VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P2503/2019
Permit Application no. 5/2019/140/1	
		
CATCHWORDS	
Application under S.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.	

APPLICANT	Mr David Acevski	
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY	Bayside City Council	
REFERRAL AUTHORITY	Melbourne Water
Head, Transport for Victoria	
SUBJECT LAND	30 Cummins Road
BRIGHTON EAST  VIC  3187	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Laurie Hewet, Senior Member	
DATE OF HEARING	8 July 2020 	
DATE OF interim ORDER	9 July 2020 	
date of order 	10 August 2020 	
CITATION	Acevski v Bayside CC [2020] VCAT 846	

Order
1	The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
2	In permit application 5/2019/140/1 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 30 Cummins Road, Brighton East in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	The construction of two dwellings on a lot and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1

Laurie Hewet
Senior Member		

APPEARANCES
For Applicant	Ms Carly Robertson of counsel appeared by direct brief.  	
For Responsible Authority	Ms Anita Rozakovic – Stevens, town planner.  	
For Referral Authority	No appearance.  

INFORMATION
Land Description	The site is located on the eastern side of Cummins Road, midway between Nepean Highway to the north and South Road to the south.   Cummins Road is a main road, with a single width carriageway in both directions, shared bike lines and on street parking.  
The site forms part of an established residential area comprising predominantly single storey detached dwellings.  A single storey, post war brick dwelling currently occupies the site.  A contemporary double storey, flat roof dwelling abuts the site to the north.  
The site enjoys excellent access to a wide range of services and facilities including public transport, activity centres and public open space.  	
Description of Proposal	Construction of two double storey dwellings in a side by side arrangement.  The dwellings adopt a contemporary architectural style.  The front setbacks of both dwellings incorporate vehicle turntables which enable vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction.  	
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.	
Zone and Overlays	Clause 32.09:  Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ3)
Clause 43.02:  Design and Development Overlay (DDO3)
Clause 44.05:  Special Building Overlay.
Clause 45.06:  Development Contributions Plan Overlay.  
The site abuts a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1)	
Permit Requirements	Clause 32.09-6:  A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.  A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.  
Clause 44.05-2.  A permit is required to construct a building and construct and carry out works. An application must be referred to the relevant floodplain management authority under Section 55 of the Act.  
Clause 52.29-2 a permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a RDZ1.  An application must be referred to the Roads Corporation under section 55 of the Act	

REASONS
What is this proceeding about?
1	This is an application to review the failure of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit within the prescribed time in respect of a permit application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot and alterations of access to a main road, at 30 Cummins Road Brighton East. The Responsible Authority ultimately decided that had it not been for the application for review it would have refused permission for the following reasons:
•	The proposal fails to respond to the objectives of Clause 22.06 (Neighbourhood Character Precinct D2) of the Bayside Planning Scheme, on the following grounds: 
i.	The proposed tree removal, and lack of landscaping proposed fails to provide a landscaped setting to the development or maintain and enhance the garden setting of the precinct. 
ii.	The extent of hardstand, and proposed tree removal within the front setback fails to minimise the loss of front garden spaces and dominance of car parking structures. 
iii.	The proposal fails to respond to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area.
•	The proposal fails to comply with the objectives and standards of Clause 55 of the Bayside Planning Scheme, in particular: 
i.	Standard B1: Neighbourhood Character – The proposal fails to respond to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character for this precinct. 
ii.	Standard B13: Landscaping – The proposal fails to maintain or enhance the character of the area and provides limited opportunities for landscaping. Furthermore, no up to date landscape plan has been submitted. 
iii.	Standard B17: Side and rear setbacks – The proposed side setbacks limit opportunities for landscaping and are not respectful of the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
2	Having considered the submissions and having inspected the site I have concluded that the primary issue in this case is whether the proposal is acceptable having regard to the preferred character of the neighbourhood.    
3	The proposal is a double storey, contemporary style development of the type that is increasingly common in this neighbourhood.  It is a form of development that contributes to the diversity of housing in a location which is well serviced by services and facilities.  There are no unacceptable offsite amenity impacts and the amenity for future residents is of a high standard.  The loss of the vegetation on the site is acceptable given that none of the vegetation is protected by the planning scheme.  The large tree in the front setback does contribute to the character of the area but it is in poor health (and probably dead) and its loss can be adequately compensated for by replacement planting. 
4	My reasons for granting a permit are set out below.  
Is the proposal acceptable having regard to the preferred character of the neighbourhood?
5	The parties provided me with detailed summaries of the relevant planning scheme provisions and policies, and description of the review site’s physical characteristics and surrounding area.    
6	There is no significant dispute between the parties about these matters and it is not necessary for me to repeat that information other than to record that;
•	The review site is zoned Neighbourhood Residential (NRZ3).  The schedule to the zone (titled Minimal Residential Growth Area) includes variations to Clause 55 standards B6, B8, B17 and B32.  The relevant purpose of the zone is to recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development, and to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.  
•	The site abuts a road in a Road Zone Category 1.  
•	No planning permit is required to remove vegetation from the site. 
•	The site enjoys excellent access to a wide range of services and facilities including public transport, activity centres and public open space.  The site is well located in policy terms. The relevant planning scheme policies support housing that meets community needs and encourages well-designed medium-density housing that:
i.	Respects the neighbourhood character.
ii.	Improves housing choice. 
iii.	Makes better use of existing infrastructure. 
iv.	Improves energy efficiency of housing.
•	The review site’s immediate environs comprise predominantly single storey detached dwellings in established gardens.  A contemporary, double storey dwelling abuts the review site to the north.  There is evidence of contemporary double storey dwellings and medium density housing in the wider neighbourhood.  
•	The review site forms part of Precinct D2 under the Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.06 of the planning scheme.  The preferred future character statement is: 
The simple, articulated dwellings sit within landscaped gardens. Buildings are occasionally built to the side boundary; however the overall impression of the streetscape is of buildings within a garden setting due to the regular front setbacks and additional tree planting within the area. New buildings blend with the existing, by following these patterns and using materials that harmonise, where brick colours are consistent in a street. Front fences are low or open retaining the openness of the streetscape and view of the front gardens. On properties that adjoin the golf course, buildings are sited and designed so as not to overwhelm the open space. Consistent street tree planting has assisted in unifying the appearance of the area. 
•	Precinct guidelines in Clause 22.06 aim to provide guidance about the assessment of developments and their response to the preferred character of the area.  The guidelines include objectives, design response suggestions, and identifies outcomes to be avoided.  
The Council’s submission
7	The Council’s primary concerns about this proposal relate to its presentation in the streetscape, the removal of vegetation from the site, specifically a liquid amber in the front setback, and the lack of landscaping opportunities throughout the site particularly in the front setback.  
8	The Council’s concerns about the proposal are exacerbated by the proposed use of vehicle turntables in the front setback which it submits significantly reduces effective landscaping opportunities.  The Council submits that plans of the proposed development do not accurately depict the effect of the turntables in limiting landscaping opportunities and are misleading in their depiction of the landscaping opportunities available in the front setback. 
9	The Council referred to and relied on the Design Guidelines for neighbourhood character precinct D2 in support of its submission that the proposal does not achieve an acceptably respectful response to the character of the neighbourhood. The Design guidelines contains six (6) design objectives for precinct D2.  The Council submits that the proposal does not respond to one of the six objectives being the objective that states: 
To maintain and enhance the garden settings of the dwellings.
10	It is the Council’s submission that the proposal fails to respond to that objective because the proposed tree removal, and lack of landscaping proposed fails to provide a landscaped setting to the development or maintain and enhance the existing garden setting of the precinct.
11	The Council further submits that the extent of hardstand, and proposed tree removal within the front setback fails to minimise the loss of front garden spaces and dominance of car parking structures 
12	The Council identifies the following additional concerns about the proposal’s neighbourhood response: 
•	The proposals boundary to boundary development fails to maintain any visual separation between adjoining buildings, ameliorates landscaping opportunities and oblique views through the site.  This is at odds with this section of Cummins Road where dwellings are characterized by consistent front setbacks and established front gardens with significant trees. Buildings are largely set off one side to maintain a rhythm of visual separation between buildings and larger front setbacks allow space for gardens.
•	Limited opportunities are available for planting in the rear yards, which conflicts with the extensive landscaped year yards existing in the neighbourhood.  
•	The loss of the liquid amber in the front yard diminishes the character of Cummins Road which largely derives from canopy tree planting in private property.  
Findings
The liquid amber
13	It is appropriate that I record my findings about the proposed removal of the liquid amber currently located in the review site’s front setback. The tree has dimensions of 16m x 16m.
14	Neither the review site nor wider neighbourhood is affected by planning scheme controls such as a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) or Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO).  There is therefore no planning scheme control over the removal of the tree, or any of the vegetation on the site for that matter. I was advised that a local law permit is required to remove the tree. An earlier application to remove the tree under the local law was refused.  
15	The fact that a local law permit is required to remove the tree is irrelevant to my consideration of the current proposal.  Any permit required for the removal of the tree under the local law will need to be dealt with by the Council exercising its discretion under the local law.  My consideration must be carried out having regard to the relevant provisions of the planning scheme.  
16	I acknowledge that the liquid amber is a large and prominent species and contributes to the character of the area. The removal of the tree will have a character impact, but that impact is not so great as to warrant a refusal of the application.  
17	I have reached this conclusion in this case primarily because of the poor health of the tree which, notwithstanding the Council’s submission to the contrary, is very poor. The Council’s submission that the tree has a useful life expectancy of 20 years is at odds with the assessment of the tree by the Council’s Senior Arborist that the tree has declined rapidly in health.  The Council has sought the permission from the owners of the site to undertake necessary investigations into the tree because of the observed decline in its health .  
18	I am also informed about this matter by an arborist report tabled by the applicant.  The arborist report concluded that the tree is dead and that it had died from reasons unknown. The arborist could find no evidence of any holes having been drilled in the tree or other signs of chemicals that would indicate that it may have been poisoned.
19	Based on the information available to me I am satisfied that the liquid amber is in very poor health and probably dead. Any contribution the tree may have made to the character of the neighbourhood can no longer relied on.  
Built form and landscaping
20	There is no significant dispute between the parties about the acceptability of the proposal’s built form.  The Council appropriately acknowledges that its assessment of the proposal against the Design Guidelines for Precinct D2 is overwhelmingly positive other than with respect to that objective about maintaining and enhancing garden settings.  The other objectives of the design guidelines include:
•	To maintain the rhythm of visual separation between buildings.
•	To ensure the buildings do not dominate the streetscape.
•	To reflect the building materials in locations where there is a particular consistency.
•	To maintain the openness of the streetscape.
21	I agree with the Council’s assessment.  The proposal responds acceptably to the objectives and suggested design responses in the Design Guidelines.  It is significant that: 
•	The rhythm of visual separation in this street is characterised by small side setbacks between dwellings.  The proposal’s boundary to boundary construction is not unacceptably disruptive in this neighbourhood context.
•	The proposed buildings do not dominate the streetscape.  The proposed dwellings are contemporary, flat roofed, double storey dwellings in a predominantly single storey neighbourhood.  A one storey transition in height from the prevailing height is acceptable.  The proposal incorporates staggered front setbacks which reduce its presence in the streetscape.  The buildings present as modern, well-articulated additions in this neighbourhood.
•	The proposed white render at first floor and dark grey ground floor responds acceptably to the colours and materials present in the neighbourhood, being predominantly brick typical of this neighbourhood’s post war development.      
22	Turning to the Council’s primary concern in this case about the loss of garden space and the failure to enhance to the neighbourhood’s garden setting, my conclusion that the proposal is acceptable is informed firstly by my earlier findings about the liquid amber, secondly by the acceptability of the proposal’s built form and thirdly by the fact that landscaping is capable of being provided to a level that will meet the policy objective of maintaining and enhancing the garden settings to an acceptable degree.    
23	I acknowledge that the introduction of the vehicle turntables will have an impact on the level of hard paving in the front setback and consequently on the area available for landscaping. This impact however must be balanced against the proposal’s contribution to housing diversity on a well-located site, the lack of offsite amenity impacts, the provision of high quality internal amenity, and the proposal’s otherwise acceptable built form. 
24	 The application was accompanied by a landscape plan and a modified landscape plan was also tabled at the hearing. I agree with the Council that the landscape plans are probably optimistic in their depiction of low level or ground cover planting around the turntables. I am however satisfied that there is enough space available in the front setback to accommodate canopy tree planting. The landscape plan tabled at the hearing shows two canopy trees per dwelling. In terms of the proposal’s successful integration into the streetscape, the provision of canopy trees is the most significant aspect of the landscape plans. I am less concerned about the ground cover planting because of their limited exposure and contribution to the streetscape and neighbourhood character in general.  
other matters
25	The Council’s grounds of refusal do not raise external amenity considerations. The Council did however submit that the minor deviation from standard B17 (as varied by the schedule to the zone) contributes to excessive visual bulk in its presentation to the dwelling to the north. There is also a concern about an alleged noncompliance with standard B20 North facing windows of Clause 55 of the planning scheme and standard B21 Overshadowing open space.  
26	In relation to the submission about standard B20, the submission is demonstrably wrong because there is no habitable room window within 3.0m of the common boundary. The dwelling to the south is setback 3.14m from the side boundary. The shadow diagrams demonstrate that additional shadows fall over the driveway of the dwelling to the south.  
27	The small noncompliance with the varied standard B17 does not contribute to unacceptable amenity impacts on the neighbouring property to the north.  This is because the noncompliant wall will not impact on daylight to the south facing neighbouring windows, will not lead to the presentation of significantly greater visual bulk than a compliant wall, includes very limited construction on boundaries, provides adequate space along the side boundaries for the incorporation of meaningful landscaping; and includes walls that are articulated by varied setbacks, materials and fenestration.  
conclusion
28	For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.  
29	In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit I have had regard to the "without prejudice" conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from my reasons.

30	I have not imposed a condition requiring a specific type of turntable to be installed, primarily because the applicant may encounter difficulties with availability. Suffice to say the combination of the landscape plans and the site layout plans is sufficient to ensure that some level of ground cover planting will be incorporated into the front setback landscaping. I reiterate however that my primary concern bout the landscaping of the front setback relates the provision of canopy trees as depicted in the landscape plan. I am satisfied this can be achieved irrespective of the model of turntable ultimately used. 

Laurie Hewet
Senior Member		

APPENDIX A

PERMIT APPLICATION NO:	 5/2019/140/1	
LAND:	30 Cummins Road
BRIGHTON EAST  VIC  3187	
WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS:	
•		The construction of two dwellings on a lot and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1
in accordance with the endorsed plans.	

conditions
1.	Before the development 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 and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans amended prepared by Ace Constructions Pty. Ltd., date 11 August 2019 but modified to show:
(a)	Six (6) cubic metres of storage to be annotated on the development plans in accordance with standard B30 - Storage objective of Clause 55.05-6 of the Bayside Planning Scheme. 
(b)	All obscure glazing to be annotated as no more than 25% transparent in accordance with Standard B22 –Overlooking objective of Clause 55.04-6 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
(c)	Water Sensitive Urban Design measures in accordance with Condition 8. 
(d)	Provision of the development contributions fee in accordance with Condition 16. 
(e)	A Landscaping Plan in accordance with Condition 10. 
(f)	Tree management plan in accordance with Condition 13. 
(g)	Any requirements of Melbourne Water in accordance with Condition 19. 
(h)	Any requirements of VicRoads in accordance with Conditions 26-27. 
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
2.	The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Bayside Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority
3.	Before the occupation of the site commences or by such later date as is approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, all buildings and works must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4.	No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5.	All pipes (excluding downpipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.	Before the occupation of the site commences, screening of windows including fixed privacy screens be designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 and be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.
7.	The walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Water Sensitive Urban Design 
8.	Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, detailed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must show:
(a)	The type of water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures to be used.
(b)	The location of the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures in relation to buildings, sealed surfaces and landscaped areas.
(c)	Design details of the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures, including cross sections.
These plans must be accompanied by a report from an industry accepted performance measurement tool which details the treatment performance achieved and demonstrates the level of compliance with the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999.
9.	The water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment system as shown on the endorsed plans must be retained and maintained at all times in accordance with the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Landscaping
10.	Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan drawn by Faulkner and Chapman reference 1, dated 29/04/2020 and be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
(a)	The changes to the development.
(b)	The retention of the Magnolia Soulangiana Tree in the rear setback.
(c)	A survey, including, botanical names of all existing trees to be retained on the site including Tree Protection Zones calculated in accordance with AS4970-2009.
(d)	A survey including botanical names, of all existing trees on neighbouring properties where the Tree Protection Zones of such trees calculated in accordance with AS4970-2009 fall partially within the subject site. 
(e)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees and shrubs, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. 
(f)	Landscaping and/or planting within all areas of the site not covered by buildings or hard surfaces.
(g)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways
11.	Before the occupation of the development the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
Tree Management and Protection Plan
13.	Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, including any related demolition or removal of vegetation, a Tree Management Plan (report) and Tree Protection Plan (drawing), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. 
The Tree Management Plan must be specific to the trees shown on the Tree Protection Plan, in accordance with AS4970-2009, prepared by a suitably qualified Arborist and provide details of tree protection measures that will be utilised to ensure all trees to be retained remain viable post-construction. Stages of development at which inspections are required to ensure tree protection measures are adhered to must be specified.
The Tree Protection Plan must be in accordance with AS4970-2009, be drawn to scale and provide details of:
(a)	The Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone for all trees to be retained on the site and for all trees on neighbouring properties where any part of the Tree Protection Zone falls within the subject site. 
(b)	The location of tree protection measures to be utilised.
14.	All protection measures identified in the Tree Management and Protection Plans must be implemented, and development works undertaken on the land must be undertaken in accordance with the Tree Management and Protection Plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.	Before the development starts, including demolition or removal of vegetation, the name and contact details of the project Arborist responsible for implementing the Tree Management Plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
Development Contribution
16.	Prior to endorsement of the plan/s required under Condition 1 of this permit, the permit holder must pay a drainage levy in accordance with the amount specified under the Bayside Drainage Development Contributions Plan. The levy amount payable will be adjusted to include the Building Price Index applicable at the time of payment.    
The levy payment shall be submitted to Council with the Bayside Drainage Development Levy Charge Sheet and it must include the Building Price Index applicable at the time of payment.
Drainage
17.	Before the development starts, the permit holder must apply to Council for the Legal Point of Discharge for the development from where stormwater is drained under gravity to the Council network.
18.	Before the development, detailed plans indicating, but not limited to, the method of stormwater discharge to the nominated Legal Point of Discharge (and On-Site Detention System where applicable) must be submitted to and approved by Council’s City Assets and Projects Department.
Melbourne Water
19.	 Prior to the endorsement of plans, amended plans must be submitted to Council and Melbourne Water addressing Melbourne Water's conditions. Plans must be submitted with surface and floor levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD) and modified to show:
(a)	The dwellings must be set with finished floor levels set no lower than 25.1 metres to Australian Height Datum, which is 300mm above the applicable flood level of 24.8 metres to Australian Height Datum.
(b)	The garages must be set with finished floor levels set no lower than the applicable flood level of 24.8 metres to Australian Height Datum.
(c)	An annotation indicating that the decking is open and unenclosed, and steps contain no vertical risers.
20.	The dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels set no lower than 25.1 metres to Australian Height Datum, which is 300mm above the applicable flood level of 24.8 metres to Australian Height Datum.
21.	The garages must be constructed with finished floor levels set no lower than the applicable flood level of 24.8 metres to Australian Height Datum.
22.	Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.
23.	Imported fill must be kept to a minimum on the property and only be used for the sub floor areas of the dwellings, garages and driveway ramps. 
24.	The decking must be constructed with unenclosed foundations and any stairs with no vertical risers to allow for the passage of overland flows. 
25.	Any new fence must be of an open style of construction (minimum 50% open) to allow for the passage of floodwaters/ overland flows
VicRoads 
26.	Prior to the commencement of use or occupation, both the access points must be sealed, with the edges of the crossover angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary, at least for the first 3 metres from the edge of the road must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to VicRoads or the Responsible Authority. 
27.	Vehicles must enter and exit the land in a forward direction at all times 
Permit Expiry
28.	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

--- End of Conditions ---