VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1654/2018
Permit Application no. Pln049/2018

CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Campaspe Planning Scheme; Public Conservation and Resource Zone; Environmental Significance Overlay ESO1; Floodway Overlay; Echuca Riverfront Precinct; Commercial Land Use; Car Parking; Building Scale; Parking; Net Community Benefit.	

APPLICANT	Tony Wines	
responsible authority	Campaspe Shire Council	
respondent	Campaspe Shire Council 	
REFERRAL AUTHORITY	North Central Catchment Management Authority	
SUBJECT LAND	2 Watson Street
ECHUCA  VIC  3564	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Margaret Baird, Senior Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	
DATE OF HEARING	4 December 2018	
DATE OF ORDER	11 December 2018	
CITATION	Wines v Campaspe SC [2018] VCAT 1935	
Order
Permit application amended 
1	Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by:
•	Changing the name of the permit applicant (and respondent in this proceeding) to:
Campaspe Shire Council. 
•	Deleting the permit application to use the land for a liquor licence under clause 52.27 of the Campaspe Planning Scheme.
Permit granted
2	In application P1654/2018, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. 
3	In planning permit application Pln049/2018 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 2 Watson Street, Echuca, in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.
4	The permit allows:
•	Buildings and works (partial demolition and external alteration) of the existing kiosk in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 and Floodway Overlay; and 
•	Removal of native vegetation (one tree) in the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 and pursuant to Clause 52.17.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr T Wines.  Ms J Mackenzie and Mr A Mackenzie assisted Mr Wines’ submission.	
For responsible authority	Ms A Wilkie.	
For respondent	Mr A Sherman, solicitor, Russell Kennedy.  	

INFORMATION
Description of proposal	Permit application Pln049/2018 proposes partial demolition, alterations and additions to an existing building and the removal of vegetation.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Campaspe Planning Scheme [scheme].	
Zone and overlays	Public Conservation and Resource Zone.  Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1.  Floodway Overlay.	
Permit requirements	Clauses 36.03, 42.01, 44.03 for buildings and works.  Clauses 42.01 and 52.17 to remove native vegetation (one tree).	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 36.03, 42.01, 44.03, 52.06, 52.17, 52.34, 62, 63, 65, 67, 71 and 72.04.	

‘Kiosk’ building

Land description  	The subject land is Crown land.  It is located to the north of the Echuca Port Precinct and adjacent to Watson Street.   

An existing building, formerly used as a kiosk, is the subject of the application.  It is referred to as the ‘kiosk’ and once served as swimming club rooms.  It is nearly 100 years old.  It is now used for storage, including by canoe clubs, with toilets having been decommissioned.	
Tribunal inspection	7 December 2018 (unaccompanied).	

Reasons
INTRODUCTION
1	The Echuca riverfront redevelopment is substantial project that, through a Master Plan for the Heritage Precinct of Echuca (2000), has seen major enhancements to the waterfront, port and environs over recent years.
2	Permit application Pln049/2018 relates to part of this project.  The permit applicant is the Campaspe Shire Council. It proposes alterations and additions to the former ‘kiosk’.  These works include an expansion of the ground floor and first floor areas as well as the addition of staircases.  The maximum height with the first floor additions would be 7.4 metres, an increase of 1.7 metres compared with the existing conditions.  The outcome is to achieve boat storage facilities at the ground floor.  The first floor would provide an internal space, decking, storage and public toilets.  Approval is sought to remove one tree.  As I refer to later, during the hearing, the permit applicant applied to amend the permit application to delete its permit application under clause 52.27 of the scheme.
3	A second permit application Pln135/2018 relating to works around the ‘kiosk’ and riverfront is being reviewed in a separate proceeding P1864/2018 that I have heard and determined.  
4	In permit application Pln049/2018, the Campaspe City Council, as responsible authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, determined to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit [Notice] for the buildings and works, and removal of native vegetation.  Mr Wines relies on a range of grounds in support of his submission that the Council’s decision should be set aside.  I address all grounds in this decision.  The responsible authority and respondent challenge all of the applicant’s submissions and grounds.  The permit applicant has not applied for any review of the conditions in the Notice.  
5	The Tribunal must decide whether to grant a permit and, if so, what conditions should apply.  Overall, I must decide whether the proposal will achieve an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the scheme.  Net community benefit is central in reaching a conclusion.  Clause 71.02-3 of the scheme requires the decision-maker to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.  
KEY ISSUES
6	Having regard to the submissions before me, the key issues for my determination are:
•	Should the permit application be amended as requested by the permit applicant, with respect to use of the land for a liquor licence?
•	What permit triggers apply?
•	What is the scope of my consideration and how have I proceeded to address the applicant’s case?
•	What are my findings with respect to the applicant’s grounds of review?
•	Do the grounds raised by the applicant for review weigh against the grant of a permit when considering the general decision guidelines in clause 65, policy, any other relevant provisions or requirements, and net community benefit?
Amendment to permit application to delete use for a liquor licence
7	During the hearing, after the responsible authority had presented its case, Mr Sherman applied to amend the permit application to delete the application to use the land for a liquor licence under clause 52.27 of the scheme. The proposal and Notice refer to 80 patrons in a first floor café, with (among a range of conditions) restrictions on hours of operation, a patron management plan and a ‘red line’ plan associated with a liquor licence.
8	This application was opposed by Mr Wines.  Among several concerns he raises are with respect to the very late, and unacceptable, notice of this request, and that the amendment is being used to circumvent due process.   As I refer to below, Mr Wines is not only concerned about what the proposed use of the land should be described as, but also that the project has been split into two separate permit applications.
9	The application to amend the permit application was not opposed by the responsible authority.
10	I agree with Mr Wines’ complaint about the request being made part way through the hearing.  However, despite the applicant’s objection to the requested permit application, it is relevant in my view that removing the permit application under clause 52.27 responds to what Mr Wines says is his “main” concern.  That is, the application for a liquor licence. 
11	In considering whether to grant leave to amend the permit application, I have considered questions such as fairness to all parties, the implications of deferring any permit application under clause 52.27 to a later date, and the potential piecemeal process which arguably could be said to occur.
12	The alternative is for me to assess the merits of the permit application including under clause 52.27.  Indeed, I questioned the responsible authority about the proposal’s response to that clause when it presented its submission.
13	I have formed the view it is appropriate to grant leave to amend the permit application as requested by the permit applicant.  This is for the following reasons:
•	Although this may defer consideration of a liquor licence application to a later time, if any such application is made, that would occur with greater knowledge of the intended use of the building (eg. café, restaurant, or another use – a matter that I discuss below) and a full analysis under the provisions of clause 52.27, including with respect to cumulative effects.  This would offer a fairer opportunity for participants in the planning process.
•	I do not consider there are unreasonable ramifications in allowing the permit application to be amended, having regard to the fact that there is no permit application before me to use the land and having regard to the scope of my consideration (a matter I also discuss below).   
•	A decision with respect to the buildings and works application before me does not pre-empt a separate decision to be made if any permit application under clause 52.27 was to eventuate.  Any such application would need to be assessed on its merits having regard to the facts and applicable scheme provisions and policy that apply at the time.  
•	Granting leave to amend the permit application does not run counter to the principles of orderly planning in the circumstances before me.
14	As discussed at the hearing, a consequence of amending the permit application is that conditions included in the Notice relating to that permission under clause 52.27 need to be deleted, if a permit issues.
PERMIT TRIGGERS and SCOPE OF CONSIDERATION
Land use
15	As alluded to above, the description of the existing use of the land and its intended use is a concern raised by the applicant. Mr Wines criticises the description of the building as a ‘kiosk’ because the current use is informal storage.  Mr Wines submits the kiosk has lost its non-conforming use rights as a commercial business because it has not operated for several decades. 
16	Neither the responsible authority or permit applicant contends the kiosk has non-conforming use rights or, in the terms of the current scheme ‘existing use rights’.  
17	
The description of the current building as the ‘kiosk’ is based on factors such as its former use, how it is known by some locally, and by the signage on several walls.  I refer to the building that is the subject of the permit application as the ‘kiosk’ for ease.  I do not accept allegations by the applicant for review that the Council has falsified information.

18	I agree with the applicant that material included in the permit application refers to building being used as a café and the hours of operation referred to in the Notice raises a question as to whether the use is a ‘restaurant’ or ‘food and drink premises’ for the purposes of the scheme. 
19	Ultimately, whether the intended use of the renovated and extended building is a café, restaurant, or food and drink premises, is not determinative to the matters before me. As I discuss below, no planning permit is sought or required for the use of the land in this proposal.  The permit application is for development (buildings and works) with tree removal.  I address the question of the use of the building with respect to car parking below.
Permissions sought
20	Based on the amended permit application, approval is sought for:
•	Buildings and works (partial demolition and external alteration) of the existing kiosk in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 and Floodway Overlay; 
•	Removal of native vegetation (one tree) in the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 and pursuant to Clause 52.17.
21	
No permit application has been made to use the land/building.  The permit application is made by the public land manager.  Consent has been obtained from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning given the subject land is Crown land.  
22	I agree with the assessment by the responsible authority and permit applicant that a permit is not triggered for the use of the land under clause 36.03-1.  A public land manager has broad scope with respect to the use of land that it has management responsibility for.  
Exemptions from a planning permit and third-party involvement
23	While Mr Wines’ statement of grounds does not raise concerns about flooding, I observe that there are no third-party rights under the Floodway Overlay.  However, flooding is a consideration under clause 65 and the Planning Policy Framework.  The referral authority does not object.
24	The responsible authority and permit applicant say the proposal could rely on exemptions from a planning permit under clause 62.02-1 as the proposed buildings or works have an estimated cost of less than $1,000,000 or less and are to be carried out by or on behalf of a municipality.  The project budget is challenged by the applicant.
25	However, as evident in the scheme extract below, this provision has an exception relating to the Public Conservation and Resource Zone:

26	Without pursuing this further, I have proceeded on the basis of the permit application as submitted, processed and decided (amended with my leave).
27	With respect to car parking:
•	The responsible authority states that ‘kiosk’ is not defined in clause 52.06-5 and therefore parking is to be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority; that is, no planning permit is triggered.  However, it notes similar uses in Table 1 of clause 52.06-5 with respect to food and drink premises and, based on four spaces being required to each 100m2 of leasable floor area, three car spaces would be needed to serve the intended use, as ‘rounded down’.  It submits these can be accommodated on the land today (being the informal gravel land around the existing building) or the same area if approved for development under permit application Pln135/2018.
•	
Mr Wines refers to clause 52.06 with respect to a restaurant, and food and drink premises, saying 32 car spaces are required.
•	The permit applicant submits that there is no requirement for parking as there is no proposed use of the land.  Further, it submits there is no intention for the building to be occupied by a restaurant so as to require 32 car spaces.  Mr Sherman submits that if a parking requirement was to be applied, its position would be the same as the responsible authority but ‘rounded up’ to four car spaces.
28	While I address the applicant’s concerns about parking below, I do not consider a question about the quantum of parking is properly before me.  There is no application to use the land, whether for a café, restaurant or food and drink premises under clause 36.03, and there is no permit application seeking approval to reduce car parking under clause 52.06.  
29	Separate to the current proceeding, for any new use to occupy the building, car parking must meet the scheme’s obligations.  This is not before me.
Scope of consideration
30	For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the permit application is for buildings and works and removal of one native tree. No reduction in car parking is sought and no car parking must be provided under clause 52.06.
31	I have received all material provided by the parties.  I have assessed its relevance and the weight it is to be given, notwithstanding some of it extends beyond the focus of this permit application because of the triggers that apply. I have assessed the material particularly in the context of integrated decision-making. 
OTHER GROUNDS
Commercial land use
32	The applicant submits the proposed use of the land is not acceptable. The commercial nature of the use is an issue as well as suggestions by Mr Wines that this locality does not need another café or restaurant.
33	As already indicated, the future use/s of the land and building are not before me in this proceeding.  Nor is it my role to interrogate whether there is a need or demand for a café, restaurant or food and drink premises.
34	It is, however, relevant to observe that the adopted Echuca Heritage Precinct Master Plan process has steered the direction for this location for many years.  Re-purposing a building such as the ‘kiosk’ (which the responsible authority refers to having heritage value, including social significance to the community) is consistent with the tourism focus being pursued for the broader precinct.  

Car parking and traffic implications
35	The applicant submits that parking is at capacity.  It was so in 2008 when the Council’s Parking Strategy identified this issue. The applicant submits that it is difficult for visitors to find a car park and that additional development is occurring in the Port Precinct without car parking being taken into consideration.  Reference is made to this concern being raised by the Council in a Tribunal proceeding, Turner, where the Council’s submission refers to an “acute lack of car parking”.  
36	Mr Wines also refers to the nearby Bridge Hotel that has applied for an increase in patrons from 167 to 500, without additional car parks, and the loss of parking associated with permit application Pln049/2018 and other works being undertaken in the area.  
37	Mr Wines also says that there has been a lack of any assessment of traffic impacts.
38	Within the scope of this proceeding, the applicant’s concerns particularly relate to questions of orderly planning and the impact on the development amenity of the area. I note that the 2008 Parking Strategy for the Echuca CBD and Historic Port Precincts identified parking issues at that time as was the case of the Council’s submission in 1996 in the Turner decision.  Parking and traffic considerations are identified and planned for in the Echuca Heritage Precinct Master Plan.  
39	Management of parking by a Council and public land manager requires a balance between the desires and demands of many users within the broader context of implementing planning outcomes. The Council’s 2008 Parking Strategy for the Echuca CBD and Historic Port Precincts is an example of this approach.  The issues of car parking and traffic have not been ignored in the strategic work that underpins the riverfront rejuvenation project.  Rather, it is clear to me when reading the Echuca Heritage Precinct Master Plan that a reduction in parking around the riverfront is a strategic outcome being pursued.  Revised access and traffic arrangements are part of the planning that is guiding the development of the area.
40	Even if I found the quantum of car spaces generated by a use such as food and drink premises on the subject land is a relevant matter, three or four car spaces could be incorporated into the adjacent land or allocated in the proposed works on that land, as both the responsible authority and permit applicant suggest.  This is not, however, a matter upon which I make any findings.
41	The outcome of any permit application relating to the Bridge Hotel is for determination based on the facts and circumstances, and the applicable provisions of the scheme, that apply.

Buildings and works
42	The applicant submits the increased height of the development, by nearly 2 metres, and the extent of expansion, are unacceptable.  This is because of the character of the neighbourhood, the requirements and policies in the Heritage Overlay, and given the residential design guidelines for Watson Street.  Mr Wines also submits that the proposed extended building is not appropriate in the Environmental Significance Overlay.
43	
Approx site of ‘Kiosk’ building

Approx site of ‘Kiosk’ building

The subject land is opposite properties within the General Residential Zone and Heritage Overlay, as indicated in the scheme extracts below:
 
44	The subject land is not within a Heritage Overlay.
45	The first floor additions would appear as a single storey form when seen from Watson Street.  The development is more than 30 metres away from residential lots.  When seen on oblique angles from the north and south, and from the waterfront, the extent of works would apparent.  However, I am not persuaded the built form adversely impinges on the distinct character of the residential area or land within an identified heritage precinct. 
46	Because of the topography, the proposed development sits on and into the slope leading down to the waterfront.  This is evident in the section extracted from the permit application plans, below:

Existing bank/ slope

47	
The proposed additions, finishes and colours, all seek to blend with the retained building and do so in an acceptable way.  Having regard to the purpose of clause 36.03, clause 42.01 and schedule 1 Murray River Corridor [ESO1], and decision guidelines in these clauses, I find the proposal will enhance the river corridor and surrounds while recognising its tourist role.  The development is set back from the waterfront, will not adversely affect the scenic landscape of the riverine corridor, and facilitates public access to an under-utilised building of social value.  The visual impact will be mitigated, including by works on adjacent land as part of the riverfront project.
Amenity impacts 
48	Mr Wines submits the new commercial business is too close to the existing residential zone.  While these grounds refer to objectionable, unruly, drunken and unsocial behaviour, including experiences from existing hotels, I understand that the concern remains even if there is no liquor licence application.  Mr Wines also submits the proposal will interrupt views of the Murray River and paddle steamers from residential properties and will affect their ambience and property value.
49	I accept that the proposed development is proximate to, and apparent from, existing dwellings on the opposite side of Watson Street.  I have had regard to the distances to which Mr Wines refers and views he says will be lost.
50	Dwellings in the residential area opposite the subject land face an important tourist precinct.  The long term vision for the precinct has been articulated in the Echuca Heritage Precinct Master Plan.  Further activity and redevelopment is reasonably expected along this part of the riverfront because of the strategic vision contained in the scheme and the adopted Master Plan.  Understood in this context, the development associated with this riverfront project will not adversely or unreasonably affect the amenity and ambience of the residential area.  There is no view-sharing policy in the scheme that gives weight to objections about a loss of views.
51	I do not give submissions relating to property values any weight.  As with many other instances when this ground is identified by objectors to a planning permit application, potential loss in property values is not a matter upon which there is any evidence.  Moreover, if property values are affected by adverse amenity impacts, then it is the amenity questions that must be considered, not their ramifications in terms of individual property values.  I have found the proposal will not have unreasonable adverse amenity impacts having regard to the strategic context and reasonable expectations for ongoing improvements and development of the riverfront precinct in accordance with the scheme.

Tree removal
52	While the loss of a tree is referred to in the applicant’s statement of grounds, it was not the subject of submissions at the hearing.  The statement of grounds challenges that there is only one tree to be removed. It submits there are three trees to be removed. River red gums should be protected. The applicant submits the destruction of native trees within the Environmental Significance Overlay is not acceptable.
53	The respondent has applied for planning permission to remove one tree. Based on the relevant considerations in clause 52.17, noting transitional provisions apply in this case, I am satisfied that the removal of the tree is acceptable with offsets required by conditions included in the Notice.
54	Clause 42.01 and schedule 1 variously refer to biodiversity and landscape considerations. These include the environmental objectives and decision guidelines in ESO1.  I find that the proposed vegetation removal is acceptable when assessed under the relevant provisions and decision guidelines, including with respect to biodiversity and landscape values.
Processing the permit application
55	The applicant raises several other issues with respect to the lack of consultation and the processing of the permit application.  None of these concerns or allegations causes me to require any additional procedural steps and none are relevant to my exercise of discretion and weighing potentially competing objectives.  
56	Moreover, it is important to understand that this Tribunal review process has provided an independent consideration of the permit application afresh.  The Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the original decision-maker.  
57	Further, Mr Wines refers to the process by which there are two permit applications, being Pln049/2018 and Pln135/2018.  He submits that this has deliberately sought to circumvent local planning policies and overlays.  The permit applications are inter-related and rely on the same public car parking spaces to support their approval.
58	The riverfront rejuvenation project is a substantial undertaking.  It is being completed in stages. That sections need to be separated for the purposes of planning approval, funding and construction does not persuade me that there is an issue with respect to orderly planning of the riverfront precinct.  The Echuca Heritage Precinct Master Plan provides the overall framework in a coordinated way and sets the strategic context within which the project is proceeding. The proposal in permit application Pln049/2018 is consistent with the Master Plan, including a clear direction with respect to the removal of car parking from the foreshore area.

Integrated decision-making
59	I have considered all matters raised by the applicant, and the relevant considerations in the Planning Policy Framework, local planning policy and clause 65 as well as sections 4, 60 and 84B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.  I have found that the proposed development and vegetation removal achieve an acceptable outcome.  Further, for reasons that are apparent from my earlier findings, the proposal achieves a net community benefit as part of the long term vision for the redevelopment of the riverfront precinct being implemented by the Council.  While I appreciate the applicant’s concerns, none persuade me to conclude that a permit should not issue.
CONCLUSION
60	For reasons given above, I agree with the decision made by the responsible authority to grant a permit subject to conditions.  However, I will vary the responsible authority’s decision to delete conditions that relate to the use of the land for a liquor licence.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			

Appendix A

Permit Application No	Pln049/2018	
Land	2 Watson Street, Echuca	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Buildings and works (partial demolition and external alteration) of the existing kiosk in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 and Floodway Overlay; and 
•	Removal of native vegetation (one tree) in the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 and pursuant to Clause 52.17.	

Conditions
Amended Plans Required 
1	Before the development commences, amended plans 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 drawn to scale with dimensions and a minimum of three copies must be provided. Such plans must be generally in accordance with Echuca Riverfront Development – The Kiosk, by Brandrick Architects (888-01-15) but modified to show: 
(a)	A detailed schedule of the external colours and materials including samples. 
(b)	The location of all plant equipment (such as services, air conditioning units and heaters) on the land and must be appropriately screened. 
(c)	Prior to construction a full archival recording of the structure should be undertaken.
(d)	Deletion of the ‘red line’/ liquor licence plan. 
All to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
Layout not altered 
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority. 
Notification of consent conditions 
3	Before works start, the consent holder must advise all persons undertaking the works on site of all conditions of this consent. 
Protection of vegetation to be retained 
4	Before works start, a native vegetation protection fence must be erected around all retained native vegetation within 15 metres of the works. The protection fence must be constructed of paraweb to the satisfaction of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. The protection fence must remain in place at least until all works are completed to the satisfaction of the department. 
5	Except with the written consent of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, within the area of native vegetation to be retained and any tree protection zone associated with the permitted use and/or development, the following is prohibited: 
(a)	Vehicular or pedestrian access; 
(b)	Trenching or soil excavation; 
(c)	Storage or dumping of any soils, materials, equipment, vehicles, machinery or waste products; 
(d)	Construction of entry and exit pits for underground services; or 
(e)	Any other actions or activities that may result in adverse impacts to retained native vegetation. 
Native vegetation offsets 
6	To offset the removal of one (1) scattered tree approved as part of this permit, the applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that meets the following requirements, and is in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native vegetation gain scoring manual. The offset must: 
(a)	Contribute gain of 0.070 general biodiversity equivalence units; 
(b)	Be located within the North Central Catchment Management Authority boundary or Campaspe Shire municipal district; and 
(c)	Have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.117. 
Offset evidence 
7	Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. This offset must meet the offset requirements set out in this permit and be in accordance with the requirements of the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native vegetation gain scoring manual. Offset evidence can be either: 
(a)	A credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register; or 
(b)	A security agreement, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including a 10-year offset management plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and approved by the responsible authority. 
Every year, for ten years, after the responsible authority has approved the offset management plan, the applicant must provide notification of the management actions undertaken towards implementing the offset management plan, to the department. An offset site condition statement, including photographs must be included in this notification. 
North Central Catchment Management Authority 
8	Electrical fittings must be fixed at least 300 millimetres above the 1% AEP flood level, i.e. no lower than 95.9 metres AHD. 
9	Essential services to the building should be flood proofed or raised at least 300 millimetres above the 1% AEP flood level. 
10	Water resistant building materials that minimise the physical effects of flooding on the shed and its contents should be used up to at least 300 millimetres above the 1% AEP flood level. 
11	All chemicals, oil, fuel, grease, waste or other potential pollutants should be stored at least 300 millimetres above the 1% AEP flood level. Adequate storage areas and shelving should be provided for this purpose. 
12	A flood response action plan must be prepared which sets out the procedures and actions to minimise flood damage, risk to occupants, and demands on emergency services. The plans must be approved by North Central CMA prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. 
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 
13	All works on the land must be carried out in accordance with the requirements set out in the approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Number 15404) prepared by Heritage Insights dated 14 May 2018 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
Maintenance 
14	All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
Access for people with disabilities 
15	The facilities approved by this permit shall be constructed and maintained to accord with all relevant legislation (Federal or State), Australian Standards, or any other design requirements relating to access or other issues affecting people with disabilities to the satisfaction to the responsible authority. 
Bushfire prone Area 
16	Before the building is occupied the owner must ensure that: 
(a)	The building is constructed to comply with the relevant Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) and AS3959:2009 (Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-prone Areas) to minimise the impact of bushfire. 
(b)	The building is provided with static water supply for fire-fighting and property protection purposes. 
(c)	Safe vehicle access is provided to the site and building for emergency services. 
All to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
Construction phase 
17	Before the development starts, a construction management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The plan must outline how issues such as mud on roads, dust generation and erosion and sediment control will be managed, on site, during the construction phase. Details of a contact person/site manger must also be provided, so that this person can be easily contacted should any issues arise. 
18	Soil erosion control measures must be employed throughout the construction stage of the development to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
19	Management measures are to be in accordance with best practice EPA guidelines and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
Drainage discharge plan 
20	Before any of the development starts, a properly prepared drainage discharge plan with computations to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and a minimum of three copies must be provided. The information submitted must show the details listed in the Council’s Infrastructure Design Manual and be designed in accordance with the requirements of that manual.  The information and plan must include: 
(a)	Details of how the works on the land are to be drained and/or retarded. 
(b)	Computations including total energy line and hydraulic grade line for the existing and proposed drainage as directed by responsible authority. 
(c)	Underground pipe drains conveying stormwater to the legal point of discharge. 
(d)	Measures to enhance stormwater discharge quality from the site and protect downstream waterways including the expected discharge quality emanating from the development (output from MUSIC or similar) and design calculation summaries of the treatment elements. 
(e)	Documentation demonstrating approval from the relevant authority for the legal point of discharge. 
(f)	The provision of gross pollutant and/or litter traps installed at the drainage outfall of the development to ensure that no effluent or polluted water of any type may be allowed to enter the Council’s stormwater drainage system. 
(g)	The details of the incorporation of water sensitive urban design designed in accordance either “Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines” 1999. 
(h)	Maintenance schedules for treatment elements. 
21	Before the buildings are occupied all works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
Time for starting and completion 
22	This permit will expire if the following circumstance applies: 
(a)	The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. 
(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 for commencement or within twelve months afterwards for completion.

--End Conditions--