VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1672/2018
Permit Application no. MPS/2017/781	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Moreland Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Heritage Overlay.    	

APPLICANT	V Costa	
responsible authority	Moreland City Council	
RESPONDENTs 	Sarah Sapuppo and others	
SUBJECT LAND	159 Barkly Street, Brunswick	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Joel Templar, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	25 February 2019   	
date of interim order	19 March 2019	
DATE OF ORDER	10 April 2019	
CITATION	Costa v Moreland CC [2019] VCAT 514	

Order
Amend permit application 
1	Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Architecton	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP1-010, TP1-011, TP1-020, TP1-021, TP2-001, TP2-002, TP2-003, TP5-001, TP6-001, TP11-001 to TP11-007 inclusive.	
•	Dated:	8 January 2019	

 Permit granted
2	In application P1672/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application MPS/2017/781 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 159 Barkly Street, Brunswick in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Part demolition and construction of alterations and additions to an existing dwelling; and
•	Construction of an additional dwelling on the lot.

Joel Templar 
Member			

Appearances
For V Costa	Mr Nick Sutton, solicitor of Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd assisted by Mr Nick Edwards.	
For Moreland City Council	Ms Anne-Marie Edgley, town planner of Moreland City Council.	
For Sarah Sapuppo and others	Mr Peter Barber, town planner of Urban Edge Consultants Pty Ltd.	

Information
Description of proposal	The proposal is to carry out partial demolition of the existing dwelling, including a substantial portion of the rear of the dwelling including walls and roof structures. Additions would then be constructed to the rear of the existing dwelling. This would be a single storey addition that is constructed to both side boundaries.
An additional dwelling is also proposed to be constructed at the rear of the review site, fronting Luscombe Street. This dwelling is double storey in scale with two bedrooms and a carport at ground floor level, with a small area of ground level private open space and an open plan kitchen/living/dining room at first floor level. Two balconies are proposed at first floor level, one each to the north and south elevations. A single car garage is also proposed accessed from Luscombe Street. The dwelling will have a flat roof with a mixture of materials including rendered concrete, composite panels, metal screens and black metal roof cladding.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Moreland Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone
Heritage Overlay (Schedule HO19)
Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – to construct an additional dwelling on a lot and extend an existing dwelling.
Clause 43.01-1 – to demolish a building, to construct a building or construct or carry out works.	
Land description	The review site is located on the north side of Barkly Street, between Sterling and Lygon Streets. It also has frontage to Luscombe Street on its northern side. The review site is rectangular in shape with an overall site area of 236.6m2. It is relatively flat and currently contains a semi-detached single storey weatherboard dwelling with a pitched, corrugated iron roof. The dwelling is attached on its western side with a small setback to the eastern boundary. The dwelling façade has carved, wooden ‘Art Nouveau’ style panels. A double carport is located at the rear of the site, accessed from Luscombe Street.	
Tribunal inspection	27 February 2019	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This proceeding concerns the refusal by the Moreland City Council to grant a permit for the part demolition and construction of alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and the construction of an additional dwelling on a lot at 159 Barkly Street, Brunswick.
2	The Applicant contests the refusal of the Council.
3	As part of the permit application process, the Council required notice of the application and as a result, a number of objections were received. Some of those objectors (the Respondents) are a party to this proceeding.
4	The Council originally refused the application on grounds relating to neighbourhood character and off-site amenity impacts relating to side and rear setbacks and walls on boundaries.
5	The Respondents raised similar grounds but with the addition of other off-site amenity impacts including impact on daylight, overlooking and visual bulk.
6	The Applicant circulated amended plans prior to the hearing and sought leave to substitute those for the permit application plans. There was no objection to the substitution of those plans and I granted leave to do so.
7	Based on the amended plans, the Council changed its position from one of refusal, to one of support subject to a number of conditions requiring modification of the amended plans.
8	The Respondents, although acknowledged the improvements that both the amended plans and conditions required by Council would make to the proposal, ultimately submitted that neither the amended plans nor the conditions for amendments set out by Council went far enough to address all of their concerns.
9	The Applicant also produced what it referred to as a set of ‘discussion’ plans, which it described as an attempt to respond to the conditions the Council sought as part of its conditional support of the amended plans. These plans were not sought to be substituted or form part of the amended plans, rather, relied upon as part of its submissions. I have therefore applied weight to these accordingly and my findings are based on the amended plans referred to in Order 1.
10	These ‘discussion’ plans also included other changes to the existing dwelling not required by Council’s conditions, such as two skylights, one on the front roof pitch facing Barkly Street and one on the side roof pitch (although the elevations do not show either of these) and a highlight window to the east elevation of the space adjacent to the proposed bathroom. During the course of the hearing, the Applicant subsequently conceded that it no longer relied on the front of these two skylights.
11	Having regard to the submissions presented during the hearing, the key issues for determination in this matter are:
•	Is the proposal an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character?
•	Will there be any unacceptable off-site amenity impacts?
•	Are the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling acceptable?
12	I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions and material presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the responsible authority and direct that a permit be granted. My reasons follow.
is the proposal an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character?
13	The respondents submitted that the proposal does not appropriately meet policy at clause 22.01 (neighbourhood character). They submitted that the key relevant policy basis of this clause is:
Incremental change will be supported in the Commercial and Mixed Use Zones within Local Centres and in the General Residential Zone. New development should be designed to respect existing neighbourhood character, and contribute to an improved landscape character.
14	They also submitted that the key relevant policy objective of clause 22.02-3 is:
Ensure new development is designed to respect the prevailing built form scale, siting and appearance of the surrounding context, particularly with regard to front and side setbacks of surrounding buildings and openness of rear yards, as documented in the Neighbourhood and Site Description.
15	Although these submissions were generally made in respect of how the proposal does not respect the existing character by impacting on the amenity of the respondent’s properties, I will set out some brief findings in a more general neighbourhood character sense below. I further consider the amenity impacts upon each of the adjoining properties in later sections.
Addition to the existing dwelling
16	The proposed rear addition to the existing dwelling is to be constructed to both the east and west boundaries. It would be single storey in scale with a pitched roof of varying angles. The height of the eastern wall of the addition would be 2.63 metres.
17	Policy cited above from clause 22.01 seeks to ensure that new development respects the existing character of built form in the surrounding area.
18	An analysis of the character of the surrounding area reveals a relatively dense urban fabric where single dwellings are often constructed boundary to boundary or on one boundary with small or minimal side setbacks on the other. Lot sizes in the surrounding residential area are relatively modest with many being rather narrow.
19	Not only is this more dense extent of built form visible from the public realm, it is also visible from within rear yards as was evident in photographs tendered during the hearing, assisted by my site inspection. Buildings on adjoining sites as well as on properties more removed are clearly evident and visible. Boundary walls are evident from areas of secluded private open space where the building envelope of a dwelling on adjoining property extends beyond the adjacent building.
20	I find that the proposed addition to the existing dwelling respects the existing character of built form in the surrounding area. It is to be constructed boundary to boundary and this is not inconsistent with the siting of development in the surrounding area. 
21	Although the proposed addition will be partly constructed adjacent to the secluded private open space of 157 Barkly Street, it was in fact submitted by the respondents that they had a preference for this boundary wall to be constructed fully adjacent to this secluded private open space. They said that this was preferable in balancing other considerations that I address below, relating to impacts to existing windows on the western boundary of 157 Barkly Street.
22	Whilst this ‘balanced’ outcome that the respondents sought is not one which has been achieved by virtue of my findings below, I still find that the extent of wall and its height is not unacceptable in a neighbourhood character sense.
23	For these reasons I find that the proposed addition to the existing dwelling is an acceptable response to the existing neighbourhood character.
New dwelling
24	The proposed new dwelling would front Luscombe Street which has a mixture of older Victorian era cottages, newer townhouse style development to the east and commercial development associated with properties along Lygon Street, further to the east. There is also some more contemporary development to the west in the form of walk-up flats and single dwelling development. Development is generally single and double storey in scale and comprises simple designs with rectilinear form and generally pitched, hipped roofs.
25	The Council was generally satisfied that the proposal was an acceptable response to the existing neighbourhood character, subject to its draft conditions. In assessing the amended plans, the Council’s Urban Design unit reviewed these plans and provided the following comment:
The simple rectilinear form and massing is considered appropriate to the context being similar in height and volume to the neighbouring site at 20 and 22 Luscombe Street, yet compatible enough to enable a good fit with this moderately low-density 1950s neighbourhood.
26	Properties along this section of Barkly Street have dual frontages to both Barkly Street and Luscombe Street. East of Sterling Street, properties have dwellings fronting Luscombe Street with either fences or garage doors facing the street. 
27	There also are two newer dwellings constructed at 20 and 22 Luscombe Street and some new development further to the east along Luscombe Street.
28	This provides a rather mixed character along this section of the street where some properties display a more ‘back of house’ character with driveways and roller doors along respective site frontages whilst others display a more traditional character of dwellings fronting the street. 
29	The proposed new dwelling will be generally consistent with the scale of dwellings in the surrounding area, particularly the new dwellings but also in comparison with some of the newer development further west along Luscombe Street.
30	Whilst the proposal includes more contemporary forms and materials, the mixed character of the surrounding area as one which can support a more contemporary response. Whilst some parts of the proposed dwelling are to be constructed to the frontage, or close to, the variety of different materials as well as the proposed balcony and rebate at first floor level will ensure that the scale and form of the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact upon the streetscape.
31	The proposed dwelling includes its front door clearly visible from the street and whilst a single garage is also proposed to be constructed to the frontage, the inclusion of perforated metal screen to the door of the garage will provide some level of permeability to soften the impact of this feature.
will there be any unacceptable off-site amenity impacts?
157 Barkly Street
Daylight
32	The Respondents submitted that the proposed addition to the existing dwelling includes boundary walls along the eastern boundary which would block a source of natural light to the living area and also the dining room of the dwelling at 157 Barkly Street. 
33	The existing living room includes two windows comprised of glass bricks that are constructed to the common boundary. The Respondents submitted that these windows also provide light to the dining room which otherwise does not have any window openings to it. 
34	It was submitted that the proposal fails to meet the objective of clause 55.04-2 (Walls on boundaries objective).
35	It was also submitted that whilst the living room also has a north facing glass door, there are also eaves projecting out from this north facing window which diminishes daylight access to this room.
36	It was further submitted that changes could be made to the proposed additions to the existing dwelling in order to provide separation between the two glass brick windows along the western elevation of 157 Barkly Street.
37	Whilst changes may or may not be able to be made to the proposed addition of the existing dwelling, I must make my findings on the acceptability of the proposal before me.
38	The Respondents conceded that the glass brick windows did not have formal approval. However, notwithstanding whether they do or do not have any form of approval, they are constructed on the boundary.
39	The applicant referred me to the decision of Anassis where it was found that similarly constructed windows on a boundary was a fortuitous situation and that nothing prevented the permit applicant from constructing the proposed development in that case which would block both windows.
40	I adopt the same approach in this matter. I find that whilst these windows provide a significant source of light to parts of this dwelling, these windows are constructed to the boundary and I find that such situation should not be used to prevent an Applicant from otherwise constructing a development to the boundary.
41	Notwithstanding this, the living room of this property will still receive sunlight from its north facing windows and I do not find that the existing eaves would diminish the daylight to the extent that the amenity of this dwelling would be unacceptably impacted.
42	Whilst the dining room of this dwelling does not have any existing windows, the Applicant drew my attention to the fact that this room includes a skylight. It also adjoins an open kitchen which has windows facing east. This is consistent with what I observed on my site inspection and these features also contribute to the dining room receiving adequate natural light with the loss of the light from the two glass brick windows. 
43	For these reasons I find that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the existing daylight to 157 Barkly Street.
Overlooking from the balcony of the proposed new dwelling
44	The respondents also submitted that the proposed south facing balcony at first floor level of the proposed new dwelling would result in unreasonable overlooking of 157 Barkly Street. It was also submitted that it would be sufficient to deal with this matter through conditions, in the event a permit was granted.
45	Council included a draft condition which seeks to address the screening of this balcony. 
46	The applicant submitted that it would accept a condition that requires screening to a height of 1.8 metres above the floor level of this balcony.
47	Whilst I accept that the condition drafted by Council to address this matter, I am not satisfied that, as drafted, it provides enough certainty with respect to this issue and so I have amended the wording of this condition accordingly.
161 Barkly Street
West elevation walls and setbacks
48	The Respondents submitted that the proposed western elevation wall of dwelling 1 along the western boundary does not comply with Standard B17 of clause 55.04-1 (Side and rear setbacks objective) of the Scheme and therefore does not comply with the objective of that clause. 
49	They also submitted that the Applicant has relied on the existence of a shed structure on the eastern side of 161 Barkly Street adjacent to the common boundary with the review site. It was submitted that this shed is no longer in that location and I confirmed this on my site inspection.
50	The Council also raised concerns with respect to the upper floor as it presents to the west and included a condition in its draft conditions upon which it relied in part, in support of the proposal. This condition required the upper floor west elevation to match the length of the garage wall at 161 Barkly Street and setback in accordance with Standard B17.
51	The ‘discussion plans’ tendered by the applicant have sought to address this issue, at least in part. These plans indicate that the proposed upper floor wall adjacent to 161 Barkly Street has been reduced in length so as to be approximately the same length as the garage on that property and then where it is adjacent to the secluded private open space of that property has been rebated, or set back from the common boundary. However, these discussion plans do not show the dimensioned external setback but do show a dimension of 1.2 metres as a setback. However, this is an internal setback, dimensioned from the internal wall surface only. 
52	The proposed west elevation wall height in this location is approximately 5.7 metres. For a wall of this height, Standard B17 requires a setback of 1.63 metres.
53	Although the Applicant’s ‘discussion plans’ do not demonstrate full compliance with Standard B17, they do indicate that modifications could be made to the layout of the proposed upper floor that go some way to achieving the conditioned outcome Council seeks. These plans attempt to address the amenity impacts to the SPOS of 161 Barkly Street, without unacceptably compromising the internal amenity of the proposal concurrently.
54	As I set out earlier, the surrounding area displays relatively dense urban built form, in an inner suburban context where full compliance with the requirements of clause 55, I find, are not necessarily achievable whilst also providing adequate amenity for future occupants of the proposal. This is not an unprecedented position. The Tribunal has consistently found that in inner urban locations such as this, full compliance with clause 55 requirements would render many sites undevelopable. A more balanced approach must be taken to achieve an outcome the Scheme seeks, taking into account all relevant policy and provisions. Clause 71.02-3 of the Scheme instructs decision makers to balance competing policies to achieve net community benefit in an objective manner.
55	The adjoining property to the west has a right-of-way on its western side. One of the benefits as a result of this, is that 161 Barkly Street is unlikely to have any future built form constructed directly along its western boundary, and would maintain some level of separation from any development of the property at number 14 Luscombe Street, which is on the opposite side of this right-of-way.
56	Given the pre-existing shed adjacent to the common boundary with review site has been removed and the proposal under the amended plans does not comply with standard B17, I am not persuaded that the extent of first floor wall along the boundary with 161 Barkly Street is acceptable. I am, however, satisfied that the proposal could be amended to provide a more balanced outcome in this respect, one which is generally consistent with the ‘discussion plans’ tendered by the applicant.
57	Whilst these plans also do not show full compliance with standard B17, they do provide some level of relief by the setback proposed to the western elevation of the upper floor where it is adjacent the SPOS of 161 Barkly Street.
58	I find that this would result in a balanced outcome which does not compromise the internal amenity of the proposed dwelling, respects the existing neighbourhood character and would limit amenity impacts to 161 Barkly Street.
59	I will therefore require a condition to this effect.
First floor balcony overlooking
60	The Respondents also submitted that there was potential for overlooking from the first floor southern balcony to the property at 161 Barkly Street. I have already set out my findings in relation to this balcony in relation to 157 Barkly Street, and my findings are the same in respect of the potential impact of this balcony to 161 Barkly Street.
61	The Applicant has accepted conditions relating to a 1.8 metre high screen and, the condition that I have included to address the overlooking for 157 Barkly Street will also address this concern for 161 Barkly Street also.
20 Luscombe Street
62	The Respondents submitted that the proposed dwelling would have unacceptable impacts to the adjoining property to the east at 20 Luscombe Street given the proposed first floor would be directly adjacent what it described as a multipurpose space. It also refers to this area as open space on a set of endorsed plans.
63	The proposal is to locate a carport at ground level and the kitchen at first floor level adjacent to this space.
64	The Respondents provided me with a copy of endorsed plans for the approved proposal at 20 Luscombe Street. These plans included two versions of endorsed plans, one endorsed in 2013 and the other endorsed in 2015. The 2015 plans which were the latest set of endorsed plans that I was provided with and they show this area as a proposed car space. They also include a proposed extension to an existing crossover to Luscombe Street. 
65	The Respondents submitted that this area receives a high level of sunlight and daylight from the west, and there are windows facing out onto this car space from its bedroom 1 and entry gallery area. They also submitted that the proposal would compromise the amount of daylight and sunlight that this area and these windows would receive. 
66	Additionally, it was their preference that details of the proposed boundary treatment between this space and the review site include a wall to be constructed on the review site (in place of a fence) to appropriately separate the proposed carport from the Respondent’s property.
67	The Applicant submitted that a wall could be constructed adjacent to the respondent’s property in this location but that this would reduce the internal width of the proposed carport from 3.5 metres to 3.2 metres. They also submitted that the minimum functional internal width of a garage is 3.2 metres which would enable a car to park and four doors on both sides of a car to be opened simultaneously.
68	The Applicant also submitted that the worst-case scenario for a wall width would be 250 mm which would still leave a functional width of a minimum of 3.25 metres for the internal width of the proposed carport.
69	The existing first floor of the dwelling at 20 Luscombe Street in part is cantilevered or overhangs its car space below. This space is also partly open to the sky directly above, with an area of approximately 5.4 m² with a minimum dimension of 1.5 metres. There is also a relatively high boundary wall on the western side of this car space including some timber screening on this property to a height of approximately 3 metres.
70	I do not accept the Respondents submissions that this car space is a multipurpose space or indeed open space, given the latest endorsed plan that was tendered by the Respondents indicates that it is a proposed car space. Whilst this space may be used for purposes other than those which are indicated on the endorsed plans, it appears clear to me that this is not how it was assessed nor approved. I must give substantial weight to a statutory authorisation, which, in this case, is the 2015 endorsed plans.
71	On this basis, and the fact that the windows adjacent to this space receive the required amount of daylight under standard B19 of clause 55.04-3, I am not persuaded that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on 20 Luscombe Street. There may be some reduction in daylight and sunlight but I am not satisfied that this would be so substantial so as to compromise amenity to this dwelling.
72	I am also not persuaded that the proposal should provide a wall between the review site and number 20 Luscombe Street. I am not persuaded that this would achieve any practical purpose under planning considerations particularly given the existing circumstances of the boundary treatment at 20 Luscombe Street. To me, it would merely be providing a wall for the sake of providing a wall, with no real benefit and with compromised internal dimensions of the proposed car space on the review site and no real outcome achieved for 20 Luscombe Street.
73	I therefore find that the proposal will not have any unacceptable impacts to 20 Luscombe Street.
Are there any other issues?
Wall material to the ground floor west boundary wall.
74	The respondents submitted that their preference would be to retain the existing boundary fence between the review site and 161 Barkly Street and for the wall material of the proposed west elevation to be a brick wall rather than a rendered concrete wall.
75	The Applicant indicated that the intention at this interface was for a high quality finish such as face brickwork and that this could be accommodated. Given this, I will include a condition to this effect, as well as a condition requiring that it be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Errors on plans
76	Following the hearing, it became apparent that there were a number of errors between floor plans and elevations. As a result, I issued an interim order for the Applicant to respond to these and for the Council and Respondents to respond to any further submissions from the Applicant.
77	Both the Applicant and the Respondents made further submissions.
78	The Applicant agreed that there were some errors on the plans, consistent with those identified in the Interim Order as well as another error, being the incorrectly identified lounge room window coloured blue, indicating it is proposed, rather than to be demolished. As a result, the Applicant submitted that these could be easily rectified by conditions on any permit granted.
79	The Council and Respondents agreed with the Applicant’s submission and confirmed that these matters could be addressed via conditions in the event a permit was granted.
80	I find that these drafting errors are of no consequence to the matters in dispute and do not raise any new or substantive issues for consideration.
81	I have therefore included conditions to ensure these errors are corrected.
Conclusion
82	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	MPS/2017/781	
Land	159 Barkly Street, BRUNSWICK  VIC  3056	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Partial demolition, alterations to an existing dwelling and the construction of a second dwelling to the rear with a reduction of the standard car parking requirement within the heritage overlay. 	

Conditions
1	Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans (formally substituted VCAT plans received on 14 January 2019) but modified to show:

(a)	The Lounge room window in TP1-020 (Rev A) drawn without colour and dashed, correctly denoting its proposed demolition.
(b)	The solid black line to Bedroom 2 in TP2-001 (Rev A) correctly shown as glazing rather than solid wall.
(c)	The east elevation of Dwelling 2 in TP5-001 (Rev A) correctly drawn to be consistent with TP1-020 and TP2-001. The Dwelling 2 wall on boundary must be no higher than an average height of 2.63 metres.
(d)	The first-floor western boundary wall and rear balcony to be depicted consistent with TP2-002 Revision B, dated 18 February 2019 by Architecton.
(e)	The inclusion of a skylight to the existing dwelling, in accordance with TP2-001 Revision B and TP2-002 Revision B dated 18 February 2019 by Architecton.
(f)	The ground floor west boundary wall, where it is no abutting any existing wall, to be constructed of face brickwork.
(g)	Gas and water meters shown on all relevant plans. Where meters would be visible from the public realm, they must be screened from view using either landscaping or fixed screening, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority
(h)	Screening to all three sides of the first floor south facing balcony to a minimum height of 1.80 metres from finished floor level and a screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:50 which details this screen. This diagram must show:

i	All dimensions, including the width of slats and the gap between slats.
ii	How compliance is achieved with the standard of Clause 55.04-6 (overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.
3	All boundary walls must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4	Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The SDA (BESS and STORM reports) must demonstrate best practice environmentally sustainable design, identify the responsibilities and schedule for implementation and ongoing management of incorporated and proposed sustainability design initiatives to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and address the following:
(a)	Energy efficiency
(b)	Water resources
(c)	Indoor Environment Quality
(d)	Stormwater Management
(e)	Transport
(f)	Waste Management
(g)	Urban Ecology
When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SDA and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.
5	All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment (SDA) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  No alterations to the SDA may occur without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6	Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. 

If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following: 
(a)	For a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit for the development hereby approved; or 
(b)	Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision; 

When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.
7	Prior to the occupation of the development, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8	Prior to the occupation of the development, any existing vehicle crossing not to be used in this use or development must be removed and the kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).
9	Prior to the occupation of the development, the garage door to the new dwelling must be automatic and remote controlled.
10	Prior to the issuing of Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Expiry of permit for development
11	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.
– End of conditions –