VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P2422/2018
Permit Application no. 0911/17	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Stonnington Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Special Building Overlay; Incremental Change; Apartments; Built form; Neighbourhood Character. 	

APPLICANT	18 Creswick Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Stonnington City Council	
Referral Authority	Melbourne Water	
RESPONDENTs	Andrew Ridings, Ben and Donna Jones, Ann McAllister, Tom Aulsebrook, Susan Tymms	
SUBJECT LAND	18 Creswick Street 
GLEN IRIS	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Megan Carew, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	8-9 May 2019	
DATE OF ORDER	6 June 2019	
CITATION	18 Creswick Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2019] VCAT 816	

Order
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 substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Wolf Architects 	
•	Drawing numbers:	Drawings No. A101 - A112, Revision M	
•	Dated:	4 April 2019	
2	In application P2422/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application 0911/17 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 18 Creswick Street, Glen Iris in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone and Special Building Overlay

Megan Carew
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr John Cicero, Solicitor, Best Hooper
He called the following witnesses:
•	Mr Maugan Bastone, Town Planner, Urbis 
•	Mr John Patrick, Landscape Architect, John Patrick Landscape Architects
•	Mr Russell Fairlie, Traffic Engineer, Ratio
The visual amenity evidence of Mr Chris Goss, Orbit Solutions was tabled.	
For responsible authority	Mr Andrew Clarke, Town Planning Consultant, Clarke Planning	
For referral authority	No appearance 	
For respondents	Mr Andrew Ridngs, in person
Mr Ben Jones, in person
Mr Andrew Maughan appeared for Ms McAllister
Mr Tom Aulsebrook, in person
Ms Susan Tymms, in person	

Information
Description of proposal	To develop the land for six dwellings in a townhouse arrangement over basement car parking. Dwellings 1 and 6 are two levels and dwellings 2-5 are three levels.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Stonnington Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone- Schedule 10
Special Building Overlay	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08- To construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Clause 44.05- Buildings and works within the Special Building Overlay.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 10,11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22.05, 22.18, 22.23, 32.08, 44.05, 52.06, 55, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The review site is located on the east side of Creswick Street, south of the commercial area along Malvern Road. It is regular in shape with frontage of 18.29m and a total site area of 1115m2. It is presently developed with a single dwelling. 
The surrounding area is residential in nature, with two dwellings being located to the north of the proposal and an older style four dwelling development to the south.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the review site and its environs following the hearing	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	The applicant seeks approval to construct six contemporary townhouses on the review site that is located within the residential hinterland south of the activity centre on Malvern Road.
2	Council says that while the site is suitable for medium density housing and within an area designated for incremental change, that the proposal is not a suitable design response. Council says that it fails to respect the neighbourhood character and will present visual bulk to adjoining properties. The respondents support Council’s position. 
3	I find that the following are the key issues in this matter:
•	Is the proposal consistent with its strategic planning context?
•	Is the built form response acceptable?
•	Is the amenity of adjoining properties respected and internal amenity satisfactory? and
•	Are traffic and car parking matters addressed?
4	The Special Building Overlay applies only to a small section of the front part of the land. Melbourne Water was satisfied that the proposal responds to the potential floodway subject to conditions. I am satisfied that the proposal responds to the Special Building Overlay.
5	I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented and with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Stonington Planning Scheme, I have determined to grant a permit subject to conditions. I have however, required amendment to the built form by conditions including a reduction in the extent of three-storey form. My reasons follow.
IS THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH ITS STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT?
6	The planning policy framework and the purposes of the zone seek a balance of new housing in residential areas such as this subject to an acceptable response to neighbourhood character and amenity.  
7	The parties in this proceeding generally agreed that the site was suitable for some form of medium density housing. This is not surprising given the site’s strategic and physical context including its size, location proximate to services and amenities along Malvern Road and inclusion in the General Residential Zone which has the purpose to encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport. 
8	Clause 21.05 identifies that increased housing density will be directed to areas proximate to activity centres and along main roads. The review site is identified for incremental change. In areas of incremental change Council seeks to “direct multi unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable of accommodating increased density.”
9	Like many cases before this Tribunal I find that what is before me is not a question of whether the site is suitable for medium density housing, but whether an acceptable design response has been achieved.
IS THE BUILT FORM ACCEPTABLE?
10	There are various policies and provisions in the planning scheme that seek to ensure that new development respects the neighbourhood character of an area. 
11	Local planning policy at Clause 22.23 seeks:
•	To ensure that development (including subdivision) and works contribute to the preferred character of the area.
•	To ensure that development (including subdivision) and works reflect the intention of the statement of preferred neighbourhood character and design guidelines for each precinct.
12	The review site is within the Garden Suburban Precinct 3. The preferred future character is set out as:
The Garden Suburban 3 (GS3) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Victorian, Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, one-two storey scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.
13	Council’s MSS and various local policies emphasise the provision of high quality landscaping and seek to ensure that landscaping forms a key consideration of development proposals. Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape Character) seeks to ‘repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’. 
14	There are numerous schedules to the General Residential Zone in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Schedule 10 applies to the Garden River and Garden Suburban Precincts. The overall height of built form is limited to 9m or 10m on sloping sites such as this (excluding lift overruns). This is less than the 11m standard in the General Residential Zone, but allows for three storeys.
15	The schedule varies several standards of Clause 55 including:
•	Standard B8 limiting the extent of basements to 75%, 
•	Seeking in addition to the requirements of standard B13, an additional large canopy tree,
•	Varying Standard B17 to require that for a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height, and
•	Varying Standard B18 to require that walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street. 
The variations of the zone are directed to achieving the preferred neighbourhood character set out above. 
16	Along Malvern Road recent intensification of development is seen with built form of 3-5 storeys as seen at the intersection of Creswick St and Malvern Road. However, turning into Creswick Street it does not take long to feel like the activity centre has been left behind. I agree with Council and the respondents that the review site is part of the hinterland around the area experiencing higher intensification.
17	This short street maintains a suburban character. This is despite the mix of housing typologies including older dwellings such as the bungalow on the review site, new infill dwellings and older and newer medium density housing. Built form is generally 1-2 storey in scale but can appear taller due to the topography. The street slopes to the south and there is also a cross fall. Gardens are mixed, but street tree planting provides a strong garden feel. The parties agreed that the degree of incremental change in this street would be slower because of the existing level of medium density development and the size of allotments.
18	Council and the respondents say that the extent of development on the land is too much, particularly the three-storey building form. Council is satisfied that the streetscape presentation and site layout of the proposal is acceptable, although it raised concerns in respect to the presentation of the two side elevations and the extent of available landscaping. Council’s urban designer was supportive of the amended plans commenting:
The applicant has made a series of revisions that, in my opinion, satisfactorily address the scale, form and bulk concerns that were details in my previous comments.
19	The applicant relied on the evidence of Mr Bastone that the building was an acceptable response to the varied site context. He addressed each elevation of the building and formed the view that the building was well articulated and site responsive.
20	The proposal is a very contemporary apartment style development. There are no other similar developments in this immediate hinterland area, although there are example of modern infill dwellings. However, the planning policy framework and the provisions of the zone support different housing forms. I agree with the Tribunal in AXF Constructions v Boroondara [2009] VCAT 2523 that:
The fact that the proposal introduces in to this locality a built form which may not be currently present or which may not be prominent is not a basis for concluding that the proposal fails to respect the character of the neighbourhood. The assessment of the proposal’s design response is more complex than that and it is an assessment which must be undertaken in the context of the policy framework and zone provisions which encourage a variety of residential developments at a range of densities. 
21	The proposal adopts an attached townhouse style layout over a basement that extends along the length of the block. I find that building form along the length of a lot is not unusual in this street or area and is an acceptable approach. The basement uses the slope of the land and site coverage is 61%. This comfortably meets the 75% sought in the schedule. Similarly, site coverage of the dwellings above is low at 50% and there are no walls on boundaries (although the side terrace for dwelling 1 extends to the boundary over the basement).
22	The plans identify mandatory garden area (MGA) as 38.1%, however this figure included areas of raised basement and terrace area more than 800mm above natural ground level. A new plan was tabled at the hearing identifying that the mandatory garden area is 35.44%. This is still compliant with the mandatory requirement. This demonstrates the care that is required when calculating MGA, particularly where sites are sloping and basements are utilised. 
23	An overall landscaping concept was provided in the evidence of Mr Patrick. I find that this carefully considered the ability to landscape the site and will respond to the existing and preferred garden suburban setting. I find that there is enough room for landscaping within the front and rear setbacks and returning to the sides of the building as shown in the landscape plan contribute to the landscape setting as sought in the preferred neighbourhood character statement. I find that the objectives of the varied Standard B13 are met, even though the planting is primarily in the form of smaller canopy trees along the side elevations.
Streetscape Presentation
24	The existing dwelling has some character associated with its Bungalow style but has a high paling fence to the street. The review site is not within a heritage overlay and the existing dwelling is not protected. The character statement identifies a mix of dwelling eras and styles including new buildings within a garden setting. I find that a contemporary design is acceptable in this context.
25	The proposal provides for a double storey form to the street for dwelling 1, with a single crossover on the north side and common pedestrian access on the southern side. The front setback is 8.9m (8.4m at first floor). This complies with Standard B6 of Clause 55 and provides an acceptable transition between the units at Number 16 and the dwelling at No. 20. The evidence of Mr Patrick is that the front setback can accommodate one larger and two medium canopy trees, together with a layered approach to landscaping. 
26	I find that the two-storey scale to the street is consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character. While you will be able to see the third level of Dwelling 2 from the street, this level is setback approximately 16m and has a narrow presentation that will ensure it is recessive. The site has the further benefit of a very large and established street tree that will filter views from the opposite side of the street. 
27	The respondents say that the design is boxy and the flat roof unsympathetic. However, I agree with Council’s urban designer that the contemporary design is acceptable in a streetscape of mixed built form. Conditions of permit will require a schedule of materials, colours and finishes. There was some discussion at the hearing about the dark colour (Dulux “Domino”) for the third level. I find that a lighter shade would be more appropriate such as Dulux “Monument”.
28	Council was critical of the proposed fencing within the front setback to the private open space of Unit 1. This fencing is setback about 5m from the frontage and will be an open style as required by the Melbourne Water conditions. I find that it will be suitably recessive. I note that the landscape concept plan by Mr Patrick includes hedging in this location that will assist in integrating the fencing. 
Northern and southern interfaces
29	I consider that the impact on the neighbouring properties to the north and south is mainly a question of visual bulk rather than neighbourhood character given the way building form extends throughout the length of the developed larger allotments in the area. The applicant has taken a conservative approach to the streetscape by setting back the third level. However, this places the three-storey building form towards the rear and specifically aligns the third levels with the interfaces to the north and south. 
30	To the south the review site abuts units a 16 Creswick Street that have their north facing courtyards along the common boundary, together with windows providing outlook to the review site. These dwellings and outdoor spaces are slightly sunken in in relation to the review site. Unit 1 has an additional area of open space within the front setback and high fencing to the rear courtyard. Unit 2/16 has a hedge to the common boundary and Unit 3/16 has an immature hedge treatment of lilly pilly (below fence height).
31	To the north of the review site is the dwelling at 20 Creswick Street and the unit behind. The Unit has a relatively benign interface to the review site. No. 20 has its driveway, garage and shedding abutting the review site. However habitable room windows have outlook across the driveway to the site and part of the private open space wraps around the garage/shed. 
32	Council says that the proposal is a poor response to these interfaces, with minimal setbacks that cannot accommodate substantial planting in deep soil and extensive built form.
33	It was the evidence of Mr Bastone the third storey would be recessive and that the bulk of the building was successfully managed through the setbacks, articulation, building breaks and landscaping. The evidence of Mr Patrick was that a substantial landscape treatment could be provided to all boundaries, although this would be in planters at some points.
34	The proposal has a minimum 2m setback along the southern interface used for pedestrian access. At first floor the development is setback in the order of 3m from this boundary and there are sectional breaks between Units 2 and 3 and Units 4 and 5 of a minimum 2.5m in width. These breaks carry through to the third floor elements, increasing to 3.5m. The sectional diagrams demonstrate that compliance with Standard B17 is comfortable for most of this interface. Mr Patrick’s landscape response provides for a mix of hedging trellis and climbers along this interface and two larger trees positioned in the break between Units 2 and 3 and 4 and 5.
35	To the north, the set back of the proposal is between 3-4m at ground level and 0-2m at the basement. The first floor is cantilevered over the ground level so that the setback is generally 3m. The third level is also set back about 3m to the edge of the balconies but Standard B17 is not met at the upper level centrally to the site. The building length is broken at 2 points between dwellings 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 with a good width of 3.1m at the fist floor and there is a high level of articulation of the first floor elevation. Landscaping is proposed as a hedging of lilly pilly, broken by some deciduous trees where the basement is setback.
36	While the proposal has provided some visual relief along its length, I find that the proposal will present significant visual bulk to the private open spaces of No. 20 and Unit 3/16 Creswick Street. At the hearing, Mr Bastone suggested that the third floor could be further setback from the north if required. 
37	I find that a reduction in the size of the third level balconies for dwellings 2-4 together with deletion of the third level for dwelling 5 is required to provide an acceptable outcome to these adjoining private open space areas. The remaining bulk of the third level will be located adjacent to the access and building envelope of the dwelling to the north and its shed/garage, rather than the private open space area.
Rear Interface
38	To the rear the site abuts 1970s villa units which are located at an upslope to the review site. The proposed development is cut into the ground at the rear. Dwelling 6 is setback a minimum of 3m and has a two-storey form. The scale of built form will be substantially reduced as a result and will not impact on properties to the rear.
39	Mr Patrick’s plan shows substantial landscaping along this interface, which I am satisfied will provide an appropriate buffer and garden context to this side of the development.
IS THE AMENITY OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES RESPECTED AND INTERNAL AMENITY SATISFACTORY?
40	I have addressed the visual bulk impact of the proposal to the neighbouring properties above. 
41	In respect to other amenity considerations, I find that the proposal achieves compliance with the standards of Clause 55 for overshadowing and daylight to existing habitable room windows.
42	Council identifies some areas of overlooking concern to the north and south. This included overlooking from bedroom 3 of Units 3 and 4 (first floor) to the glazed kitchen door of 20 Creswick Street. This has been addressed in the permit conditions. Council was also concerned about overlooking from the large south facing stairwell windows at the third level. These are non-habitable spaces that would not require screening under the standard. 
43	In respect to internal amenity, I find that this is of a high standard. There was some discussion at the hearing about the size of the ground floor private open space areas. I find that these are acceptable spaces, particularly since a balcony of 8m2 would also satisfy the standard.
ARE TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING MATTERS ADDRESSED?
44	The proposal provides the required car parking for both visitors and residents pursuant to Clause 52.06 and accordingly the amount of car parking provision is not before me.
45	The respondents raised concerns about the effect of the additional traffic generated by the proposal on the surrounding street network. Council’s traffic engineers did not raise any concerns in this respect. The evidence of Mr Fairlie was that the proposal will generate 7-8 vehicle movements in the peak periods. I find that this is a small increase in traffic that can be accommodated within the surrounding street network.
46	The layout of the basement is satisfactory to Mr Fairlie and Council’s traffic engineers subject to conditions. The basement ramp has a small section of 1 in 4 grade which Mr Fairlie says is acceptable. 
47	It was the evidence of Mr Fairlie that waste collection would need to occur on street and that a tug should be included within the development for use by residents. I am satisfied that this can be addressed though an amended waste management plan to the satisfaction of Council.
48	Ms Tymms raised a concern about the exiting headlights from the basement ramp. Given the width of the street and downward angle to crossover, I find that this will be acceptable. 
WHAT CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?
49	In determining the conditions of the permit, I have had regard to the draft conditions circulated by the Council and the submission of the parties as well as to the matters set out in my reasons above.
50	Residents sought a construction management plan. Council did not support this. Council says that construction matters are regulated by other legislation and are difficult to enforce and unnecessary as they replicate the requirements in Council’s Local Laws. The permit applicant was not adverse to a requirement, but noted that Council’s local laws addressed most matters.
51	It is not uncommon for planning permits to require a Construction Management Plan for larger developments or where the characteristics of the site are such that a management plan is warranted. I consider that is the case here and have included a simple permit condition.
CONCLUSION
52	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Megan Carew
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	0911/17	
Land	18 Creswick Street
GLEN IRIS	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone and Special Building Overlay

Conditions
1.	Before the commencement of the development, one (1) electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Wolf Architects (Drawings No. A101 - A112, Revision M, dated 4 April 2019) but modified to show:
a)	A plan showing the correct mandatory garden area.
b)	Deletion of the third level to Unit 5.
c)	Reduction in the depth of the third level balconies to Units 2-3 to a width of no more than 1.2m.
d)	Privacy screening to Bedroom 3 of Units 3 and 4 to prevent overlooking to the glazed kitchen door of 20 Creswick Street.
e)	Provision of sight distance triangles in accordance with Design Standard 1 at Clause 52.06-9, or alternative measures to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
f)	Details of the proposed screening devices, including the maximum transparency and height above respective finished floor level.
g)	Details of the proposed fencing within the front setback.
h)	Location of all plant and equipment including air conditioners.
i)	A schedule of proposed external finishes (including roof materials) and colours of all buildings (including colour swatches). The proposed “Dulux Domino” at the third level to be a lighter colour such as “Dulux Monument” or similar. All finishes must be non-reflective.
j)	Any changes as required by conditions 3 (SDA), 5 (WSUD), 7 (landscape plan), 9 (TMP) and 25 – 28 (Melbourne Water’s conditions).
k)	A Waste Management Plan including a requirement for a communal tug to assist with removing bins from and returning them to the basement.
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
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 without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.	Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SDA must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The report must include, but not limited to, the following: 
a)	Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed.
b)	Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards.
c)	Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved. 
d)	Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SDA can be maintained over time.
e)	External shading devices such as louvres, or an alternative shading method incorporated into the design to minimise solar heat gains along the north, east and west elevations, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Design Assessment may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4.	Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainable Design Assessment, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainable Design Assessment have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.
5.	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.	The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed plans and/or stormwater management report.
7.	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and one (1) electronic copy must be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects (Drawing No. 19-199 L-VCAT01, dated April 2019) but modified to show:
a)	Changes as required by condition 1.
b)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways
c)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.
d)	Planting of medium sized canopy trees along the northern, southern and eastern boundary of the subject site (in planters were required).
e)	Details of all planters including proposed media.
f)	Details of plant establishment in the areas of the site to the rear which are subject to cut.
g)	An irrigation design to accompany the landscaping planted in situ.
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8.	Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
9.	Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the TMP will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the TMP (AS 4970).
The TMP must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) street tree in front of the subject land.
Among other things, the TMP must include the following information:
a)	Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.
b)	During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots.
c)	Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.
Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit.  Removal of protection works and cessation of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Responsible Authority.
10.	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans or prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), whichever occurs sooner, a letter of engagement must be provided to the Responsible Authority from the project arborist selected to oversee all relevant tree protection works. The project arborist must be an appropriately experienced and qualified professional (minimum Cert IV or equivalent in experience).
11.	Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) street tree. Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970. Signage identifying the need for approval from Council’s Parks Unit for any root cutting (prior to it occurring) must also be displayed on the fence.
12.	Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the project arborist must advise the Responsible Authority in writing that the Tree Protection Fences have been installed to their satisfaction.
13.	The project arborist must maintain a log book detailing all site visits. The log book must be made available to the Responsible Authority within 24 hours of any request.
14.	Prior to the commencement of any works on the land, each Tree Protection Zone nominated within the endorsed plans must:
a)	be fenced with temporary fencing in accordance with the attached specifications annotated in this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
b)	include a notice on the fence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority advising on the purpose of the Tree Protection Zone, the need to retain and maintain the temporary fencing and that fines will be imposed for removal or damage of the fencing and trees.
15.	No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the tree protection zone of the Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is permitted within the tree protection zone of the Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox).
16.	A copy of the tree protection zones are to be included in any contract for the construction of the site or for any other works which may impact upon the trees.
17.	Prior to a building permit being issued, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with all recommendations and requirements contained in that report. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.
18.	Provision of a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 Average Recurrence Interval, at the costs of the permit holder and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Alternatively, in lieu of the standalone detention system, the permit holder may provide stormwater collection tanks that are at least 6,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy condition 5 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The water tanks must be connected to toilets.
19.	Prior to an ‘Occupancy Permit’ being issued, a suitably qualified engineer must carry out a detailed inspection of the completed stormwater drainage system and associated works including all water storage tanks and detention (if applicable) to ensure that all works have been constructed in strict accordance with the engineer’s design and the relevant planning permit conditions. Certification of the completed drainage from the engineer must be provided to Council prior to a ‘Statement of Compliance’ being issued for the subdivision.
20.	The existing levels of the footpath must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate the basement ramp to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21.	Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.
22.	All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.
23.	Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 and shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.
24.	All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) must be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties and must be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Ventilation systems must be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.
25.	Prior to the commencement of development (including demolition) a construction management plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved the development (including demolition) must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Start of Melbourne Water’s Conditions 
26.	Prior to the endorsement of plans, amended plans must be submitted to Council and Melbourne Water addressing Melbourne Water’s conditions. Plans must be submitted with surface and floor levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD) and must be modified to show:
a)	The ramping to the basement with a flood-proof apex and associated bunding set no lower than 14.54 metres to AHD.
27.	The dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels set no lower than 14.64 metres to AHD, which is 300mm above the applicable flood level of 14.34 metres to AHD.
28.	The ramping to the basement must be constructed with a flood-proof apex and associated bunding set no lower than 14.54 metres to AHD, which is 300mm above the applicable flood level of 14.24 metres to AHD.
29.	The basement must be tanked and bunded and with no openings below 14.54 metres to AHD, which is 300mm above the applicable flood level of 14.24 metres to AHD.
30.	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels of the dwellings and basement ramping apex (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water’s requirements.
31.	Imported fill must be kept to a minimum on the property and only be used for the sub floor areas of the dwellings, garages and driveway ramps.
32.	Any new fence within the flood extent must be of an open style of construction (minimum 50% open) or timber paling unless with the written consent of Melbourne Water, to allow for the passage of overland flows.
End of Melbourne Water’s Conditions 
33.	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: 
a)	The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. 
b)	The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. 
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
– End of conditions –