VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P745/2018
Permit Application no. M/2017/1016	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Maroondah Planning Scheme; Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3; Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO3); Two double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling; Neighbourhood Character; Street Setback; Massing, scale and setbacks; Landscaping; Tree removal; Limited landscaping opportunities 	

APPLICANT	32 Hull Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Maroondah City Council	
referral authority	VicRoads	
SUBJECT LAND	32 Hull Road
CROYDON  VIC  	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Member A. Slattery	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	
DATE OF HEARING	8 October 2018	
DATE OF ORDER	12 November 2018	
CITATION	32 Hull Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2018] VCAT 1852	

Order
1	In application P745/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application M/2017/1016 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 32 Hull Road, Croydon in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of two double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling on a lot in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone;
•	Construction of buildings and works and removal of tree in a Significant Landscape Overlay; and 
•	Alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone.
3	The responsible authority is directed to issue a planning permit in accordance with this order. 

Alison Slattery
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr Robert Easton, Town Planner of Easton Planning.  He called landscaping evidence from Mr Robert Thomson of Habitat Landscaping.  	
For responsible authority	Ms Morgan Livingstone, Town Planner of SongBowden Planning	
For VicRoads	No appearance 	

Information
Description of proposal	The proposal includes the construction of two double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling, all accessed from a single driveway.  The presentation is of one dwelling to the street frontage and two dwellings to the rear.  As the site coverage is greater than 40% and the height of the buildings greater than 8 metres, permission for buildings and works is required under the SLO3.  Removal of several trees is proposed, including, contentiously, a Desert Ash to the rear of the site.  The proposal also includes the alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, being Hull Road.  	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Maroondah Planning Scheme	
Zone and Overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3).
Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO3)	
Permit Requirements	Clause 32.09-6 (construction of two or more dwellings on a lot)
Clause 42.03-2 (construction of buildings and works and removal of vegetation)
Clause 52.29-2 (alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone)	
Relevant Scheme policies and provisions.	Clauses 11, 15.01, 16.01, 21.06, 21.07, 22.02, 52.29, 55 and 65.	
Land description	The site is located on the south western side of Hull Road, just under 300 metres to the north east of the intersection with Dorset Road.  There is currently a single storey, weatherboard dwelling on the site and associated outbuildings.  The site contains a crossover to the western portion of the front boundary to Hull Road.  The site is irregular in shape and has a front boundary dimension of 16.93 metres and a maximum depth of 40.74 metres for a total site area of 1022 square metres.  The site is generally flat and contains a variety of trees and shrubs consistent with a garden setting with canopy trees throughout the site.  A drainage and sewerage easement traverses the rear boundary.
Surrounding sites generally include single and double storey dwellings of varied ages.  The emerging infill character generally including two storey dwellings and multi-unit development.  Dwellings generally include carports or garages set behind the frontage of the dwellings.
Croydon MAC is located is located around 1.2km to the east.  Shopping and public transport are provided at Croydon and Knox SC beyond that. 
Vegetation in the area is prominent with some properties including vast front and rear planting and some substantial street trees. 	
Tribunal inspection	The Tribunal inspected the site and surrounds after the hearing.   	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	32 Hull Pty Ltd applied to the Maroondah City Council for a permit to develop the land at 32 Hull Road, Croydon for the construction of three dwellings on the land, two of which are double storey with one single storey, removal of vegetation (tree 14) and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone.
2	Council issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant the Permit on 13 March 2018.  The decision was based on Council’s view that the scale and massing of the design shows little regard to the character of the neighbourhood and fails to provide appropriate landscaping.  Council contends that the development also does not comply with the standards of ResCode and fails to meet the objectives of local policy.  
3	The review applicant, through Mr Easton, disagrees with Council and residents and asserts that the design has considered the constraints of the site and is site responsive.  Mr Easton argued that the areas of non-compliance with the standards of ResCode are overstated by Council and contends that the proposal meets the objectives of ResCode.  It is his contention that the state and local policies lend support to the proposed development.  Mr Easton submitted that the proposal provides reasonable opportunity for landscaping.  In this position he relied on the landscaping evidence of Mr Robert Thompson of Habitat Landscaping.
4	The key issues for determination are:
a.	Is the proposal consistent with the planning policy framework of the Maroondah Planning Scheme?
b.	Does the development achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with Clause 55 (ResCode)?
c.	Does the development further the purposes of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3?
5	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions about the applicable policies and provisions of the Maroondah Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision.  My reasons follow.
Is the proposal consistent with the planning policy framework of the Maroondah Planning Scheme? 
6	While the Planning Policy Framework encourages the consolidation of established urban areas to make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, the location of the site within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and a Significant Landscape Overlay tempers these expectations for consolidation.  Rather, whilst there is an emphasis on increasing densities near strategic locations, such as this where there is moderately good access to services, this should be balanced against the Zone and Overlay purposes where development needs to contribute to and enhance the character of the area.  
7	Ms Livingstone for Council put that the built form proposed will detract from the character of the area, rather than enhance or contribute to it.  This, she submitted, was on the basis that the built form does not allow for the maintenance or enhancement of canopy tree vegetation in line with the expectation of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3.  She submitted the siting of built form close to boundaries and without breaks internally would not allow for the enhancement of landscaping through planting of canopy trees as envisaged in the overlay.  She submitted that this would be exacerbated by the removal vegetation, in particular tree 14, which would impact on the maintenance of vegetation that is sought within the Maroondah Planning Scheme.
8	Ms Livingstone argued that the development lacked an appropriately responsive landscaping provision in line with the surrounding context where vegetation is an important neighbourhood characteristic (in line with the Significant Landscape Overlay 3 that covers the area).  In addition to the concerns raised regarding the spacing of the proposed dwellings, Council noted that the proposed two storey form did not appropriately respond to the prevailing built form scale of development in the area.  This, Ms Livingstone argued, was compounded by the sites location adjacent to several residential interfaces, and the inadequate front setback proposed.  
9	In some ways I agree with Ms Livingstone.  The effect of density is not the only indicator of whether or not development is appropriate.  The effect of the extent of built form throughout the site also needs to be taken into account in understanding if a proposal is seeking to provide too much accommodation on site.  It is at this point that I disagree with Ms Livingstone.  I do not see that the increase in the number of dwellings from 1 to 3 is unreasonable.  Further, I find that the siting, scale and massing of the development is reasonable and provides opportunities for landscaping in line with the expectations of the policy, zone and overlay.  I also do not share Councils concerns with the removal of tree 14.  
10	In addition to the zoning and the overlay controls, the Maroondah Planning Scheme local planning policy framework seeks to encourage new development that responds appropriately to the character of existing residential areas.  To achieve this aim, a Neighbourhood Character Study has been referenced into the scheme which identifies the importance of vegetation and the landscaped character of the municipality.  This study informs the Policy at Clause 22.02 under which the subject site and the surrounding area are included in Neighbourhood Character Area No 12 Ruskin Park.  The policy at Clause 22.02 has as a reference document the Maroondah Neighbourhood Character Study, Planisphere, 2004 in which the area is described in the following manner:
“The Ruskin Park Neighbourhood Area is located at the eastern edge of Maroondah, north of Mount Dandenong Road. The Ruskin Park Neighbourhood Area is set in established gardens and rolling topography. Well maintained gardens of exotic and native species are a feature of the area and established canopy trees contribute to the vegetated character of the municipality. This area is one of few neighbourhoods that contains large pockets of exclusively weatherboard dwellings, and many streets of a consistent low scale, horizontal built
form character.”
11	Also included in the character study is a statement of the preferred future character for the area which has an emphasis on canopy trees in the private and public realms.  The preferred future character of the area is described in the following manner:
“The Ruskin Park Neighbourhood Area will be characterised by low scale dwellings, set in established gardens. The sense of formality in the streets throughout the neighbourhood will be strengthened by the existence of many avenues of street trees and canopy trees in private gardens. The vegetation of Ruskin Park will visually link with canopy trees throughout public and private domains. Frontage treatments will become more consistent with low fences and vegetation predominating.”
12	It is envisaged through policy that these preferred future characteristics will be achieved through the following policy objectives 
•	Ensuring the development of complementary dwelling styles, derived from the horizontal form of existing housing stock in the older areas of the neighbourhood.
•	Encouraging the use of compatible materials, particularly in exclusively weatherboard areas.
•	Maintaining the current setback patterns, allowing space between buildings for gardens.
•	Ensuring the front setbacks are not dominated by car parking structures.
•	Ensuring the retention of existing vegetation, particularly canopy trees.
•	Encouraging low and open front fences where this predominates.
13	The character of Hull Road and the surrounding area is generally reflected in the character statement to the extent that there are canopy trees evident in the front and rear setbacks of dwellings and development is generally subservient to trees.  However, during my site visit I noted that there is inconsistent height of dwellings, no consistent use of weatherboards, inconsistent and high front fencing, inconsistent front setbacks, inconsistent side setbacks where built form is often located on one boundary, and carparking often located in the front setback area.  
14	I am satisfied that the proposed dwellings satisfy the policy at Clause 22.02 with regard to ensuring “that new dwellings are sited and constructed in a manner that contributes to and enhances the preferred neighbourhood character of Maroondah”.  I am satisfied that the maximum height of 8.1 metres responds well to the scale of the buildings on the immediately adjoining properties to the east, west, and south where dwellings are constructed to a one to two storey scale.  I am satisfied that a single storey transition is entirely reasonable for this area where the infill built form scale is greater than single storey.  I am similarly satisfied that the scale of the building will not dominate the Hull Road streetscape as the two storey scale responds well to the inconsistent built form scale in the street, with dwellings ranging from one to two storeys.  Recent development in the immediate area (south) includes development of up to 2 storeys (facing on to Henty Court) and in the wider area (especially to the east in Thackeray Court).  I am satisfied that the development is appropriately graduated both down the length of the site and within the streetscape in response to this recent emerging construction typology where built form in evident in rear yards.  Due to the unusual shape of the lot the internal impacts of the form will be tempered in relation to the adjoining properties.  Adjoining dwellings will not appreciate great swathes of built form.  At the rear, where the width of the development is at its greatest, the single storey scale serves to ameliorate unreasonable off site impacts.   
15	I have reviewed the landscaping plan prepared by Habitat and I find it will provide for a landscaping environment where the dwellings will sit comfortably and will in time be subservient to vegetation.  I note the inclusion of 200 new plantings, which includes 30 new canopy trees dispersed throughout the site, and varying in height from 3.5 to 12 metres.  The canopy tree species are varied and include Bloodwood, Blackwood, Banksia, Pencil Pine, Blueberry Ash, Dwarf Gum, Ash Tree. Upright Liquidamber, Chinese Pistachio, Pittosporum, Ornamental Pear, Giant Bird of Paradise, Upright Lily Pily, Kanooka and Lily Pilly cultivar.  The use of these canopy trees serves to render the dwellings subservient to vegetation, in the longer run.  I am satisfied that the placement of these trees is thoughtful and serves to limit competition with existing vegetation and to screen the development into the future.  I do not share Councils concerns that these trees will be slow growing and will not contribute to or enhance the vegetated character of the area.  These trees are sensitively placed throughout the site and serve to screen views internally, down the driveway, as well as from the streetscape and from adjoining properties.  
16	I am not minded to retain tree 14.  I note that there was some disagreement as to whether or not this tree is a weed (the Treemap arboriculture report noted that the Desert Ash was a weed species in fair health and of poor structure, whereas Councils arborist [who did not appear at the hearing] and Mr Thomson considered tree 14 not to be a weed species, but of poor health due to the decay and the poorly pruned con-dominant union which may spilt in time).  I am persuaded that this tree will not offer meaningful canopy tree coverage into the future due to this poor structure and the decay at the base.  I am satisfied that the replacement planting as noted above will more than adequately ameliorate vegetation losses within a short period of time.  This is in line with the policy aspirations of ensuring that the development will generally maintain and enhance canopy vegetation.  
17	In this way. I am satisfied that the development includes a low level of change, is sensitively sited to limit offsite amenity impacts, provides appropriate levels of landscaping and is respectful of character as is envisaged in policy, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the Significant Landscape Overlay.
18	I am also satisfied that the proposal represents an appropriate response to the broader objectives and policy in Clause 22.02 Neighbourhood Character Policy.  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	The two storey scale to the frontage and the single storey scale to the rear responds well to existing horizontal form of existing housing stock in the area.
b.	All three dwellings are well articulated in both a horizontal and vertical plane with dwelling 1 appropriately recessed at the upper level to the street façade by 1.1 metres from the ground level.  
c.	Dwellings are stepped in form, minimising the appearance of sheer planes.
d.	The single storey transition from single level dwellings to proposed double level dwellings is reasonable and in line with the emerging infill character.
e.	The development has been thoughtfully designed with dwelling 1 addressing the street and rear dwellings presenting as recessive forms.  The result of which is the development is perceived as a single two storey form in the foreground with additional form to the rear.
f.	The review site is not located in an area where weatherboards predominate.  The use of render and face brickwork responds to the historical and emerging materials evident in the area.
g.	Eave elements are wide, at around 500mm, and serve to break up form between ground and first floors in line with the prevailing built form character of the streetscape.
h.	I am satisfied that the prevailing siting of built form on one boundary with spacing for canopy tree planting will be maintained in this development as noted above.  Only one wall is located on a boundary and this is adjacent to an existing wall to 30 Hull Road.  This, in conjunction with setbacks within SPOS of generally between 5.1 and 7.5 metres serves to maintain the current setback patterns, allowing space between buildings for gardens.
i.	The garages are located to face the internal driveway and do not dominate the front setback.
j.	The site is access from the existing crossover with a single driveway serving all three dwellings.
k.	As noted above, the removal of tree 14 is ameliorated through the thoughtful landscaping regime provided by Habitat.
l.	Hull Road is busy.  Front fencing has over time responded to the nature of traffic with several high front fences evident.  The proposed front fence of 1.8 metres is high, but it provides views through to the site through the use of metal pickets which provide a good level of transparency to the front garden.
19	I am satisfied that the proposed development responds wells to the local policy that seeks to ensure development responds to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area at Clause 22.02, and the purposes and decision guidelines of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 
Does the development achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with Clause 55 (ResCode)? 
20	Several areas of ResCode compliance were included as grounds of refusal for Council.  These include Neighbourhood Character, State and Local Policy, Front Setback, Landscaping, Side and Rear Setback, Private Open Space, and Fencing.  As noted in the previous section I am satisfied that the level of landscaping proposed is reasonable and that the development responds well to the built form and siting character of the area.  Additionally I noted the prevalence of high front fences, with which the proposed front fence sits comfortably.
21	I am satisfied that the proposed development responds well to the objectives of Clause 55 (ResCode).  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	The proposal responds well to the state and local planning policy as noted previously.
b.	The maximum height of 8.1 metres is a reasonable response to the one to two storey scale in the street.  
c.	Landscaping will in time extend above the 8.1 metre high built form.
d.	The front setback technically complies with the ResCode Standard as the adjoining property to the west (30 Hull Rd) faces on to Henty Court and the property to the east is set back 7.4 metres.  The proposed setback of between 7.45 and 9.25 metres at ground level responds to this inconsistent streetscape frontage setback.
e.	The built form reflects the emerging residential typology in that contemporary forms are employed with materials readily found in the streetscape such as render and face brickwork, windows and door proportions match those found in the streetscape, and the built form is sited to respond to the front, side and rear setbacks found in the area.  The cue for the development has been taken, not only from the single dwellings in the area, but also the multi-unit development in the wider area. 
f.	I am satisfied that the proposed side and rear setbacks and walls on boundary respect the existing neighbourhood character and limit the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings in limiting the location of walls on boundary to garage for dwelling 3. I do not share Councils concerns with the extent of built form at the rear and the setback of 3 metres to the rear of the garage for dwelling 3.  The length of the reduced setback is limited with much of the rear boundary set back at least 5 metres.  I am satisfied, due to the unusual configuration of the abutting lots, that limited impacts by way of visual bulk will be felt due to the single storey scale of dwelling 3 and the limitation of interface from abutting properties with the subject site.  In other words, I am satisfied that adjoining properties will not appreciate the full width of the built form ‘in one hit’ and that any appreciation will be minor, at a single storey scale.   
g.	There is no sense of a ‘green spine’ to the rear yards abutting the review site due to the unusual lot configuration.
h.	There are no north facing windows within 3 metres of the site.
i.	The site coverage 44.4% in line with recent multi unit development approvals.
j.	The permeability is 40.8% which is reasonable in this urban context.
k.	Dwelling entries are highly visible.  
l.	Infrastructure is readily available with the area having been well established for residential development over many decades.  The site is not located in an area that is specified as being susceptible to flooding by Melbourne Water.   
m.	Cross ventilation is reasonable.  Northerly oriented windows are provided to the dwellings.  Northern light is available to open spaces and living areas.  A clothes line is provided for each dwelling reducing the reliance on clothes dryers.  Dwellings also include the provision of water tanks.
n.	Provision has been made for storage of at least 6 cubic metres for the dwellings.  
o.	Bins can be stored in rear yards with mailboxes provided to the frontage.  
p.	The existing crossover is retained.  This level of vehicle access is in keeping with the rhythm and character of the streetscape.
q.	The parking spaces provide internal access to dwellings and require limited manoeuvres for access.  The number of car parking spaces, at two per dwelling is a reasonable provision for dwellings of this size, in an area where there is reasonable access to public transport and daily shopping needs.  
r.	Each dwelling can be used for persons of limited mobility with living areas and a bedroom at ground level.
s.	Overlooking is minimised with screening and sill heights at first floor to 1.7 metres above FFL where required.  
t.	Shading of windows and private open space is minimised with the level of shade to the south and east falling within the reasonable limits as enshrined by Clause 55.
u.	Windows of adjoining properties are properly protected and receive adequate light. 
v.	I do not share Councils concerns regarding provision of open space.  Secluded private open space is located at ground level, is accessible from a living area, has reasonable access to sunlight and has a generous area (189 square metres POS of which 64 square metres is SPOS for dwelling 1, 82 square metres POS of which 68 square metres is SPOS for dwelling 2, 119 square metres SPOS for dwelling 3).  Council held concerns with the open space dimensions for dwelling 1 in that they do not meet the schedule to the zone; and concerns with the additional 14 square metres POS for dwelling 2 being located adjacent to the driveway.  I do not share these concerns as the primary open space areas are generous and have good access to the dwellings.  Additionally I note that the area is very well served with public parks in the vicinity.
w.	I see no sources of noise that are located close to boundaries, such as mechanical devices.  Noise in the form of voices is a reasonable expectation in a residential area such as this.  
x.	I find that the development incorporates a reasonable design that adequately protects the amenity of the surrounding properties.
22	I am satisfied that the proposed dwelling is reasonably articulated, sited and designed in a manner that is in keeping with the scale and typology of dwellings in the neighbourhood now and into the future.  In this way, I am satisfied that the objectives of Clause 55 have been satisfied.
Does the development further the purposes of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3?
23	The review site is located within Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 Wicklow Hills Ridge and Loughnan Warranwood Ridge.  Within this overlay is the following Statement of Nature and Key Elements of Landscape:
Canopy trees are the main element of the urban character of Maroondah. Canopy trees in particular soften the impact of buildings in the environment and provide a distinct leafy character to Maroondah.
The continuous nature of the canopy vegetation throughout the ridgelines of Maroondah provides a strong character element and is much valued by the community. The canopy vegetation is a defining element of the ridgelines of Maroondah.
Contiguous canopy vegetation contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity through the provision of wildlife movement corridors, habitat and shelter areas.
24	The following landscaping objectives are sought to be achieved within this overlay:
To conserve the existing pattern of vegetation, landscape quality and ecosystems within the area and encourage the re-generation of vegetation.
To maintain a dense vegetation canopy that contributes to the environmental significance of the area.
To control or minimise the effect of future development upon natural features, particularly canopy trees and ridgelines.
To ensure that the development, use and management of land is compatible with the existing character and landscape protection of the area.
To maintain the overall scenic beauty of the municipality.
25	I am satisfied that the development will further the objectives of the overlay.  I say this for the following reasons:
a.	As noted previously the current Dessert Ash (Tree 14) contributes poorly to the existing canopy due to the excessive pruning and is not expected to contribute greatly for any meaningful extent of time into the future.  Its retention is not supported by the aboricultural assessments of Councils officer nor the report from Treemap, both of whom detail the poor structure, form and health of the tree.  As a result, due to the limited significance of tree 14 (due to low SULE) the removal of the tree 14 will have limited impact on the character and canopy of the area.
b.	Tree 14 currently provides very limited habitat due to the pruning of the tree.  There are few limbs remaining and the tree is in a parlour state.  Accordingly the role of this tree in providing vegetation and habitat corridors throughout Maroondah and the region is negligible.
c.	The landscaping plan includes good planting of indigenous vegetation.
d.	The role of current vegetation in contributing to and maintaining biodiversity and the landscape of Maroondah is negligible due to its weed status, poor structure and form and poor health.
e.	In time the effect of the building on the profile of the ridgeline or skyline will be ameliorated through the thoughtful canopy tree and lower order planting as included in the Habitat Landscaping Plan.
Conclusion
26	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Alison Slattery
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	M/2017/1016	
Land	32 Hull Road, Croydon	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of two double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling on a lot in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone;
•	Construction of buildings and works and removal of tree in a Significant Landscape Overlay; and 
•	Alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone.	

Conditions
1.	Landscape Plan Required
Before the development starts, an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.  The plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Habitat dated September 2018 but modified to show
a.	a survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;
b.	buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary;
c.	details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;
d.	the location of any retaining walls, including height and construction materials;
e.	a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;
f.	landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;
g.	a minimum of two canopy trees to be planted within the front setback of Dwelling No 1;
h.	a minimum of one canopy tree to be planted within the Secluded Private Open Space of each dwelling;
i.	a tree protection zone and structural root zone for each tree to be retained.  
j.	tree protection notes which specify tree protection and tree management actions to be applied where any Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) extends onto the site. Tree Protection Notes should satisfy the Australian Standard for the Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS 4970-2009).
All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2.	Layout not altered – development
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.	Construction Plans for Paving Required
Before any building or works start, construction plans for all parking areas and access lanes must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The construction plans must be consistent with the endorsed site layout, development plans and landscaping plans.
4.	Car Park and Access Lanes
Before the use starts or the development is occupied (whichever occur first), the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the approved plan must be:
(a)	Surfaced with a durable all-weather seal;
(b)	Drained to the nominated legal point of discharge;
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5.	Construction of Vehicle Crossing
Before the development is occupied, the owner must at its cost remove and reconstruct the existing vehicular crossing to Council standard SD-H05, at right angles to the road to suit the proposed driveway to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The vehicle crossing must be a minimum 1.0 m offset from any existing tree or utility service assets.
6.	Construction Plans for Drainage Required
Before any building or works start, drainage plans including calculations prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The Drainage Plans must:
(a)	Show all drainage works associated with the development including any drainage works required beyond the boundaries of the land;
(b)	Show the nominated legal point of discharge;
(c)	Convey stormwater runoff by means of underground drains to the nominated legal point of discharge.
(d)	Prevent overland flows from having a detrimental effect on the environment or adjoining properties;
(e)	Limit the permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to the equivalent of a 35% impervious site coverage, or the pre-developed discharge rate, if it is less than 35% impervious site coverage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and
(f)	Provide appropriate stormwater detention storage for a 20 Year ARI storm event to limit the maximum discharge rate to the PSD;
(g)	Construct a new outfall drain from the subject site, to the Legal Point of Discharge, to the satisfaction of the Relevant Authority.
7.	Drainage Works Required
Before the development is occupied, the drainage and associated works shown on the Drainage Plans must be constructed in accordance with those plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
8.	Control Sediment Laden Run Off
During the construction of the development, methods to control sediment laden runoff as described under ‘Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater’ or similar must be implemented and used to minimise sediment laden runoff and stormwater pollution from leaving the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9.	Landscaping Completion
Before the use starts or the development is occupied, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10.	Landscaping Maintenance
The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
11.	Tree Protection Measures Implemented  
Prior to the commencement of any building and or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Measures as detailed on the approved Landscape Plans, must be established and subsequently maintained until completion of all buildings and works, including landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.	Time Limit – Development only
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit; or
(b)	the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards.

– End of conditions –