maximum size that is permissible; nor does it provide an indicator of whether any larger size centre is or is not acceptable.
77	The decision guidelines at clause 32.03-6 of the LDRZ do not provide decision guidelines regarding the use of land.  As relevant, they only require me to consider the MPS and the PPF. The key strategy and policies to which I have been referred by the parties are the strategic directions at clause 02.03 and the Eltham Gateway policy at clause 11.01-1L-02.
78	The ‘Settlement’ strategic directions at clause 02.03-1 regarding the Eltham Gateway includes:
The Gateway provides services for the local community with a mix of residential, small-scale office and community uses, transitioning to more predominantly residential uses south of Mount Pleasant Road.
79	I am satisfied the proposal is consistent with this strategic direction. My reading of the strategic direction is that it is not intended that this area be a purely residential area. It is clear that a mix of services are anticipated in the Eltham Gateway.
80	I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence that the Eltham Gateway is an entirely appropriate location for the proposed expansion to the existing Veterinary centre and car park given its main road function and entry to the Eltham MAC. I acknowledge that the area to the south of Mount Pleasant Road is identified for ‘predominantly residential uses’. This is reinforced by the Eltham Gateway policy. The strategies under that policy include ‘Encourage residential use to be the predominant use on land south of Mount Pleasant Road’. However, I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence that this does not mean ‘only’ residential uses.
81	The Eltham Gateway policy includes policy guidelines regarding uses to be avoided ‘due to their detrimental impacts on the significance of the Eltham Gateway’. The policy does not include a veterinary centre in the list of uses to be avoided. The uses to be avoided are car washes, service stations, car parks, convenience restaurants, and 24-hour medical centres’.
82	It is notable that the proposal does not seek to introduce a new commercial use in this LDRZ and south of Mount Pleasant Road. Rather it seeks to expand an existing use that is already servicing the local community. The site is also adjacent to a mixture of other non-residential uses along Main Road, immediately to the north of Mount Pleasant Road. Mr Glossop’s evidence describes those uses as including a ‘Coles Express Service Station and Mycar Tyre and Auto, Eltham Physiotherapy, Webster Survey Group land surveyors and a hair salon…’. 
83	I acknowledge that the Eltham Gateway policy discourages uses that do not serve the needs of the local population. However, I am satisfied that the proposed expanded veterinary centre will reinforce the service it provides for the local community, consistent with this policy and the strategic direction for the Eltham Gateway. I am persuaded by Dr Pryor’s evidence that the clinic primarily serves the local community. Dr Pryor’s evidence includes that 85-90% of the client base is from the local postcode area. Even if the expanded veterinary centre increases the proportion of non-local clients, there is no basis for me to conclude that it will not continue to serve the needs of the local community.
84	The parties variously referred me to the Scheme Amendment C77 under which 644 Main Road was rezoned from the Mixed Use Zone to the LDRZ. I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence and the applicant that the Planning Panel report for Amendment C77 was cognisant of, and the amendment allowed for, the continued operation of the veterinary centre and for it to be expanded in the future. This is evident in the Panel’s discussion regarding the application of the LDRZ to properties along Main Road as follows:
The Panel also supports the application of the Low Density Residential Zone to the area that accesses Main Road via Mount Pleasant Road (including 644 Main Road) given that it would be consistent with the predominantly low density residential nature of this area and the zoning to the east. It would also limit further subdivision and higher density development that would be problematic given the visibility of the site along Main Road from the north and the poor access arrangements to Mount Pleasant Road.
In terms of the Veterinary Clinic, the Low Density Residential Zone will allow a planning permit to be sought for its expansion but it will not allow for the site to be subdivided. The Panel believes that the current clinic makes a positive contribution to the area and that the site has the potential to accommodate a larger clinic as described by Dr Braniff. However the Panel does not agree that this site (or the area) should be capable of further subdivision that would inevitably lead to higher density development.
[My emphasis]
85	The comments on the permit application provided by the Council’s own Economic Development unit support the proposal in the context of the Eltham MAC and serving the local community. These comments include:
Due to its location and scope, the proposal broadly supports the objectives for the Eltham Major Activity Centre, and in turn Objective 2 of the Economic Development Strategy 2020 – 2030 in ‘creating vibrant activity centres and employment precincts in Eltham.’
It will provide an existing business within the Shire to stay and grow, and increase its ability to provide its services locally, thus reducing opportunities for escape expenditure.
There are also a limited number of veterinary centre in the immediate vicinity, with the closest being over approximately 3km away…
86	In this context, I am not persuaded that the scale of the proposed veterinary centre will undermine the Eltham MAC.
87	I am also not persuaded that the loss of one dwelling from the site to facilitate the construction of the car parks for the veterinary clinic makes this an unacceptable outcome in the LDRZ. Although the lot at 6 Mount Pleasant Road does not form part of the Eltham Gateway, I am not persuaded this makes it more sensitive to large scale commercial uses. The lot at 6 Mount Pleasant Road is not within the more sensitive residential hinterland.  Rather, it directly adjoins the Eltham Gateway, and is adjacent to Main Road, which is a Transport Zone 2 ‘Principal road network’ and opposite the Mixed Use Zone (‘MUZ’) in which a range of commercial uses are located. I also note that as part of the permit for the cattery in the house on 644 Main Road, part of 6 Mount Pleasant Road was to be developed with a car park for that use.
88	For these reasons, I find that the proposed scale of the veterinary centre use is acceptable in this location.
Is the visual impact of the proposed building and car park on 644 Main Road acceptable in the Eltham Gateway context?
What are the issues?
89	The Council and the ECAG Inc take issue with the visual impact of the proposed extension to the veterinary centre.
90	The proposed extension is 24.5 metres wide and 6.8 metres high to the roof ridge. It will extend about 6 metres to the eastern side and 4 metres to the western side of the hipped roof form of the existing veterinary centre.
91	The Council’s urban designer comments include that:
The additional built form that will be highly visible to, and dominant in, the Eltham Gateway will be an elevated roof that is much wider than the existing roof of the existing vet clinic, and also taller. The visual impact of this overall arrangement will be much greater than what is apparent on the drawings, as the drawings do not show how much higher the site is from the Main Road Eltham level. From the road level … the apparent height of the proposed roof … will be over 12m. This apparent height above road level is comparable to a three- four storey residential building — in the Eltham Gateway where buildings are to be compatible with the prevailing one and two storey domestic buildings.
92	The Council submits that the experience of the veterinary centre and proposed extension, is provided across a very wide array of views. It says, ‘it is a dynamic view, with a near-infinite number of locations in which to be experienced – both within and outside of the [Eltham] Gateway’. The Council submits that the additional building form ‘adds to what is already a prominent building that forms an aberration in this locality’. It argues that this is an area that has a high degree of sensitivity, and it is ‘not appropriate to worsen or draw more attention to a building that has a greater visibility than would be expected by the various controls’.
93	The Council also submits the proposed extension sits directly behind the existing veterinary centre, meaning the new built form cannot be filtered by vegetation. It says that the retention of the paved area in front of the existing veterinary centre precludes the ability to bolster landscaping.
94	The Council argues that it is relevant that the existing veterinary centre predated the Eltham Gateway Design Guidelines (2013), which provides the basis for the controls in the Scheme today. The Council raises issues with the existing veterinary centre building, including its setback from the front boundary, shiny solar panels on its roof, and landscaping shown in the endorsed plan for the original permit not having been fulfilled. The Council says that the existing building is not one that could be described as blending into the vegetation. It says that the existing circumstances influence the visibility and context for the proposal.
95	The ECAG Inc raise similar concerns to that of the Council. Among other things it submits that while the wall height of the proposed building may only be that of a single storey building, combined with the steep roof and the slope of the land the effect would be far different, and far from what is encouraged. It also submits that the proposal does not use local earth tones, timber or mud brick as sought by the DDO1. The ECAG Inc argues that the proposal does not satisfy the DDO1 objectives as it does not protect and enhance the special character of the natural and built environment of the Eltham Gateway. The ECAG Inc submits that the existing car parks in front of the existing veterinary centre should be removed, and the area used for screening planting.
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
96	The key issue with the visual impact of the proposal is the impact of the proposed extension within its context as part of the Eltham Gateway. This relates to the provisions of the DDO1 and the policies relating to the Eltham Gateway. The DDO1 is focused along the eastern side of Main Road. As set out above, the strategic directions and Eltham Gateway policy include:
•	Its high levels of indigenous vegetation, which often substantially screen built form from public view, and its modest scale of development, particularly along Main Road, provides a transition from the urbanity of the suburbs to the semi-rural character of Eltham.
•	Protect and enhance the cultural and landscape significance of the Eltham Gateway.
•	To support low scale use and development that reinforces the cultural significance of the Eltham Gateway.
97	Similarly, the objectives of the local neighbourhood character policy for Semi Bush precincts include maintaining the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy.
Visual impact of the proposed building
98	There is no dispute that the existing veterinary centre is clearly visible in views from Main Road, and Wingrove Park to varying extents. I agree with the Council that the existing building influences the visibility and context for the proposed extension. Although clearly visible, from my observations the existing veterinary centre is a modest building with a backdrop of tall trees. Despite the Council’s and the ECAG Inc’s criticisms of the existing veterinary centre, this is an existing situation that establishes the appearance of the site within the Eltham Gateway context.
99	There is dispute between the parties as to whether the intention of the Eltham Gateway provisions is to maintain the ‘Eltham Gateway’ character in both directions along Main Road, or only on arrival to Eltham. I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence that the DDO1 schedule directs consideration of the ‘arrival experience’. The relevant design objective seeks ‘To ensure the Gateway provides a strong sense of arrival into Eltham’. I am satisfied this puts the emphasis on what will be seen when approaching Eltham, rather than when leaving. As the site is to the south of the Eltham MAC, it is the approach when travelling north along Main Road that is the most relevant. This is consistent with the findings in the VCAT decision Brougham Street Cohousing Pty Ltd v Nillumbik SC as follows:
An important starting point is an understanding of what DDO1, that applies to the Eltham Gateway, is seeking to protect. From our reading, it seeks to add a layer of control over properties that contribute to the sense of arrival into Eltham. As was confirmed orally by the Council at the hearing, that sense of arrival is that which occurs as one travels in a generally northerly direction along Main Road, approaching Eltham from the south. …	
[My emphasis added]
100	I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence that the existing veterinary centre building is more visible in the sense of departure from Eltham. The views to the site and existing veterinary clinic are primarily from Main Road from the north and Wingrove Park, from the north-west of the site. When arriving to Eltham, approaching from the south along Main Road, the site and existing veterinary centre are not readily visible, if at all, until very close to or passing through the intersection of Mount Pleasant Road. In the context that I am satisfied that the emphasis of the DDO1 is on the arrival to Eltham, I do not consider the views to the site and proposed building on the departure from Eltham are the ‘major view lines from public areas’ that the DDO1 objectives seek to protect from being interrupted. 
101	I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence that when inbound to Eltham the most visible marker is the service station, which is on the opposite corner of Main Road and Mount Pleasant Road, with site around the corner and up the hill. The service station is clearly visible when travelling in either direction along Main Road. I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence that as an arrival experience the site is somewhat removed from this experience. The site is set back from the main carriageway of Main Road, being about 25 metres from the edge of the southbound carriageway. The proposed building will be set back even further, being about 35 metres or more from this carriageway.
102	Even if the views to the site on departure from Eltham or from Wingrove Park are major view lines, I am not persuaded that the extent to which the proposed extension will be visible will interrupt those views.
103	The DDO1 includes design guidelines for ‘building appearance’. I am satisfied that the proposal substantially complies with these design guidelines. In the instances that the proposal does not comply with these design guidelines, I am satisfied that they continue to meet the corresponding ‘built form outcomes’ and the broader DDO1 design objectives.
104	The proposed building is mostly one storey high. The proposed building is to the rear of the existing building, on the middle terrace level above that of the existing building. This is consistent with the design guideline that requires:
On sloping sites, buildings should correspond to the natural contours of the land or use split level design.
105	While there is a two storey section of building that connects the proposed building with the existing building, this sits above the rear of the existing building. This two storey element is a short section of building with a flat roof that is set in several metres from the sides of each of the existing and proposed buildings. The photomontages prepared by Mr Goss demonstrate that this two storey section of building will be barely visible above the roof ridgeline of the existing building.
106	Although the proposed building sits at a level higher than the existing building, and is wider than the existing building, I am satisfied that most of proposed building will be hidden by the existing building when viewed from Main Road and Wingrove Park. It is the north-western plane of the roof of the proposed building that will be visible. The roof and height of the proposed building will be viewed relative to the height of the existing building and the surrounding tree canopy. The photomontages demonstrate that the roof ridge of the proposed building will sit well below the top of the surrounding tree canopy that forms a backdrop to the buildings and site.
107	There is an existing garden bed in front of the existing veterinary centre. At the time of the hearing, it featured a range of small, manicured shrubs and some small trees. One of those trees is tree 21, which is to be removed. At the hearing the Council identified that the existing permit for the veterinary centre includes an endorsed landscaping plan. That endorsed plan shows two trees, one adjacent to each of the front corners of the veterinary centre building. These trees are Red Box Eucalyptus trees, which are notated to have mature heights of 18 metres. These trees are not shown on the landscape concept plan for the proposal. The Council requests that if a permit is to be granted for the proposal, that the landscaping shown in the endorsed landscape plan for the existing veterinary centre be carried over into the new landscape plan. I am persuaded that it is appropriate to require the planting of trees in front of the existing veterinary centre consistent with the previously endorsed landscape plan. The planting of such trees will filter views of the proposed extension from Main Road, Mount Pleasant Road, and Wingrove Park.
108	For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the following DDO1 built form outcomes for building appearance:
Development that is of a consistent scale with the prevailing one and two storey domestic buildings in the Gateway.
Buildings that are integrated with the landscape setting.
Development with minimal visual impact and need for excavation.
109	Although the Council’s urban designer’s assessment is that the apparent height of the proposed building is comparable to a three to four storey building, I consider this to be a misleading comparison. The majority of the proposed extension is single storey. While it is set on a higher ground level than the existing veterinary centre, and the road reserve in front of the site, it will not appear to be a three or four storey building height. To the extent that the proposed extension will be visible from behind the existing veterinary centre it will appear as a single storey building set higher up the sloping site. This is consistent with the DDO1 building appearance guideline that seeks ‘On sloping sites, buildings should correspond to the natural contours of the land or use split level design’.
110	Where the proposed building extends to the eastern side of the existing veterinary centre there is a garden bed directly in front of the building. This is the existing garden bed to the eastern side of the veterinary centre and contains two substantial trees, trees 22 (a Lemon Scented Gum) and 23 (a Manna Gum), that are to be retained. I am satisfied that these trees will filter views of the proposed building.
111	For these reasons, I am satisfied that the extent of the proposed building that will be visible from Main Road and Wingrove Park will be modest. I am also satisfied that the combination of the existing veterinary centre and limited extent of the proposed building that will be visible will be modest.
112	For these reasons, I am satisfied the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines in the DDO1 that requires:
The upper level of developments should be recessed and appear visibly less than the lower level to reduce its dominance and impacts in terms of … visual bulk.
113	In regard to other relevant ‘building appearance’ design guidelines, I note the following:
i	The proposed extension incorporates a gabled ended roof without fussy detail or decoration.
ii	The proposed building is a simple contemporary style that does not mock historical elements.
iii	The proposed building uses a mix of materials, textures and finishes. This includes a plank cladding, lightweight cladding, and iron roofing. I am satisfied that the different grey colours for the walls are muted. Although they are not ‘local earth coloured tones’ they are soft/dull colours that will blend in with the tones of the surrounding vegetation. While the iron roofing is proposed to be a light grey, I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s oral evidence that if the tone was darkened it might be less of a contrast with the vegetation. I am satisfied this can be addressed by a permit condition.
114	In relation to the local neighbourhood character policy, it is relevant that one of the objectives for Semi Bush precincts is ‘to maintain the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy’. It is clear that the intention is not for buildings to be fully obscured, but only partly obscured from view. While the proposed building is not partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy, it is substantially obscured by the existing veterinary centre building. In the circumstances of the proposal being an extension to an existing building that is to be retained, I am satisfied that the proposal achieves an outcome consistent with the local neighbourhood character policy, albeit in a different way to that described in that policy.
115	There are only two elements of the proposal that potentially vary from the DDO1 building appearance design guidelines. These relate to wall heights and retaining walls.
116	I am satisfied that most of the wall heights of the proposed building are consistent with the 6.0 metres maximum specified in the design guidelines for building appearance. Even though the gable end walls at either end of the proposed building are about 6.8 metres height, the 6.0 metre maximum wall height guideline does not apply to gable end walls.
117	Mr Glossop’s assessment of the proposal against the DDO1 design guidelines identifies the short section of two storey building where the proposed extension connects with the existing veterinary centre as having an overall height of 7 metres. This part of the building is set in from the sides of the existing building above which it is located. In this context, the walls are not sheer 7 metre high walls; they scale at about 4.5 metres above the roof of the lower building. As I have mentioned, the photomontages indicate that this section of building will be barely visible above the ridgeline of the roof of the existing building. In any case, the 6.0 metre maximum wall height guideline is not a mandatory requirement, and I am satisfied that this section of building meets the built form outcomes that seek:
•	development that is of a consistent scale with the prevailing one and two storey domestic buildings in the Gateway’; and
•	development with minimal visual impact and need for excavation.
118	The DDO1 design guidelines require that ‘retaining and batter walls should be minimised, or if required should be no greater than 500 millimetres high and constructed with natural materials such as stone, timber and textured materials’. ‘Crib’ retaining walls are proposed to the rear of the proposed building, where the site is to be cut, and at the front of the new car park located where the site is to be filled. The plans indicate that the wall to the rear of the proposed extension is to be up to 1.85 metres high. This wall will be concealed by the proposed extension. The wall at the front of the new car park will be up to 1.4 metres high. The part of this wall that is on 644 Main Road is about 6 metres wide.
119	The site is steeply sloping and is already extensively cut to accommodate the existing buildings and car park. Cut, fill, and retaining walls are already features of this site and surrounding area. Indeed, a long, high stone retaining wall extends along a section of the eastern side of the Main Road road reserve about 100 metres to the south of the site. The proposal is consistent with and will fit in with this existing characteristic of its setting.
120	The landscape concept plan shows the crib walls as rock faced retaining walls. Based on Mr McFall’s evidence I am satisfied that the retaining walls and associated landscaping will ‘be integrated with the landscape setting’ and will have ‘minimal visual impact’ as sought by the DDO1 built form outcomes for building appearance.
121	I am satisfied that the siting of the proposed building and car park provides opportunities for landscaping that will maintain the vegetation dominated character of the Eltham Gateway and ensure that the development does not visually dominate the landscape, as sought by the DDO1 design objectives. The siting of the proposed extension allows at least 3 metres between its rear wall and front of the retained house to the rear. Although existing trees in this location are required to be removed, they are exempt from needing a permit for their removal under clause 52.12 of the Scheme. The landscape concept plan shows six new trees to be planted in this location. These are Silver Wattle trees, that will have a mature height of between 5 - 15 metres, with tree canopies of between 3.5-6 metres. I am satisfied this is an adequate landscape area and the proposed trees will contribute to the maintenance of the vegetated character of the site and surrounding area. 
122	Although there is limited opportunity in the front setback of the existing veterinary centre to plant canopy trees, this is an existing situation.  As I have already commented on, the landscape plan for the existing veterinary centre shows two trees planted in front of that building, and that I will require trees to be planted consistent with the previously endorsed landscaping plan. I am satisfied these trees will filter views of the proposed building from the street. I make further findings about the acceptability of the landscaping later in these reasons.
Visual impact of the lower car park
123	The DDO1 design objectives seek:
To ensure car parking will have minimal visual impact from public spaces and integrate with the landscape setting
124	The SLO7 landscape character objectives seek:
To retain and enhance the bush vegetation dominated vistas and streetscapes.
To ensure that adequate landscape zones are provided in all developments to allow retention and planting of canopy trees in a bush garden setting.
125	The strategies for semi bush precincts in the local character policy include:
Encourage the use of:
•	Earth toned materials.
•	Timber and rock for retaining walls.
…
Encourage gardens with mostly indigenous or native vegetation that flows uninterrupted to the edge of the roadway.
126	Only a small portion of the proposed lower car park is on 644 Main Road, and therefore within the DDO1/SLO7 area. This part of the lower level car park includes part of the area of the existing driveway and the existing car park between the veterinary centre and the existing house on this lot. The existing driveway is a clearly evident paved feature when the site is viewed from the street. Only one car space is on that part of the lower car park that is on 644 Main Road. The north-western corner of the lower level car park is the access space adjacent to the accessible car space. As such, a parked car will not occupy this area of the lower level car park. The combination of these factors minimises the extent to which the proposed car park will have a visual impact.
127	The extent to which the lower level car park extends into the existing landscaped area between the existing veterinary centre and existing driveway is minimal. I am satisfied this will not detrimentally impact the extent to which this part of the existing landscaping contributes to the bush vegetation visible within the streetscape. Even though tree 24 that is in the part of the landscaped area that will be removed, I am satisfied this will not increase the visual impact of this part of the lower car park. The proposal retains trees 22 and 23 in front of the lower car park, as well as the existing garden bed around these trees. The landscape concept plan shows additional planting in this garden bed.
128	Although this part of the lower car park area is elevated above the natural ground level, I am satisfied that any visual impact from the public spaces will be minimal. The landscape concept plan shows the retaining wall to be faced by rock. I am satisfied that the rock faced retaining wall is consistent with the ‘local earth toned, timber or mud brick’ materials that the DDO1 design objectives encourage for development consistent with the preferred character of the Eltham Gateway. It is also consistent with the strategies for Semi Bush precincts in the local character policy, which include that the use of timber and rock for retaining walls are encouraged.
129	The landscape concept plan also shows proposed shrubs that have a mature height of 1.2-1.5 metres to be planted in front of the retaining wall. The proposed planting extends into the space between the proposed car space 18 and the retaining wall around the lower car park. The height of the retaining wall is up to 1.4 metres high at this point. I am satisfied that the additional landscaping proposed will conceal and/or filter views of the retaining wall around the perimeter of the car park. I am satisfied that the proposal to retain trees 22 and 23, the minimal extent to which the lower car park encroaches into the garden bed around these trees, and the proposed planting of native shrubs in this garden bed, is consistent with the SLO7 landscape character objectives.
130	Even though Mr McFall confirmed that a balustrade will be required along part of the retaining wall around the north-western corner of the lower car park, I am satisfied that a balustrade can be designed to minimise its visual impact. Mr McFall recommends that a balustrade should be as fine as possible and has suggested one comprised of stainless steel wires with a timber hand rail. I am satisfied that a balustrade of this type would result in a minimal, if any, visual impact when viewed from the street. The location and design of any balustrades can be addressed by permit conditions.
131	For these reasons, I am satisfied that the part of the lower car park in the DDO1 and SLO7 area will integrate with the landscape setting, and that the extent which this part of the car park will be visible within the DDO1 and SLO7 area will have a minimal visual impact from public spaces.
132	For these reasons I am satisfied that the visual impact of the part of the lower car park on 6 Main Road will be acceptable.
Summary
133	For the reasons I have outlined, I am satisfied the proposed building and lower level car park on 644 Main Road is consistent with the DDO1 design objectives that seek:
To ensure that development does not visually dominate the landscape or interrupt major view lines from public areas.
To ensure that development corresponds to the contours of the land, and is sited below the predominant tree canopy height. …
To ensure setbacks are generous and consistent with others in the street, and are well vegetated.
To promote building scales compatible with the prevailing one and two storey domestic buildings within the Eltham Gateway.
134	For the reasons I have outlined, I am also satisfied that the proposed building and lower level car park on 644 Main Road is consistent with the objectives of the local neighbourhood character policy for Semi Bush precincts that seek:
To maintain the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy.
Is the visual impact of the propsoed car parks on 6 Mount Pleasant Road acceptable?
What is the issue?
135	The Council takes issue with the prominence of the retaining walls, excavation for the proposed car parks, and ‘the likely prominence of cars that will be parked in an elevated location in close proximity to the street’. It argues that cars parked atop of the retaining wall closest to the street will bring cars into view and add height to the combined element. It also argues that a balustrade is likely to be needed.
136	The ECAG Inc submits that the proposal does not ensure car parking will have minimal visual impact from public spaces and integrate with the landscape setting. Among other things, it submits that the raised carparks and driveway are what will be seen from the public realm, and that buildings and works should not rely on not being seen to be considered acceptable. The ECAG Inc also argues that the gap between the driveway and the adjoining property is insufficient to enable meaningful screen planting, and the proposed planting will not adequately screen the extensive car parks.
137	In relation to 6 Mount Pleasant Road, the Council refers to the SLO2 ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’ and the local character policy.
138	The SLO2 Statement of nature and key elements of landscape includes:
… The areas covered by this overlay have a natural bush setting, where native vegetation dominates the skyline and gardens are mostly indigenous and native plantings combined with remnant vegetation.
… Buildings in these areas are sited so as to minimise disruption to the land form and to native vegetation and are generally obscured from the street. The key elements of this landscape are:
•	The visual dominance of native vegetation including substantial indigenous trees and understorey species that creates a bushland character.
•	Buildings are obscured from view from the street and are sited with minimal excavation and disturbance to the natural landform.
•	Dwellings and other buildings are designed and coloured to blend in with the bushland landscape. …
139	The ‘Landscape character objectives to be achieved’ in the SLO2 schedule include:
To provide for sensitive siting of buildings and works, access and earthworks and by the restoration of native vegetation where considered appropriate.
To provide for conservation and enhancement of the environmental values of the area.
To ensure that the development of land and the removal of native vegetation are not detrimental to the natural environment and character of the area.
140	The objectives of the local neighbourhood character policy for Semi Bush precincts include, as relevant:
To maintain the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy.
141	The strategies for the precinct include:
Design and site driveways and access tracks:
To follow the contours of the site to minimise gradients and the need for retaining walls.
142	It is important to note that the DDO1 does not apply to 6 Mount Pleasant Road. Although this lot adjoins the boundary of the DDO1 area, it does not form part of the Eltham Gateway, and the Eltham Gateway policy does not apply.
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
143	The extent of the driveway and carparks on 644 Mount Pleasant Road is extensive. However, I am satisfied that the siting and design of the car parks ensure that their visual impact and that of the associated retaining walls is acceptable.
144	The car parks on this lot are separated into two sections, the upper car park and lower car park, that are stepped down the slope of the land and surrounded by landscaping.
145	The upper car park is a relatively modest expansion of the car park that has been approved under the existing permit for the cattery. That car park has been constructed. I am satisfied that the extent to which this upper car park will be expanded from that already approved will not result in an unacceptable visual impact from the public realm. The edge of the expanded upper car park is about 27 metres back from the front boundary of the lot, and over 30 metres from the carriageway of the service road in front of the lot.
146	The proposed garden bed between the upper and lower car parks extends across the full width of the front section of the upper car park, and the full width of the rear section of the lower car park. Mr McFall’s landscape plan shows two large Eucalypt trees, with mature heights up to 20-25 metres, and a various shrubs ranging between 0.5-3 metres tall, to be planted in this garden bed. I am satisfied that this landscaping will either screen or filter views of the upper car park from the street, and provide a landscape backdrop to the lower car park.
147	The lower car park is mostly in the location of the existing house on this lot that is to be removed. The siting of the lower car park in this location enables the front garden area of the existing house to be retained. While the front of the lower level car park is raised above natural ground level, the retaining wall as shown on the amended application plans is as low as 0.3 metres rising up to 1.4 metres at its western end, within 644 Main Road. Mr McFall’s landscape concept plan shows the front garden area graded up to the front of the lower car park, reducing the extent of the retaining wall to the western end on 644 Main Road. I am satisfied that Mr McFall’s proposal to grade the ground level up to the car park, to minimise the extent and height of the retaining wall, is an appropriate alternative to the crib wall shown in the amended application plans.
148	The landscape concept plan shows a combination of two retained trees and extensive new planting in the front garden area. The new plantings include, among other things, six small trees/shrubs with a mature height of 5-10 metres, two trees with mature heights of 5-10 metres, and a range of other shrubs and grasses ranging from 0.5-3 metres tall. I am persuaded by Mr McFall’s evidence that the landscaping will screen out the car park. Even though the landscape concept plan shows the landscaping to extend forward of the property boundary and into the road reserve of the service road in front of the lot, my findings do not rely on that landscaping being provided. The landscaping shown outside of the site comprises the lower height grasses and shrubs. While it would contribute to the overall landscaping outcome, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to screen views of the lower car park.
149	I note the ECAG Inc’s submissions that that buildings and works should not rely on not being seen to be considered acceptable. However, I am satisfied that the siting of the car parks relying to some extent on vegetation to screen or obscure views of the car parks is consistent with:
i	the nature and statement of key elements of landscape in the SLO2 that include ‘Buildings in these areas … are generally obscured from the street’; and
ii	the local neighbourhood character policy objective ‘To maintain the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy’.
150	The landscaping strip along the eastern side of the proposed driveway is not wide. However, based on the landscape concept plan and evidence, I am satisfied that it is sufficient to provide screen planting along this side boundary. Mr McFall’s landscape plan shows a combination of shrubs that have mature heights of between 1-3 metres and small trees/shrubs that have mature heights of between 5-10 metres.
151	To the rear of the upper car park, there is a wide garden bed that allows for the planting of five trees with mature heights between 5-15 metres. These will form a canopy tree backdrop to the car parks and driveway on this lot.
152	Mr McFall’s written evidence statement shows the garden beds at the front of the lower car park, between the lower and upper car parks, and at the rear of the upper car park to be graded. This results in the extent and height of retaining walls, shown in the amended plans across the front and rear of the car parks, being minimised. 
153	Although the amended plans also show the rear of the upper car park to have a retaining wall up to 3 metres high, Mr McFall’s evidence includes that this wall can be reduced to 1 metre high. Based on Mr McFall’s evidence, I am persuaded that the reduction in the height of the retaining wall is achievable, with the ground level behind that wall gently graded from the wall up to the rear boundary. I am satisfied that this is consistent with the local neighbourhood character policy strategy that seeks for the contours of the site to be followed to minimise gradients and the need for retaining walls.
154	I acknowledge that while the landscape concept plan indicates where retaining walls are, and those areas where the landscaped areas are graded up over the changes in levels, his written evidence does not include recommendations to reduce the height of or remove retaining walls. While this is not helpful, I do not consider it fatal. The Council has confirmed that it does not take issue with the modest changes introduced through Mr McFall’s evidence. I am satisfied that the changes to the locations and heights of retaining walls can be addressed by a permit condition requiring changes to the plans of the development to reflect these changes.
155	Overall, I am satisfied that the siting of the car parks on the lot at 6 Mount Pleasant Road, in combination with the areas available for landscaping around the car parks, and the landscape concept plan, provide an outcome that is:
i	consistent with the SLO2 key element of landscape of ‘the visual dominance of native vegetation including substantial indigenous trees and understorey species that creates a bushland character’; and
ii	the local character policy objective ‘To maintain the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy’.
156	For these reasons, I find that any visual impact of the proposed car parks on 6 Mount Pleasant Road will be acceptable.
Is the proposed landscaping acceptable?
What is the issue?
157	The Council submits that the ‘substantive removal of trees from the site is somewhat unfortunate’. The Council seeks for the proposal to replace what is lost so that both sites present with a ‘semi-bush garden’ appearance. However, the Council submits that the extent of hard standing throughout the site is excessive, the proposed car park dominates the site, and minor modifications to the layout will not change this position.
158	The Council also argues that landscaping should be placed between the existing veterinary centre and the proposed extension to soften the extent of the roof that is visible. It says this is not possible with the current design.
159	The Council submits that there are opportunities for additional landscaping at the front of the site by reducing the extent of hard standing in front of the existing veterinary centre. It says this is supported by the DDO1 schedule design guideline for vehicle access and parking that requires:
The number of driveway crossovers should be limited to 1 on standard lots and rationalised on larger or consolidated lots.
160	The ECAG Inc raises a range of concerns relating to landscaping on the site. Its concerns include:
•	the removal of trees from the site, in particular two white trunked Eucalypt trees that are between the existing buildings on 644 Main Road;
•	the small gaps between the existing and proposed buildings that do not provide enough room for meaningful planting;
•	the gap between the driveway and the adjoining property (to the east) is insufficient to enable meaningful screen planting;
•	the vegetation suggested for screening the car parks is unsuitable;
•	taller plants are at the rear of the site so will not be seen from the public realm;
•	the area between the service road and Main Road and Mount Pleasant Road is used for customer parking or by the veterinary centre and this area should be revegetated, including with canopy trees.
161	The Landscape character objectives of the SLO2 schedule, which applies to 6 Mount Pleasant Road, are:
To provide for housing in a residential location in a bushland setting.
To provide for sensitive siting of buildings and works, access and earthworks and by the restoration of native vegetation where considered appropriate.
To provide for conservation and enhancement of the environmental values of the area.
To ensure that the development of land and the removal of native vegetation are not detrimental to the natural environment and character of the area.
To minimise the threats to the natural environment through the unnecessary removal of vegetation in these areas. 
162	The SLO2 decision guidelines require consideration of, among other things, ‘The need to screen buildings and structures to maintain the character of the area’. 
163	The Landscape character objective of the SLO7 schedule, which applies to 644 Main Road, are:
To recognise, protect and enhance the contribution provided by indigenous and native vegetation, to the character and amenity of the Eltham Gateway.
To ensure that the health of existing vegetation, particularly that which contributes to the character of the Eltham Gateway, is not jeopardised by new development.
To retain and enhance the bush vegetation dominated vistas and streetscapes.
To ensure that adequate landscape zones are provided in all developments to allow retention and planting of canopy trees in a bush garden setting.
To discourage formal gardens with exotic plantings that do not blend with roadside vegetation. 
164	The SLO7 decision guidelines require consideration of, among other things:
•	The location of the vegetation on the land and its contribution to the garden area, neighbourhood and streetscape character.
•	The availability of sufficient unencumbered land to provide for replacement planting.
•	Other options for further planting on the site. 
165	The DDO1 that applies to 644 Main Road includes design objectives that seek, among other things:
•	To recognise, protect and enhance the special character of the natural and built landscape of the Eltham Gateway.
•	To maintain the vegetation dominated character of the Gateway.
•	To ensure that development does not visually dominate the landscape or interrupt major view lines from public areas.
•	To ensure setbacks are generous and consistent with others in the street, and are well vegetated.
166	The design guidelines relating to ‘Landscaping and fencing’ are:
Site development should minimise vegetation removal, particularly canopy trees and boundary vegetation.
Apply a layered landscaping regime which incorporates predominately indigenous canopy trees, shrubs and ground covers. Exotic species should be used sparingly and only as a landscape feature.
Developments should provide no front fencing, or low, transparent front fencing of no higher than 1.2m.
167	The local character policy at clause 15.01-5L includes an objective, which applies to all precincts, that seeks ‘To maintain and enhance the continuous flow of the garden settings and the openness of the front boundary treatment’.
168	The objectives specific to the Semi Bush precincts are:
To maintain the appearance of development that is partly obscured from view by the topography or tree canopy.
To maintain the precinct’s rolling and hilly topography and its bushy vegetation character with significant indigenous or native canopy trees.
169	The strategies that apply to all precincts include:
Retain or plant substantial trees as necessary to contribute to the desired future character of the area while maintaining solar access and residential amenity, and minimising bushfire safety issues.
Site development so it responds to existing vegetation (including drip- lines of trees) and minimises the removal of existing trees including by:
•	Siting open space around significant vegetation.
•	Allowing sufficient space for:
o	The planting of vegetation that supports the preferred character of the area.
o	Canopy trees (preferably indigenous to the area) in the front setback of the development and in other strategic locations on the site.
170	The strategies for Semi Bush precincts ‘Encourage gardens with mostly indigenous or native vegetation that flows uninterrupted to the edge of the roadway’.
171	The Semi Bush precincts policy guidelines require consideration of the following, as relevant:
•	Retaining and planting indigenous or native canopy trees at a density of one tree to every 50-100 square metres.
•	Replacing mature trees that are being removed with advanced indigenous trees.
•	Replacing immature trees or understorey vegetation that are being removed with similar sized indigenous species.
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
172	The proposal relies on the removal of a number of trees from the site. It is obvious that the loss of eucalypt trees between the existing veterinary centre and the retained dwelling on 644 Main Road will have a visual impact on the appearance of the site from the public realm. However, the Scheme provisions enable the removal of many of the trees without the need for a permit.
173	I am persuaded by the applicant that the extent of vegetation removal proposed is reasonable. This is because all significant vegetation identified by the Council’s consulting arborist as being of high retention value are being retained. These are trees 7, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23.
174	The only tree that requires a permit for its removal is tree 21. This a Yellow Gum tree at the front of the existing veterinary centre. It is underneath the overhead powerlines that extend across the front of the lot. Mr Galbraith’s evidence indicates that this tree has been lopped beneath these wires. Although the applicant says that this tree does not need to be removed, Mr Galbraith’s evidence is that tree 21 has been severely lopped and is not worthy of retention. In its current state, this tree is not substantial, and I find that does little to filter or soften views of the existing veterinary centre or contribute to a vegetation dominated character of the Eltham Gateway. For these reasons I am satisfied that the removal of this tree has no bearing on the issue of the landscape character of the site or surrounding area.
175	I am also satisfied that the extent of tree removal and the proposed landscaping is acceptable because the proposal includes extensive planting of new trees and other landscaping across the site. The landscape concept plan includes the planting of 21 indigenous canopy trees and over 700 small trees, large and small shrubs, and ground covers. I am persuaded by Mr McFall’s evidence and landscape concept plan, that the proposed landscaping will result in the site presenting a ‘semi-bush garden’ appearance. The landscaping concept plant includes landscaping within the front setback, along the side and rear boundaries, and through the middle of the site, between the proposed extension and the existing house and upper carp park. The canopy trees (both retained and proposed), small trees and shrubs are distributed throughout these areas of the site. As I have outlined earlier in these reasons, I will also require the planting of two trees in front of the existing veterinary centre.
176	While there is no space for landscaping between the existing veterinary centre and the proposed extension, I am satisfied this is acceptable. In this regard, I rely on my detailed findings above about the visual impact of the proposed building on 644 Main Road. While the area between the rear of the proposed extension and the front of the existing house to be retained is not wide, based on Mr McFall’s evidence and landscape concept plan, I am satisfied that it provides sufficient space for meaningful landscaping. The landscape concept plan includes the planting of six Silver Wattle trees, with mature heights up to 15 metres, within this area. In combination with the trees to be retained along the western side boundary, and the trees to be planted in the landscape area between the upper and lower car parks, the landscaping will provide a band of trees centrally in an east-west alignment across most of the width of the site.
177	Even though the combined area of the car parks and driveways are quite substantial, I am satisfied that they are separated and surrounded by landscape areas. Many of these landscape areas are substantial, rather than being narrow strips. For example, the garden bed in front of the lower car park on 6 Mount Pleasant Road is over 9 metre deep and 14 metres wide. The garden bed between the upper and lower car parks is about 7 metres deep and 20 metres wide. As I have already outlined previously, although the landscaping strip along the eastern side of the site is not wide, based on the landscape concept plan and evidence, I am satisfied that it is sufficient to provide screen planting along this side boundary. I am satisfied that the extent, location, and sizes of the landscaped areas reduces the impact of the car parks and driveways on the landscape character of the site in its setting.
178	I acknowledge that there are opportunities for additional landscaping at the front of the site. The obvious opportunities are car spaces 17, adjacent to the north-eastern corner of the existing veterinary centre, and car space 18 in the location of the existing driveway on 644 Main Road. However, I am satisfied that this is not necessary to achieve an acceptable landscaping outcome. These car spaces are existing paved areas that are already part of the appearance of the site within the streetscape. There is no loss of existing landscaping for these car spaces. Furthermore, as outlined previously, I find that the visual impacts of the proposed building and car park on 644 Main Road, and the car parks on 6 Mount Pleasant Road are acceptable. My findings on those matters do not rely on additional landscaping areas to be provided.
179	For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal:
i	ensures adequate landscape areas are provided to retain and plant canopy trees in a bush garden setting;
ii	provides a layered landscaping regime including canopy trees, small trees, shrubs and ground covers;
iii	presents and enhances the site as a well vegetated and bushland setting;
iv	provides a continuous flow of the garden setting and openness of the front boundary treatment;
v	partly obscures the car parks and driveway with landscaping; and
vi	enhances the overall contribution of landscaping on the site to the character and amenity of the Eltham Gateway.
180	For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the landscape character objectives of the SLO2, SLO7, DDO1, and the local character policy.
Will the amenity of the existing house that is to be retained be acceptable?
What is the issue?
181	The Council’s grounds of refusal do not include grounds relating to the amenity of the existing house that is to be retained on 644 Main Road. This may be because the application plans on which the Council’s decision is based showed this building to be the cattery and caretaker’s dwelling. The amended application plans have changed this so that this building will be retained as a separate house.
182	In these circumstances, in the context that the decision guidelines at clause 65.01 require consideration of the orderly planning of the area and the amenity of the area, it is relevant to consider the impact of the proposal on the amenity of this house.
183	At the hearing I gave the Council and the applicant the opportunity to address me on this. I also questioned the witnesses on various matters relating to the amenity of the house. These matters included the isolation of the house at the rear of the site, pedestrian access to the house, the dwelling entry, and privacy and the amenity of the dwelling and its private open space.
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
184	In relation to the potential isolation of the house, I am persuaded by Mr Glossop’s evidence that this is really no worse than the current situation. This house is currently located at the rear of the site, behind the veterinary centre and its associated car park. Mr Glossop suggests that there might be some benefit in formalising a mailbox for the house at the front of the site and providing some ‘way finding’ in the form of a street number. This will assist in identifying the house address, and I consider this should be the very least that should be done to identify there is a house on the site in addition to the veterinary centre. I am satisfied that this could be addressed by permit conditions.
185	I am not satisfied that the pedestrian access to the house as shown in the amended plans is acceptable. In these plans, pedestrian access would be from the new driveway and through either the lower or upper carparks. In one regard this is not dissimilar to the existing access to the house, which is currently from the driveway shared with the veterinary centre. I am not persuaded that the house having pedestrian access only from a driveway and car parks is acceptable.
186	Currently the house can also be accessed by pedestrian steps and path that wind through the garden bed to the east of the existing veterinary centre to the middle terrace level. However, these steps and path are not shown on the amended application plans. This suggests that this option will be removed. The landscape concept plan shows a different arrangement for a pedestrian access from the existing veterinary centre at the lower terrace level to the main entry to the clinic in the proposed extension at the middle terrace level.
187	There may also be the potential for pedestrian access to be obtained along the western side of the site. There is already a gravel driveway between the front boundary of the site and the middle terrace level in the setback between the existing veterinary centre and the western side boundary. In response to my question about whether there is the potential for such access, and any implications for existing trees, Mr Galbraith confirmed that if the path was just compacted granitic sand, with no need for level changes, this would not affect the trees.
188	I am satisfied that either of these three options for pedestrian access would be acceptable. I acknowledge that the first two of these options will result in the pedestrian access being shared with the veterinary centre and may pass through parts of the car parks, however this is consistent with the existing circumstances. I will include a condition requiring pedestrian access be provided from the front of the site to the house that does not rely on the new driveway along the eastern side of the site. However, I will not prescribe the way in which the pedestrian access is to be provided. I am satisfied that this can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Council.
189	I acknowledge Mr Glossop’s evidence that the proposal provides some improvements from the existing circumstances of this house. These include removing the car park that is currently located in front of the house (on the middle terrace level) and improving the driveway access. I am persuaded by Mr Glossop that removing the car park area from directly in front of the house will provide some amenity benefit. However, I note that the upper car park on 6 Mount Pleasant Road will be adjacent to the eastern side of the house.
190	In regard to the proximity of the upper car park, I am satisfied that this is mostly an improvement from the current location of the car park directly in front of the house. This is because the house does not face the upper car park and has a blank wall at this end of the building. However, I am concerned about the proximity of the car park to the rear yard of the house, which is its only area of private open space. Mr McFall’s suggestions for improving this interface are the inclusion of a fence for a noise barrier, and adding screen planting. Mr McFall suggests a 1.8 metres high rough sawn, vertical timber batten fence, so that the fences will look like part of the bush, with noise-proof ply on the dwelling side of the fence. Mr McFall suggested that painting the ply black would make it ‘disappear’. I am persuaded that Mr McFall’s suggestions for fencing and screen planting along this interface will provide an acceptable response. This will provide a clear delineation between the house and car park, improve the privacy of the rear yard of the house, and provide some attenuation of noise from the car park. I am satisfied that these matters can be addressed by permit conditions that require changes to the plans.
191	A key impact of the proposal is the proximity of the proposed extension to the existing house.  The rear of the extension will be about 4.5 metres from the front of the house. However, I am satisfied that the visual impact of the proposed extension will be reduced by:
i	the proposed extension being constructed at a lower ground level, being on the middle terrace level below the upper terrace on which the house is located;
ii	the pitched roof of the proposed extension receding away from the front of the house; and
iii	the proposed landscaping, including a row of six canopy trees in the garden bed between the proposed extension and the house, shown in the landscape concept plan.
Although the outlook to the north from the house will not be as open as it currently is, for the reasons above, I am satisfied it will be acceptable.
192	Subject to the changes that I have outlined, I am satisfied that the amenity of the house will be improved to the extent that it will be acceptable.
Are there any other issues?
Impacts on retained trees
193	The proposal includes various buildings and works (including the construction of the lower car park) within close proximity to some of the canopy trees that are to be retained. The Council and the ECAG Inc raise particular concerns regarding the impacts on trees 18 and 19, along the western side boundary, and trees 22 and 23, to the east of the existing veterinary centre.
Tree 18
194	Tree 18 is adjacent to the western side boundary of the site, between the boundary and the side of the existing veterinary centre. The proposed extension to the veterinary centre is about 3.7 metres to the south-east of the trunk of tree 18.
195	Mr Galbraith’s evidence is that tree 18 is a healthy Spotted Gum, and that the excavation within the tree’s Tree Protection Zone (‘TPZ’) is about 7%. The excavation is associated with the site levelling works to construct the proposed extension. Mr Galbraith’s evidence is that the Spotted Gum species is very tolerant to excavation works, and that the tree should readily cope with what he says is a minor encroachment.
196	At the hearing Mr Galbraith was questioned about a grey area shown on the amended plans to the west of the proposed extension and adjacent to tree 18. The plans relied on and contained within Mr Galbraith’s evidence indicate that this area is concrete paving. It is shown on those plans as a smaller area than that on the amended application plans. When questioned about the potential for this to be an encroachment into the TPZ of tree 18, Mr Galbraith commented that technically paving is an encroachment but, if there was not going to be a site cut, paving is harmless in a TPZ, particularly if the paving is porous. Mr Galbraith recommended that the paved area be reduced to the extent shown in the plan in his evidence statement. Mr Galbraith agreed that the concrete paving shown in this location in the landscape concept plan reflects this recommendation.
197	I am persuaded by Mr Galbraith’s evidence that the extent of the excavation/site cut within the TPZ of tree 18 to facilitate the construction of the proposed extension is minor. I am also persuaded that that the new paving adjacent to tree 18 will be acceptable if the area of the paving is reduced to the extent shown in the landscape concept plan. I am satisfied that this can be addressed by a permit condition requiring changes to the plans.
Tree 19
198	Tree 19 is to the north of tree 18, between the western boundary and the existing veterinary centre. The proposed extension is just over 5 metres from the trunk of tree 19. The ‘cut and fill diagram’ in Mr Galbraith’s evidence does not show any encroachment of the proposed extension or site cut and fill affecting tree 19.
Trees 22 & 23
199	The lower car park and proposed crib/retaining wall encroaches into the garden bed that currently surrounds trees 22 and 23.
200	Mr Galbraith’s evidence is that tree 22 is a species that is ‘relatively very tolerant of excavation works’. Mr Galbraith calculates the encroachment into the TPZ of tree 22 to be 9%, which he says is minor and acceptable under the relevant Australian Standard.
201	In relation to tree 23, Mr Galbraith calculates the combined encroachment of the lower car park and proposed crib/retaining wall to be 11%. He says this is ‘fractionally over the 10% threshold of what is regarded as minor by the [Australian Standard]’. Mr Galbraith’s evidence is that he does not see any problem with this. 
202	Based on Mr Galbraith’s evidence, I find that the impact of the proposal on trees 22 and 23 will be acceptable.
Impacts on traffic
203	The ECAG Inc submits that the resultant increase in traffic entering and exiting Mount Pleasant Road from Main Road, combined with the increased traffic on Main Road will make exiting or entering the service road and the car park at 6 Mount Pleasant Road more difficult.
204	The decision guidelines at clause 65.01 require consideration of ‘The impact the use or development will have on the current and future development and operation of the transport system’.
205	As the proposal will increase the size of the veterinary centre and number of practitioners, there will no doubt be a consequential increase in the traffic entering and exiting Mount Pleasant Road from Main Road, and along Main Road as a result of the proposal. Despite this, I am not persuaded by the ECAG Inc’s submissions that this will make entering and exiting the service road and the site more difficult. The ECAG Inc’s submissions are contentions are not supported by any expert traffic evidence.  I also note that Council’s grounds for refusal of the application do not include grounds relating to traffic impacts.  This indicates to me that the Council has not identified any consequential traffic issues that will result from the proposal.
Loading area
206	The decision guidelines at clause 65.01 require consideration of ‘the adequacy of loading and unloading facilities and any associated amenity, traffic flow and road safety impacts’.
207	The plans of the proposal do not show an area for loading and unloading. The applicant says this occurs from the front of the site in the location of car parking space 17, which is at the north-eastern corner of the existing veterinary centre.
208	As the proposal provides one additional car parking space from the minimum required under clause 52.06, there is capacity for this car parking space to be changed to a loading/unloading area.
209	I find that the car parking space 17 should be designated as the loading/unloading area. The location of this car parking space provides convenient access to the waiting area that is to be retained in the existing veterinary centre. Designating car parking space 17 as the loading/unloading area will enable deliveries to the site to use this space, as well as patients dropping off or picking up pets that cannot be conveniently dropped off or picked up from the reception area that is to be located in the extension. 
210	I am satisfied that this can be addressed by permit conditions.
Hours of operation
211	The current permit for the veterinary centre does not include a permit condition that restricts its hours of operation. This means it can operate 24 hours each day. The application does not specify hours during which the centre is to operate.
212	The draft permit conditions provided by the Council for discussion at the hearing include a proposed condition limiting the hours of operation to:
•	Monday to Friday: 8.00 am to 7.00 pm; and
•	Saturday: 9.00 am to 1.00 pm.
213	The applicant advised that these are the hours of operation that are advertised on the veterinary centre’s web page, but that the centre requires flexibility for alternative hours to accommodate sensible exceptions that do not involve clients attending the site. The applicant does not oppose the hours of operation being specified subject to allowing administration, in-patient care, emergency treatments, and maintenance to occur outside these hours. The Council suggests limiting the use of the car parks to the lower car park outside of the specified hours of operation.
214	Having regard to the applicant’s concession to not oppose the permit conditions restricting the hours of operation, subject to exceptions from these restrictions being included, I consider it appropriate to include a permit condition to this effect. I also consider it appropriate to exclude the use of the upper car park by the veterinary centre outside of the specified hours of operation.
Other matters
215	Other matters were raised by the parties and in the statements of grounds filed by objectors who are not parties to this proceeding that I have not responded to above. I regard those issues to be so peripheral as to carry no weight in my exercise of discretion, or are able to be addressed through conditions of the permit. I do not discuss these further in these reasons.
What conditions are appropriate?
216	In accordance with the VCAT’s orders, draft conditions were circulated by the Council before the hearing. A revised draft of these conditions was circulated by the applicant before the final hearing day. These conditions were discussed at the hearing.  As I have outlined above, an alternative condition regarding the consolidation of the two lots was agreed between the applicant and the Council in response to the VCAT Orders issued after the hearing.  The conditions contained in this Order reflect those discussed at the hearing and the alternative condition regarding the lot consolidation, subject to changes that reflect the findings in this decision and my further consideration. The conditions are set out in Appendix A. It is not necessary for me to detail the changes to the draft conditions, other than in relation to the following matters.
Cancellation of existing permits
217	The draft permit conditions include a condition requiring that the owner of the land to make an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to cancel the existing permits relating to the veterinary centre and the cattery. I am satisfied that the permit for the cattery (Permit Number 652/2018/01P) should be cancelled as it could not be acted upon if the permit for the proposal is acted upon. However, I am persuaded by the applicant that the existing permit for the veterinary centre should not be cancelled. This is because it authorises the existing use and development of the land as a veterinary centre and includes detailed conditions relating to these.
Solar panels
218	I have not included the draft permit conditions discussed at the hearing to require the solar panels currently located on the roof of the existing veterinary centre to be removed or relocated to the roof of the proposed extension to the veterinary centre. This is because the amended application plans do not show any solar panels on the building roofs, the plans endorsed under the existing permit for the veterinary centre do not show any solar panels on the existing veterinary centre, and there are differences of opinion between the Council and the applicant regarding the permit exemption under clause 62.02-2 from the need for a permit for ‘a solar energy system attached to a building that primarily services the land on which it is situated’. If the endorsed plans for the existing permit need to be amended to show the solar panels, that should be done through an amendment to those plans, rather than the plans that are to be endorsed under the permit for this application. If the solar panels benefit from the permit exemption under clause 62.02-2, it is not necessary to shown them on the plans that are to be endorsed under the permit for this application.
Fire management plan for the existing dwelling
219	The draft conditions discussed at the hearing included conditions requiring a fire risk management plan for the existing house, and for any fire risk management measures in that plain to be carried out, completed and maintained.  As the house that is to be retained on 644 Main Road is an existing house, and this application does not seek permission for its use or development, there is no basis under the Scheme for me to include these conditions.
Conclusion 
220	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Sarah McDonald
Member	

APPENDIX A – PERMIT DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
PERMIT NO	329/2023/06P	
PLANNING SCHEME	Nillumbik Planning Scheme	
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY	Nillumbik Shire Council	
ADDRESS OF THE LAND	644 Main Road & 6 Mount Pleasant Road ELTHAM VIC 3095	
THE PERMIT ALLOWS:
Planning scheme clause	Matter for which the permit has been granted	
Clause 32.03-1	Use as a veterinary centre in the Low Density Residential Zone.	
Clause 32.03-1	Use as a car park in conjunction with another use in section 2 of clause 32.03-1 (veterinary centre) in the Low Density Residential Zone.	
Clause 32.03-4	Construct a building and construct or carry out works associated with a use in section 2 of clause 32.03-1 (veterinary centre and car park) in the Low Density Residential Zone.	
Clause 42.03-2	Construct a building and construct or carry out works in the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2.	
Clause 42.03-2	Construct a building and construct or carry out works (buildings and works within 5
metres from the base of a ‘substantial tree’) in the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 7.	
Clause 42.03-2	Remove, destroy or lop vegetation (a
‘substantial tree’) specified in the schedule to the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 7.	
Clause 44.06-2	Carry out works associated with accommodation (a dwelling) in the Bushfire Management Overlay.	
CONDITIONS TO APPLY TO THE PERMIT:
Amended plans
1	Before the development commences, 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 generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Michael Angus Architecture comprising drawings TP01 & TP04, Issue D ‘VCAT Issue’, dated 19 February 2024, and TP02, TP03, TP05–TP13, Issue E ‘Revised VCAT Issue’, dated 27 March 2024, but modified to show:
(a)	the ‘shale grey’ colour bonded roof material of the new building specified in the External Finishes Schedule in drawing number TP07 replaced with a dark grey or similar colour;
(b)	the internal layout of the dwelling, including the repurposing of the existing garage;
(c)	pedestrian access to the dwelling to be provided from the front boundary of the site that does not rely on access along the driveway on the eastern side of the site;
(d)	mailbox facilities (including street numbering) for the veterinary centre and dwelling in a convenient location;
(e)	the provision, location, and details of wayfinding measures to direct visitors to and identify the entries of the veterinary centre, car park, and dwelling;
(f)	the provision, location, and details of lighting along the pedestrian paths and driveway (including the access to the dwelling), and within the carparks; the lighting should be either bollard lighting, or at a height below the tops of the boundary fences, and baffled to avoid light spill onto adjoining properties;
(g)	changes to the locations, heights, details, and design of crib/retaining walls and areas where soil is to be graded to avoid the need for or reduce the heights of any crib/retaining walls, consistent with that shown on the landscape concept plan prepared by MemLa Pty Ltd, drawings LC1-LC3, Revision E ‘VCAT/ARCH’, dated 2 April 2024; this includes specifying that the retaining walls will be constructed with a rock face;
(h)	the location and design details of any external balustrades; any balustrade along the crib/retaining walls of the car parks should comprise stainless steel wires/architectural rigging with a timber hand rail, where possible, to minimise the visual impact of the balustrade;
(i)	the location, height, details and design of a fence between the dwelling and the upper carpark to its east; the fence should be at least 1.8 metres high, and constructed of vertical timber battens on the car park side of the fence, and noise-proof ply or suitable alternative sound attenuating panels on the dwelling side of the fence;
(j)	the area of paving along the western side of the veterinary centre addition and adjacent to tree 18 reduced to be consistent with the area shown in the landscape concept plan prepared by MemLa Pty Ltd, drawings LC1-LC3, Revision E ‘VCAT/ARCH’, dated 2 April 2024;
(k)	any changes required to reconcile discrepancies with the landscape concept plan prepared by MemLa Pty Ltd, drawings LC1-LC3, Revision E ‘VCAT/ARCH’, dated 2 April 2024;
(l)	corrections to drawing number TP03 as follows:
i	trees 21 and 31 shown in their correct locations within the site;
ii	tree 24 shown with its correct location within the site, being the approximate location of the accessible/disabled car parking space;
iii	all existing trees in front of the existing veterinary centre (both within and outside of the site) shown with their correct locations and canopy sizes;
iv	section 1 on drawing number TP13 shown with the locations where the site is to be cut;
(m)	the annotation on the north elevation plan on drawing number TP07 for a ‘new sail structure’ to the east of the existing veterinary centre building removed;
(n)	car parking spaces 15 and 16 clearly annotated as the car parking spaces for the dwelling;
(o)	car parking space 17 (adjacent to the north-eastern corner of the existing veterinary centre) annotated as a short term parking space for loading/unloading;
(p)	a Landscape Plan in accordance with condition 3 of this permit;
(q)	a construction diagram showing a typical section through the garden bed areas showing the excavation, soil, drainage, and mulch; this should include 400 millimetres of approved top soil, 75 millimetres of mulch, and the base of the excavated area should be ripped;
(r)	a Tree Protection Management Plan in accordance with condition 18 of this permit;
(s)	the location of bin storage and bin collection areas in accordance with the Waste Management Plan to be endorsed under condition 27 of this permit.
Alterations to use and development shown on endorsed plans
2	The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Landscape plan
3	Before the development commences, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan prepared by MemLa Pty Ltd, drawings LC1-LC3, Revision E ‘VCAT/ARCH’, dated 2 April 2024 and show:
(a)	a survey of all existing vegetation and natural features;
(b)	any changes required to ensure that the landscape plan is consistent with the plans prepared for endorsement in accordance with condition 1;
(c)	the area or areas set aside for landscaping;
(d)	a schedule of all proposed canopy trees, shrubs/small trees and ground cover showing the botanical and common name of each plant, the quantity to be planted, the pot size and spacing; this schedule should include a mixture of plants selected from the Council document ‘Live Local Plant Local’;
(e)	the location of each species to be planted and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material;
(f)	the location and details of paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill;
(g)	the inclusion of two trees within the garden bed in front of the existing veterinary centre building, consistent with the landscape plan endorsed under planning permit P197/2007/11AP/B for 644 Main Road, Eltham;
(h)	the landscaping in the road reserve excluded from / not shown on the landscape plan;
(i)	the planting in the garden bed between the eastern side of the dwelling (including its rear yard) and upper car park (car park B) to include trees and/or shrubs to provide a vegetated screen between the dwelling and the car park;
(j)	the area between the western side of the veterinary centre and the western side boundary mulched, this does not apply to the area to the paved area to the west of the addition to the veterinary centre or any pedestrian path shown on the plans prepared for endorsement in accordance with condition 1;
(k)	appropriate irrigation systems; and
(l)	appropriate maintenance details.
4	Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out, completed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Number of practitioners
5	The veterinary centre must operate with no more than 4 practitioners on the site at any one time.
Hours of operation
6	Unless with the prior written consent from the Responsible Authority, the veterinary centre hereby permitted may only operate between the following hours:
(a)	Monday to Friday: 8.00 am to 7.00 pm; and
(b)	Saturday: 9.00 am to 1.00 pm.
Administration, in-patient care, emergency treatments, and maintenance/cleaning may occur outside of these hours.
7	The upper car park on 6 Mount Pleasant Road (comprising car parking spaces 7-14 inclusive) must not be used in conjunction with the veterinary centre outside of the hours of operation specified in condition 6.
8	Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, deliveries to the veterinary centre must not occur outside the following hours:
(a)	between 7:00am – 10:00pm Monday to Saturday; and
(b)	between 9:00am – 10:00pm Sundays and public holidays.
Car parking and access
9	No fewer than 15 car parking spaces must be provided and maintained on the land for the exclusive use of the veterinary centre.
10	Two (2) car parking spaces must be provided and maintained on the land for the exclusive use of the dwelling.
11	Car parking spaces 15 and 16 must be set aside and appropriately sign marked as the car parking spaces for the exclusive use of the dwelling.
12	Car parking space 17 (adjacent to the north-eastern corner of the existing veterinary centre) must be set aside and appropriately sign marked as a short term parking space for loading/unloading, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13	Driveways, access lanes, and areas set aside for the parking and access of vehicles must be constructed and formed to such levels to ensure they can be utilised at all times and in accordance with the endorsed plans. Car parking must be line-marked or provided with some other adequate means of showing the car parking spaces.
14	All driveways, access lanes, and areas set aside for the parking and access of vehicles must be drained and constructed in concrete, asphalt or similar surface, and must be carried out and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Cancellation of other permit for the land
15	Before the additions to the veterinary centre allowed by this permit are occupied, the owner of the land must make an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to cancel the planning permit 652/2018/01P, relating to the land at 644 Main Road and 6 Mount Pleasant Road, Eltham.
Consolidation of lots
16	Before the development approved by this permit commences, the owner of the land must consolidate the lots at 644 Main Road and 6 Mount Pleasant Road, Eltham, including registering the plan of consolidation with Land Victoria.
Tree protection
17	No vegetation on-site (unless specified on the endorsed plans) must be removed, destroyed, felled, lopped, ringbarked, uprooted or otherwise damaged except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
18	Before the development allowed by this permit commences, a Tree Protection Management Plan by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The report must outline how trees on site and third party trees would be protection during construction to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
19	Before the development allowed by this permit commences (including any associated demolition, excavations, tree removal, delivery of building/construction materials and/or temporary buildings), the trees on the land and in the road reserve adjacent to the subject land marked on the endorsed plans as being retained and within 5 metres of any proposed works, must have a Tree Protection Fence (‘TPF’) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fencing associated with the Tree Protection Zones (‘TPZs’) must meet the following requirements:
(a)	Extent
The TPF is to be provided to the extent of the TPZ, calculated as being a radius of 12 x Diameter at Breast Height (DBH – measured at 1.4 metres above ground level as defined by the Australian Standard AS 4970.2009).
Fencing may be reduced directly adjacent to the works area only to allow access during construction (i.e. no more than 1 metre away from the works/ construction area).
(b)	Fencing
All tree protection fencing required by this permit must be erected in accordance with the approved TPZ.
The TPF must be erected to form a visual and physical barrier and must be a minimum height of 1.5 metres and of chain mesh or similar fence.
(c)	Signage
Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TPF clearly stating “Tree Protection Zone – No Entry”, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(d)	Provision of Services
Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, all services (including water, electricity, gas and telephone) must be installed underground, and located outside of any TPZ, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(e)	Access to TPZ
Should temporary access be necessary within the TPZ during the period of construction, the Responsible Authority must be informed prior to relocating the fence (as it may be necessary to undertake additional root protection measures such as bridging over with timber).
20	Before the development allowed by this permit commences (including any associated demolition, excavations, tree removal, delivery of building/construction materials and/or temporary buildings), the erected tree protection fences must be inspected and approved by the Responsible Authority.
Once erected to the required standard, the tree protection fencing shall be maintained in good condition and may only be removed upon completion of all development works, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21	The following actions must not be undertaken in any TPZ as identified in this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	materials or equipment stored within the zone;
(b)	servicing and refuelling of equipment and vehicles;
(c)	storage of fuel, oil dumps or chemicals;
(d)	attachment of any device to any tree (including temporary service wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device);
(e)	open cut trenching or excavation works (whether or not for laying of services);
(f)	changes to the soil grade level;
(g)	temporary buildings and works; and
(h)	unauthorised entry by any person, vehicle or machinery.
Materials
22	The materials to be used in the construction of the buildings and works hereby permitted shall be of non-reflective type and finished in muted / earth coloured tones, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Amenity
23	The lighting along the pedestrian paths and driveway and in the car parks must only be operated on a sensor system outside of the hours of operation of the veterinary centre specified in condition 6, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
24	Air-conditioning and other plant and equipment installed on the subject buildings shall be so positioned and baffled so that noise disturbance is minimised, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
25	Mechanical ventilation systems must be positioned so as not to cause a noise or environmental nuisance to adjoining properties, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
26	The development and use 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; and
(d)	Presence of vermin.
Waste management
27	Prior to the development commencing, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval. The plan must specify:
(a)	The details and location of bin storage and bin collection areas to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Maintenance Section (if a Council collection).
(b)	The details and location of bin storage and bin collection points by a private waste contractor (if not a Council collection).
(c)	Access route and method of access for the vehicles collecting waste.
(d)	Details and location of bin storage areas for each approved dwelling.
(e)	Odour control from bin storage areas.
28	The premises must provide and maintain a suitable area for the storage and cleaning of rubbish receptacles, as shown on the endorsed plans. The waste storage area must be appropriately located and of sufficient size to contain all refuse bins used on the premises, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
29	Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the commercial waste collection must not occur outside the following hours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	For one collection per week, between 6:30am – 8:00pm Monday to Saturday and between 9:00am – 8:00pm Sundays and public holidays.
(b)	For two or more collections per week, between 7:00am – 8:00pm Monday to Saturday and between 9:00am – 8:00pm Sundays and public holidays.
Stormwater management
30	The development, including any new paved areas, must be drained so as to prevent the uncontrolled discharge of stormwater from the subject site across any road, footpath or onto any adjoining land. Stormwater must not cause any nuisance or loss of amenity in any adjacent or nearby land.
Stormwater from the roof of the development must be directed to the existing stormwater drainage system for the dwelling to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
31	No polluted stormwater, effluent and/or sediment laden runoff from the development site is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council’s drains, Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses or adjoining private property during any stage of the construction. In this regard, sediment fencing and/or pollution/litter traps must be installed on site and serviced accordingly, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Expiry - Use and development
32	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
(c)	The use does not start within two (2) years of completion of the development.
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 –