VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1201/2019
Permit Application no. P1150/2018	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Banyule Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone Schedule 1; Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 5; Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1; Three storey development including 10 dwellings; Massing, Visual bulk, Scale; Siting; Secluded Open Space; Shading; Overlooking; Traffic and Parking; Landscaping opportunities; Repeat Appeals; 	

APPLICANT	K2K Investments Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Banyule City Council	
Referral Authority	Ausnet	
respondent	Judith Pauwels	
SUBJECT LAND	20 Morwell Avenue
WATSONIA  	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Alison Slattery, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATEs OF HEARING	12 December 2019
20 May 2020	
DATE OF ORDER	27 July 2020	
CITATION	K2K Investments Pty Ltd v Banyule CC [2020] VCAT 733	

Order
1	Pursuant to Clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by including “the removal of vegetation” in the permission sought.
Permit granted
2	In application P1201/2019 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application P1150/2018 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 20 Morwell Avenue, Watsonia in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of a three-storey building including 10 apartment style dwellings and basement car parking in a General Residential Zone; and 
•	The removal of vegetation in a Vegetation Protection Overlay.

Alison Slattery
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr Chris McKenzie, town planner of Planning Appeals.  	
For responsible authority	Mr Andrew Crack, town planner of Andrew Crack and Associates Pty Ltd	
For objector	Ms Pauwels in person	
For referral authority	No Appearance	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of a three storey apartment style building containing 10 apartments and a basement car park.  One driveway and crossover is proposed to the east of the site, with all parking located in the basement garage.  Vegetation by way of a Golden Ash and a Prickly Paperbark are proposed to be removed.   	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Banyule Planning Scheme 	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1). 
Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 5 (VPO5)
Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 (DCPO1)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6-construction of two or more dwellings and construction of a front fence
Clause 42.02-2 removal of vegetation 	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 15.01-1R, 15.01-1S, 15.01-5S, 16.01-1R, 16.01-2R, 16.01-2S, 16.01-3S, 21.01, 21.02, 21.04, 21.05, 21.06, 22.03, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 55 and 65   	
Land description	The site is located on the north east side of Morwell Avenue around 80 metres to the south east of the intersection with High Street.  On street parking and a high voltage electricity line on located on the street in front of the site.  The current single storey dwelling on site is a brick dwelling with a tiled roof which appears to have been constructed mid 20 century.  
The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 21.3 metres to Morwell Avenue and a depth of 49.5 metres for a total site area of 970 square metres.  The site includes a slope of around 2.5 metres from the front (SW) to the rear (NE).  The site contains trees and shrubs which have some significance (two of which, a Golden Ash and a Prickly Paperbark require planning permission for removal).  The site is encumbered by a 1.8 metre wide drainage easement traversing the north eastern (rear) boundary and by a 4.6 metre wide Ausnet easement traversing the frontage (south east).  
Surrounding sites are both residential and commercial in nature, due to the close proximity to the Watsonia Activity Centre (around 250 metres).  Watsonia NAC provides shopping, community services, medical, school, and bus and train transport with direct access to the CBD.  
The site is well served with access to parks and open spaces.
Vegetation in the area is varied with some properties including large trees, with the majority including well cared or gardens.  Street Trees contribute to the character of the area.	
Tribunal inspection	The Tribunal undertook an unaccompanied inspection of the site and surrounds after the hearing.   	
Cases referred to	K2K Investments Pty Ltd v Banyule CC [2015] VCAT  121	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This hearing was conducted on day two online, due to Covid 19 restrictions.
2	K2K Investments Pty Ltd applied to the Banyule City Council for a permit to develop the land at 20 Morwell Avenue, Watsonia for the construction of a three-storey building containing 10 apartment style dwellings, with basement car parking. At the hearing in December the issue of the removal of vegetation was ventilated. The planning application had not sought the removal of the trees, but the plans clearly indicated the trees would be required to be removed for the development to proceed. I ordered the circulation of an amended application detailing the removal of trees. This has been undertaken and subsequently the approval sought now includes the removal of two trees, a Golden Ash and a Prickly Paperbark.
3	Council issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant the Permit on 2 July 2019. The decision was based on Council’s view that the design is contrary to the character of the neighbourhood. Concerns related to the siting, massing scale and extent of form at all levels, with ground form inhibiting appropriate landscaping opportunities, and upper floors being a dominant element on the streetscape and in the private realm. Council contends that this development also does not comply with the objectives of ResCode and fails to meet the objectives of the PPF and local policy. Council contended that the proposal did not differ significantly from the previous development considered at the Tribunal, and that the minor changes in the context of the site do not warrant reviewing the proposal afresh.  
4	The resident objector who lives to the west of the review site is Ms Pauwels. She agreed with the position of Council and further added concerns regarding the shading of her dwelling, impacts on her privacy, and impacts by way of traffic and parking.
5	The review applicant, K2K Investments Pty Ltd, through Mr McKenzie disagrees with Council and asserts that the design has taken into account the constraints of the site and is site responsive. He argued that the areas of non-compliance with the standards of ResCode are justified and contends that the proposal meets the objectives of ResCode. It was his contention that the PPF and local policies lend support to the proposed development.  He submitted that the proposed landscaping scheme responded appropriately to the prevailing character of the area. He submitted that significant change had occurred in the physical and policy context between the previous tribunal application and the current application. 
What are the key issues?
6	The key issues for determination are:
a.	Is the proposal consistent with the planning policy framework of the Banyule Planning Scheme?
b.	Does the development achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with Clause 55 (ResCode)?
c.	Are traffic and parking impacts unreasonable?
7	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision. My reasons follow.
is this application for review a repeat appeal?
8	I find that the current development proposal does not fall into the category of being a classic repeat appeal. I am satisfied that there is reasonably different context to characterise this as a correcting appeal. Given the lapse of time since the last review, there has understandably been some changes in the planning scheme context. Similarly, the physical context has experienced several changes, including new built form by way of the childcare centre at 10-12 High Street (west of the site) and the increased use and extent of the central median strip in Morwell Avenue accommodating further car parking. The design of the development has also changed since the previous review; the number of dwellings is reduced from 18 to 10 and the design of the development is altered and reduced.  
9	I agree with Mr Crack that great weight should be given to the previous decision. I agree that sufficient change has occurred here, both in the design, which is altered, and the planning context, which has undergone many changes since 2015 such that this proposal can be considered anew, subject to the weighting noted above.  
Is the proposal consistent with the planning policy framework of the Banyule Planning Scheme?
Density 
10	The proposal is consistent with the Planning Policy Framework that promotes the consolidation of existing urban areas for the efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. I am satisfied that the site is well located with good access to public transport being buses on Morwell Avenue and trains at Watsonia Station 250 metres to the south east of the site. The site has excellent access to local shopping (Watsonia NC) which provides for daily shopping needs. Access to schools, community facilities, medical facilities and open spaces is also convenient. In this way, this is a site where the PPF would direct higher density development than currently exists, as the site is extremely well located and would minimise the need for vehicle use. 
11	In conjunction with density considerations in the PPF, the Banyule Planning Scheme includes a Local Planning Policy Framework that identifies where medium density housing should occur within the municipality. Clause 21.06 of the scheme seeks to encourage new development, which, amongst other things, responds to the character of existing residential areas. In order to achieve this aim, the policy divides the municipality into six areas, as identified in the Residential Areas Framework. The subject site is located within the Accessible area, which Mr Crack noted as being the second highest level of density sought for the municipality.
12	It is envisaged that the bulk of higher density development would occur within those areas categorised as Diversity and Accessible, with a more tempered change occurring in the Incremental and Limited Incremental Areas.  The proposed development will make the most of its location near public transport, community and shopping facilities available in Watsonia.  
Neighbourhood Character 
13	A Neighbourhood Character Study has been referenced into the scheme which identifies the importance of vegetation and the landscaped character of the municipality. This study informs the Policy at Clause 22.02 under which the subject site and the surrounding area are included in Garden Suburban Precinct 1. The policy points to this area as being able to sustain change to accommodate future increases in dwelling stock. However, in seeking to promote change, the policy also seeks to maintain the overall scale character of the area through the implementation of styles and scale that, whilst contemporary, are sympathetic to the area. This includes consistency of front setbacks, recessive car parking, good opportunity for planting and protection of green spines.  
14	For sites within the General Residential Zone 1 (such as the review site) it is expected that:
These areas will accommodate change in a manner that retains and enhances the garden suburban character of the precinct. All developments will contribute to an enhanced treed environment, including opportunities for tree protection and planting, whilst providing for town houses and other medium density dwellings, as well as some dispersed single dwellings. Canopy trees and understorey vegetation will continue to contribute to the character of the area, particularly in front setbacks to reinforce the character of the street, and along rear boundaries to soften the interface between dwellings. 
The site coverage may be greater for sites in the GRZ1 as long as tree and vegetation protection is achieved. The treed and spacious feel of the streetscape character will be retained and enhanced by ensuring front setbacks are large enough to plant a large tree and other vegetation. Building heights may also be increased for these developments, with the higher components generally positioned to front onto the street and recessed from the lower levels to reduce their visual prominence and provide space for tree canopies.
15	I visited the site and the surrounding area on several occasions and find that there is an inconsistency of scale in that one and two storey dwellings that are readily evident in the wider streetscape are interspersed with commercial buildings such as the child care centre to the west and the RSL to the east that presents as a three storey built form. The area is informed by this inconsistency of scale and typology, and the mingling of commercial tenancies and dwellings belies the sites location on the edge of the Watsonia NC. Also informative of the robust character of this part of Morwell Avenue is the imposing electrical transmission line that runs through the median and carparking directly to the south of the site. This makes for an environment of utility that detracts from a sense of reposed residential hinterland. To the immediate west of the site is an older multi unit development, where Ms Pawels resides.  
16	Lot sizes in the area are generally over 900 square metres (the review site is 970 square metres) and able to accommodate more medium density development whilst maintaining a sense of openness and spacing as sought within local policy. Existing dwellings are gradually being replaced by larger forms, both commercial and residential.  Morwell Avenue is moderately vegetated with on street and off-street planting playing a role in this landscape, albeit to a lesser extent than streets that are not located on eth periphery of Watsonia commercial centre.  
17	Relevantly, the Garden Suburban Precinct 1 (in which the subject site is located) contains objectives which seek:
i.	To ensure new buildings and extensions are sympathetic to the current building form and style.
ii.	To ensure that household services are not a visually prominent feature.
iii.	To maintain consistency of current front setbacks, whilst enabling tree planting in front gardens.
iv.	To ensure buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape or the building, and do not adversely affect the outlook and amenity of neighbouring dwellings.
v.	To minimise loss of front garden space, and the dominance of vehicle access, storage facilities and built form as viewed from the street.
vi.	To maintain the openness of front boundary treatments and the presentation of dwellings to the street
vii.	To maintain and strengthen the garden and tree dominated streetscape character and the landscaped setting of the precinct.
viii.	To ensure that developments on or near ridgelines retain existing trees, sit below the tree canopies, minimise excavation, and enable further tree planting to form a continuous canopy, so that the scenic quality is maintained and enhanced.
Landscaping
18	Concerns were raised by Council with regard to the scale, massing and bulk of the apartment building. Mr Crack argued that the siting of the building would not allow for appropriate landscaping of the site. I disagree. I am satisfied that the development is appropriately located and designed so as not to present as a dominant form in the streetscape whilst offering good opportunities for reasonable planting in the front, side and rear setbacks.
19	I find the development is positioned on the site so as to respond to the predominant siting and scale characteristics of the area in allowing adequate spacing for the planting of larger trees that contribute to the treed canopy of the site and the area. I find the scale of the development represents a good transition to the one to two storey surrounding built form, and note there is a generous front setback allowing adequate spacing to the frontage (south) and private open spaces of the proposed dwellings to accommodate the planting of larger vegetation, much of which will serve to screen the lower portions of the building into the future.  
20	In this position I am persuaded by the reduction in site coverage (from 54% to 40.31%), reduction in overall form and increased setbacks to each elevation, from the plans considered at the previous Tribunal hearing. I note the reduction in size of the basement car parking provides greater depth of soil for the location of larger vegetation surrounding the building. This, in conjunction with the removal of the overhanging balconies and increased setback to the west from 1.5 to 3.85 metres (in comparison to the previous iteration) allows for both soil volume and clear access to the sky that provide opportunity for trees that would be capable of screening the development from unreasonable views, particularly to 22 Morwell Avenue. Similarly, to the east, setbacks have increased from 1.5 metres to 3.3 metres, allowing for vegetation to be dotted between dwelling forms. To the rear, vegetation will be removed, however Council had no in principle objection to this removal, subject to the appropriate replanting of larger tree species. I am satisfied that the increased setbacks to the rear; increased from between 1.83 to 5.84 metres to between 2.541 and 7.406 metres; allows for far greater opportunity for planting of indigenous species of a greater contribution than the Ash and the Paperbark proposed to be removed. I am satisfied that planting can be located throughout the site, in rear open spaces, to the frontage and to the driveway ramp. I am satisfied that the private open spaces will not be impeded through the inclusion of canopy trees. Rather, they will be enhanced by them, including the opportunity for lower order planting in concert with larger trees. This offers good opportunity to soften the appearance of the new dwellings in both the Morwell Avenue streetscape and in the private realm in conjunction with the provision of backyard and intervening planting that is both in line with that sought within policy for the Garden Suburban area, and in line with the prevailing provision of planting in the area. I do not agree with Mr Crack that the location of the easement and hard surfacing to the frontage of the site limits the opportunity for reasonable planting to the frontage. The ramp will no doubt be evident, but its presence can be softened through the use of planting to its northern retaining wall. Planting to the frontage can include graduated, lower order forms of planting, a regime that is often found in many suburban front gardens. I note the inclusion of two 5-metre-high canopy trees and two 3-metre-high canopy trees in the floor plans provided. I am buoyed by such a planting scheme, and any landscape plan should reflect that position.  
21	I am satisfied that reasonable planting opportunities are available to each elevation, especially to the sensitive residential interfaces to the north, east and west. I find that there is reasonable opportunity for the planting of meaningful vegetation in order to both soften the appearance of the building and promote a garden setting. I find there is sufficient space around the proposed building for appropriate planting of canopy trees and understorey planting. 
Built Form
22	Mr Crack held concerns with the presentation of the building both in the streetscape and in the private realm. He submitted that not enough had been done to address the concerns of the Tribunal as detailed in the previous decision. He submitted that whilst the front setback was reasonable, the visual bulk and lack of recession of the upper levels meant that this apartment style building would be jarring in the streetscape and would have unreasonable oppressive interfaces to residential properties. This he submitted, was exacerbated by the apartment typology and the lack of styling, such as gable end roof forms, that appropriately reflected the forms found in the streetscape. To this end he noted that even the recently constructed child care centre had employed a pitched roof form in order to respect the character of the area. He also cited concerns with the detail of the design, including the length of the ramp and the location of the secluded open space of apartment 1.01 in the front setback. 
23	As noted previously, I am satisfied that appropriate changes have occurred in form by way of reduction in site coverage, removal of terraces to the western elevation and increased setbacks to every elevation such that the detrimental impacts of the form as identified in the previous Tribunal decision have been appropriately addressed. I find that the interface to the west, to 22 Morwell Avenue is reasonable. The increase in setback to 3.85 metres is reasonable and also complies with Standard B17. I am satisfied that the removal of the terraces to this elevation at ground level serves to limit the intimate interaction with which Member Carew held concerns. To the west with the exception of ground level POS, the remaining balconies are included at the first floor where apartment 2.02 balcony faces on to 22 Morwell Avenue, and the balcony of Apartment 2.03 has a sideage to 22 Morwell Avenue. I am satisfied that this interaction is appropriately limited, and subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring compliance with Standard B22, will not have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the residents at 22 Morwell Avenue. In an area such as this, where the sites take the benefit of being located in close proximity to a shopping area, there must be an understanding that expectations of amenity need to be appropriately tempered. This is an area which Council has identified for greater density, and greater density will likely occur. In such a policy paradigm, there needs to be an understanding that there will be give and take in the form of amenity to and from adjoining properties.  That said, there are no ‘free kicks’, and I have satisfied myself that the development as amended, and subject to conditions, represents an appropriate response to its residential interfaces, particularly to the west. 
24	To the street the development has been reduced in form from that considered by Member Carew at the previous Tribunal hearing. Of particular note is the removal of the cantilever element to the south east corner. This does not result in reduced articulation. I am satisfied that the form appropriately wraps around the to the sides in a more coherent way. As noted above, I am satisfied also with the increased first and second floor setbacks and find these forms to be appropriately recessive. That said, I think it is appropriate to better treat the upper level, with a material that is light weight, perhaps with increased glazing. It is appropriate to ensure that the upper level is quite recessive, beyond that already proposed, as there are sensitive residential interfaces surrounding the site, especially to the west. I will include a condition requiring the upper level treated in a light weight material that might include greater levels of fenestration.  
25	I am satisfied that in addition to the above changes, the reduction in height of the building from 8.64 metres to 7.97 metres is a positive response. This is now a very low scale three storey form in regards to height. This reduction, in conjunction with the reduction in footprint serves to ameliorate the visual bulk concerns of the Tribunal in the previous hearing.
26	In these ways, I find that the proposal represents an appropriate response to the objectives within Clauses 21.06 and 22.02. 
Does the development achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with Clause 55 (ResCode)?
27	Several areas of ResCode compliance were included as grounds of refusal.  These include Neighbourhood Character Landscaping Objective, Private Open Space, and Design Detail. In addition to these concerns Ms Pawels also raised concerns of overshadowing, overlooking, traffic and parking. 
28	I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with Clause 55 (ResCode) objectives and does not represent an overdevelopment of the site. I say this for the following reasons:
a.	As noted in the previous section, I am satisfied that the proposed development responds well to the character for this area as sought in local policy.  In addition, as previously stated, landscaping opportunities are appropriately provided in line with the policy direction for this area.
b.	The front setback varies from 9.215 metres at ground level to and 12.105 metres at the second floor.  This represents and appropriate transition in the streetscape where dwellings are set back 8-11 metres.
c.	The maximum height of the buildings is 7.97 metres.
d.	The site coverage is 40.31%.
e.	The permeability is 284 square metres.
f.	Dwelling entries are highly visible with the lobby entry facing Morwell Avenue. 
g.	Infrastructure is readily available.
h.	The side and rear setbacks are reasonable and comply with Standard B17.
i.	No new wall on the boundary is proposed (with the exception of the basement).
j.	Provision is made for storage (via basement), bike storage, water tanks, and mailboxes.
k.	The existing crossover will be used to the eastern portion of the Morwell Avenue frontage.  I am satisfied that this level of parking access maintains the rhythm and character of the streetscape in Morwell Avenue.
l.	Parking spaces for dwellings have direct access to dwellings via the lift. 
m.	Overlooking will be minimised via screening that is in line with Standard B22, subject to condition.
n.	Shading of windows and private open space is minimised with the level of shade falling within the reasonable limits as enshrined by Clause 55.  
o.	Windows of adjoining properties are properly protected and receive adequate light. 
p.	Private open spaces provided are reasonable in that ground floor POS varies from 23 square metres for apartment 1.02 (a single bedroom apartment) through to 136 square metres for apartment 1.04. Terraces are provided at upper levels that vary in size from 9 to 25 square metres. I do not share Councils concerns at the provision of open space of apartment 1.01 facing on to the street as this open space also turns to the western elevation.
q.	With the exception of apartment 3.02 the open spaces are located to the northern western boundary and have reasonable access to daylight in line with Standard B29. Apartment 3.02 has its primary terrace to the south but includes wrap around terrace elements to the east and west. I am satisfied that the development includes thoughtful location of open spaces that are highly usable. 
r.	I see no sources of noise that are located close to boundaries, such as mechanical devices.
s.	I find that the development incorporates a reasonable design that adequately protects the amenity of the surrounding properties.
29	I find that compliance with the objectives of ResCode are justified as above and are sufficient to ensure that the design will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding dwellings.  
Are traffic and parking impacts unreasonable?
30	The provision of parking is in line with the requirements of Clause 52.06. The number of car spaces provided is appropriate and I do not share concerns regarding increased traffic from the additional dwellings. I note that one driveway is proposed to Morwell Avenue. I have not been presented with any evidence that this increased traffic will overland the capacity of the nearby roads. This extent of parking and the location of parking spaces within a basement is a practice that is undertaken daily throughout Melbourne and not an unusual feature of suburban development, such that Clause 52.06 clearly contemplates such provision of parking.
Conclusion
31	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Alison Slattery
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	P1150/2018	
Land	20 Morwell Avenue
WATSONIA  VIC  3084	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of a three storey building including 10 apartment style dwellings and basement car parking in a General Residential Zone; and 
•	The removal of vegetation in a Vegetation Protection Overlay.

Conditions
1	Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (prepared by Architecture Caisson, reference TP001 – TP803, dated 25/10/2018) but modified to show:
(a)	The upper level treated in a light weight material that might include greater levels of fenestration;
(b)	Compliance with Standard B22 or ResCode;
(c)	Swept paths for garbage trucks entering and exiting the basement waste collection area;
(d)	Dimensions of bicycle parking areas, in accordance with Clause 52.34-6 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;
(e)	Dimensions of car parking spaces, in accordance with Clause 52.06-9 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;
(f)	The area to accommodate services within the front setback to have a maximum height of 1.5m and be enclosed or screened to minimise visibility from the public realm and neighbouring properties;
(g)	Notation on site plan to state no front fence is proposed;
(h)	The location of outdoor lighting, including measures to avoid light spill onto adjoining properties;
(i)	Updated schedule of external building materials and colours, including details of driveway materials and screens enclosing the roof top plant deck.  Driveways must be finished in muted tones;
(j)	Dimensions of waste collection area, in accordance with waste storage and other requirements specified within the Waste Management Plan;
(k)	The provision of rainwater storage tank/s for the building accommodating at least 12,000 litres and including location, sizing and a notation of the connections and end use; 
(l)	Location of air conditioning units, hot water systems and other mechanical plant within the roof top plant deck area;
(m)	All sustainable design features indicated in the submitted Sustainable Management Plan (prepared by Low Impact Development, dated 18/10/2018). Where sustainable design features outlined in the SMP 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 fittings and fixtures, etc.);
(n)	The indicative location for any split system air conditioner units and/or hot water systems at ground level to minimise visibility form the public realm and neighbouring properties;
(o)	The installation of eaves or shading devices to all north-facing windows and balconies, designed to provide appropriate shading during summer and allow solar access during winter;
(p)	Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;
(q)	The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with Condition 15 of this permit;
(r)	Engineering plans showing a properly prepared design with computations for the internal drainage and method for of disposal of stormwater from all roofed areas and sealed areas including:
i	The use of an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system;
ii	The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge;
iii	The integration, details and connections of all Water Sensitive Urban Design features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan and STORM report and include drainage details as a result of landscaping; and
iv	All drainage plans must show for Trees #1-3 The Tree Number; The Structural Root Zone (SRZ) radius; and the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) radius, each as detailed and calculated within the arborist report submitted with the application authored by Andrew Patrick 29/8/2013.
Please note the Engineering plans must show all protected and/or retained trees on the development site, on adjoining properties where tree canopies encroach the development site and along proposed outfall drainage and roadway alignments (where applicable) and every effort must be made to locate services away from the canopy drip line of trees and where unavoidable, details of hand work or trenchless installation must be provided.

2	The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory detailed landscaping plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include:
(a)	Details of planting, formed garden beds and hard landscaping throughout the site;
(b)	The identification of existing vegetation (which is not intended to be removed), and nomination of vegetation for removal throughout the site;
(c)	Planting adjacent to driveways and within landscaping zones to consist of varying heights and species;
(d)	Provision of replacement planting for vegetation that is to be removed including a minimum of two medium sized canopy trees (mature height of at least 10 metres) planted at a semi-advanced state (minimum pot size 16 litre) within the front setback; one medium sized canopy tree (mature height of at least 10 metres) within the rear setback; and six small trees (mature height of at least 5 metres) to be planted throughout the site;
(e)	An indigenous and/or drought tolerant planting theme;
(f)	A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which includes the location and size at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified;
(g)	Location and details of paving, steps, retaining walls, water tanks, clotheslines, fence design details and other landscape works including cut and fill;
(h)	Location, details and cross section drawings of all Water Sensitive Urban Design features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan and STORM report, with reference to connection details on the engineering plans;
(i)	All trees and shrubs planted on the AusNet electricity easement to not exceed 3 metres maximum mature growth height; and
(j)	Provision of screening vegetation along side setbacks to soften views of the development from neighbouring properties.

3	Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such plan must specify that collection is to be by way of a private contractor and detail:
(a)	Dimensions of waste storage areas; 
(b)	The number of bins to be provided and capacity;
(c)	How organic, garden and hard waste (including e-waste) streams will be managed within the site and collected from the subject site; 
(d)	Waste Generation Rates;
(e)	Anticipated frequency, hours and duration of collection(s) having regard to the areas provided for bin storage; 
(f)	Details of ventilation;
(g)	Details on method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of waste areas;
(h)	Measures to minimise impact upon local residential amenity; and
(i)	Signage.

Once approved, this management plan must be adhered to by the owner(s), permit holder(s) and operator(s) of the dwellings at all times unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.
Construction Management Plan
4	Unless otherwise agreed, prior to the commencement of any works including demolition, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
General
5	The development as shown on the endorsed plans or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until:
(a)	The tree protection measures required by Condition 15 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the development permitted by this permit must not be occupied until the development has been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the permit and endorsed plans (including, but not limited to built form and layout, parking, landscaping, drainage, street numbering, replacement of street trees).
Amenity 
8	Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.
9	Noise emissions from any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating, ventilation and the like must comply with State environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N-1 and/or Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 and/or Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92, which ever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.
Car Parking / Access
10	Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all weather seal coat.  The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.
12	Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service lane must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will use the crossing(s).  The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority.  Any existing unused crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and nature strip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building.  All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council Supervision under a Memorandum of Consent for Works which must be obtained prior to commencement of works.
13	The boundaries of all car spaces, access and egress lanes and the direction in which vehicles should proceed along the access lanes must at all times be clearly indicated on the ground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Tree Protection/Landscaping
Tree Preservation Zones
14	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around Trees #1-3. At least 14 days prior to the commencement of works you must provide a ‘Statement of Compliance’ the suitably qualified project arborist (AQF Level 5) which must include photographic evidence of the below requirements. This correspondence must be sent to enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au. Once installed to the satisfaction below the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained until the conclusion of works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and must meet the following requirements:
(a)	Tree Preservation Zones must be provided in the following trees:
i	Neighbouring Trees #1-3: to the extent of the calculated Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) where it occurs within the subject Land;
(b)	Where there are approved works within a 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.
Weed control
(c)	Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removed and the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse grade woodchips
Fencing
(d)	Protective fencing must consist of chain wire mesh panels held in place with concrete feet. Fencing must comply with Australian Standard AS 4687-2007 Temporary fencing and hoardings.
Signage
(e)	Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the Tree Preservation Fencing, stating “Tree Preservation Zone – No entry without permission from the City of Banyule”.
Irrigation
(f)	The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 10 litres of clean water for every 1 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interface on a monthly basis during summer (or a percentage thereof equivalent to the percentage of TPZ area occurring within the subject site). 
Access to Tree Preservation Zone
(g)	No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Tree Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority;
(h)	No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or stored within the Tree Preservation Zone and the servicing and re-fuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away from the root zones;
(i)	No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to take place within the Tree Preservation Zone;
(j)	Nothing whatsoever, including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device, is to be attached to any tree.
Ground Protection
(k)	A permeable membrane beneath a layer of mulch or crushed rock below rumble boards must be laid down where the tree protection zone occurs outside the fenced area detailed in Condition 15.  Rumble boards should be of a suitable thickness to prevent soil compaction and root damage. Ground protection must only be removed once all buildings and works have been completed.
Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9808.  Consent for the conduct of further works within a Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions.  Such conditions may include a requirement that:
(l)	Any further works that are approved are to be supervised by the project arborist, and a written component may be required also; 
(m)	All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘Air-Excavation’ techniques;
(n)	Canopy and Limb protection is provided in accordance with the guidelines detailed in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.
(o)	Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s.
Any excessive impacts on the canopies and/or roots of trees located on or adjoining property may trigger the need for a Section 72 Amendment application in regard to the design of built-form and/or landscaping.  
Arborist supervision
15	A project arborist must ensure that any root severance resulting from endorsed buildings and works does not adversely impact the health and or stability of any retained tree now or into the future.
16	Any root severance within the TPZ must be undertaken by the project arborist to their satisfaction using a clean sharp and sterilised tree root pruning equipment. There must be no root pruning within the SRZ.
17	The project arborist and builder must ensure that TPZ fencing conditions are being adhered to throughout the entire building process, including site demolition, levelling and landscape works. 
Tree Pruning
18	Prior to the commencement of works, the project arborist must determine the canopy impact to trees on or adjoining the subject site that are shown to be retained on the endorsed plans in regards to any pruning required to enable clearance from the proposed Buildings and Works (including any temporary scaffolding requirements), and advise council’s Development Planning Arborists via email to enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au marked “Attention - Development Planner” and including the planning application number. Following written approval from the Responsible Authority, all tree pruning must then be carried out by the suitably qualified project arborist (AQF Level 3) in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees, and must be restricted to the removal of no greater than 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.
(a)	Any requirement for excessive pruning may trigger the need for a Section 72 Amendment application in regard to the design of built form or the retention of a tree.
Underground Services
19	Any underground service installations within the calculated Tree Protection Zone of any retained tree must be bored to a depth of at least 600mm. Any excavation within the calculated TPZ of a retained tree required for the connection of services must be:
(a)	Undertaken after written approval is received from the Responsible Authority; and, 
(b)	Undertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniques suitable in the vicinity of trees under the supervision of the project arborist.
Maintenance of landscaping
20	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the landscaping areas shown on the endorsed plans must be used for landscaping and no other purpose and any landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
Ausnet Services
21	No part of the proposed buildings, including eaves, awnings, canopies, shelters and the like, is permitted on AusNet Transmission Group’s easement. Any service traversing the easement must be installed underground.
22	All trees and shrubs planted on the easement must not exceed 3 metres maximum mature growth height.
23	The storage of flammable or combustible materials is not permitted on the easement.
24	Natural ground surface levels on the easement must not be altered by the stockpiling of excavated material or by landscaping without prior written approval from AusNet Transmission Group.
25	Vehicles and equipment exceeding 3 metres operating height are not permitted on the easement without prior written approval from AusNet Transmission Group.
26	Scaffolding is not permitted on the easement.
27	The use of construction equipment including cranes that have the ability to extend into the easement are not permitted.
28	Details of all future works within the easement must be submitted to AusNet Transmission Group and approved in writing prior to the commencement of work on site.
Development Infrastructure Levy
29	Prior to the issue of a building permit for any building or any works approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and a Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Banyule City Council. The amount of the levy for each charge unit must be calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Development Contribution Plan Overlay.
Time Limits
30	In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not commenced 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, the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing:
•	Before the permit expires, or 
•	Within six months afterwards, or
•	Within 12 months afterwards if the development started lawfully before the permit expired.

– End of conditions –