VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1630/2019
Permit Application no. WH/2018/1199	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Whitehorse Planning Scheme, Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9, Neighbourhood Character, Bush Suburban Character Area.	

APPLICANT	Renoco Homes Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Whitehorse City Council	
RESPONDENT	Anthony Bullock	
SUBJECT LAND	108 Brunswick Road, Mitcham	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Tracey Bilston-McGillen, Member  	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	25 February 2020	
DATE OF ORDER	17 March 2020	
CITATION	Renoco Homes Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2020] VCAT 280	

Order
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Renoco Homes		
•	Drawings	Rev B 31.10.19 Amendments for VCAT
TP01 – TP03, TP05, SD01 – SD03	
	
2	In application P1630/2019 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application WH/2018/1199 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 108 Brunswick Road, Mitcham in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:

•	Construction of 3 two storey dwellings, tree removal and construction within 4 metres of protected trees.

Tracey Bilston-McGillen Member  			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr James Livingston, town planning consultant.  He called the following witnesses:
•	Mr Rob Thomson, Landscape evidence.
•	Mr David Beaton, Traffic evidence.	
For responsible authority	Ms Morgan Livingstone, town planning consultant, SongBowden Planning.	
For respondent	Mr Anthony Bullock, appeared in person.	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of three dwellings and removal of vegetation.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Whitehorse Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3).
Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (SLO9).	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-6.  A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Clause 42.03-2. A permit is required for tree removal and buildings and works within 4 metres of protected trees.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21.05, 21.06, 22.03, 22.04, 22.10, 52.06, 55 and 65.   	
Land description	The review site is located on the south side of Brunswick Road, Mitcham.  The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 15.24 metres, a depth of 49.05 metres and an overall site area of 870 square metres.  The site is generally flat and has an easement located along the rear boundary, 1.83 metres wide.
The site is vacant.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the site and surrounds.   	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This is an application for review against the decision of the Whitehorse Council (Council) to refuse to grant a planning permit for the construction of three two storey dwellings and removal of vegetation at 108 Brunswick Road, Mitcham.
2	The development is refused on the grounds that it is contrary to the planning policy framework and in particular policies at clauses 21.05, 21.06, 22.03 and 22.04, fails to meet the guidelines of SLO9, is an overdevelopment of the site, fails to respect the neighbourhood character and fails against provisions of clause 55.  In summary, during the hearing, Council raised three issues for assessment:
•	The proposed development is out of character with the area due to its attached form.
•	The proposed development fails to provide a satisfactory landscape response.
•	The proposed development is visually bulky and impacts on the open back yard of the property to the west 106 Brunswick Road.
3	The objector supported Council’s grounds of refusal and also submitted that that the proposed development fails to respect neighbourhood character, is an overdevelopment of the site and will have unreasonable traffic impacts.
4	The applicant contended that the proposed development is appropriate having regard to zoning of the land, the minimal impact on adjoining properties and the proposed level of landscaping contributes to the provision of tree canopy to the site and area.
5	During the hearing, I advised the parties that I was not concerned with the matters of visual bulk or parking/traffic.  To visual bulk, Council was concerned with the impact of the first floor of dwelling 2 and its impact to the private open space of 106 Brunswick Road.  I do not share this concern.  The proposed first floor is set back a minimum of three metres from the shared boundary, which complies with the varied ResCode standard in NRZ3.  The extent of the first floor that extends past the rear of the adjoining dwelling is approximately 8.5 metres.  Given the setback and both the existing and proposed landscaping along the boundary, I consider the proposed first floor appropriate.
6	As to matters of car parking and traffic, the proposed development complies with the statutory requirement of clause 52.06 and I find that the increase in traffic generated by two extra dwellings is acceptable.
7	Council submitted that Amendment C219 proposes to introduce permanent tree controls to SLO9, as well as amending local policies at clause 21.05 and 22.04.  The findings of the Panel have been released but there has been no approval of the amendment.  Given that the SLO9 and local policies currently apply to the site, neither Council or the applicant made any further submissions regarding the amendment.  I also make no further comment on Amendment C219.
8	Having regard to the submissions and evidence, my site inspection and the provisions of the planning scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Council and grant a planning permit subject to conditions.  My reasons follow.
Reasons for decision
Neighbourhood character
9	The site is zoned NRZ3.  The decision guidelines of the schedule include:
•	Whether the vegetation in the street setback will contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character and the public realm.
•	The potential for trees and vegetation to be provided between dwellings on the same site.
•	Whether there is sufficient permeable space that is not encumbered by an easement to enable the planting of canopy trees.
•	Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.
10	Clause 21.06 Housing includes the site in a Limited Change Area described as:
Limited Change areas enable specific characteristics of the neighbourhood, environment or landscape to be protected through greater control over new housing development. These areas represent the lowest degree of intended residential growth in Whitehorse
11	SLO9 includes the site in the neighbourhood character area Bush Suburban which is described as:
The Bush Suburban Neighbourhood Character Area generally has a mix of formal and informal streetscapes with wide nature strips and streets are dominated by vegetation with buildings partially hidden behind tall trees and established planting.
Gardens are less formal, consisting of many canopy trees and property boundary definition can be non-existent or fenced. Buildings appear detached along the street and generally comprise pitched rooftops, with simple forms and articulated facades.
The Bush Suburban Neighbourhood Area includes parts of Blackburn, Box Hill South, Vermont South, Mitcham, Nunawading and Mont Albert North as shown in the Neighbourhood Character Precincts Map contained in the Neighbourhood Character Study 2014.
12	Council submitted that the proposed development fails the character test in both the existing and preferred future character.  It was contended that the site is located within a ‘Bush Suburban’ landscape and the proposed development fails to respond in the following ways:
•	The attached nature of the dwellings at ground and first floor is uncharacteristic in this neighbourhood.
•	The upper level massing of dwellings 2 and 3 is not adequately recessed to sit comfortably in the sensitive backyard setting.
•	The upper levels of dwelling 2 creates an unreasonable and uncharacteristic bulk presenting to the sites immediate abuttals.
•	The size and siting of the built form fails to provide the landscape setting sought by the planning scheme for this location.
13	I have earlier made the observation that I do not share the concerns of the impact of the first floor of dwelling 2, so make no further comment.
14	The key issue appears to be focussed on the attached nature of the built form and landscaping.  Council submitted that whilst there is a balancing exercise to be achieved between urban consolidation and character policies, the planning scheme has identified this site for limited change.  Council submitted that in order for the proposed development to be a comfortable fit, it needs to be reduced.
Attached form

Figure 1: Ground floor of proposed development. 

15	The proposed development includes three townhouses attached at the ground level, extending for a total of 34.5 metres.  Dwelling 1 has its frontage to Brunswick Road whilst dwellings 2 and 3 sit to the rear of the site.  At the first floor level, dwelling 1 sits as a separate dwelling.  Dwellings 2 and 3 are attached.  A spacing of 5.5 to 6.5 metres is provided between dwellings 1 and 2 and 3 (attached).  Council puts that this is an inappropriate response to policies and guidelines such as the ‘potential for trees and vegetation to be provided between dwellings on the same site’.
16	I was provided with plans and photographs of a range of developments within the surrounding area.  Development included single dwellings, single storey villa units, developments of two and three dwellings with and without separation.  The key concern of Council was the lack of separation at the ground floor to allow for vegetation to be provided.
17	Mr Thomson prepared a landscape plan that provides five trees of 12 metres and 13 trees capable of reaching 8 metres in height.  It was the evidence of Mr Thomson that whilst there is some planting provided in the centre of the site, it is the boundary planting that ‘does the heavy lifting’ in terms of having the greatest impact to tree canopy contribution.  
18	Council submitted that the attached nature of the dwellings at the ground and first floor area is uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood.  I disagree.  As I commented in the hearing, from my site inspection, I observed a wide range of developments in the surrounding area, including attached and detached forms.  
19	The SLO9 Bush Suburban character area calls for buildings to appear detached along the street and generally comprise pitched rooftops with simple forms and articulated facades.  The decision guidelines of SLO9 call for the potential for vegetation between dwellings on the same site and the Bush Suburban Precinct 4 guidelines also call for a separation of at least 3-4 metres between dwellings on the same site to accommodate vegetation.
20	From Brunswick Road the development will appear as many others do, a well landscaped front setback and a two storey dwelling.  Looking into the site, built form will appear down the length of the site.  I am persuaded that this is an appropriate fit having regard to the relevant planning policies and the surrounding built form.  I am persuaded by the applicant and the evidence of Mr Thomson that the level of permitter planting will do the ‘heavy lifting’ with regards to contributing to the tree canopy of the area.
21	I do not consider three dwellings in the form proposed is out of character with the neighbourhood.  I further make the observation that the front setback is well landscaped, there are no walls on boundaries, there is the ability to landscape on each boundary and the overall height of the buildings is a modest 6 metre wall height.  
Landscaping
22	Council submitted that the SLO9 provides an additional layer of importance with regards to landscaping.  It was contended that the proposal fails to respond to SLO9 in a meaningful way as no vegetation is retained and there is insufficient space to accommodate tree canopy what would achieve an outcome where the dwellings would be hidden behind tall trees and established planting.
23	Mr Thomson prepared a landscape concept.  In his evidence Mr Thomson acknowledged that he identified the site to be within the Garden Suburban Precinct 4 but it is in the Bush Suburban Precinct 4.  Mr Thomson put to me that he acknowledges different precincts have different statements and elements of landscape.  Mr Thomson further submitted however that in reality, his landscape concept for the site would not vary from a Garden to a Bush Suburban Precinct.  It was Mr Thomson’s view that the underlying basis for the SLO9 and policies of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme is to retain trees where possible and provide for the planting of new canopy trees.
24	The plan prepared by Mr Thomson includes five trees to reach 12 metres in height and 13 trees to reach eight metres in height, plus additional shrubs and ground covers.  
25	Council put to Mr Thomson that the proposed plan fails to achieve the provisions of clause 22.04 Tree Conservation in that not all trees are separated by a minimum distance of 3 metres from a building and not all trees are situated in a minimum area of 50 square metres.  Mr Thomson put to me that the provisions of clause 22.04 are policy, not mandatory requirements and there is no science to the minimum area calculation.  
26	The applicant referred me to a decision VIC Qun Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC where Member Rundell made observations regarding the performance measure of clause 22.04 requiring the 3 metre separation from a building and 35 square metres of space (in that case not 50).  I agree with the conclusions of Member Rundell where he makes the following observation:
[56]	I turn to the criticism that the some of the proposed trees would be planted in areas that have smaller areas, and are closer to buildings than suggested by the landscape performance measures in clause 22.04. I agree that the location of some trees does not fully comply with 3 metres separation from a building and 35 square metres of space. 
[57]	However, I think the performance measures must be applied with caution. It is my view that they must be regarded as a guide rather than a prescriptive requirement that has to be achieved at all times. They are policy and not planning tools that are mandatory requirements. I also agree with Mr Thomson’s observation that the scheme does not include any no reference documents to the clause that provide guidance as to their horticultural or scientific basis. 
[58]	Vegetation species vary considerably in terms of their height and form. Some require expansive areas due to their canopy spread. Others are more lean and upright, needing less space. Their growing conditions will also vary considerably, with some tolerating shade and others thriving in direct sunlight. Irrigation is always a key determinant in growth.
[59]	I give more weight to the expertise and experience of landscape architects who appear before the Tribunal to explain the reasons for their choice of species and their likely landscape outcomes.  I apply simple numeric requirements in a local policy with considerable caution.
27	I am persuaded by Mr Thomson that the proposed landscaping is appropriate.  The proposed landscaping:
•	Will contribute to the tree canopy of the area.  
•	Provides a landscape front setback that will appear as ‘bushy’ and generous to Brunswick Road.
•	The trees around the perimeter of the site do the ‘heavy lifting’ as described by Mr Thomson.
•	I agree with the observations in VIC Qun Pty Ltd that there is sufficient room for the proposed trees, despite being located closer to a building than three metres and not within 50 square metres of open ground.
•	The built form will visually sit amongst, not hidden by tall canopy trees and vegetation.
28	It is clearly understood that Council, via its planning scheme is seeking to retain and promote vegetation, tree canopy and generally a greener municipality.  There is often tension between providing for more housing/ urban consolidation whilst respecting neighbourhood character and ensuring a landscaped outcome.  I am satisfied that in this case, the landscaping plan achieves the policy intent to landscape the site to respect the Bushy Suburban Area and contribute to the vegetated environs.
Other issues
Car parking layout
29	I have previously made comment above that I am satisfied with the provision of on site car parking and any potential traffic impacts.  Council raised a concern with the width of the garage door of dwelling 1, requesting it to be widened to 6.7 metres.  Mr Beaton in his traffic evidence submitted that whilst the widening can be accommodated, he does not believe it to be necessary.
30	I am persuaded by Mr Beaton that whilst the widening can be achieved, the swept paths detail that a car can access the garage space either by a correcting movement or reversing in.  I will not require this requested change.
31	I raised a query regarding the open car space to dwelling 3.  The plans and arborist report identify that the proposed car space encroaches on the Tree Protection Zone of the neighbouring tree 9.  It is a major encroachment.  Both Council’s arborist and the consultant arborist for the project are satisfied that the car space is appropriate subject to conditions that the car space is a permeable surface and tree protection conditions are included on any permit issued.  I will require the conditions to be included on the permit.
Dwelling entry
32	Council identified a concern with the entry to dwelling 2 being concealed behind the main building line and a poor transition between the public and private space.  Whilst I agree that there is only a small side window to entry porch, I am persuaded by the applicant that the proposal is acceptable.  
Conclusion
33	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Tracey Bilston-McGillen
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	WH/2018/1199	
Land	108 Brunswick Road, Mitcham 	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of 3 two storey dwellings, tree removal and construction within 4 metres of protected trees.	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, or vegetation is removed, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in a digital format.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale, with dimensions, and be generally in accordance with the circulated amended plans dated Revision B Sheets TP01-TP05, dated 31/10/19 and landscape plan by Habitat landscape and environmental design consultants, Issue B, dated February 2020,  but modified to show: 
(a)	The locations of Tree Protection Zones described in condition 5 with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on both site and landscape plans, and the requirements of condition 5 and 6 to be annotated on the development and landscape plans
(b)	Elevations and plans to clearly show ramp grades along the accessway and within the parking area of garages in accordance with Design Standard 3 of Clause 52.06-9 of the Whitehorse Planning scheme. The ramp grade within the parking area of the garages must not exceed 1 in 20 (5%) parallel to the angle of parking and 1 in 16 (6.25%) in any other direction as per the AS 2890.1, Clause 2.4.6 “Gradients Within Parking Modules”.
(c)	A longitudinal-section showing all ramp grades and ramp grades lengths in accordance with Design Standard 3 of Clause 52.06-9 of the Whitehorse Planning scheme. 
(d)	Details of a cross section for the open car space to Dwelling 3.  This car space is to be a permeable surface.
(e)	Front fence details, no higher than 1.2metres in height.
(f)	Ground floor plan amended to delete the notation ‘ proposed 1.8 metre paling fence on 0.5 metre retaining wall’ for the western boundary fence adjacent to the SPOS of dwelling 1 
(g)	Details of screening measures to each window demonstrating compliance with clause 55.04-5 Standard B22 Overlooking.
(h)	An amended Sustainable Design Assessment report in accordance with Condition 8. 
(i)	Development plans to reflect all sustainability features indicated in the submitted, amended and approved Sustainability Design Assessment (SDA).  Where features cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fixtures, etc.).  
(j)	An amended Landscape Plan  in accordance with Condition 3, including the following:
i	The planting of at least five trees with minimum mature heights of 12 metres in accordance with the following locational criteria:
•	Two trees within the front setback of Dwelling 1.
•	One tree within each of the secluded private open space areas of Dwellings 1 and 2.
•	Two trees within the secluded private open space area of Dwelling 3.
•	Located reasonably clear of the canopies of existing trees.
•	Located clear of easements.
ii	The species of all trees to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
iii	All trees must be planted at a minimum height of 1.5 metres and located within mulched garden areas. 
iv	Any other condition 1 requirements. 
All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.
2	The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	No building or works may be commenced (and no trees or vegetation may be removed) until an amended landscape plan has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.  This plan is to be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by habitat dated April 2019 and when endorsed shall form part of this permit.  This plan must show:
(a)	A survey of all existing vegetation, abutting street trees, natural features and vegetation.
(b)	Buildings, outbuildings and trees in neighbouring lots that would affect the landscape design.
(c)	Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:
i	providing a complete garden scheme,
ii	softening the building bulk,
iii	providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective,
iv	minimising the potential of any overlooking between habitable rooms of adjacent dwellings.
(d)	A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of condition No. 1.
(e)	The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.
(f)	A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) which includes, botanical names, common names, pot size, mature size and total quantities of each plant.
(g)	Any other requirements of condition 1. 
Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule must be completed before the building is occupied, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit
4	The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan and schedule must only be used as gardens and must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed it must be replaced by a tree or shrub of similar size and variety.
5	Prior to the commencement of any building and or demolition works on the land, a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) must be established and maintained during and until completion of all buildings and works including landscaping, around the following trees in accordance with the distances and measures specified below, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	Tree protection Zone distances:
i	Tree 1– 6.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base. 
ii	Tree 9 – 5.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
iii	Tree 11 – 4.3 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
iv	Tree 13 – 3.6 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
v	Tree 14 – 3.2 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
vi	Tree 15 – 4.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
vii	Tree 16 – 3.2 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
viii	Tree 17 – 6.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
ix	Tree 18 – 5.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
x	Tree 19 – 2.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
xi	Tree 20 – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
xii	Tree 21 – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
xiii	Trees A – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.
(b)	Tree protection zone measures are to be established in accordance to Australian Standard 4970-2009 and including the following:
i	Erection of solid chain mesh or similar type fencing at a minimum height of 1.8 metres held in place with concrete feet. 
ii	Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter fencing identifying the area as a TPZ. The signage should be visible from within the development, with the lettering complying with AS 1319. 
iii	Mulch across the surface of the TPZ to a depth of 100mm and undertake supplementary watering in summer months as required.
iv	No excavation, constructions works or activities, grade changes, surface treatments or storage of materials of any kind are permitted within the TPZ unless otherwise approved within this permit or further approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
v	All supports, and bracing should be outside the TPZ and any excavation for supports or bracing should avoid damaging roots where possible. 
vi	No trenching is allowed within the TPZ for the installation of utility services unless tree sensitive installation methods such as boring have been approved by the Responsible Authority.
vii	Where construction is approved within the TPZ, fencing and mulching should be placed at the outer point of the construction area.
viii	Where there are approved works within the TPZ, it may only be reduced to the required amount by an authorised person only during approved construction within the TPZ and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.
6	During the construction of any buildings or works, the following tree protection requirements must be carried out to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority:
(a)	The driveway and parking space where within the TPZs of Trees 9 and 11 must be constructed above the existing soil grade using porous materials that allows water to penetrate through the surface and into the soil profile. There must be no grade change within greater than 10% of the TPZs, and no roots greater than 40mm in diameter are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.
(b)	For Trees 13 – 21 and A, no roots greater than 40mm in diameter are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.
(c)	All buildings and works for the demolition of the site and construction of the development (as shown on the endorsed plans) must not alter the existing ground level or topography of the land within greater than 10% of the TPZs of Trees 13 - 21. 
(d)	All buildings and works for the demolition of the site and construction of the development (as shown on the endorsed plans) must not alter the existing ground level or topography of the land within 1.0m of the west boundary fence where within the TPZs of Trees A. 
7	The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each garage and car parking space. Lighting must be located, directed and shielded and of limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site.
8	Prior to the commencement of the development, an amended Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The SDA must include:
i	A STORM Assessment or equivalent addressing stormwater quality performance, in addition to ensuring that the Responsible Authority’s collective integrated water management expectations and requirements pursuant to Clauses 34 and 44 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters), are satisfied which includes rainwater tanks of a minimum 3,000 litre capacity for retention purposes for each dwelling, as well as, a least 2 m2 of enviss™ sentinel pits acting as raingarden systems.
ii	Rainwater tanks connected to all toilet flushing, laundry systems and irrigation areas.
iii	A complete, published BESS Report, with an acceptable overall score of at least 50% and also which meets the ‘pass’ marks in the categories of Water, Energy Stormwater and Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ).
iv	All dwellings to achieve a minimum NatHERS 6 star energy efficiency star rating as per National Construction Code (NCC) 2016 Building Code of Australia (BCA) requirements.
v	Heating and cooling systems include a minimum 5 star energy efficiency rating.
vi	Energy and water efficient hot water systems, fixtures and fittings as specified.
vii	  Double glazing used to all living areas and bedrooms.
Once submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SDA will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.
The requirements of the SDA must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement, and the requirements of this plan must be implemented by the land owners and occupiers of the site when constructing and fitting out the dwellings and for the life of the dwellings in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  No alterations to the SDA may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 
9	All stormwater drains and on-site detention systems are to be connected to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building/s.  The requirement for on- site detention will be noted on your stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.
10	Detailed stormwater drainage and/or civil design for the proposed development are to be prepared by a suitably qualified civil engineer and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval prior to occupation of the development.  Plans and calculations are to be submitted with the application with all levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD).  All documentation is to be signed by the qualified civil engineer.
11	Stormwater that could adversely affect any adjacent land must not be discharged from the subject site onto the surface of the adjacent land.
12	Prior to works commencing the Applicant/Owner is to submit design plans for all proposed engineering works external to the site.  The plans are to be submitted as separate engineering drawings for assessment by the Responsible Authority.  
13	The Applicant/Owner is responsible to pay for all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets as a result of the development.  The Applicant/Owner is responsible to obtain all relevant permits and consents from Council at least 7 days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and is to obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.  Adequate protection is to be provided to Council’s infrastructure prior to works commencing and during the construction process.
14	Waste collections for this development are to be completed by Private waste collection contractors in accordance with the endorsed Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared by RB Waste Consulting Service dated 4 April 2019 unless alternative arrangements are agreed to by the Responsible Authority in writing. 
15	Any mobile garbage bin (MGB) placements proposed on Brunswick Road for on- street bin collection must not cause any obstruction to any infrastructure or cause any danger to traffic/pedestrians. Bins are not to be placed within 1 metre of any infrastructure and are to have a height clearance of 4 metres for collection.  Mobile garbage bin (MGB) usage is based on individual usage by the occupiers of the development. 
16	The approved WMP will be the model of adoption in this development and the design and as built aspects must account for what is approved in the WMP or changes to the approved waste system of the development require Council approval. 
17	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit,
(b)	the development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of this permit. 
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing pursuant to the provision of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

– End of conditions –