VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1804/2018
permit application no. PP17/01166
	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Boroondara Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone GRZ3; Neighbourhood Character Precinct 9; Response to Neighbourhood Character; Relationship with Adjacent Heritage Place; Visual Bulk.	

APPLICANTS	A & S Tracey and J & R Kleiman	
responsible authority	Boroondara City Council	
respondent	82 Walpole Street Pty Ltd	
SUBJECT LAND	82 Walpole Street
KEW  VIC  3101	
WHERE HELD	55 King Street, Melbourne 	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Margaret Baird, Senior Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	
DATES OF HEARING	20 and 21 March 2019	
DATE OF ORDER	23 April 2019	
CITATION	Tracey v Boroondara CC [2019] VCAT 482  	
ORDER
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:
•	82 Walpole Street Pty Ltd.
•	Adding the following as permissions sought:
•	Construction of a fence within 3 metres of a street if the fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 55.06-2.
•	Construction of a fence in the Heritage Overlay pursuant to clause 43.01.
Permit granted
2	In application P1804/2018, the decision of the Responsible Authority is varied.
3	In planning permit application PP17/01166, a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 82 Walpole Street, Kew, in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.
4	The permit allows:
•	Construction of six dwellings on a lot.
•	Construction of a fence within 3 metres of a street if the fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 55.06-2.
•	Construction of a fence in the Heritage Overlay pursuant to clause 43.01.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			

Appearances
For applicants	Mr P Chiappi of counsel.  He called the following person to present expert evidence:
•	Mr R Milner, town planner.	
For Responsible Authority	Mr D Bowden, town planner, SongBowden.  	
For respondent	Ms E Peppler of counsel instructed by Rigby Cooke lawyers.  She called the following persons to present expert evidence:
•	Ms R West, town planner.
•	Mr J Merlo, landscape architect.
•	Mr B Raworth, heritage consultant.
A statement of evidence by Mr V Gnanakone, traffic engineer, was tendered.  No party sought to cross-examine him.	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of six dwellings in a three storey (plus basement) building.  The basement provides 12 car spaces, and a visitor space, with a vehicle turntable.  Vehicle access is located at the north-west of the land, with pedestrian access to the apartments along the south side of the property.  The proposed building is 10.505 metres high.	
Nature of proceedings	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Boroondara Planning Scheme [scheme].	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone [GRZ] Schedule 3 [GRZ3 Eclectic inner urban and eclectic suburban precincts]. 
	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08 to develop two or more dwellings and to construct a fence within 3 metres of a street if the fence exceeds the maximum height specified in clause 55.06-2.  Clause 43.01 to construct a fence on the northern boundary.	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22.03, 22.05, 32.08, 43.01, 52.06, 52.34, 53.18, 55, 65 and 71.   	
Land description	The subject land is on the east side of Walpole Street.  It is approximately 949m2.  The land falls by approximately 2.5 metres from the front to the rear, with a cross fall of approximately 1 metre.  The land abuts a laneway to its rear.  The site contains a two storey dwelling with a large rear garden and low front fence.
The subject land is part of an established residential area.	
Tribunal inspection	1 April 2019 (unaccompanied) including the subject land and properties at Nos. 80 and 84 Walpole Street.	

Reasons
INTRODUCTION
1	In August 2018, the Boroondara City Council [Council] issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit [Notice] for a three storey apartment building on the subject land.  Abutting property owners A & S Tracey and J & R Kleiman have asked the Tribunal to review the Council’s decision.  
2	The applicants rely on Mr Milner’s evidence that the proposal exhibits a poor appreciation and interpretation of its location and the key attributes influencing and shaping the distinctive character of the neighbourhood in which it is set.  Mr Milner’s written evidence says the proposal would “… be more appropriate if it was located among similar emerging apartment developments located closer to the activity centre and south of Malmsbury Street”.  Having regard to the distinctive differences of Walpole Street, as set out in his evidence, Mr Milner considers that the greater mass, height and extended built form of the proposed development with its basement access, relatively narrow setbacks, enclosure of the front garden and constrained landscape opportunities presents the prospect of:
•	An anomalous neighbourhood and streetscape presence;
•	Unreasonable intrusiveness on the amenity and gardens character enjoyed by neighbours; and
•	A compromised amenity for future residents whose outlooks from the elevated position would be heavily screened.
3	The Council and respondent disagree.  They challenge all grounds argued against the proposal and submit an acceptable outcome is achieved. The respondent has not applied for any review of conditions in the Notice.
4	Having regard to the relevant matters under the scheme, and submissions before me, the three key issues for my determination are:
•	Whether the proposal represents an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character including the preferred character;
•	Whether the proposal will adversely impact any heritage place;
•	Whether potential off-site amenity impacts are acceptable.
5	I must decide whether to grant a permit and, if so, whether conditions in the Notice should be varied.  I must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the scheme.  Clause 71 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.   
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER
Planning scheme provisions and policy
6	A permit is required under clause 32.08 to construct six dwellings on the land.  The proposal must meet the requirements of clause 55.  The proposal complies with the mandatory building height and the mandatory garden area requirements under clause 32.08.   There are no variations to clause 55 in Schedule 3 of the GRZ.  In addition to the decision guidelines in clause 32.08, the following decision guideline in clause 5.0 of GRZ3 applies:
•	The preferred character statement and design guidelines contained in the Boroondara Neighbourhood Character Study Precinct Statements 2013.
7	Based on the Boroondara Housing Framework set out at clause 21.05, the subject land is within an area where it is policy to “Support moderate change reflecting a mixture of detached dwellings, villas and townhouses as well as apartment buildings”.  
8	Clause 22.05 is a neighbourhood character policy with the objective to “ensure new development retains and enhances the key character attributes that contribute to a precinct’s preferred character”.  It is policy for all areas to:
•	Ensure development makes a positive contribution to realising a precinct’s preferred character, as described in the relevant Neighbourhood Character Precinct Statement. 
•	Ensure development meets each objective and design response in the Design Guidelines of the relevant Neighbourhood Character Precinct Statement.
9	Clause 22.05-6 sets out policy for GRZ Schedule 2 and GRZ3.  It states these neighbourhood character precincts “contain a mixture of 1 and 2 storey detached dwellings, 1 and 2 storey villa and townhouse style developments, and interspersed 2 to 3 storey apartment buildings”. 
10	The preferred character objective is “To facilitate development up to three storeys in height that integrates with and complements the varied scale and type of development in the precinct.”  It is policy to: 
•	Ensure that building facades are no more than 2 storeys high to the street frontage, unless it can be demonstrated that higher front facades are a consistent characteristic of the streetscape. 
•	Ensure development is set back from the front, side and rear boundaries, consistent with the preferred character of the precinct. 
•	Provide a transition in building scale and setbacks to residential properties located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 and public open space areas. 
•	Ensure development adjacent to a property in an individual Heritage Overlay fronting onto the same street provides for a transition in scale and does not detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the place.
11	The subject land is in Neighbourhood Character Precinct 9.  The preferred character statement is:
To facilitate development of a diverse range of housing that integrates with the scale and form of buildings in the precinct, which respects the historic houses in the area and enhances the landscape setting of dwellings.
This will be achieved by:
•	Encouraging the retention of large trees;
•	Ensuring buildings are consistently set back from the front boundary to retain and enhance existing streetscape rhythm;
•	Ensuring new developments and additions respect the predominant [sic]
•	scale and form of buildings in the streetscape; [sic]
•	Ensuring design that integrates with the heritage styles of the precinct;
•	Ensuring car parking structures do not dominate the streetscape;
•	Maximising soft landscaping and minimising areas of hard surfaces; and
•	Encouraging l ow [sic] or open style front fences.
12	Other policies and assessment tools in the scheme apply to this proposal.  They include clause 15 and the Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria 2017.   The ‘Information’ section of these reasons sets out additional policies and provisions in the scheme that I have fully considered but do not recite.
Outline of parties’ positions
Overall form, scale, design, siting and landscaping
13	The applicants submit the proposal provides an inappropriate neighbourhood character response having regard to the relevant Planning Policy Framework provisions, in particular the neighbourhood character policy at clause 22.05.  This is a result of the building’s scale, bulk, siting, design detail, materials and an inadequate landscape response.  
14	The applicants also argue that the proposal fails to comply with various objectives under clause 55, including those relating to neighbourhood character, building height, landscaping, side and rear setbacks, and design detail.  Their grounds refer to a lack of landscaping along the common boundaries with the adjoining dwellings and to the rear in order to soften the appearance of the development.  Additional concerns identified by the applicants include the extent of tree removal and site cut, orientation of entries and basement ramp treatment.
15	Mr Milner’s critique of the proposal addresses a wide range of matters.    His evidence emphasises the role Malmsbury Street plays as a threshold in character terms.  Ms West observes differences between the northern and southern parts of Walpole Street but emphasises they are within the same character precinct. Further, Mr Milner considers there to be a particular setting associated with the adjacent and nearby properties to which a development on the subject land must respond.  Mr Chiappi’s submission refers to the importance of that immediate context and the legitimate role that detached dwellings play as part of the preferred character statement.  
16	Mr Milner indicates that his concerns about private open space within the front setback, and the provision of a basement from Walpole Street, are not fatal to the application.  Nor is the extent of site cut and fill, also referred to in his written evidence and the subject of submissions on behalf of the applicants.
17	In presenting his evidence, and through cross-examination, Mr Milner has expressed an opinion about how the proposal, and the site’s context, differ from other approved developments including those where he gave expert evidence in support.  I have considered the contextual considerations to which he refers.  
18	Mr Milner has also expressed an opinion about changes that would resolve the concerns documented in his evidence.  I record: 
•	Mr Milner accepts that a basement is reasonably expected.  Mr Milner’s concerns about the basement ramp did not lead him to conclude that access must only be from the rear of the site.  Rather, he believes the landscape strip adjacent to the northern boundary should be widened and, for reasons relating to noise impact, acoustic fencing possibly erected within the subject land.
•	Mr Milner considers that the entry to the apartments should be more clearly identified from the street.  He suggests the addition of a glazed structure adjacent to the entry to provide a direct view to a door.  Another idea is a marker from the street, to assist visitors.
•	Mr Milner is concerned that the building does not contract towards the rear of the land.  He says this is a particular issue at the north-east of the building, adjacent to the lawn and pool at No. 84 Walpole Street, downhill from the subject site.  He is also concerned about the impact on No. 80 Walpole Street.  He suggests:
o	The first floor balcony serving Apartment 1.02 could be re-oriented to the east of the building and the first floor level re-aligned with the 3.5 metre setback associated with the kitchen/dining area for Apartment 1.02.  (I note Mr Chiappi submits the ground floor eastern setback should be increased, although Mr Milner does not share this concern).
o	
The top floor should be set back to a point equating with removal of bedroom three in Apartment 2.01, so as to reduce visual bulk presented to the adjacent secluded private open spaces which are high amenity areas.   This would generally align with the rear of the abutting buildings, although there may be some basis to adopt a lesser reduction, but no less than a position east of bedroom 2.  Mr Milner was questioned as to how this point was determined.  Other possibilities with respect to a reduced top floor or a no-change scenario were the subject of cross-examination.    
19	As I understand it, on the basis of his recommended modifications, Mr Milner considers the proposal would achieve an acceptable outcome and, on balance, a permit should issue.  Mr Milner is satisfied that permit conditions can address matters such as refined materials and finishes.
20	Other parties have responded to Mr Milner’s recommendations and suggestions.  Ms Peppler refers to the lack of precision upon which evidence could be given by Mr Milner on this matter.  Ms West does not consider the proposal requires modification.  The Council offered a sketch showing the first floor north-east balcony re-positioned.
21	Overall, the respondent submits the proposal is acceptable as designed, including with the uncontested conditions in the Notice.  The Council agrees for reasons set out in its officer’s report and addressed by Mr Bowden.  Ms Peppler relies on expert evidence in support of her submissions that the proposal is consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character and expected visual bulk.  It strikes the right balance. Ms Peppler challenges Mr Milner’s character analysis including through Ms West’s evidence.  She submits Mr Milner has a mistaken view of neighbourhood character and has placed too much weight on the existing circumstances of the adjacent rear yards and not enough weight on expectations for change set through policy.   Ms Peppler submits there is not a wider character feature of open rear yards or backyards.  In support of this submission, she refers to structures on other land and associated with approved developments such as at No. 64-68 Walpole Street.  
22	Ms West agrees with the intent of Condition 1(a) in the Notice and does not consider the building requires additional modifications given its design, materiality, landscaping opportunities and the policy context that applies.  In her opinion, the size and character of adjacent rear yards mean the top level of the building will not create unacceptable impacts.  Ms West does not agree with Mr Milner that the top floor should be setback further and refers to the potential loss of a dwelling, which is unnecessary.  Ms Peppler emphasises that such an outcome is not reasonable in the policy context that applies.
23	I record discussions through the hearing in relation to other setbacks particularly at the interfaces with adjacent secluded private open spaces.  These include an increased ground level setback for Apartment G.03 to allow a taller tree species abutting the secluded private open space of No. 84 Walpole Street.  
24	
Mr Merlo says a setback of 2.5 metres at this point would enable a taller tree species than shown on the landscape plan, in the form of Blueberry Ash.  This species is proposed adjacent to the rear open space of No. 80 Walpole Street.  These trees would be in deep soil and have an estimated mature height of 7 metres.  They would be planted at an installation height of 2-3 metres.
25	Ms Peppler questions Mr Milner’s independence in this proceeding, given he prepared a letter of objection on behalf of the applicants.  She says that this affects the weight evidence can be given.  I agree that this is a relevant matter in assessing the evidence. 
Tree no. 12
26	Another matter addressed through submissions and evidence relates to tree no. 12, at the north-east corner of the subject land.  It is shown on the application plans as being retained.  It is required to be removed by a permit condition, on the advice of the Council’s arborist.   Mr Milner indicates his preference for the tree to be retained if appropriate, as did Mr Chiappi’s clients.  The permit applicant is willing to retain the tree, as proposed in the application/decision plans.
Tribunal findings
Character setting
27	The subject land is occupied by a two storey building that has a presence in the streetscape.  This is evident in the ‘Streetview’ image below.

28	Key character features are identified in the Precinct 9 statement.  They include the landform, range of building styles and scale, presence of some heritage and period buildings, building spacing, and front and side setbacks.  There is a strong prevailing character feature of front setbacks associated with single storey detached dwellings and older flats.  The individually significant heritage dwelling at No. 84 Walpole Street is relatively unobtrusive in the streetscape, behind a well planted front garden and a large street tree. There are often low and/or transparent front fences.  A dense hedge is at No. 80 Walpole Street.  Car parking is generally unobtrusive.  
29	Unlike some other parts of Precinct 9, there is a sense of spaciousness and leafy garden character.  This contrasts with narrower streets without large homes and without nature strips.  This is part of the eclectic character of Precinct 9.
30	This part of Walpole Street contains one and two storey buildings, some with high roof forms. There are flats, units and detached dwellings.  There are currently no three storey buildings.  Several mansion-style period dwellings are set in substantial gardens.  An example is No. 73 Eglinton Street.  Some two storey flats are elevated above ground level in response to the slope, including Nos. 78 and 86 Walpole Street.  
31	An apartment development has been approved at No. 64-68 Walpole Street.  A copy of the plans was tendered at the hearing.  An artist’s impression included in the material tendered is shown below.  This lot, occupied by a large home in a large garden, is approved for 14 townhouses, in pods up to three storeys.  

32	Contemporary development, often of two and three storeys, is emerging in other streets.  There are evident differences as one moves south of Malmsbury Street.  Around this location there is an aged care facility, a place of worship, with recent development nearing the activity centre.  
33	This can be understood as part of the eclectic nature of this area which will continue to evolve as development approvals give effect to the preferred character and policy.  Having said that, it is important to appreciate physical contextual differences relating to the redevelopment projects to which the parties refer compared with the subject land.  It is for this reason that a design response adopted for another site cannot simply be translated or assumed to be acceptable in other parts of the character precinct.  I am less persuaded to accept the applicants’ submission and evidence that land within GRZ3 and part of Precinct 9 closer to the activity centre has a planning context that should dictate a different response for the subject land compared with a site, for example, immediately south of Malmsbury Street where there are influences involving higher forms such as a synagogue and aged care facility.
34	
This leads to the submissions and evidence focussing on the rear yard context of the subject land and wider area.  On my assessment, there is an obvious sense of rear garden character relating to the subject land, its adjacent properties, and spacing with the presence of the rear laneway. 
35	The subject land and abutting properties are well landscaped, including canopy trees that provide a strong sense of greenery. Nos. 80 and 84 Walpole Street have very well established, high quality, rear gardens; they have high amenity and high quality spaces adjacent to renovated living areas.  The slope is a relevant matter in their design, as is the presence of the flats at No. 78 Walpole Street which the layout of No. 80 minimises.
36	The strength and consistency of the rear garden character diminishes in parts of the wider area.  For example, where two storey flats and some unit developments extend deep into their lots.  The flats do, however, have spacing associated with them, notably with side driveways and rear parking/service areas.  There is also a presence of low-rise structures at the rear of some properties.  Examples include sheds and carports.  
37	Broadly, I think that the Character Statement for Precinct 9 aptly refers to “Rear gardens of various sizes”, as can be discerned to an extent in the Nearmap image below.

Subject land

Three storeys in principle
38	The parties do not disagree that the existing dwelling can lawfully be demolished, that redevelopment of the land is acceptable and that a third storey cannot be accommodated.  It is relevant and carries significant weight that clause 21.05 expressly contemplates apartment buildings in the GRZ3 area and that clause 22.05 expressly seeks:
To facilitate development up to three storeys in height that integrates with and complements the varied scale and type of development in the precinct.   [Emphasis added]  
39	While development up to three storeys is to be facilitated, three storey forms will not automatically be acceptable on every or any site.  There are other relevant matters to consider relating to the land’s physical and planning contexts.  These must include the fact that No. 84 Walpole Street is within a Heritage Overlay meaning that the extent and type of change which might occur on that site may differ from other sites that are not within, or abutting, a Heritage Overlay. However, the strategic is clear and the character of the area can be expected to evolve with larger built forms.  
Streetscape response
40	On one view, it might be said that the proposed development replaces a large double storey dwelling that has a high roof with a new three storey form, albeit one that extends much deeper into the lot than the existing building.   As I have indicated, there is a complexity to this setting, however. 
41	After careful consideration, I find the proposal is an acceptable response to the physical and planning contexts.  It will complement the varied scale and type of development in the precinct by the manner in which it is recessed, moulded and articulated.  
42	Specifically, the proposed development:
•	Adopts a 9 metre minimum street setback, which provides a transition between the shallow setback associated with the heritage dwelling to the north (5.2 metres) and the deeper setback of the building to the south (11.5 metres).  The existing dwelling on the subject land is setback by 9.17 metres from the street frontage.  At the first floor level, the front portion of the proposed building is setback 2.6 metres from the southern boundary and 4.2 metres from the northern boundary.   Consequently, the building achieves setbacks that respond to the existing pattern and rhythm of development.
•	Adopts the use of a basement, that minimises the extent to which car parking would dominate the streetscape.  The landscape plan provides ways to soften this element of the design.
•	Adopts setbacks from both side boundaries and the rear boundary through all levels of the building, therefore assisting to maintain and enhance the existing streetscape rhythm. A garden setting can be achieved.
•	
Through a proposed permit condition, offers a landscape strip along the northern edge of the basement ramp to soften the impact of this element of the design.
43	The architectural response does not mimic the adjacent built forms.  It can be said to be a contemporary form that adds to the layering of development styles evident in this area.  The ability for this building to integrate into the streetscape is assisted by recessing of the first and second floors from the streetscape elevation and, to a lesser extent, side boundaries.  
44	While I agree with Mr Milner that the design is somewhat ‘boxy’ and   includes a flat roof, one cannot overlook other buildings in the street also with flat roofs as acknowledged as part of the character of the Precinct 9.  Further, conditions included in the Notice ensure materials and finishes are refined.  This is an acceptable approach in this case.
45	Enclosure of part of the front setback to create private open space for one dwelling is not consistent with the streetscape character.  It results in a high fence at the southern end.  However, this taller section of fencing does not extend across the whole of the site; the fence lowers to 1.37 metres.  This is a relevant matter, as is the wrought iron detailing, and that landscaping is presented between the fence and footpath.   Transparent fences are sought by the preferred character statement, and are well represented in this street.  I find the proposal, on balance, is acceptable in this regard.
Other setbacks
46	In my view, the most challenging aspect of this design is in the rear part of the subject land where the development will present to the abutting secluded private open spaces to the north and south.   The impact on the property at No. 97 Peel Street is reduced by the benefit of a laneway separation.  The separation from the rear boundary is assisted by a 4 metre first floor setback as set out in the Notice.
47	The proposed development extends further into the subject land than the existing building and beyond the rear of the adjacent buildings.  While there is a basis to allow an apartment building to extend fairly deep into the site, mindful of the rear separation achieved by the laneway, the adjacent private open spaces are relevant in character terms.  Indeed, the design guidelines for Precinct 9 include an objective relating to existing backyard character.  Interestingly, the ‘avoid’ statements focus on dwellings being too far forward, boundary to boundary development, and proximity to the rear boundary.  The proposal does not suffer from any of these issues (with setback of the first floor from the rear boundary being a minimum of 4 metres, based on the uncontested condition in the Notice).  I also accept that Standard B17 is met with respect to side and rear setbacks.
48	The design includes deeper setbacks at the top floor abutting the adjacent open spaces.  The setbacks are around 5.9 metres to the southern boundary and 6.1 metres to the northern boundary.  The setback of the first floor from the rear boundary is a minimum of 4 metres, and a minimum of 3.5 metres from the side boundaries, excluding a balcony associated with Unit 1.02.
49	
Mr Milner criticises the proposal because the building does not taper as it extends into the lot, and adjacent to the abutting open spaces and pools.  I agree to an extent.  This is particularly with respect to:
•	The ground level on the north side of Apartment G.03;
•	The north-facing first floor balcony for Apartment 1.02; and 
•	The Master Bedroom and rear balcony for Apartment 2.01.  
50	These are the most problematic elements of the building envelope.  It is relevant to my decision that there is less opportunity for landscaping on the northern side that might assist with screening a building of the scale proposed compared with the southern side.  This is despite the fact that No. 84 Walpole Street is downslope, and will look up towards the proposed development.
51	It is also relevant that the proposed building extends deep into the site with limitations on the ability to respond to the character features that are evident and preferred.  These focus on (among other things) a landscape setting for the dwellings.  
52	I have decided that modifications are required to reduce these ‘pinch-points’ and produce an acceptable balance between the competing character and housing (and, as I refer to later, also amenity) objectives in this case.  The changes I will require achieve a deeper landscape bed adjacent to the lawn and pool at No. 84 Walpole Street.  They require a deeper setback at the first floor level at this same point without the protruding balcony.  They scale back the size and position of the Master Bedroom on the top floor of Apartment 2.01.  These modifications will also reduce the scale of the development as it presents to the rear of No. 80 Walpole Street.  
53	The changes can be addressed by permit conditions.  They do not go as far as Mr Milner recommends, but they do represent an acknowledgement of a sensitivity that the applicants’ identify.  In this regard, I have preferred Mr Milner’s evidence to that of Ms West.
54	While the respondent opposes a reduction in floor space, and suggests ways in which any floor space lost could be recouped, my conditions require the setbacks to be absorbed within the building envelope without other side and rear setbacks being reduced.  The spaces within the development allow for such changes to be made without substantial losses in floorspace.  The modifications are:
(a)	Apartment G.03:
i	Set back the northern wall of the Master Bed and Bed 2 a minimum of 2.5 metres from the northern boundary, to provide a 1.5 metre wide landscape bed adjacent to the northern boundary, with consequential internal changes as required.  The increased setback must be absorbed within the building envelope without other side and rear setbacks being reduced. 
(b)	
Apartment 1.01 must have a minimum balcony width of 2.4 metres in accordance with Clause 55.07-9 [Private open space] of the Boroondara Planning Scheme;
(c)	Apartment 1.02:
i	Delete the north-facing balcony.
ii	Relocate the balcony to the eastern side of the dwelling, at a minimum setback of 4.0 metres from the east boundary.  The eastern wall of the dwelling must have a minimum setback from the eastern boundary of 6.4 metres.  The minimum setback of the northern elevation of Apartment 1.02 must be no less than 3.5 metres, except that the pantry must be retained with a setback from the northern boundary of 4.2 metres.  Consequential internal changes may be made as required;
(d)	Apartment 2.01:
i	Delete rear balcony.
ii	The eastern wall of the Master Bed must be setback a minimum of 10 metres from the eastern boundary;
iii	The northern wall of the Master Bed must be setback a minimum of 6.19 metres from the northern boundary to align with the adjacent corridor;
iv	The southern wall of the Master Bed ensuite must be setback a minimum of 5.99 metres from the southern boundary to align with the WIR;
v	Consequential internal changes may be made as required;
vi	The increased setbacks must be absorbed within the building envelope without any other side and rear setbacks being reduced.
Tree no. 12
55	The plans considered by the Council proposed the retention of tree no. 12, a Lilly Pilly located in the north-east corner of the site.  
56	The officer’s report records that the Council’s arborist recommended this tree be removed and replaced by two canopy trees within the rear setback.  
57	The officer’s assessment refers to the tree as a moderately-sized native tree in good health but with a tight union in the mid-trunk with included bark.  
58	The arborist’s assessment in August 2017 for the permit applicant refers to the tree as a native Lilly Pilly, 10 metres in height and 8 metres in width, mature, in fair health and of fair structure.  It is estimated to have a safe useful life expectancy of 21-40 years and a “moderate” arboricultural rating.  It also refers to a “primary acute union”.
59	
I agree there is an opportunity to implement a new landscape treatment.  However, I consider that it is preferable for the tree to be retained given its landscape benefit, its moderate rating in arboricultural terms and its estimated safe useful life expectancy.  It will not mask the building from the adjacent secluded private open space at No. 84 Walpole Street but maintains a sense of greenery that will be supplemented by the row of Blueberry Ash in a widened landscape bed adjacent to the pool and lawn.
Heritage
Planning scheme provisions and policy
60	The subject land is not within a Heritage Overlay.  As shown in the property report extract below, the adjacent property to the north is within an individual Heritage Overlay HO355. The owners of this property at No. 84 Walpole Street, are applicants for review.

61	No permit required for the proposed development under clause 43.01 and clause 22.03 does not apply for this reason.   The exception that arose during the course of the hearing relates to a side fence treatment on the common boundary between the subject land and No. 84 Walpole Street.   As indicated earlier, I amended the application to provide for this permit trigger, having heard submissions from the parties on the procedural question and the merits. The purpose and decision guidelines in clause 43.01 have been considered in assessing the appropriateness of the site fencing treatment.
62	As noted previously, clause 22.05 states:
•	Ensure development adjacent to a property in an individual Heritage Overlay fronting onto the same street provides for a transition in scale and does not detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the place.
63	As indicated above, the preferred character statement also seeks the following:
•	Ensuring new developments and additions respect the predominant [sic]
•	
scale and form of buildings in the streetscape; [sic]
•	Ensuring design that integrates with the heritage styles of the precinct
64	The citation for No. 84 Walpole Street sets out the history, description and integrity, historical context, comparative analysis, assessment against Heritage Victoria criteria and a statement of significance.  The statement of significance is:
84 Walpole Street, Kew is of local historical and architectural significance as a good and externally relatively intact bungalow of the late 1920s, demonstrating the gabled and dormer forms and richness of materials typical of the style.  It is an elegant composition which features a distinctive combination of eyelid dormer and gable on its street front.
65	No. 80 Walpole Street is not within a Heritage Overlay.  The applicants refer to its ‘C’ grading in a local heritage study, however, this has not advanced to a situation where the property is within a heritage precinct or individual Heritage Overlay.  Policy does not seek to assess the heritage impacts on that property to the south of the subject land, only the property within the Overlay to the north.
Outline of parties’ positions
66	The applicants submit the proposed development will have an adverse heritage impact on the setting of the individually listed dwelling.  Mr Chiappi expresses concern about the appropriateness of the building’s streetscape presentation and relationship with the individually-listed heritage place.
67	The applicants’ grounds also include that the proposal will adversely affect the values of the dwelling at No. 80 Walpole Street which is a C graded building within the Kew Urban Conservation Study 1998.  Mr Chiappi indicated in his opening submission that this is a relevant matter, however, it was not pursued in his cross-examination of Mr Raworth.
68	Mr Raworth’s evidence for the respondent is that the proposed building’s setback, including upper levels, and the overall height and form are acceptable from a heritage perspective, bearing in mind that the development itself has not been directly assessed against heritage policy and guidelines.  Mr Raworth refers to Walpole Street as very heterogeneous, noting that there are “not many three storey buildings”.  His evidence is that the proposed scale of the development will not have an unacceptable heritage impact.  He refers to the slope and the existing condition with a tall, two storey, masonry building of generally unrelated style and expression on the subject land. Mr Raworth further concludes that the proposal will sit comfortably within the general array of built form.  Nonetheless, he agrees with the Council that a review of materials and finishes is appropriate, as provided by conditions on the Notice.
69	
Mr Raworth does not consider there to be unacceptable implications arising from some of the boundary or side fencing options being discussed through the course of the hearing, including an acoustic fence.
70	The Council submits that its heritage advisor indicated that the proposed apartment building will not adversely impact on the significant heritage building given the side setbacks (that separate the buildings) and the recessed top floor.
Tribunal findings
71	I accept the Council’s submission and the expert heritage evidence that the proposal does not create an unacceptable relationship with the adjacent heritage place.   
72	As evident from my earlier findings, there is a mixed built form character, without a predominant heritage theme, that the proposed development would interrupt or detract from.  It is also noted that the existing building on the subject land is a large two storey form.  The way in which the front elevation of the proposed development has been massed, with its recessed third level, is arguably not dissimilar as seen in the streetscape.  
73	The acceptability of the proposal is further assisted by the way in which the proposed building is setback from its northern boundary shared with HO355 as well as its setback further from the street than the dwelling at No. 84 Walpole Street.
74	The proposal’s architectural presentation is strongly contemporary, contrasting with the adjacent bungalow.  However, in this setting, the visual impact of the development is acceptable.
75	To the extent that heritage is identified as a relevant matter through clause 22.05 and the preferred character statement, I find the proposal does not detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the place.
76	With respect to side fencing treatments, either abutting or on the common boundary with No. 84 Walpole Street, I find the fencing treatment contained in the landscape evidence to be preferable.  A high and/or acoustic fence would, in my view, be an unwelcome visual intrusion.  While it would not impede views to the heritage place from in front of the site, and such views are restricted by vegetation today, the solid form is less appropriate to the era of the heritage building.  As explained below, a high side fence is not necessary with respect to concerns about noise from the basement.
amenity impacts
77	The applicants submit the proposal will have unacceptable amenity impacts as a result of the bulk and scale of the proposed development when viewed from the adjoining properties and, in particular, from rear gardens and habitable windows of those properties.  There are some additional concerns relating to the impact of the proposal, such as noise.

Visual bulk
78	My findings in relation to the visual bulk impacts of the development in character terms are relevant to amenity considerations.  I do not need to repeat them, or the changes required, to achieve an acceptable character outcome.
79	I have accepted that the proposal complies with Standard B17, and for reasons set out above, modifications to the building envelope are required so as to step back, and step down, the rear part of the building.  These changes will reduce the visual impact of the proposed development as seen from adjacent properties, particularly the pool areas.  It will improve the scope for perimeter planting particularly abutting the pool and lawn at No. 84 Walpole Street.
80	In part, therefore, I accept Mr Milner’s evidence that refers the physical presence of the proposed building and the unreasonable impact it will have on the high amenity secluded private open spaces associated with the adjacent dwellings.  The modifications seek to redress this while achieving a balanced outcome having regard to the policy setting.  
81	I was referred to long distance views obtained from two highlight windows in the first floor Master Bedroom of No. 80 Walpole Street.  I appreciate that these views may be enjoyed by the occupants. However, there is no scheme policy or provision giving weight to the sharing of views.  The loss of such views does not carry influential weight.
Overlooking
82	Mr Milner recommends additional screening to meet Standard B22, as set out in his evidence.  Conditions on the Notice seek to ensure compliance with Standard B22, and I will include additional conditions to ensure the Standard is met consequent upon modifications to the building envelope I will require.
North-facing windows
83	The officer’s assessment refers to non-compliance with the north-facing windows Standard B20.  Ms West’s evidence is that the standard is met.  The plans tended with her evidence demonstrate this point, consistent with Condition 1(d) in the Notice. 
84	As indicated earlier, this matter was not pursued at the hearing on behalf of the applicants.
Noise associated with the ramp and vehicle movement
85	The applicants are concerned about the position of the basement and ramp, with the potential for noise transmission to the dwelling to the north.  
86	
Mr Milner observes that the proposed driveway may have a noise impact on a bedroom within No. 84 Walpole Street and may also affect bedrooms within the development.  In his oral evidence, the potential for an acoustic fence was identified.
87	The location of the ramp, and various forms of fencing adjacent to No. 84 Walpole Street, were the subject of extensive submissions and evidence at the hearing.  
88	The bedroom in question has a front window facing Walpole Street.  There is no habitable room window serving the bedroom facing the subject land.  At a point aligned with the front wall of the dwelling, the ramp is descending below ground.  The bedroom window is close to a screened service area within the front setback of No. 84 Walpole Street.  There is planting and wire fencing on the common boundary with the subject land.
89	I am not persuaded that there is justification for an acoustic fence or high fence to limit noise transmission.  The basement serves six dwellings and is located in a similar position as the existing driveway serving the dwelling on the subject land.  There may be more vehicle movements than associated with one house.  However, the extent to which the bedroom window, already facing a public street, is exposed to a significant additional impact is not substantial mindful of the descending ramp form.  I also consider that an acoustic fence would be a poor streetscape response and would detract from the acceptable presentation along this edge proposed in the landscape plan.
90	Condition 1(n) in the Notice requires the ramp to be offset from the boundary by 500mm.  This is to provide additional landscaping.  It is appropriate without being further expanded.  The boundary treatment shown in the landscape plan is a suitable response in my view without bringing high fencing adjacent to the front setback.  I record the parties’ agreement to 2 metre high side boundary fences elsewhere.  This can be addressed by a permit condition.
Overshadowing
91	The applicants do not contend the proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing.
Other matters
92	A number of other matters are raised in statements of grounds, submissions and evidence.
Extent of screening affecting internal amenity
93	Mr Milner expresses concern about the extent of screening provided in the proposed development.  
94	I note the screening details include louvres which will limit overlooking while allowing outward views, mindful that there is an opportunity for longer range views in this location.   
95	
Modifying Apartment 1.02 with an east-facing balcony would allow an internal rearrangement of the dwelling to achieve a living room that benefits from a more open north-eastern and eastern aspect instead of a more heavily screened northern position.
Tree root protection
96	This is a matter in the applicants’ statement of grounds.  A report on this matter was tendered by the respondent.  Conditions on the Notice seek to protect trees identified as Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 18 including through a tree management plan.
97	At the hearing, Mr Chiappi referred to an additional tree on the land at No. 80 Walpole Street that is not referred to in the material.  He submits it could be impacted by the proposed development.  In response, Ms Peppler indicates that her client is willing to have this tree assessed and referenced in permit conditions.  This is understood to also be a Chinese Elm, which is close to tree no. 18.
98	As indicated above, tree no. 12 is proposed to be retained in the decision plans.  I agree with this position, rather than requiring it to be removed by a permit condition.  Retention of the tree is not opposed by the permit applicant and is included in modified permit conditions.
Entry
99	As noted earlier, Mr Milner criticises the entry along the southern side of the property.  He states it is relatively isolated from the street, not easily identifiable and without a source of natural light.  He suggests ways in which this could be improved, including a glazed structure sitting forward of the southern wall.  Some other potential treatments were canvassed at the hearing.
100	The respondent disagrees that the entry is unacceptable based on its expert evidence.  It particularly relies on the landscape plan which shows how this entry will be identified from the street.
101	It is true that there are few windows providing passive surveillance to the entry.  However, the landscape treatment including a weather-protected arbor, gate and fence east of the entry all work together to ensure that the entry to the dwellings will be sufficiently legible to visitors.  The gate will be secured.  Landscaping at the entry will mark the door and foyer.
102	I do not consider a glazed structure that brings built form closer to the southern boundary is necessary.  Nor are other modifications beyond the treatment shown in the landscape plan.  I find the objective of clause 55.05-2 is met.
Size of proposed private open spaces
103	Mr Milner’s evidence refers to the ground level open space of Apartment G.02 that has 37m2 of private open space rather than 40m2.  His evidence is that other apartments comply with Standard B28.
104	
The changes I will require to this Apartment, increasing the setback of the northern wall from the northern boundary, will also increase the size of the private open space available to this dwelling.  There will be an additional 8m2+ of space, albeit 2.5 metres wide and not 3 metres wide.  When considered with the 37m2 associated with the north/east-facing rear deck, I am satisfied that the private open space for this dwelling achieves the objective of clause 55.05-4.
Room depth
105	Mr Milner’s evidence refers to clause 55.07-13 stating, in part, that Apartment G.01 does not comply with the room depth cited in Standard B47.  His evidence is that other apartments comply with the Standard. 
106	The Council officer’s assessment refers to a non-compliance of 280mm associated with the kitchen in Apartment G.01 The assessment found the outcome to be acceptable because of the relationship with the larger L-shaped space.  I agree.  I consider the objective of clause 55.07-13 is met taking into account the relationship between the living/dining/kitchen that have a 7.7 metre wide west-facing aspect to a large front courtyard.
CONCLUSION
107	Subject to modifications that can be addressed through permit conditions, I find the proposal will achieve an acceptable balance between the policy directions for moderate growth, new development up the three storeys, the preferred character for Precinct 9, and amenity outcomes for existing residents.  It can do so without unreasonably impinging on the heritage values of No. 84 Walpole Street while also achieving an acceptable level of internal amenity.
108	For the reasons set out above, the Responsible Authority’s decision is varied.  A permit is issued subject to the conditions included in the Notice, varied in accordance with my findings.  Permit conditions are in Appendix A.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No:	PP17/01166	
Land:	82 Walpole Street, Kew	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of six (6) dwellings on a lot.
•	Construction of a fence within 3 metres of a street if the fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 55.06-2.
•	Construction of a fence in the Heritage Overlay pursuant to clause 43.01.	

Conditions:
Amended plans
1	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided. When the plans are endorsed they will then form part of the permit. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by Embrace TP05, TP10, TPII, TP12, TP13, TP14, TP20, TP21, TP22; TP23, TP30, TP31 all Revision C but modified to show the following:	
(a)	Apartment G.03:
i	Set back the northern wall of the Master Bed and Bed 2 a minimum of 2.5 metres from the northern boundary, to provide a 1.5 metre wide landscape bed adjacent to the northern boundary, with consequential internal changes as required.  The increased setback must be absorbed within the building envelope without other side and rear setbacks being reduced. 
(b)	Apartment 1.01 must have a minimum balcony width of 2.4 metres in accordance with Clause 55.07-9 [Private open space] of the Boroondara Planning Scheme;
(c)	Apartment 1.02:
i	Delete the north-facing balcony.
ii	Relocate the balcony to the eastern side of the dwelling, at a minimum setback of 4.0 metres from the east boundary.  The eastern wall of the dwelling must have a minimum setback from the eastern boundary of 6.4 metres.  The minimum setback of the northern elevation of Apartment 1.02 must be no less than 3.5 metres, except that the pantry must be retained with a setback from the northern boundary of 4.2 metres.  Consequential internal changes may be made as required;
(d)	Apartment 2.01:
i	Delete rear balcony.
ii	The eastern wall of the Master Bed must be setback a minimum of 10 metres from the eastern boundary;
iii	The northern wall of the Master Bed must be setback a minimum of 6.19 metres from the northern boundary to align with the adjacent corridor;
iv	The southern wall of the Master Bed/ensuite must be setback a minimum of 5.99 metres from the southern boundary to align with the WIR;
v	Consequential internal changes may be made as required;
vi	The increased setbacks must be absorbed within the building envelope without any other side and rear setbacks being reduced;
(e)	Details of the sill, height of Apartment G.01 Bed 3 window to demonstrate compliance with Clause 55.03-10 Standard B15 [Parking location] of the Boroondara Planning Scheme;
(f)	Setback of southern boundary of Apartment 2.01 dining/living room wall to comply with Clause 55.04-4 Standard B20 [North-facing windows] of the Boroondara Planning Scheme; 
(g)	Details of screens [MS-01] to a scale of 1:50 to demonstrate compliance with Clause 55.04-6 Standard B22 [Overlooking] of the Boroondara Planning Scheme;
(h)	Cross sections to a scale of 1:50 demonstrating that there is no unreasonable overlooking from the ground floor north-facing windows of Apartment G.03 to the secluded private open space of 84 Walpole Street. If these windows do not comply with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55, then they must be screened to the extent necessary to comply;
(i)	Cross sections to a scale of 1:50 demonstrating that there is no unreasonable overlooking from Apartment 1.02 balcony, and habitable room windows, to the secluded private open space of 80 and 84 Walpole Street. If the balcony or any window does not comply with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55, then they must be screened to the extent necessary to comply;
(j)	Cross sections to a scale of 1:50 demonstrating that there is no unreasonable overlooking from Apartment 2.01 to the habitable room windows and secluded private open space of 80 and 84 Walpole Street. If Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55 is not met, then windows must be screened to the extent necessary to comply;
(k)	Reduction in the number of finishes to be only one masonry finish, preferably brickwork (in dark grey or blue), one rendered finish, a timber finish; and only two metal finishes;
(l)	Refining the design detailing and materiality of the third floor through the following measures:
i	Simplifying the façade design by removing unnecessary decorative elements like the projecting pilasters; and 
ii	Dressing the external walls of this floor with a lightweight material to soften its visual weight and appearance;
iii	Confirming the use of glazing material GL.02 on the south-facing living room windows of Apartment 2.01 to a height above finished floor level of 1.7 metres;
(m)	A schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (including swatch samples) including a physical sample of all finishes;
(n)	Provision of a sight triangle for a distance 2.5 metres along the southern side of accessway and 2 metres along Walpole Street with no landscaping higher than 900mm within the triangle area;
(o)	Modifications to the basement ramp consistent with the recommendations in Table 3, page 15, of the Statement of Evidence by Mr V Gnanakone, dated 4 March 2019;
(p)	A landscape strip with a minimum width of 500mm along the northern side of the driveway;
(q)	All side fences to be a minimum of 2 metres in height except:
i	Where tapered to the street frontage; and
ii	The side fence adjacent to the driveway ramp must be consistent with the treatment proposed in the “Northern Boundary Elevation” drawing no. TP03 (dated 25.02.19) Revision E prepared by Jack Merlo.
(r)	All car spaces dimensioned in accordance with Table 2 of Design Standard 2 Car parking spaces of Clause 52.06-9 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme;
(s)	The Tree Protection Zone of the trees 1, 5, 10, 12, 18 (Chinese Elm) and a second Chinese Elm on No. 80 Walpole Street close to tree no. 18 drawn on all site and floor plans;
(t)	Notation on all site and floor plans that trees 1, 5, 10, 12, 18 (Chinese Elm) and a second Chinese Elm on No. 80 Walpole Street close to tree no. 18 are to be protected in accordance with the endorsed Tree Management Plan required by Condition 6 of this permit;
(u)	A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit;
(v)	A Tree Management Plan in accordance with Condition 6 of this permit;
(w)	A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 19 of this permit; and,
(x)	An Environmentally Sustainable Management (ESD) Report in accordance with Condition 23 of this permit.
Layout not to be altered
2	The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Landscape plan
3	A landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided. When endorsed, the plan will form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with drawing nos. TP01 – TP06 (dated 25.02.19) Revision E prepared by Jack Merlo and show:
(a)	A survey (including botanical names) of all existing trees to be retained and of those to be removed. The intended status of the trees shown on the landscape plan must be consistent with that depicted on the development layout plan; 
(b)	Changes consistent with Condition 1 including retention of tree no. 12;
(c)	Details of the surface finish of all pathways, paved areas and accessways;
(d)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity and the quantities of each plant;	
(e)	Two canopy trees that will reach a mature height of at least 9 metres in the front setback of the property and one (1) canopy tree that will reach a mature height of at least 8 metres in the rear setback;
(f)	All trees must be at least 2 metres high at the time of planting; 
(g)	Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site; and 
(h)	Landscaping required by any other condition of this permit.
Completion of landscaping works
4	Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development.
Landscaping maintenance
5	All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plants replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Tree management plan
6	Prior to the endorsement of the plans referred to in Condition 1 of this permit, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) must be submitted by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist in relation to the management and maintenance of trees; 1, 5, 10, 12, 18 (Chinese Elm) and a second Chinese Elm on No. 80 Walpole Street close to tree no. 18. The TMP must be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works including demolition and levelling of the site. The TMP must make specific recommendations in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4970: 2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites and detail the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	A tree protection plan to scale is to be submitted along with the TMP that shows:
i	Tree protection zones and structural root zones of all trees to be retained; 
ii	All tree protection fenced off areas and areas where ground protection systems will be used;
iii	The type of footings within the tree protection zone;
iv	All services to be located within the tree protection zone and a notation to state that all services will either be located outside of the tree protection zone, bored under the tree protection zone, or installed using hydro excavation under the supervision of the project arborist; and
v	A notation to refer to the tree management plan for specific detail on what actions are required within the tree protection zone.
(b)	Details of how the root system of any tree to be retained will be managed. This must detail any initial non-destructive trenching and pruning of any roots required to be undertaken by the project arborist.
(c)	Supervision timetable and certification of tree management activities required by the Project Arborist to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(d)	All remedial pruning works that are required to be performed on the tree development of the site. The pruning comments must reference Australian Standards 4373:2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees and a detailed photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur.
(e)	The recommendations contained in the approved tree management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Contractors to be advised of trees to be retained
7	The owner and occupier of the site must ensure that, prior to the commencement of buildings and works, all contractors and tradespersons operating on the site are advised of the status of trees to be retained as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan and are advised of any obligations in relation to the protection of those trees.
Regulation of activities in Tree Protection Area
8	No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Area as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.
Drainage
9	The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10	No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses during and after development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	The construction of the outfall drain from the north west corner of the property to the existing Council Side Entry Pit (SEP) at the intersection of Walpole Street and Eglinton Street and provision of the onsite detention system must be in accordance with the relevant Council standard. If the location of the outlet of the stormwater drainage is at the ramp to basement /driveway at the north-west corner of the property, and if overflow from the orifice pit is located there, then due consideration should be taken for flooding risk in the basement. 
Use of car parking spaces and driveways
12	Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Turntable maintenance
13	The turntable in the basement must be kept in good working order, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Visitor parking spaces
14	Visitor parking spaces within the development must be:
(a)	Clearly identified by appropriate signage having an area no greater than 0.3m2, 
(b)	Line marked to indicate each car space; and 
(c)	Available for visitor usage at all times. 
Vehicle crossovers
15	Any new vehicle crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Removal of redundant vehicle crossovers 
16	All disused or redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the area reinstated with footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
External lighting
17	All external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent light from the site causing any unreasonable impacts on the locality, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Concealment of pipes
18	All pipes (except down-pipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from external view, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Waste management plan
19	A waste management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once satisfactory, such plan will be endorsed and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must provide the following details of a regular private waste (including recyclables) collection service for the subject land including:
(a)	the type/s and number of waste bins;
(b)	screening of bins;
(c)	type/size of trucks;
(d)	frequency of waste collection;
(e)	plan showing the layout of the bins at collection time including sufficient clearances from all street services, features and infrastructure; and 
(f)	location of collection points within basement.
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Construction management plan 
20	Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and excavation, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed, the construction management plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be prepared in accordance with Council's Construction Management Plan Template and provide details of the following:
(a)	Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit;
(b)	Measures to control noise; dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
(c)	Measures relating to removal of hazardous or dangerous material from the site, where applicable;
(d)	A plan showing the location of parking areas for construction and subcontractors' vehicles on and surrounding the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises. Any basement car park on the land must be made available for use by sub-constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay;
(e)	A Traffic Management Plan showing truck routes to and from the site;
(f)	Swept path analysis demonstrating the ability for trucks to enter and exit the site in a safe manner for the largest anticipated truck associated with the construction;
(g)	A plan showing the location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site;
(h)	Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the construction management plan;
(i)	Contact details of key construction site staff; and	
(j)	A site plan showing the location of any site sheds, on-site amenities, building waste storage and the like, noting that Council does not support site sheds on Council road reserves.
Hours for demolition and construction
21	All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated with the approved development must take place only during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	Monday to Thursday:	 7:00am to 6:30pm
(b)	Friday: 7:00am to 5:00pm
(c)	Saturday: 9:00am to 5:00pm
(d)	Sunday & Public Holidays: No construction
Provision of letter boxes
22	Provision must be made on the site for letter boxes and receptacles for papers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Report
23	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans referred to in Condition 1 of this permit, an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Report that is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted for approval. The report must address ESD principals proposed for the site including, but not limited to energy efficiency, storm water collection and re-use for garden irrigation and toilet flushing, and waste and building materials. Any recommended changes to the building must be incorporated into the plans required by Condition 1. Once approved, such a plan must be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
Permit to expire:
24	This permit will expire if:
(a)	The development does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit; or
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:
i	within six (6) months afterwards if the development has not commenced; or
ii	within twelve (12) months afterwards if the development has not been completed.
The Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal are unable to approve requests outside of the relevant time frame.

--End Conditions--