VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P784/2024
Permit Application no.PA231058 	
CATCHWORDS	
Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme; potential of underdevelopment in a Substantial change area and Residential Growth Zone; five double storey townhouses on a lot; policy at Clauses 15.01-1L-01 and 16.01-1L of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.	

Applicant	Ayda Vic Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Hobsons Bay City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	53 Davies Street
ALTONA VIC 3018	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	3 April 2025	

DATE OF ORDER	24 April 2025	

CITATION	Ayda Vic Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2025] VCAT 357	

Order

1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & 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:	Clovis Architectural Plans & Permits	
•	Drawing numbers:	Drawing 1 to 21 of 21	
•	Dated:	13 February 2025	

2	In application P784/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application PA231058 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 53 Davies Street Altona VIC 3018 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 32.07-6	Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.	

4	Costs are reserved.

Michael Deidun
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Panos Nickas, Solicitor of Nickas Legal	
For responsible authority	Kyle O’Brien, Town Planner of Three Thirds Group	

Information
Description of proposal	The construction of five double storey attached dwellings	
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	Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Residential Growth Zone 1	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.07-6 to construct two or more dwellings on a lot on land within the Residential Growth Zone	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 02, 11, 15, 16, 32.07, 52.06, 55, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The land is a rectangular shaped allotment, with a frontage to Davies Street of 15.54 metres, a depth of 46.63 metres, and an overall area of 725 square metres.  The land presently supports a single storey detached dwelling and some outbuildings.	
Tribunal inspection	The Tribunal inspected the site and surrounding are prior to the hearing, on 24 March 2025.	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Ayda Vic Pty Ltd (the ‘applicant’) seeks to review the decision of the Hobsons Bay City Council (the ‘Council’) to refuse to grant a permit for the proposed development of five dwellings on land at 53 Davies Street, Altona (the ‘review site’).  
2	The Council’s original grounds of refusal, confirmed by amended grounds filed on 25 March 2025, raised concerns that the proposal is in a location which is subject to coastal inundation, and the proposal has not addressed that risk.  The review site is not covered by any overlay, and the only permit trigger is found in the Residential Growth Zone.  Havign regard to the purposes and decision guidelines in the Residential Growth Zone, there is nothing that engages a discretion to be exercised in relation to flooding, sea level rise, or any type of inundation.  As such, and in keeping with the principles set out in the decision of Kiyagan v Baw Baw SC [2025] VCAT 206, the issue of sea level rise and coastal inundation is not before me in this proceeding.  
3	Following the filing of its updated grounds on 25 March 2025, the Tribunal brought the decision of Kiyagan v Baw Baw SC [2025] VCAT 206 to the Council’s attention, and asked the parties to come to the hearing prepared to address the relevance of the Council’s concerns regarding coastal inundation, to the permit requirements in this proceeding.  In response the Council filed further updated grounds on 1 April 2025, that withdrew the ground relating to coastal inundation.
4	That leaves the Council with five grounds, all of which relate to a single issue, that being the view of Council that the proposed development of five, two storey dwellings on the site represents an underdevelopment of land in the Residential Growth Zone, and fails to achieve the extent of housing growth encouraged in this location by the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.  
5	Two statement of grounds were lodged by nearby residents, who did not seek to become parties to the proceeding.  Their grounds raise concerns in relation to the extra demand created for on-street carparking, potential for overlooking, amenity impacts from the bin enclosures, other potential acoustic impacts, loss of sunlight in the evening, and the visual impact of 5 three storey townhouses.  It is evident from one of these statements of grounds that the nearby resident understands that five, three storey townhouses are proposed on the land, and opposes this form of development.  In fact, the proposal is for five, two storey townhouses. 
6	The issues or questions for determination are:
a	Is the proposal an underdevelopment?
b	Is the proposal an appropriate built form response to its context?
c	Will there be any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
d	Does the proposal provide an appropriate level of internal amenity?
e	Does the proposal appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements?
7	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision, and direct the grant of a planning permit subject to conditions.   My reasons follow.
Is the proposal an underdevelopment?
8	The western side of Davies Street (that includes the review site) is within Schedule 1 to the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ1), and represents the eastern edge of the Substantial change area that surrounds the Altona Major Activity Centre.  The opposite side of Davies Street is within Schedule 4 to the General Residential Zone (GRZ4), and a Moderate change area.  The Neighbourhood character objectives set out in GRZ4 do not encourage the achievement of a robust neighbourhood character on the opposite side of Davies Street, and the standard 11 metre mandatory height limit applies.
9	Returning to the land within RGZ1, the policies at Clause 02.03-6 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme provide the following guidance for the Substantial change areas.
Substantial Change Areas: Housing intensification will occur and result in a substantially different scale and intensity of housing compared to other areas. This includes strategic redevelopment areas and locations in and around activity centres and public transport.
10	Policy at Clause 02.03-5 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme establishes that new residential development is to respect a preferred neighbourhood character, as opposed to the existing neighbourhood character.  Clause 15.01-1L-01 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme seeks to guide the preferred character for the Substantial change areas.  This policy sets out the following.
Objectives
To encourage housing intensification in substantial change areas that delivers design outcomes that contribute positively to the local context while allowing for greater housing change.
Strategies
Support development that is substantially different in scale and intensity compared to housing in the established area, such as apartment buildings rather than lower scale building forms. 
Maintain the openness of streetscapes and the visual connection between buildings and the street.
Minimise the dominance of car parking facilities, driveways and crossovers.
Support buildings that provide an articulated and visually varied façade with habitable rooms at the front of buildings.
Protect the amenity of adjacent Moderate, Incremental or Minimal change areas through the use of: 
•	Sufficient setbacks to minimise visual intrusion, particularly at upper levels. 
•	Building design techniques rather than relying solely on screening to minimise overlooking.
•	A transition in built form by stepping down heights. 
•	Landscaping, including canopy trees where possible, to soften views of the interface between different change areas.
Provide a transition to adjoining properties by stepping down building heights to sensitive interfaces. 
Design built form to allow for avenue street tree planting, where practicable.
Support subdivision and site layout that retains large, established trees and provides for the planting of new trees to minimise visual bulk. 
Retain space in front setbacks for planting and design these areas to: 
•	Include landscaping along side boundaries and driveways.
•	Accommodate canopy trees.
Design developments to allow vegetation to reach maturity and to be maintained without threatening buildings, services, access and infrastructure in the longer term.
Minimise paving and other hard surfaces in front garden areas, including driveways and crossovers.
Provide vehicular access from a rear laneway or rear access driveway where available and minimise the number of vehicular crossovers
11	The Council submits that, on the basis of the zoning of the land, the policy guidance from the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, and the housing expectations established by the State Government, that the proposed development of five double storey dwellings on the review site amounts to an underdevelopment.  They make this submission in the context of the confined opportunities for additional housing in Hobsons Bay City Council, which they say includes the limitations placed by the recognised industrial, major hazard, pipeline, and environmental pressures in the municipality.  In addition the Council references the limited application of the Substantial change area within this municipality.
12	I am not persuaded by these submissions, and instead find that the proposal is an appropriate housing response to this locality, and the guidance provided by the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.  I make this finding for the following reasons.
13	Firstly, I acknowledge that the first Strategy at Clause 15.01-1L-01 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, which was heavily relied upon in the Council’s submissions, seeks to:
Support development that is substantially different in scale and intensity compared to housing in the established area, such as apartment buildings rather than lower scale building forms.
14	However, this policy does nothing more than to say that a decision maker should support a development that is substantially different in scale, such as apartment buildings.  It does not encourage such development, nor discourage lower scale or townhouse style development.  There is nothing in this policy statement, or in others found in the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme that were brought to my attention, that sets a preference for a particular style or scale of housing in the Substantial change area.
15	Secondly, in relation to the broader policy guidance and background documents referred to by the Council, I adopt the analysis and findings contained at paragraphs 8-38 of the Tribunal decision of Shak Developments Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2024] VCAT 1093.  I also support the finding in that decision that different housing typologies are envisaged for the Substantial change areas, and not all lots should be developed with apartments, or developments of the same height and scale.
16	Thirdly, I consider that the proposed development of five dwellings on a lot of 725 square metres represents a considerable extent of housing growth on a relatively small site, in this neighbourhood.  Even if the development were to be extended to three storeys in height, the footprint of the individual townhouses may not reduce, and so five townhouses may still be the housing outcome.  While a four storey apartment building will likely achieve an increase in housing growth, there are factors in this context that weigh against the potential for four storey development on the review site.  I come to those factors later in these reasons.
17	In its written and oral submissions, the Council pointed the Tribunal to other examples of development in the substantial change area, which they say are appropriate responses to the zone and supporting policy context.  In addition to these submissions, the Council helpfully provided copies of endorsed plans for these developments.  One of these developments commended by the Council is at 41 Bent Street, Altona.  That development comprises six, two storey townhouses and one, three storey townhouse on a lot of 938 square metres.  The site at 41 Bent Street is located in the Residential Growth Zone, and abuts land in the Mixed Use Zone to its west, with land on the opposite side of Bent Street also within the Residential Growth Zone.  As such, the site at 41 Bent Street is located closer to the core of the Altona Major Activity Centre, as compared to the review site in this proceeding.  Despite these locational advantages, that site has been approved to provide seven townhouses on a site of 938 square metres, which is comparable to the proposed five townhouses on a site of 725 square metres in this proceeding.  As such, I am not persuaded that the approved development at 41 Bent Street achieves a higher level of housing contribution, as compared to the proposal that is now before me.  In short, I do not understand why one is identified as an underdevelopment, and the other is held up as an exemplar development.
18	Fourthly, I consider that the following contextual reasons also support the extent of development that is proposed on the review site.
a	The purposes of the Residential Growth Zone seek to provide housing up to and including four storeys.  The proposed two storey development on the review site goes some way to achieving this purpose.  Schedule 1 to the RGZ does not contain design objectives or decision guidelines, that might encourage a different built form outcome.  
b	The review site is at the edge of the Substantial change area, and policy at Clause 15.01-1L-01 encourages a stepping down of heights adjacent to Moderate change areas.  This policy can be read as to not support a four storey development on the review site, but rather encourage a more modest scale of development.
c	The abutting land to the south is developed with a single storey dwelling that has solar panels on its roof, at the immediate interface to the review site.  The development of a taller built form on the review site may face difficulty, when one has regard to the shadowing impact to these existing solar panels.
d	The view of Council and Melbourne Water that the review site is subject to coastal inundation, may result in overlays being applied to the land in the future.  Any such future planning controls may limit the potential for redevelopment of other land in Davies Street, and may result in a review of the boundaries of the Substantial change area and the Residential Growth Zone.  While these are unknowns, it follows that I cannot be assured that the Council’s current vision for Davies Street, will ultimately result in a level of substantial change for this locality.
19	Finally, I note the following policy from Clause 16.01-1L of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme. 
Encourage consolidation of lots in substantial and moderate change areas to support higher density developments.
20	As I have noted above, there are some contextual reasons why the review site, at the outer edge of the Substantial change area, might not be appropriate for a higher density development.  For this reason, I find the failure to consolidate the review site with nearby properties, in order to enable the potential of a higher density development, to not be fatal to the grant of a planning permit.
21	For these reasons I find that the proposed development of the review site with five double storey dwellings to not represent a magnitude of underdevelopment, that would warrant the refusal of the grant of a planning permit for the proposal that is before me.
Is the proposal an appropriate built form response to its context?
22	The Council’s grounds in relation to Clause 55 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme primarily reference the Neighbourhood character and Residential policy objectives, to support the underdevelopment argument I have already considered and not been persuaded by.  Aside from the issue of bin storage, which I come to later in these reasons, the Council does not have any criticism of the design and layout of the proposed development on the review site.
23	I agree with Council that once one ‘gets over’ the hurdle of whether the proposal is an underdevelopment, the proposal can then be found to be an appropriate built form response to its context.  I make this finding for the following reasons.
a	The proposed height and scale of two storey development is consistent with the one and two storey development already found in Davies Street.
b	While the proposal will present a continuous built form at two storeys in height that is not characteristic of development in Davies Street, it does represent a modest response to the preferred character of substantial change that is strongly encouraged by the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme in this locality.  I also note that this will not be the first site in Davies Street to respond in this manner to these housing and character policies, having regard to the attached two storey townhouse form found at the south-western corner of Civic Parade and Davies Street.
c	A front setback of 7.3 metres is reflective of the setbacks of the adjacent properties, and the proposal mostly avoids walls on boundaries, in response to this element of the existing streetscape.  Where development is to be constructed to boundaries at the rear of the site, this is a contextual response to the rear interface with other land in the substantial change area, as one moves away from the interface to the moderate change area on the opposite side of Davies Street.
d	The proposal will present to Davies Street with a single dwelling, that will sit comfortably with the existing rhythm and spacing of dwellings in Davies Street.
e	The proposed townhouses will comprise a mix of face brickwork, rendered walls and vertical cladding, which both provides an interesting variety of colors and materials, while also referencing the materials commonly used in this neighbourhood.
f	The proposed dwellings will each have a pitched roof, in response to the prominence of pitched roofs in Davies Street.
24	For these reasons I find that the proposed development is an appropriate built form response to the character of Davies Street, noting the preferred character for this substantial change area.
Is the proposal otherwise an appropriate response to the guidance from the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme?
25	Usually in a medium density development such as this I would separately assess off-site impacts, the provision of internal amenity and car parking and traffic movements.  However, in this proceeding, aside from the storage and collection of bins from the review site, these usual considerations were not the subject of submissions, and not contested by the parties at the hearing.  In this context, it is appropriate to take a more streamlined approach to my reasons, by dealing at once with the remaining considerations.  
26	The Council is concerned about the storage of bins in a prominent location on the review site.  I agree with the Council that the bin storage location, at the front of the pedestrian entry point to the review site, is an unfortunate location.  The Council’s solution is to have a shared bin arrangement across the proposed five dwellings that reduces the total number of bins, and also reduces the area required for the storage of bins.  I endorse this approach, but intend to enhance it by requiring each dwelling to have its own rubbish bin, stored in the rear corner of each garage.  This will further reduce the number of shared bins, and the size of the shared bin storage area(s).  The proposed garages comply with the dimensions set out at Clause 52.06-9 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.  That same Clause identifies that obstructions can occur at the rear corners of car parking spaces.  While Diagram 1 at Clause 52.06-9 intends for trees or columns to be the obstructions, there is no reason why bins cannot occupy these areas.  For these reasons I will amend the permit conditions as drafted by Council to require the rubbish bins to be stored in the rear corners of each garage.  I will also delete the permit conditions as drafted by Council that indicate that private waste collection may be required, as I have not been persuaded that such permit conditions are appropriate and reasonable.
27	The Council raises no other Clause 55 concerns, and so does not raise any matters relating to off-site amenity impacts and the provision of internal amenity.  I agree with the Council’s assessment that these parts of Clause 55 are appropriately addressed by the proposed development.  Earlier in these reasons I summarised the grounds filed by two nearby residents.  In response to these matters I note the following:
a	The proposal provides the level of car parking sought by the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, and no permit is sought to reduce the car parking requirement.  As such, I cannot require additional car parking to be provided on the land, and nor could I refuse to grant a permit based on the provision of car parking.  Further, the plans have been amended to ensure that all vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward motion, ensuring a level of pedestrian safety in Davies Street.
b	The potential for overlooking has been addressed by the proposed screening of all south facing first floor habitable room windows.  These are the windows that face one of the people who filed a statement of grounds, with the other person on the opposite side of Davies Street.  As the method of screening complies with the relevant standard, no unreasonable level of overlooking will occur.
c	The issue of the bin enclosure has been addressed in the reasons set out earlier in my decision.  The new location for the rubbish bins in the respective garages will address the concerns raised by the nearby resident.
d	There is no need for acoustic fencing or alternative attenuation measures along the southern boundary of the review site.  The proposed dwellings will generate residential noise, which is to be expected in a residential area.  Further, EPA guidelines apply to the noise from any plant and equipment, and a condition as drafted by Council requires the location of such plant and equipment to be determined having regard to potential noise impacts.  I am satisfied that these controls are sufficient to achieve an appropriate acoustic outcome.
e	The Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme requires me to consider the potential overshadowing from the proposed dwellings that will occur between 9:00am and 3:00pm at the September equinox.  The shadow diagrams that form a part of the amended plans demonstrate that no unreasonable overshadowing will occur during these hours.  The evening shadows referred to by a nearby resident cannot be considered in this proceeding, as they are not identified as the relevant test by the provisions and policies of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
f	As noted earlier in these reasons, the property to the south of the review site has solar panels on their single storey roof.  Standard B10 sets out that buildings should be designed and sited to ensure the performance of existing rooftop solar energy systems are not unreasonably reduced.  One of the decision guidelines is whether the existing solar panels are appropriately located.  In this case, the adjoining property has solar panels on all of its available north facing single storey pitched roof, including on the lower element that is within one metre of the boundary with the review site.  This is not an appropriate location to avoid future shadowing impacts.  In any case, the proposal will not result in any shadowing to the solar panels at the equinox.  In my view this represents a reasonable outcome that achieves compliance with Standard B10.  While there will be some shadowing at the winter solstice, this is to be expected for panels on a single storey roof, located so close to the northern boundary of that site, in a substantial change area where higher built forms are encouraged.
g	In contrast to the grounds filed by a nearby resident, the proposal is for two storey development, not three storey development.  Having regard to the designation of the land as a Substantial change area covered by the Residential Growth Zone, there must be a reasonable expectation that new development, up to four storeys in height, will present with some scale when viewed from surrounding residential properties.  In comparison, the proposal for double storey townhouses on the review site presents with a far more moderated level of scale, than is possible in this location.  Further, the design that is before me proposes to articulate the built form through a variety of materials and colors, the use of exposed party walls and individual rooflines, relatively low two storey wall heights, and a lightweight presentation to the first floor.  Finally, the proposed heights and setbacks exceed that required under Standard B17.  For these reasons I find that the proposed development will not result in an unreasonable level of building bulk to the abutting properties. 
What conditions are appropriate?
28	A number of other matters about permit conditions were raised by the parties.  With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:
a	There was much discussion at the conclusion of the hearing about the storage and collection of bins.  I have edited the drafted conditions to require rubbish bins to be stored in the rear corner of each garage, and for other bins to be shared and collected by the Council waste collection service.
b	As the applicant consents to the requirement of a landscape bond, I will retain this permit condition on this occasion.
Conclusion
29	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.  At the applicant’s request costs are reserved.

Michael Deidun
Member			

Appendix A – Permit DESCRIPTION AND Conditions
Permit No	PA231058	
planning scheme	Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme	
responsible authority	Hobsons Bay City Council	
address of the land	53 Davies Street
ALTONA VIC 3018	
the permit allows:
Planning scheme clause	Matter for which the permit has been granted	

Clause 32.07-6	Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.	
Conditions to apply to the permit:
Amended Plans Required
1	Before the development starts, revised plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the amended plans dated 13 February 2025 but modified to show to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	Potential overlooking from the balcony of Dwelling 4 to be reduced by the addition of screening perpendicular to the northern façade of the building, along the alignment of the party wall between Dwellings 4 & 5, to a depth of 1.0 metre from the northern wall of the building.   
(b)	Removal of gas meters and any reference to gas connection from the plans, in accordance with Condition 21. 
(c)	The positioning of all plant and equipment (including air conditioning units, heating units, hot water systems, etc.) which is proposed to be located externally. Such plant and equipment must be positioned to prevent unreasonable noise and visual impact and must not be on the roof or directly in front of neighbouring bedroom windows. 
(d)	The storage of rubbish bins in the rear corners of the respective garages, in locations that align with the areas where trees or columns are permitted in diagram 1 to Clause 52.06-9 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
(e)	A shared bin storage area or areas for the FOGO and recycling bins, that is not within the front setback area.
(f)	A notation on the site plan stating that all stormwater infrastructure as required by condition 13 of this permit is to be located within the driveways and not in the areas set aside for landscaping unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
(g)	The landscape plan prepared by Habitat dated March 2025 to be revised to include: 
i	A notation indicating a canopy tree must be a minimum 1.5 metres high at the time of planting.  
ii	A notation stating that all stormwater infrastructure as required by condition 13 of this permit is to be located within the driveways and not in the areas set aside for landscaping unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
iii	Nominate a Tree Protection Zone in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan as required under condition 7 of this permit.
(h)	Details of the location of any communal service meters within the front setback. They must be located within an enclosure or cupboard with a maximum height of 1.2 metres and designed to achieve a high quality appearance and designed to present unreasonable visual impacts while still meeting the requirements of the relevant service authority. If located adjacent to the driveway the structure/s must comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06-9 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
(i)	In conjunction with the revised Sustainable Design Assessment required by Condition 8, the plans must be revised to show: 
i	A notation that each dwelling’s private open space area is to be provided with an external tap and floor waste. 
ii	Habitable room windows to be double glazed. 
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Unless specified in a permit condition, this requirement does not apply if an exemption is available under the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
3	Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4	The tree protection guidelines on page 5 of the Arboricultural Assessment and Report, prepared by Glen Waters and dated 12 December 2023, are to be followed throughout construction. The Arboricultural Report is to form part of the endorsed documents. 
Landscaping
5	Prior to the submission of a request for endorsed plans under this permit, the owner must lodge a bank guarantee or bond of $5,000 with the Responsible Authority to ensure the satisfactory establishment of landscaping works. Once landscaping has been completed in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan, Council must be notified so a six week establishment period will commence. The bank guarantee or bond will be returned after an inspection has confirmed the landscaping has been maintained for that period to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. After the establishment period, the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6	Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and thereafter must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7	Prior to commencement of any works the following provisions relating to the protection of the existing street tree must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: 
(a)	A suitable Tree Protection Zone with barrier fence must be established around the existing street tree.
(b)	The Tree Protection Zone must be enclosed using a 2-metre high temporary cyclone fence or similar, which must remain in place through all stages of the development. This fence must not enclose the footpath which must be kept clear for pedestrian access and a sign must be erected on the fence informing that the fence is a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. 
(c)	The area within the Tree Protection Zone must not be disturbed by any means (including parking of vehicles or storage of plant & equipment, materials, soil or waste). 
(d)	No excavation is allowed within the Tree Protection Zone except with the consent of Council’s Town Planning Department and under the supervision of a qualified Arborist.
Environmentally Sustainable Design 
8	Concurrently with a request for endorsed plans under this permit a revised Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) and BESS report must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the SDA will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The assessment and report must be substantially in accordance with those provided with the application, but modified to show to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: 
(a)	The project must meet a minimum 50% overall BESS score and minimums in Energy (50%), Water (50%), IEQ (50%) and Stormwater (100%) BESS categories. 
(b)	The roof catchment areas for rainwater tanks to be consistent across the BESS Report and the WSUD Plan. 
(c)	The removal of gas in accordance with Condition 21.
9	Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA), approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the SDA, including any Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives, have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.
10	The sustainable design initiatives listed in the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment must be incorporated into the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Waste Management Plan
11	Concurrently with a request for endorsed plans under Condition 1 of this permit, a revised Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted and approved by Council, when approved the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The plan must outline how waste will be managed and collected for development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority as follows: 
(a)	The provision of an individual rubbish bin for each dwelling, to be stored in locations that align with the areas where trees or columns are permitted in diagram 1 to Clause 52.06-9 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
(b)	Shared FOGO and recycling bins across the five approved dwellings.
(c)	An assessment of how many shared FOGO and recycling bins will be required for the likely occupants of the five approved dwellings.
(d)	The identification of a designated bin storage area or areas on site that can accommodate the required number of bins (for roughly 0.7 square metres per bin) and that must not be within the front setback of the dwellings. 
(e)	The inclusion of instructions for entering into a shared bin arrangement with Council.
Engineering
12	The site must be connected to a legal point of drainage discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13	Prior to commencement of the development the owner must prepare stormwater drainage design plans to the satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor. An application to Council must be made for a Legal Point of Discharge for the disposal of stormwater from the subject land and to determine the relevant Council standards for the stormwater drainage system design.  An on-site storm water detention system will be required if the volume of stormwater exceeds the capacity of the legal point of discharge.
14	All basic services including water, electricity, sewerage, telephone and other telecommunication facilities must be installed underground. All above ground meters must be located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
15	The owner must meet the costs of all alterations to and reinstatement of the Council and other Public Authority Assets deemed necessary and required by such Authorities for the development. The owner must obtain the prior specific written consent of the Council or other relevant Authority to such alterations and reinstatements and must comply with conditions required by the said Authority in relation to the execution of such works.
Parking
16	Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be:   
(a)	Constructed.
(b)	Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
(c)	Surfaced with asphalt or concrete unless another surface treatment is approved by Council.
(d)	Drained and maintained.
(e)	Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes. 
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
17	Any vehicle crossings must be constructed in the location shown on the endorsed plan to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority. The relocation of any services including electricity poles, drainage pits, Telstra pits, fire hydrants and the like must be at the expense of the owner and approved by the appropriate authority prior to undertaking such works. Consent for such crossings must be obtained through Council’s Contracts, Procurement and Asset Protection Department prior to construction.
General
18	Prior to the occupation of the buildings, all visual screening depicted on the endorsed plans must be fitted and/or constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
19	Prior to the occupation of the buildings, all boundary walls on or facing the boundaries of the site must be either raked and cleaned (face brickwork) or rendered and painted or bagged and painted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any protruding floor slab must be cleaned and trimmed flush with the wall to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
20	All service pipes, (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21	Any new dwelling allowed by this permit must not be connected to a reticulated gas service (within the meaning of clause 53.03 of the relevant planning scheme). This condition continues to have force and effect after the development authorised by this permit has been completed.
22	This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issued date of this permit.
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition
– End of conditions –