VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P2440/2018
Permit Application no. PLN18/0402	
CATCHWORDS	
Yarra Planning Scheme; built form outcomes in a higher order activity centre; Smith Street Activity Centre; transition in scale within an activity centre; amenity impacts within an activity centre.	

APPLICANT	Drakk Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Yarra City Council	
SUBJECT LAND	23 Little Oxford Street, Collingwood	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Michael Deidun, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	13 June 2019	
DATE OF ORDER	14 June 2019	
CITATION	Drakk Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2019] VCAT 885	

Order
1	In application P2440/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application PLN18/0402 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 23 Little Oxford Street, Collingwood in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	To construct a building and construct or carry out works
•	Reduction of the standard car parking requirement

Michael Deidun 
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Gary Testro, Solicitor instructed by Kellock Town Planning
He called the following witnesses:
•	John Glossop (town planner) of Glossop Town Planning
•	Brodie Blades (urban designer) of SJB Urban
•	Chris Goss (visualisation) of Orbit Solutions
As none of the parties sought to cross examine Mr Goss, he was not called to give oral evidence	
For responsible authority	Katrina Thomas, Town Planner of Yarra City Council	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of an eight storey office building	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.	
Planning scheme	Yarra Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 1 Zone	
Permit requirements	Clause 34.01-4 to construct a building and construct or carry out works on land within the Commercial 1 Zone
Clause 52.06-3 to reduce the standard car parking requirement	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22.03, 22.05, 22.07, 22.10, 34.01, 52.06, 52.34, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The land is a rectangular allotment with a frontage to Little Oxford Street of 8.23 metres, a sideage to a laneway of 17.37 metres, and an overall area of 142 square metres.  The land is presently developed with at grade car parking.	
Tribunal inspection	The Tribunal inspected the site and surrounding area prior to the hearing, on 5 June 2019.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Drakk Pty Ltd seek a review of the failure of the Yarra City Council to grant a permit within the prescribed time, regarding a proposed eight storey office building on land at 23 Little Oxford Street, Collingwood.  The Council has since determined that it supports the grant of a planning permit for the proposed development, subject to conditions.
2	A Compulsory Conference was held at the Tribunal on 18 April 2019.  Following that Compulsory Conference three important orders were made by the Tribunal.  Firstly, amended plans were substituted in the proceeding, being those dated 12 March 2019.  Secondly, the one Respondent was struck out as a party to the proceeding, for failing to attend the Compulsory Conference, and with the agreement of the other parties.  
3	Thirdly, the remaining parties, comprising the Council and the Applicant, agreed to confine the matters in dispute to Conditions 1(a) and 1(c) as sought by Council, as contained on a list of conditions circulated prior to the Compulsory Conference.  These conditions require the deletion of the top two levels of the proposed building (levels 6 & 7), and an increased front setback to levels 3, 4 & 5.
4	I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision, and direct the grant of a planning permit subject to conditions.  Reasons for my decision were given orally at the conclusion of the hearing.  What follows is an edited version of those oral reasons.
5	At a Compulsory Conference the parties agreed to confine the matters is dispute.  The parties agreed that a planning permit should issue for the proposed development of the land, and that the dispute is confined to proposed permit conditions from the Council that would: delete the top two levels; and increase the setback of levels 3, 4 & 5 from Little Oxford Street, from 3 to 4 metres.  At the commencement of the hearing I advised the parties that, following my site inspection, I also wished to explore as part of the confinement of matters in dispute, the treatment of the northern boundary wall.
6	In addition to this agreement to confine the matters in dispute, a further relevant consideration is the previous grant of a planning permit for the development of a 6 storey office building on the review site.  This permit has been extended and remains able to be acted upon today.
7	The Council submits that the reduction in height from an 8 to a 6 storey building is sought due to built form and amenity considerations.  From a built form aspect, they submit that the proposed 8 storey building will create an uncomfortable transition in scale to the existing 3 storey buildings to the north of the review site, which they say are likely to remain at that scale due to their containment in multiple ownerships.  As such, the Council submits that the proposed building at 8 storeys in height, fails to respond to the character of scale transition created by the development at 7-15 Little Oxford Street.  They also submit that the 8 storey building built sheer to the laneway along the southern boundary of the review site, will unreasonably enclose the laneway when combined with the approved 8 storey building to the southern side of that laneway.
8	From an amenity perspective, the Council submits that the proposed 8 storey building will result in a wall height adjacent to the communal roof deck on the adjoining property to the north of the review site that will cause unreasonable amenity impacts by way of visual bulk.
9	The Council also submits that increased setbacks to 4.0 metres are required to levels 3, 4 & 5, to respond to the 4.0 metre setbacks that exist on the adjoining property to the north, and are proposed on the approved development to the south.
10	I am not persuaded by the Council’s submissions, and instead find that the proposed development at 8 storeys in height will represent an appropriate height of development for this context. I make this finding for the following reasons.
a.	The review site is located within the Commercial 1 Zone and forms part of the Smith Street Activity Centre. As such, a range of policy at both a State and local level encourages a high level of development to occur on the review site. This includes policy at a local level that encourages the review site to form part of a pocket of higher scale of development, surrounded by lower scale form.
b.	The review site is not burdened by a heritage overlay, and does not abut any important heritage buildings. As such, it does not face the same restrictions in terms of building height as occurs to many other properties within the Smith Street Activity Centre.
c.	While policy seeks for new development in activity centres to be generally of 5 to 6 storeys in scale, development at 8 storeys in scale is appropriate for the review site having regard to its physical context, which I explore further below, and also having regard to the upper level setbacks that are proposed from Little Oxford Street. In the context of a review site that has a total depth of around 17 metres, and in the context of adjoining properties which have upper level setbacks in the order of 4 metres, I find that the proposal to have upper level setbacks of 6 metres represents substantial upper level setbacks.
d.	The proposed development of the review site with an office building will also achieve policy objectives at a State and local level that seek to increase employment opportunities in certain locations, including higher order activity centres. The potential loss of two office floors in employment terms is a weighty consideration given this policy support, to be weighed against any potential public realm or character benefits arising from the development of a shorter building on the review site.
e.	The proposed development at 8 storeys in height will be read at a similar height to an approved but not yet constructed development on the adjoining property to the south at 17-21 Little Oxford Street, and the completed development at 7-15 Little Oxford Street.  While the proposed development on the review site will be marginally taller than these nearby examples by a couple of metres at most, given the width of Little Oxford Street, and the other available viewing opportunities in the surrounding physical context, I do not believe that this difference in height will be discernible to the point that it would be an evident feature in this neighbourhood.
f.	Little Oxford Street is essentially a wide laneway to a width of around 10 metres.  At this width, there is little appreciable difference in impact on the sense of enclosure of the street arising from a 6 storey building, as compared to the proposed 8 storey building.  In a context where an 8 storey building has already been constructed on the eastern side of Little Oxford Street, and where another 8 storey building is approved and awaiting construction, I do not regard the proposal to have an 8 storey building on the review site, as representing a potential built form outcome which should be avoided in this context. That is particularly the case as the proportions of the 8 storey building that is proposed for the review site will be very narrow compared to the buildings already approved and constructed in the street, due to the proportions of the review site.
g.	The Council concedes that on views from the south along Little Oxford Street that the proposed development will be read alongside buildings of a similar height and therefore represent an appropriate built form outcome.  On views from the north along Little Oxford Street the proposed development will present as a much higher built form compared to the 2 and 3 storey buildings that will sit in the foreground on the eastern side of Little Oxford Street.  While the Council considers this built form relationship should be avoided, I consider it as a necessary and appropriate outcome resulting from policies that strongly encourage the achievement of increased built form in higher order activity centres such as this.  In the short to medium term the built form relationship between the proposed 8 storey building on the review site and the lower building forms to the north of the review site will simply implement the character aspirations set out in the Yarra Planning Scheme for low rise built form to be punctuated by pockets of higher development. In the medium to long term I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Glossop that it is likely that one of the two properties to the north of the review site will be redeveloped with a taller built form.  Even if a future taller built form on these nearby properties only realises a height of 5 to 6 storeys, as encouraged by the current local policy framework, this height will be sufficient to provide a very gentle transition to the scale that is now proposed on the review site.
h.	I am not persuaded by the Council’s submissions that the proposed 8 storey height will unreasonably enclose the laneway to the south of the review site.  This laneway is already subject to an approval to develop an 8 storey building built sheer to the laneway on its southern side at 17-21 Little Oxford Street, and an approval to build a sheer 6 storey building on the review site.  I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Blades that given the width of this laneway, the sense of enclosure to this laneway will be more about the treatment at the lower levels, and will not be significantly or unreasonably impacted by the proposal to have an additional two upper floors on the review site.  
i.	I also do not regard the development at 7-15 Little Oxford Street to set a character of transitioning to lower scale built form, that should influence the form of development on the review site.  The extent of transition provided at 7-15 Little Oxford Street was likely provided to restrict the shadowing impacts on nearby north facing residential windows.  That is not a context provided for the review site, with the existing development on the land to the south being commercial in nature, and the approved 8 storey residential development on that lot adopting a design that insulates itself from any potential overshadowing impacts from the future development of the review site.  That is achieved by providing only obscure glazed windows to its northern elevation, by orientating all living areas and open space to the east or west, and by screening all balconies to their full height, where they have an edge that faces north towards the review site.  For these reasons I agree with the Council’s assessment that the proposed 8 storey building on the review site will not create any unreasonable shadowing impacts on the approved 8 storey building at 17-21 Little Oxford Street.  As such, and having regard to the potential for higher development on the lots immediately to the north of the review site, I do not consider that a different transition in scale on the review site would achieve any meaningful urban design or amenity outcome.  
j.	The proposed 8 storey height for the review site will also have no unreasonable impacts on views from Smith Street.  Photos tendered by Mr Blades demonstrate that the existing 8 storey building at 7-15 Little Oxford Street is predominantly only visible over the single storey shops at 88-92 Smith Street, and these are proposed to be replaced with a multi-storey building as part of the development of 17-21 Little Oxford Street.  As such, once this development is complete, the proposed 8 storey building on the review site will have minimal levels of visibility from Smith Street.
k.	Finally, I cannot place significant weight on the urban design referral comments provided by Council’s internal urban designer, as set out below:

However, a 28m high 8 storey which is equivalent to a 9 storey on this site will be an overdevelopment and will not provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding properties.  The area of the site is not big enough and hence does not provide any opportunity to design a form that is less overwhelming.  Hence, it is recommended that level 6 and level 7 are deleted.
As these comments read as conclusions, with no real analysis provided to explain or support the conclusions, I cannot give them much weight at all.  For example, there is no analysis of the transition to be provided and why it is not appropriate, and no explanation as to why a less ‘overwhelming’ building is needed in this context.  In comparison, the urban design evidence of Mr Blades explained in detail his rationale for supporting the proposed height on the review site, and he was made available for cross examination.  For these reasons, I choose to place more weight on the urban design evidence of Mr Blades, than the Council’s urban design referral comments.
11	For these reasons I find that the proposed development at 8 storeys in height will achieve appropriate built form outcomes from an urban design perspective for the review site and its surrounding context, and be consistent with the guidance provided by the Yarra Planning Scheme.
12	From an amenity perspective, I do not regard the addition of 2 storeys in height, over the 6 storey building that has already been approved for the review site, will add an unreasonable level of visual bulk to the communal area of open space on the rooftop of the adjoining property to the north of the review site.  The rooftop area of communal open space serves the two dwellings that exist on the first and second floors in that building, and may also serve the ground floor office.  The amenity of a ground floor office does not rely on a communal open space located 3 floors above on a rooftop, and so I do not consider the amenity impacts on this office in a Commercial 1 Zone to be a relevant consideration.  
13	Both of the dwellings in this existing neighbouring building are provided with generously sized areas of private open space in the form of balconies, directly accessible from their respective main living areas, and with outlooks over Little Oxford Street.  As such, these dwellings can rely on their private balconies for their reasonable open space requirements.  What the communal open space provides is a shared space that currently enjoys a much higher level of solar access compared to the private balconies.  As the proposed development is located to the south side of the rooftop communal open space, it will continue to enjoy this present high level of solar access.  As such, I do not consider that the proposed height to 8 storeys will impact the key area of amenity provided by the area of communal open space.  It also will not result in an unreasonable level of built form, as the additional 2 storeys in height above the approved 6 storey wall will be so far above the communal open space, as to have little impact on views and outlooks from this space.
14	For these reasons I find that the proposed development of the review site with an 8 storey building is an appropriate outcome.
15	In terms of the proposed increase in setbacks to levels 3, 4 & 5, I am not persuaded that these are necessary to achieve an appropriate outcome on the review site.  Firstly, the existing proposed setback of 3.0 metres to these levels will achieve an appropriate setback form above the proposed streetwall, to provide an appropriate level of articulation in this intimate street environment.  Secondly, I am not persuaded that the surrounding buildings and approvals create a character of a 4.0 metre setback that should be repeated on the review site.  While I accept that the adjoining building to the north has 4.0 metre setbacks to the first and second floor levels, I agree with the evidence of Mr Blades that as these setbacks cannot be read from Little Oxford Street, they do not contribute to the character of this street.  Further, on the approved development to the south, the 4.0 metre setbacks are only provided to the top two floors of that 8 storey building, with the 3 levels below that being setback a minimum of 1.8 metres.  For these reasons I find that the proposed setback of 3.0 metres to levels 3, 4 & 5 achieves an appropriate urban design outcome for the review site.
16	Finally, in relation to the treatment of the northern boundary wall, it was brought to my attention that the parties have already agreed to an amended plan condition (Condition 1(f)) that will address its treatment.  Further, during the course of the hearing the Applicant clarified its intent to wrap the two top levels in a different material, being a colorbond standing seam metal cladding.  I am satisfied that this, when combined with the condition, will achieve an appropriate outcome.  I will vary the condition agreed to between the parties to also refer to the change of materials to occur to the top two floors.
17	It therefore follows that I will set aside the Council’s decision, and direct the grant of a planning permit with conditions.  I will adopt the conditions agreed to between the parties, save for the modification to Condition 1(f) I have referred to above, and the deletion of the contested Conditions 1 (a) and 1(c). I will also implement the recommendation of Council, that if Condition 1(a) is deleted, then so should condition 1(e), as it refers to the treatment of the parapet in the event that two levels are deleted.

Michael Deidun 
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PLN18/0402	
Land	23 Little Oxford Street, Collingwood	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	To construct a building and construct or carry out works
•	Reduction of the standard car parking requirement	

Conditions
1	Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions, and three copies must be provided.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Point Architects (REV E) dated 12 March 2019 but modified to show the following:
(a)	The specific use of the tenancy at ground level;
(b)	The rendered finish at levels 3-5 on the southern wall to be replaced with white brick finish, to match that proposed at the levels below;
(c)	A textured response provided to the northern boundary wall to provide a degree of articulation to this elevation, with a notation to indicate that the top two levels are to be finished in MC1 Colorbond cladding standing seam;
(d)	The proposed office doorway relocated to the eastern wall of the office entrance space and to be a sliding door;
(e)	Screening measures to mitigate overlooking opportunities to the development at No. 17-21 Little Oxford Street by means of:
i	Increasing the balustrade height on the southern edge of Level 3 terrace to a minimum 1.7m high above finished floor level with a maximum 25% permeability.
ii	Dummy window glazing of a maximum 25% permeability to a minimum height of 1.7m above finished floor level to the southern façade at Levels 3, 4 and 5 for the depth one window pane from the eastern edge of the façade.  
(f)	Screening measures to mitigate overlooking opportunities to the Level 3 roof terrace at 25 Little Oxford Street by means of:
i	Increasing the balustrade height on the northern edge of Level 3 terrace to a minimum 1.7m high above finished floor level with a maximum 25% permeability.
(g)	Details of how the proposed DDA compliant car parking space will be incorporated into the car stacking system, with this space to comply with the relevant Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009;
2	The development and uses as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered (unless the Yarra Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	Before the development commences, an amended Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the amended Sustainable Design Assessment will be endorsed and will form part of this permit.  The amended Sustainable Design Assessment must be generally in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment prepared by NJM design, but modified to match the details incorporated into the amended plans prepared by Point Architects (REV E) dated 12 March 2019, with further detail to include;
(a)	An amended BESS report or SDA/STORM report to show consistency with regards to tank/toilet connections, with the BESS report updated to include a completed “Non-residential Spaces Energy Profile” table;
4	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5	Before the development commences, an amended Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the amended Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit.  The amended Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design dated 13 June 2018, but modified to include the following;
(a)	Internal layout of bin storage location amended to match the plans prepared by Point Architects (REV E) dated 12 March 2019;
(b)	the size of the waste room;
(c)	the location of the dedicated hard waste area; and,
(d)	details of how e-waste would be diverted from the general waste stream.
6	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7	The amenity of the area must not, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, be detrimentally affected by the development and use, including through:
(a)	The transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from land.
(b)	The appearance of any buildings, works or materials.
(c)	The emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.
(d)	The presence of vermin.
8	The premises must comply at all times with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade), No. N-1 (SEPP N-1).
9	The use must comply at all times with the State Environment Protection Policy – Control of Music Noise from Public Premises (SEPP N-2).
10	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, external lighting capable of illuminating access to the pedestrian and vehicular entrances must be provided on the subject site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All external lighting must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, be:
(a)	located;
(b)	directed;
(c)	shielded; and 
(d)	of limited intensity.  
11	All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Finished floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
13	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, all new on-boundary walls must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14	Before the building is occupied, any wall located on a boundary facing public property must be treated with a graffiti proof finish to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the car stackers must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications by a suitably qualified person.  The car stackers must be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, any damage to Council infrastructure resulting from the development must be reinstated:
(a)	at no cost to Council; and
(b)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17	Before the buildings is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the footpath along the property’s Little Oxford Street road frontage must be stripped and re-sheeted:
(a)	in accordance with any requirements or conditions imposed by Council;
(b)	with a cross-fall of 1 in 40 or unless otherwise specified by Council;
(c)	at no cost to Council; and
(d)	to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18	Any services poles, structures or pits that interfere with the proposal must be adjusted, removed or relocated at no cost to Council after seeking approval from the relevant authority.
19	Any damaged roads, footpaths and other road related infrastructure abutting the development site as a result of the construction works, including trenching and excavation for utility service connections, must be repaired to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to Council.
20	Before the development commences, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit.  The plan must provide for:
(a)	A pre-conditions survey (dilapidation report) of the land and all adjacent Council roads frontages and nearby road infrastructure.
(b)	Works necessary to protect road and other infrastructure.
(c)	Remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure.
(d)	Containment of dust, dirt and mud within the land and method and frequency of clean up procedures to prevent the accumulation of dust, dirt and mud outside the land.
(e)	Facilities for vehicle washing, which must be located on the land.
(f)	The location of loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes and crane/hoisting zones, gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street.
(g)	Site security.
(h)	Management of any environmental hazards including, but not limited to:
i	contaminated soil.
ii	materials and waste.
iii	dust.
iv	stormwater contamination from run-off and wash-waters.
v	sediment from the land on roads.
vi	washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery.
vii	spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery.
(i)	The construction program.
(j)	Preferred arrangements for trucks delivering to the land, including delivery and unloading points and expected duration and frequency.
(k)	Parking facilities for construction workers.
(l)	Measures to ensure that all work on the land will be carried out in accordance with the construction management plan.
(m)	An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services.
(n)	An emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced.
(o)	The provision of a traffic management plan to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads.
(p)	A noise and vibration management plan showing methods to minimise noise and vibration impacts on nearby properties and to demonstrate compliance with Noise Control Guideline 12 for Construction (Publication 1254) as issued by the Environment Protection Authority in October 2008.  The noise and vibration management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  In preparing the noise and vibration management plan, consideration must be given to:
i	using lower noise work practice and equipment.
ii	the suitability of the land for the use of an electric crane.
iii	silencing all mechanical plant by the best practical means using current technology.
iv	fitting pneumatic tools with an effective silencer
v	other relevant considerations.
21	During the construction:
(a)	Any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system must be in compliance with Environment Protection Authority guidelines;
(b)	Stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the land enters the stormwater drainage system;
(c)	Vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the land;
(d)	The cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on the land and not on adjacent footpaths or roads; and
(e)	All litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be disposed of responsibly.
22	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Construction Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
23	Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, demolition or construction works must not be carried out:
(a)	Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays) before 7:00am or after 6:00pm.
(b)	Saturdays and public holidays (other than ANZAC Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday) before 9:00am or after 3:00pm.
(c)	Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday at any time.
24	This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
– End of conditions –