VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P408/2018
Permit Application no. D/850/2017	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Darebin Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone Schedule 1; Neighbourhood character; Side-by-side development; Visual bulk; Amenity Impacts.   	

APPLICANT	Archsign Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Darebin City Council	
RESPONDENT	Matthew John Hooper	
SUBJECT LAND	5 Taylor Street, Thornbury	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Joel Templar, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	22 August 2018   	
DATE OF ORDER	17 September 2018	
CITATION	Archsign Pty Ltd v Darebin City Council [2018] VCAT 1307

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P408/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application D/850/2017 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 5 Taylor Street, Thornbury in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of two dwellings on a lot.

Joel Templar
Member			

Appearances
For Archsign Pty Ltd	Mr Daniel Bowden, town planner of Song Bowden Planning	
For Darebin City Council	Mr Michael Dietrich, town planner of Windsor Planning	
For Matthew John Hooper	Mr Matthew Hooper in person	

Information
Description of proposal	The proposal is to construct two attached, double storey dwellings in a side-by-side arrangement. Each would have separate vehicle access, on either side of the site frontage, to a single garage for dwelling 1, an open carport for dwelling 2 and an open car space in front of each. The dwellings would comprise lounge room, kitchen/meals/living room at ground floor level and three bedrooms at first floor level. The minimum frontage setback would be 6.0 metres and the overall height of the proposal is approximately 8.015 metres. The proposal would be setback from all boundaries.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Darebin Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 2
Development Contributions Overlay Schedule 1	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.	
Land description	The review site is located on the west side of Taylor Street, between Keon Street to the north and Rennie Street to the south. It comprises two lots with a frontage to Taylor Street of 13.41 metres, a length of 36.58 metres for an overall site area of approximately 491 m². There is minimal fall across the land and a 1.5 metre wide easement runs along the northern boundary. There is an existing single storey dwelling located on the review site, which is setback from the front boundary approximately 8 metres and also from both side boundaries, with private open space at the rear. There is a detached outbuilding located in the south-western corner of the site.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the review site, 3 Taylor Street and the surrounding area on 24 August 2018.  	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	The Darebin City Council (the Council) has refused a permit for the construction of two double storey dwellings on the review site. The grounds of refusal primarily related to neighbourhood character.
2	This is an application to the Tribunal for a review of the Council’s decision.
3	Having regard to the submissions of all the parties, the key issues for determination in this matter are:
•	Is the proposal an acceptable response to its physical and policy context?
•	Will there be any unacceptable off-site amenity impacts?
4	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered the submissions of the parties with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme (the Scheme), I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision and direct that a permit be issued. My reasons follow.
is the proposal an acceptable response to its physical and policy context?
Physical context
5	The review site is located approximately 150 metres south of the Gilbert Road and Miller Street intersection, which supports a relatively small activity centre and includes a number of small shops and a small supermarket. The route 11 tram also runs along Gilbert Road and Miller Street between West Preston and Docklands. Thornbury railway station is located approximately 1 km to the east of the review site. Egan Reserve which is along the banks of the Merri Creek is located approximately 500 metres to the west of the review site.
6	The review site is located in an area that is typified by single dwellings. There is some evidence of multi-dwelling development, however these are not common. Where multi-dwelling developments do exist, they are generally located on larger sites both in the form of side-by-side and tandem arrangements.
7	Lot sizes vary with smaller narrower lots displaying built form that is commonly constructed to one or both boundaries or in very close proximity to side boundaries. Larger lots generally support larger dwellings and typically with comparatively larger side setbacks particularly on one side.
8	The predominant scale of development in this area is single storey, however there is a scattering of double storey development that is evident, generally in the form of double storey extensions. These are quite prominent when viewed from other surrounding properties, particularly 3 Taylor Street and 78 Rennie Street which both abut the review site.
9	Secluded private open space is generally located at the rear of dwellings, with many sites supporting detached single storey outbuildings of various proportions within these spaces.
10	Frontage setbacks in the surrounding area vary. However, the variation is generally a difference between development on the smaller lots compared with development on larger lots. 
11	Smaller lots tend to have a consistency of frontage setbacks between them, as does development on the larger lots. However, development on larger lots tends to have greater setbacks than development on smaller lots and these greater setbacks also generally display more vegetation.
12	Taylor Street has a north-south alignment and in the vicinity of the review, site has a somewhat mixed lot arrangement, with some properties having a primary frontage to Taylor Street particularly North of Rennie Street and on the western side. However, Taylor Street typically displays secondary street frontages of properties that front streets that are aligned in an east-west direction. This includes a property directly opposite the review site, which is addressed to Rennie Street.
13	The vast majority of properties in the surrounding area have some form of vehicle access and parking at the front of respective properties. This includes crossovers and driveways and there are many uncovered car spaces within frontage setbacks. There is a presence of garages and carports visible from the public realm, however these are not typical of development in the surrounding area.
Policy Context
14	The review site is zoned General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 (GRZ2) under the Scheme, as is the surrounding land.  The objectives of the zone seek to, amongst other things, encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area and encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
15	The Planning Policy Framework (the PPF) the Scheme at clauses 11.01-1R (Settlement - Metropolitan Melbourne) and 16.01-2S (Location of residential development) encourages the intensification of housing in existing urban areas close to jobs and services, and increasing housing supply and diversity.  
16	Clause 15.01-4R is a relatively new policy in the Scheme which seeks to:
“Create a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods, that give people the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20 minute walk, cycle or public transport trip from their home”.
17	Clause 15.01-5S of the PPF seeks to ensure that development recognises and responds to a site’s context and contributes to existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
18	Clause 71.02-3 seeks that decision makers balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit.
19	Clause 21.03-1 of the Darebin Planning Scheme identifies the site as being in an Incremental Housing Change area. This covers the vast majority of residential areas across the municipality. Under this clause, Incremental Housing Change areas are identified as areas that have the capacity to accommodate a moderate level of residential development. This clause also identifies that there are two distinct areas within Incremental Housing Change areas as follows:
Incremental Housing Change 
Residential and commercial areas that have the capacity to accommodate a moderate level of residential development over time. It is expected that the general character of Incremental Change Areas will evolve over time as new yet modest types of development are accommodated. Incremental Change Areas generally display one or more of the following characteristics: 
•	A diversity of housing stock, diversity of lot sizes and a more varied neighbourhood character. Typically areas include some medium density and small apartment development, but the predominant dwelling stock is single to double storey dwellings.
•	Have some stand-alone or small clusters of heritage sites, including along strategic corridors, however are generally unaffected by extensive heritage recognition. 
•	Are located: 
•	within an 800 metre walkable catchment of an activity centre 
•	generally within an 800 metre walkable catchment of train, tram or SmartBus services. 
Certain Incremental Housing Change areas should only be considered suitable for limited scale and density of residential development. These are areas which: 
•	Are generally outside of an 800 metre walkable catchment to an activity centre, train station, tram route or SmartBus route. 
•	Have experienced a modest degree of infill residential development which precludes their classification as minimal change areas.
(Tribunal emphasis)
20	Under clause 21.03 -2, the application of zones and overlays has been set out as to how they will be applied to the different housing change areas within Darebin.
21	Under the Incremental Housing Change area, it is specifically noted that variations to the requirements of clauses 54 and 55 will be included to encourage lower scale and density of development where sites have reduced access to activity centres and public transport services. The GRZ1 in the Scheme has variations requiring a reduced site coverage and increased private open space areas, whereas the GRZ2 (which is the zoning for the review site) has no such variations. It is this differentiation within the Incremental Housing Change area that I referred to earlier that divides it into two distinct subcategories.
22	Objective 1 in clause 21.04-2, encourages housing development and diversity that is consistent with the character of an area and responds to any variability and allows for housing growth and diversification over time.
23	Objective 2 in this same clause seeks to support low scale medium density development which respects existing neighbourhood character, particularly in locations with good access to shops and services.
24	The Council submitted that the review site is well located to public transport, shops and facilities. I agree and therefore find that the review site is suitable for further intensification for residential purposes, subject to an acceptable design response.
25	I find that this is the type of site that clause 15.01-4R of the Scheme identifies as being a candidate for further intensification, subject to consideration of other policy and provisions.
26	The neighbourhood character policy at clause 22.02 of the PPF seeks to retain and enhance identified elements that contribute to the character of an area, and ensure that development responds to the preferred character statement set out in the Darebin Neighbourhood Character Study and Precinct Guidelines 2007 (the Guidelines).  The subject land is in Precinct D2 in these guidelines.
27	These guidelines for this precinct broadly seek the following, as relevant to this application:
•	Development that provides setbacks from the front and rear sufficient to incorporate landscaping and setback from at least one side boundary.
•	Garages behind the front line of any proposed dwelling, minimising hard surfaces and a maximum of one crossover per frontage.
•	Upper levels substantially setback from lower floor façades, with pitched rooves and eaves.
•	Maintain predominant frontage widths and new development take on an appearance of one dwelling.
•	Visually interesting façades, with variation in form, materials and colours.
28	Under clause 32.08-6 (Construction and extension of two or more dwellings on a lot, dwellings on common property and residential buildings), a development must meet the requirements of clause 55 of Scheme.  
29	The provisions of clause 55 of the Scheme include objectives and standards addressing a range of design elements including neighbourhood character, site layout and building massing, amenity impacts, on-site amenity and facilities, and detailed design.  Of particular relevance to the key issues in this matter are the neighbourhood character objectives at clause 55.02-1, which seek to ensure that developments respect the existing neighbourhood character or contribute to a preferred neighbourhood character, and respond to the features of the site and the surrounding area.
Findings
30	Both the Council and the applicant made submissions with respect to the typology and arrangement of this proposal and each made submissions as to the positives and negatives of a side-by-side arrangement and tandem arrangement. 
31	There was no dispute between the parties that some form of more intensive development on this site is acceptable.
32	It is not my role to determine in this case whether a different form of arrangement for a multi-dwelling development on the site is acceptable. My role in this case, is to determine whether this proposal is an acceptable one, and not make comparisons with other possible outcomes.
33	The Council’s submissions were that the primary failing of this application was the side-by-side nature of the proposal.
34	The Respondent agreed with these submissions and added that the proposed design detail does not fit with that found in the surrounding area, the degree of change sought through this design response is too great compared with existing development and the proposal does not fit with the character of ‘backyard strips’ found in the surrounding area.
35	I find that the proposal responds well to the policy in the Scheme that seeks low-scale, medium density development in an area that is accessible to shops and services.
36	I am satisfied that the proposal provides an appropriate balance between the neighbourhood character considerations and the policies that seek to increase housing densities.
37	Although the proposal is not an exact replication of what exists in the surrounding area and represents change when compared with the existing built form, the Scheme does not seek such replication.
38	I also acknowledge that the proposal does not meet every criteria in the Guidelines but I find that it does not need to, as these are ‘guidelines’ that are referred to in policy and policy does not seek absolute outcomes.
39	When assessed holistically, the proposal provides an acceptable outcome when assessed against the full range of policy within the Scheme.
40	The review site’s locational attributes, being well located to a small activity centre with shops and a small supermarket make it a good candidate site for increased density, particularly at the density sought which is not a significant change when compared with the surrounding area. The addition of one dwelling, I find, could not be said to be significant.
41	The application of the GRZ2 to the review site and the absence of any specific built form controls (such as a Design and Development Overlay) invite a design response which can take advantage of the locational attributes I referred to above in order to provide the level of change that is sought through this proposal, without having an unacceptable impact on the streetscape and surrounding area.
42	The Applicant posed a rhetorical question as part of submissions of whether someone who was walking past the proposal would notice that the proposal disrupts the rhythm of the streetscape?
43	I find that the proposal would not disrupt the rhythm of the streetscape to an unacceptable level.
44	The following attributes of the proposal, I find, weigh in favour of a positive outcome for this application:
•	The frontage setback matches the existing frontage setback of both adjoining dwellings, and the closest component of the design at ground floor level is a relative narrow section, with the bulk of the ground floor façade setback even more than this.
•	The proposed upper floors are well setback from the respective ground floor façades and both side boundaries.
•	There is no proposed development on any boundary.
•	Although two covered car spaces are proposed, one is an open, cantilevered carport with a flat roof, with no posts or support structures on the side closest to the boundary. This reduces the impact of this structure upon the streetscape but provides a level of functionality for this space.
•	The design detail to the facade at both levels, but particularly ground floor level, provides subtle variation that does not contrast significantly but to an acceptable level such that it will take on more of a single dwelling appearance than two separate dwellings. The proposed garage and carport to each dwelling will assist with this as they appear quite differently, as will the material treatment to the garage of dwelling 1, which will be clad with timber battens which will aid to mask the fact it is a garage.
•	The proposal maintains a relatively large setback from the rear boundary at ground floor level and first floor level, to provide for landscaping and to maintain some level of separation of primary built form, which is consistent with the siting of built form in the surrounding area.
•	The proposed design detail, including the low-pitched roof, is not dissimilar to the surrounding character of development and adds some level of contemporary design, which is encouraged by policy and the Guidelines.
•	The height of the proposal is not dissimilar to other double storey development in the surrounding area and the setbacks at both levels and the low-pitched roof form combine to provide an acceptable level of change from the predominant scale of development in the surrounding area.
45	Although the proposal incorporates two crossovers which is discouraged in the Guidelines, the review site is one of the wider sites in the surrounding area and given the character of the area where narrow sites tend to include a crossover, the proposal will not be inconsistent with this character.
46	Overall I consider this proposal will provide an acceptable balance between the policy objectives that support increasing housing in locations with good access to services and facilities, increasing housing diversity, and increasing dwelling densities, and those objectives that seek to protect and enhance the neighbourhood character.
will there be any unacceptable off-site amenity impacts?
47	The Respondent submitted that there will be an unacceptable level of visual bulk as would be seen from 3 Taylor Street. These submissions were in relation to both views from habitable room windows of the Respondent’s dwelling and also the secluded private open space. Submissions were also made in relation to the outlook from these locations on the Respondent’s property and that the proposal would result in unacceptable impact in terms of the extent of built form down the length of the review site.
48	In making those submissions, the Respondent noted that the application plans incorrectly identify windows on his property as being non-habitable room windows, when in actual fact they are habitable room windows. The windows along the northern elevation towards the rear of the dwelling at ground floor level are all in fact habitable room windows. This was confirmed during my site inspection. The Respondent also submitted that although there is a driveway along the northern boundary of his property, this is in actual fact used as secluded private open space.
49	The Scheme requires consideration of whether the proposal complies with standard B17 of clause 55.04-1 (Side and rear setbacks objective). The Scheme also requires consideration of whether there would be any amenity impacts as a result of a proposal in a broader sense, including references to whether such impacts would be inconsistent in a neighbourhood character sense.
50	The proposal complies with standard B17 in respect of the southern elevation and setback to the southern boundary.
51	I have made findings above in relation to the maintenance of a rear setback or the ‘green spine’ on the review site. I note that the proposal is not an exact replication of what is found in the area however I find that the proposal would maintain some level of separation of the built form from the rear boundary that respects the character of the surrounding area in so far as the rear of properties is concerned. 
52	However, I note that the existence of double storey built form at the rear of properties in the surrounding area is not characteristic. Whilst in the immediate vicinity of the review site both the Respondent’s property and 78 Rennie Street display double storey built form towards the rear of properties, these, I find, are anomalous in the surrounding area. Whilst it might be argued that these provide a level of justification for the extent of first floor built form of the proposal, in respect of the Respondent’s property, I find that the extent of the upper floor of dwelling 1 would create a sense of enclosure to the secluded private open space of the Respondent’s property.
53	In order to provide a greater balance between intensification on the review site and the protection of the amenity of the Respondent’s property, I find that the upper floor of dwelling 1 must be reduced in its extent, particularly at the rear of the first floor. 
54	I have therefore included a condition to delete bedroom three of dwelling 1, which will reduce the impact of the proposal on the secluded private open space of the Respondent’s property. This will also result in the extent of the first floor of dwelling 1 not extending significantly beyond the extent of the first floor of the Respondent’s property.
55	Whilst I recognise that this will reduce the number of bedrooms in proposed dwelling 1, I also note that the ground floor of this dwelling includes a lounge room which could be converted to a bedroom to compensate for the loss of the bedroom at the first floor level. I have not required this by conditions, but I have contemplated that this might be an option that the applicant could elect to pursue through the wording of the conditions.
Are there any other issues?
56	Some other matters were raised during the hearing which I find are not fatal for the application, and I comment on these briefly below. 
Garden area
57	The Respondent submitted that although the proposal complies with the numerical requirements of clause 32.08-4 (Minimum garden area requirement) much of this area is not usable. 
58	This clause is not a discretionary clause, it is a mandatory requirement. In terms of it not being discretionary, there is therefore no ability for consideration of whether those spaces are usable or not. The Scheme only requires compliance with the minimum percentage required and the proposal complies.
Loss of on street parking 
59	The Council and Respondent submitted that the proposal will result in the loss of one on-street car parking space as a result of the additional driveway and crossover. The Applicant conceded that this is a likely result of the proposal.
60	It is arguable as to whether there would be a loss of on street parking. However, even in the event that I found that there was a loss of one on street car parking space, I find that on balance this would be an acceptable outcome. 
61	I note that the surrounding area supports dwellings where most have some on-site car parking, but might also rely somewhat on on-street car parking. The proposal will result in a development outcome that would not be inconsistent with the subdivision pattern and widths found more broadly in this area. The fact that many properties in the surrounding area have some on-site car parking spaces, I find weighs in favour of the reduction of one on street car parking space being acceptable, as the overall outcome will be a level of consistency with the existing pattern of development in the surrounding area. 
62	Whilst this may not be an ideal outcome, when balancing all policy considerations, it is one which I find is acceptable when assessing the proposal in its entirety.
63	In addition, the proposal is not seeking any waiver of car parking and the review site is well located in respect of public transport options.
What conditions are appropriate?
64	The Council circulated ‘without prejudice’ draft conditions prior to the hearing. These were discussed at the end of the hearing. The Applicant accepted most of the conditions that was circulated although noted that some of the amendments to the design contemplated in those conditions were not necessary but could be accommodated if I thought that they were necessary. These related to modifications to the northern elevations and components of the proposal. No party sought to make submissions in respect of the northern elevation in any specific sense including any impacts to the adjoining property to the north. 
65	It was not clear to me from submissions as to what these conditions sought to achieve. I have therefore not included any conditions requiring changes to dwelling 2 on the northern elevation.
66	I also note that the Applicant accepted that the proposed crossover could be reduced to a maximum of 2.75 metres in width and I have included this condition accordingly.
Conclusion
67	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Joel Templar
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	D/850/2017	
Land	5 Taylor Street, Thornbury	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of two dwellings on a lot.	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as TP1.0, TP2.0, TP3.0, all Revision B dated December 2017 by Archsign) but modified to show:
(a)	Deletion of bedroom 3 of dwelling 1 without reducing any other setbacks. The internal arrangement of this dwelling may be amended to compensate for the loss of this bedroom but without changing any other setbacks or window locations. The replacement roof form over this section of dwelling 1 is to match that of the remainder of the roof of the ground floor.
(b)	Reduction in the width of the proposed crossover to a maximum of 2.75 metres.
(c)	The deck to both dwellings provided with an open pergola and not a solid roof form, to reduce the bulk of the built form at the ground floor
(d)	Window operation on all elevation plans. Window operation must not increase overlooking of secluded private open space and/ or habitable room windows.
(e)	External operable sun shading devices (excluding roller shutters) to all east and west facing habitable room windows/ glazed doors. Where sun shading devices are being utilised a dimensioned section diagram or photograph must be included to demonstrate the shading type and effectiveness.
(f)	Fixed external sun shading devices to all north facing habitable room windows/ glazed doors. Where sun shading devices are being utilised a dimensioned section diagram must be included to demonstrate their effectiveness. Shading must not to extend within 1 metre of a property boundary.
(g)	External clothes lines to all dwellings.
(h)	Operable ventilated daylight tubes and/ or operable skylights with block out blinds for solar control to the following rooms, to improve light and ventilation:
i	First floor hallway to Dwellings 1 and 2.
All skylights are to be shown on a roof plan. 
(i)	The location of all plant and equipment (including air conditioners and the like). These are to be co-located where possible, screened to be minimally visible from the public realm and adjacent properties, located as far as practicable from site boundaries and integrated into the design of the building. 
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
4	No buildings or works are to be constructed over any easement or other restriction on the land or any sewers, drains, pipes, wires or cables under the control of a public authority or the Responsible Authority without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority and any relevant authority.
5	Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed.  The confirmation of the ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2010.  This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days from the date of the sub-floor inspection.  The upper floor levels must be confirmed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor submitted to the Responsible Authority.
6	Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.  The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must incorporate:
(a)	Two (2) small canopy trees within the front setback, and two (2) medium canopy trees, one within each of the secluded private open space areas at the rear of each dwelling. 
All canopy trees are to have a minimum height of 1.6 metres in 40 litre containers at the time of installation. Canopy trees must have the following minimum widths at maturity: small canopy (4 metres), medium canopy (6 metres), large canopy (10 metres).
(b)	details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed, including overhanging trees on adjoining properties and street trees within the nature strip.  The genus, species, height and spread of all trees must be specified.
(c)	a planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity, pot size and quantities of all plants.
(d)	a diversity of plant species and forms. All proposed planting must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(e)	where the opportunity exists, an appropriate number and size of canopy trees are to be shown within the secluded private open space areas of each dwelling and within the front setback of the property, commensurate with the size of planting area available. All canopy trees are to have a minimum height of 1.6 metres in 40 litre containers at the time of installation. Canopy trees must have the following minimum widths at maturity: small canopy (4 metres), medium canopy (6 metres), large canopy (10 metres).
(f)	annotated graphic construction details showing all landscape applications and structures including tree and shrub planting, retaining walls, raised planter bed and decking. 
(g)	type and details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and permeable and/or hard paving (such as pavers, brick, gravel, asphalt and concrete) demonstrating a minimum site permeability of 20%. Percentage cover of permeable surfaces must be stated on the plan. Where paving is specified, material types and construction methods (including cross sections where appropriate) must be provided.
(h)	hard paved surfaces at all entry points to dwellings.
(i)	all constructed items including letter boxes, garbage bin receptacles, lighting, clotheslines, tanks, outdoor storage etc.
(j)	type and details of edge treatment between all changes in surface (e.g. grass (lawn), gravel, paving and garden beds).
(k)	an outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of entry doors, windows, gates and fences must be shown on the landscape plan. The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services.  Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided.
(l)	clear graphics identifying trees (deciduous and evergreen), shrubs, grasses/sedges, groundcovers and climbers.
(m)	scale, north point and appropriate legend. Landscape plans are to be clear, legible and with graphics drawn to scale, and provide only relevant information.
7	The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
8	The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9	With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10	No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
11	Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Before the development starts, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
(a)	constructed;
(b)	properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
(c)	surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
(d)	drained;
(e)	line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
(f)	clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and driveways
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose
13	Before the development starts, vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All redundant crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
Expiry of permit for development
14	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 issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

– End of conditions –