VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P217/2020 
Permit Application no. 5/2019/2191	
CATCHWORDS	
 Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. Decision made on the papers.  	

APPLICANT	Centraland Project Management No.1 Pty Ltd & Luxe Advisory Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Bayside City Council	
SUBJECT LAND	56 Wilson Street
Brighton Vic 3186	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Laurie Hewet, Senior Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing on the papers	
DATE OF HEARING	23 July 2020 	
DATE OF ORDER	14 August 2020 	
CITATION	Centraland Project Management No 1 Pty Ltd & Luxe Advisory Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2020] VCAT 874	

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:	Ewert Leaf Architects 	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP-021E, TP-024E, TP-02500E, TP-029E, TP100E, TP-01E, TP-02E, TP-000E, TP-010E, TP-011E,TP-020E,TP-022E, TP-023E, TP-025E, TP-026E, TP-027E, TP-028E, TP-150E,TP-400E, TP-401E, TP-402E, TP-900E, TP-901E, TP-902E, TP-903E;	
•	Dated:	All dated 10/6/2020 	
2	The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
3	In permit application 5/2019/2191 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 56 Wilson Street, Brighton in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of a three storey multi-dwelling building over a basement car park including a front fence in excess of 1.5 metres in height in the General Residential Zone Schedule 2;
•	Construct a building with a height more than 9 metres, in the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11;
•	Removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 Easements, Restrictions and Reserves

Laurie Hewet 
Senior Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr John Cicero and Mr Edward Mahony of Best Hooper Lawyers.  
Expert evidence is provided by:
•	Mr. Daniel Herrmann, town planner.
•	Mr. John Patrick, landscape architect 
•	Mr. Andrew Patrick, arborist.  	
For responsible authority	Mr Peter O’Leary, town planner	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of a three storey, 4 level building comprising basement car parking and seven apartments.  The ground and first floors comprise three-bedroom apartments at each level, while the second floor contains a single apartment.  
Fourteen car parking spaces are provided at basement level.  Access to the basement is provided via Male Street.  
The proposed building adopts a contemporary architectural style with materials comprising masonry walls, protruding balconies, and masonry street fencing.  	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Bayside Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Clause 32.08:  General Residential Zone (GRZ2)
Design and Development Overlay (DDO11 – Church Street Major Activity Centre Built Form Precincts – Precinct E ).
Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO).	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6:  A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot and to construct a front fence over 1.5m in height.  A maximum building height of 11m and 3 storeys applies at Clause 3 of the schedule to the zone (or 12 m on a sloping site).     
Clause 43.02-2:  A permit is required to construct a building over 9.0m in height pursuant to schedule 11 of the overlay.   An 11.0m (3 storeys) maximum building height applies under the schedule to the DDO in Precinct E (or 12 m on a sloping site).     
Clause 52.02:  A permit is required to remove an easement.	
Land description	The site is located on the north western corner of Wilson and Male Streets, Brighton.  The site has an irregular configuration with a frontage to Wilson Street of 19.47m and to Male Street of 37.27m.  The site is currently occupied by a two storey Victorian era dwelling.  
The review site has direct residential abuttals to the north and south-west but is located within a neighbourhood that has a mixed character comprising residential and education uses, a place of worship, hospital, place of assembly, retail and leisure and recreational uses.  
The review site forms part of the Church Street Activity Centre being located on the north east boundary of Precinct E in DDO11.  Precinct E comprises the primarily residential area surrounding the activity centre.  The site is well located in policy terms and enjoys excellent access to public transport, commercial and recreational facilities.  	

Reasons

1	This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to refuse to grant a permit for a three-storey apartment building at 56 Wilson Street, Brighton.  
2	The Council refused the application on the following grounds:
1)	Noncompliance with Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy-Clause 22.06, particularly in regard to:
•	Lack of garden setting and spaciousness
•	Provides a domineering impact on adjoining residential uses
•	Lack of suitable building materials
•	Inadequate response to the rhythm of the built form
2)	Various non-compliance with Rescode Standards including streetscape setback, side and rear setbacks, overlooking, walls on boundaries excessive front fence height
3)	Loss of a significant tree-the Magnolia Grandiflora in the front of the site
4)	Failure to provide adequate transition in built form to adjoining residential uses
3	After the Council refused the application, the proposal has been the subject to a compulsory conference, the preparation of amended plans and further consideration of the amended plans by the Council following the receipt of expert town planning, landscape and arboricultural evidence.  The town planning evidence recommends further changes to the amended plans.  
4	While the Council acknowledges that the amended plans are a significant improvement in terms of addressing the grounds of refusal, it remains opposed to the grant of a permit.  The Council also supports the further changes recommended by the applicant’s witness but submits that these further changes do not go far enough.  The Council remains opposed to the removal of the Magnolia Grandiflora.  
5	Having considered the submissions and the evidence I have concluded that the proposal represented in the amended plans and further modified in accordance with the recommendations of the applicant’s town planning witness, is acceptable.  
6	My reasons for granting a permit are set out below.  

background
7	The application was the subject of a compulsory conference conducted on 25 May 2020.  The applicant for review at the compulsory conference tabled without prejudice amended plans and foreshadowed an intention to amend the application by substituting the application plans generally in accordance with the without prejudice plans.  
8	With the consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that amended plans be filed and served in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice note PNPE9 and that the hearing will be conducted on the papers on 23 July 2020.  The Tribunal issued Orders about the circulation of submissions, witness statements and submissions in reply.  
9	Amended plans have been filed and served in accordance with the Tribunal’s Orders, and I have substituted those plans for the application plans.  
10	The amended plans retain the height, scale and form of the proposal represented in the original application but incorporate a series of detailed design changes that address compliance issues with various Clause 55 standards, amends the materials schedule and addresses concerns about overlooking.  
11	Following the circulation of the amended plans, I have received a submission and expert witness statements from the applicant for review, a submission from the Council and submissions in reply from both parties. 
What are the issues
12	In response to the circulation of the amended plans, the Council considers that those plans represent a significant improvement in terms of responding to the Grounds of Refusal.   The Council however remains opposed to the grant of a permit because of the following two outstanding issues:  
i.	the loss of a significant tree, and 
ii.	the adequacy of the front setbacks from both a Rescode standard B6 and DDO11 perspective.
13	The Council is also supportive of the further changes to the substituted plans recommended by the town planning evidence submitted by the applicant for review.  These recommended changes are summarised below:
•	The second floor balcony/terrace area adjacent to the family room of apartment 201 reduced in depth by 1.3m to line up with the north east facing firs floor window of 65 Male Street.
•	The depth of north west first floor window hoods reduced from 700mm to 400mm.
•	The depth of the blade on the north east edge of the balcony to apartment 101 reduced from 700mm to 400mm. 
14	The Council submits however that the recommended changes should only be regarded as a starting point, and that they do not adequately address the Council’s concerns about the proposal’s overtly dominant presentation in the streetscape.  
15	The Council also remains opposed to the removal of the Magnolia Grandiflora in the front of the site which is a tree included on the Council’s Significant Tree Register.  While approval for the removal of the tree is required to be obtained under a Council local law, no permit is required for its removal under the planning scheme.  
findings
16	In relation to the current proposal planning policy framework seeks to:
•	Encourage residential consolidation of established urban areas;
•	Facilitate residential and commercial development in existing activity centres and where good access to public transport exists;
•	Encourage the design of energy efficient buildings;
•	Ensure that development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character;
•	Ensure that development improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing;
•	Achieve high quality urban design and architecture that reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community;
•	Encourage the provision housing to accommodate future housing needs and preferences of the local community;
•	protect existing trees and ensure the creation of an appropriate landscape setting for development including opportunities for the planting canopy trees;
17	The site is well located in policy terms and enjoys excellent access to public transport, commercial and recreational facilities.  The review site forms part of the Church Street Activity Centre, being located on the north east boundary of Precinct E in DDO11.   DDO11 sets out the objectives and built form outcomes encouraged for the Church Street activity centre and the surrounding residential area.  Precinct E applies to those residential areas and its provisions contemplate development of sites up to a maximum of 11.0m and three storeys.    
18	 The development of the site as proposed accords with the direction provided by the planning scheme for the Church Street Activity Centre and surrounding area.   
19	There is no dispute between the parties in relation to these matters.  I agree with the parties about the proposal’s acceptability in terms of its response to strategic direction provided by the planning scheme.  I am also satisfied that the proposal does not give rise to unacceptable amenity impacts.  The proposal also provides an acceptable level on amenity for future residents. 
20	Having regard to the above, it is appropriate that the balance of my findings focus on the issues that are in dispute between the parties.  
The removal of the signficicant tree. 
21	The Magnolia Grandiflora located close to the review site’s front boundary is included on the Council’s Significant Tree Register which is managed under the Council’s Local Law No.2.  Under that Local Law an application to remove a tree from the register is required to be assessed against nominated criteria.  An application to remove a tree from the register must be considered by the Council at an ordinary meeting of the Council.  
22	The tree has not been removed from the Register and Council has not received an application to remove the tree from the Register.  
23	The tree is not protected by any provision of the planning scheme such as a Heritage Overlay, Vegetation Protection Overlay or the like. A planning permit is not required to remove the tree.  The fact that an approval is required under a local law is a matter that the Council is required to resolve when an application is made to remove the tree from the Register.  It is not necessary for me to concern myself with the Council’s deliberations under the Local Law.  The Local Law sets up a process that is separate to the planning permit process and the applicant in this case will be required to obtain separate approval under the Local Law.  
24	 In relation to the matters that are relevant to my decision, the granting of a permit for the proposed development will necessitate the removal of the tree.  The tree does contribute to the character of the area and its removal will have an impact in this respect.  
25	I am satisfied however that the removal of the tree is acceptable because: 
•	An expert witness statement filed by the applicant contains an arboriculutral assessment of all vegetation on the site.  In relation to the Magnolia Grandiflora the witness concludes that the tree is now fully past its Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) for the site and is not viable with a current SULE of less than 3-5 years.  The unequivocal evidence is that because of the tree’s declining health, the tree should be removed.  
•	The arboricultural evidence is undisputed.  The Council’s arborist does not oppose the removal of the tree. Because of the tree’s declining health and very limited SULE, any contribution the tree may have made to the character of the neighbourhood can no longer be relied on.  
•	The landscape evidence filed by the applicant accompanied by the landscape concept plan demonstrates that the loss of the tree can be adequately compensated for by the proposed landscape treatment.  The relevant design objective of DDO11 to maintain a strong landscape character with residential buildings set within vegetated front gardens and streetscapes in the residential precincts is achieved to an acceptable degree.  
•	Having regard to the review site’s inclusion in the Church Street Activity Centre and the application of the DDO11 to the site and the surrounding area, it is self-evident that development within this precinct in accordance with the planning scheme’s provisions will facilitate a change in the built form and landscape character of the area.  Any assessment of the impact of the tree’s loss on the character of the neighbourhood must be undertaken in that context and must be balanced against the proposal’s contribution to the achievement of the planning scheme’s objectives in relation to housing diversity.  A balanced assessment of the proposal leads me to conclude that removal of the tree is acceptable.    
Built form considerations
26	The Council’s concerns about the proposal’s built form response to the site’s physical context and the preferred character of the neighbourhood, are set out in detail in its original submission.  In broad terms it submits that standard B6 of Clause 55 is not met and therefore the relevant objective of Clause 55.03-1 is not achieved.  While the noncompliance (of 540mm) is largely confined to the ground floor, the building’s presentation in the streetscape is strongly and, in the Council’s submission, unacceptably influenced by the prominence of the large protruding concrete balconies  at upper levels and architectural features which extend into the setback.  
27	Additionally, DDO11 contains a provision that states that in residential precincts buildings should be set back in accordance with the relevant Clauses 54 and 55 standards except that the second floor should be set back a minimum of 4 metres behind the front wall of the floor immediately below, unless the second floor is an attic.
28	The Council submits that the first floor of the proposal is setback 8m (7.992) which complies with standard B6.  Compliance with DDO11 necessitates a setback of 12m (11.992m) at the top level but the proposed setback is 9.97m with the prominent balcony protruding 4.0m forward of the front wall.  
29	The Council acknowledges that the design represents one approach to reducing (in relative terms), the visual prominence of the upper level of the building, but it submits in doing so, the design  imposes  large, bulky projecting architectural elements to create  solid balconies and screening well inside the usual front setback area. The visual impact is, in the Council’s submission, compounded by the balustrade and screening treatment wrapping around the front and Male Street elevations to produce a further protruding form.
30	It is the Council’s submission that the combined impact of the above is to create a very strong overt architectural treatment that draws the eye that will dominate the adjoining residential properties to the north and south west and the streetscape in general. 
31	The Council suggests that an acceptable outcome for the site would incorporate the following:
•	The lower part of the front should be setback almost 8 metres from the front
•	The top level should be setback a further 2 metres, and
•	The projecting elements forward of the front walls need to be reduced in size, prominence and materials to better fit in with the character of the area.
32	The town planning witness statement filed by the applicant provides a comprehensive analysis of the proposal’s built form response to the site’s physical and strategic context.  The evidence recommends some additional changes to the proposal that I have outlined above.  
33	The Council’s submission in reply states that the recommended changes are supported and the setting back of the Second- floor terrace highlights the concerns expressed in its submission about the visual massing of the protruding front balconies and blade into the setback and the non- compliance with upper level front wall under DDO11. The Council maintains its submission that the setbacks should be further increased meet Standard B6 (ground floor) and DDO11 in relation to the second floor.
34	The proposal as represented in the substituted plans achieves an acceptable response to the site’s physical and strategic context and, other than those further changes recommended by the applicant’s town planning witness, I am not persuaded that the additional setbacks sought by the Council are necessary to achieve an acceptable outcome.  
35	My findings are informed by the character of the neighbourhood which is best described as mixed, comprising a diversity of residential and education uses, a place of worship, hospital, place of assembly, retail, leisure and recreational uses.  Additionally, the built form character of the neighbourhood is somewhat eclectic.  Building styles are diverse, high front fences are common and the street setback pattern along both Wilson Street and Males Streets is not uniform.  The planning evidence filed by the applicant detailed several examples of developments in the vicinity of the site that have front setbacks that are less than 7m.  In this context adherence to quantifiable standards is not necessary to achieve an acceptable outcome that responds to both the objective of Clause 55.03-1 and DDO11.  
36	In my view the design approach adopted by the applicant is acceptable. The objective of Clause 55.03-1 is met because the proposal makes efficient use of the site in an area in which the planning scheme encourages change to the built form character of the area as part of a broader policy objective to increase housing diversity on well located sites.  I have commented previously that the proposed setbacks are sufficient to ensure that  meaningful landscaping can be provided and this, combined with the articulation and architectural detailing of the proposal ensure that the visual impact of the building when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties is acceptable.  
37	Having regard to my findings about the Magnolia Grandiflora, an increased setback to Wilson Street is not required to retain vegetation in the front setback.
38	In terms of the upper level setbacks the DDO11 objective of encouraging recessed upper levels is achieved by the proposal.  The balconies successfully disguise the positioning of the upper level and while I acknowledge that they will be visually prominent, they are acceptable having regard to this site’s physical and strategic context discussed above.   
other matters
39	I am satisfied that the proposal does not contribute to unacceptable amenity impacts.  The proposal demonstrates generous compliance with relevant amenity standards of Clause 55.  Subject to the adoption of the recommendations of the applicant’s town planning witness (outlined above), I am satisfied that the proposal’s visual bulk impacts are acceptable having regard to this site’s physical and strategic context, and to the nature of the review site’s interfaces with its direct abuttals.  
conclusion
40	It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit issued. 
41	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.

Laurie Hewet 
Senior Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No:	5/2019/2191	
Land:	56 Wilson Street
BRIGHTON VIC  3186	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of a three storey multi-dwelling building over a basement car park including a front fence in excess of 1.5 metres in height in the General Residential Zone Schedule 2;
•	Construct a building with a height more than 9 metres, in the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11;
•	Removal of an easement under Clause 52.02 Easements, Restrictions and Reserves

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 Amended Plans prepared by Ewert Leaf referenced TP-021E, TP-024E, TP500E,TP-029E, TP100E, TP101E, TP-000E, TP-010E, TP-011E,TP-020E,TP-022E, TP-023E, TP-025E, TP-026E, TP-027E, TP-028E, TP150E,TP-400E, TP-401E, TP-402E, TP-900E, TP-901E- but modified to show:
(a)	The second floor balcony/terrace area adjacent to the family room of apartment 201 reduced in depth by 1.3m to line up with the north east facing firs floor window of 65 Male Street.
(b)	The depth of north west first floor window hoods reduced from 700mm to 400mm.
(c)	The depth of the blade on the north east edge of the balcony to apartment 101 reduced from 700mm to 400mm.  
(d)	Demonstration that the all north-western and south-western facing habitable room windows and private open space complies with Standard B22 (Overlooking) and Standard B23 (Internal views) of the Bayside Planning Scheme.  
(e)	Demonstration that the proposal complies with Standard B41 (Accessibility), Standard B44 (Storage), Standard B46 (Functional Layout), Standard B47 (Room depth), Standard B48 (Windows) and Standard B49 (Natural Ventilation) of the Bayside Planning Scheme. 
(f)	A turning diagram to be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer to demonstrate the proposed access and egress of both residents’ vehicles and waste collection vehicles complies with Clause 52.06-8 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
(g)	A longitudinal section of the proposed ramp to show all grades, length of grades, levels and headroom of 2.1m in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Bayside Planning Scheme. 
(h)	The driveway/ramp where it intersects with the footpath on Male Street to have a minimum 0.8m offset from the south-western property boundary.
(i)	Provision of bollard lighting to be provided to the communal pedestrian path to the building entry. 
(j)	A new 2.0 metre high paling fence along the common side boundary with No. 54 Wilson Street.
(k)	A revised schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (incorporating for example paint samples). 
(l)	An updated Water Sensitive Urban Design measures in accordance with Condition 8 of this permit. 
(m)	A Landscaping Plan in accordance with Condition 10 of this permit. 
(n)	A Tree Management Report in accordance with Condition 13 of this permit. 
(o)	Development contribution in accordance with Condition 20 of this permit. 
(p)	Car Park Management Plan in accordance with Condition 21 of this permit. 
(q)	Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 22 of this permit. 
(r)	Public Realm Improvement Plan in accordance with Condition 25 of this permit. 
(s)	A locational sewer plan to the satisfaction of South East Water in accordance with Condition 28.
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 John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, job dated 23 June 2020 and be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
(a)	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.
(b)	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. 
(c)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees and shrubs, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. 
(d)	Landscaping and/or planting within all areas of the site not covered by buildings or hard surfaces.
(e)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
(f)	Any development changes as listed under Condition 1 of the permit. 
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 Report
13	Before the development starts, including any related demolition or removal of vegetation, a Tree Management Report (TMR), prepared by a suitably qualified arborist, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. This report must be made available to all relevant parties involved with the site.
The Tree Management Report must include a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of Tees on Development Sites.
Both the TMR & TPP must be part of one document that must be named as the Tree Management Report (TMR):
The TMR must include:
(a)	Details of Tree Protection Zones, as per AS4970-2009, 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)	Protection measures to be utilised and at what stage of the development they will be implemented;
(c)	Appointment of a project arborist detailing their role and responsibilities;
(d)	Stages of development at which the project arborist will inspect tree protection measures and;
(e)	Monitoring and certification by the project arborist of implemented protection measures 
The TPP must:
(a)	Be legible, accurate and drawn to scale
(b)	Show the location of all tree protection measures to be utilised and;
Include a key describing all tree protection measures to be utilised
14	Any modification to the report must be approved by the project arborist.  Such approval must be noted and provided to the Responsible Authority within seven days. 
15	All actions and measures identified in the Tree Management Report must be implemented.
16	Before any works associated with the approved development, the contact details of the project arborist responsible for implementing the endorsed Tree Management Report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
Street tree protection
17	Soil excavation must not occur within 2 metres from the edge of the Ulmus Parvifolia street tree (Wilson Street) asset’s stem at ground level. 
18	A tree protection fence is for the protection of a tree’s canopy and root zone. Conditions for street tree protection fencing during development are as follows:
(a)	Fencing is to be secured and maintained prior to demolition and until all site works are complete. 
(b)	Fencing must be installed to comply with AS4970-2009, Protection of trees on development sites. 
(c)	Fencing should encompass the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for all street trees adjacent to the development.
(d)	Fencing is to be constructed and secured so its positioning cannot be modified by site workers. 
(e)	If applicable, prior to construction of the Council approved crossover, TPZ fencing may be reduced to the edge of the new crossover to facilitate works. 
19	Prior to soil excavation for a Council approved crossover within the TPZ, a trench must be excavated along the line of the crossover adjacent to the tree using root sensitive non-destructive techniques. All roots that will be affected by must correctly pruned. 
20	Any installation of services and drainage within the TPZ must be undertaken using root sensitive non-destructive techniques. 
Drainage
21	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.
22	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 Infrastructure Assets Department.
23	Council Stormwater drainage is for surface rainwater, no water below the Ground Water Table is accepted into the Council Stormwater system. Only occasional, clean, uncontaminated seepage water (associated with a rain event) is accepted to an appropriate Council underground drain OR this subterranean water must be suitably retained on-site. 
Development Contribution Levy
24	Before the development starts, 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 Contributions Levy Charge Sheet and it must include the Building Price Index applicable.
Car Park Management Plan
25	Before the development starts, a car parking management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Traffic and parking operations on and adjacent to the site must conform to this endorsed plan. The plan must include:
(a)	Allocation of parking for all dwellings which requires at all times a minimum of one car space for a one or two bedroom dwelling and a minimum of two car spaces for a dwelling with three or more bedrooms.
(b)	Any signs and/or line marking of car parking spaces within the basement.
(c)	Provision and maintenance of a suitable lighting/warning system at the entrance of the building and within basement car park areas to control access/egress at the accessway entry.
Waste Management Plan
26	Before the endorsement of plans, the Waste Management Plan prepared by MGA, must be revised in accordance with any amendments as listed under Condition 1 and submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must clearly indicate that waste collection is to be via a private contractor, not Council, and include:
(a)	Dimensions of storage waste areas.
(b)	Storm water drains in storage areas should be fitted with a litter trap.
(c)	The number and size of bins to be provided.
(d)	Facilities for bin cleaning.
(e)	Method of waste and recyclables collection.
(f)	Types of waste for collection, including colour coding and labelling of bins.
(g)	Hours of waste and recyclables collection (to correspond with Council Local Laws and EPA Noise Guidelines).
(h)	Method of hard waste collection. 
(i)	Method of presentation of bins for waste collection.
(j)	Sufficient headroom within the basement to accommodate waste collection vehicles.
(k)	Sufficient turning circles for the waste collection vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.
(l)	Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables will be minimised.
(m)	Compliance with relevant policy, legislation and guidelines. 
When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Construction Management Plan
27	Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but not be limited to, the following as applicable:
(a)	A detailed schedule of works including a full project timing.
(b)	A traffic management plan for the site, including when or whether any access points would be required to be blocked, an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services, preferred routes for trucks delivering to the site, queuing/sequencing, excavation and swept-path diagrams. 
(c)	The location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles during construction.
(d)	Delivery of materials including times for loading/unloading, unloading points, expected frequency and details of where materials will be stored and how concrete pours would be managed.
(e)	Proposed traffic management signage indicating any inconvenience generated by construction.
(f)	Fully detailed plan indicating where construction hoardings would be located.
(g)	A waste management plan including the containment of waste on site: disposal of waste, stormwater treatment and on-site facilities for vehicle washing.
(h)	Containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of clean up procedures in the event of build-up of matter outside the site.	
(i)	Site security.	
(j)	Public safety measures.	
(k)	Construction times, noise and vibration controls.	
(l)	Restoration of any Council assets removed and/or damaged during construction.
(m)	Protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonable proximate to the site).	
(n)	Remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site).	
(o)	An emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experience.
(p)	Traffic management measures to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2009 Manual of uniform traffic control devices – Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads.
(q)	All contractors associated with the construction of the development must be made aware of the requirements of the Construction Management Plan.
(r)	Details of crane activities, if any.
Services
28	All basic services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage, telephone, NBN and cable TV but excluding any substation, meters or hydrants, to the site must be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the relevant servicing authority and the Responsible Authority.
Public Realm Improvement Plan 
29	Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Public Realm Improvement Plan must be prepared and developed in collaboration with Council’s Statutory Planning Department. It must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, showing: 
(a)	The upgrade of the existing Council footpaths on Wilson Street.
(b)	The new or upgraded vehicle crossovers. 
(c)	Three new street tree plantings along Male Street. 
(d)	 New public lighting within the Wilson Street. 
(e)	The undergrounding of the powerlines, NBN and cable TV cables on the power poles directly in front of the site for the width of the site.
When approved, such plan will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit. 
Completion of Public Realm Improvements
30	Prior to the occupation of the site associated with the development hereby approved, all public works associated with that stage must be completed in accordance with the endorsed Public Works Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Council. The cost of all works associated with the endorsed plan must be borne by the developer/owner(s) of the land.
Public Transport Victoria 
31	The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus operation along Male Street Road is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to bus operations and mitigation measures must be communicated to Public Transport Victoria eight (8) weeks prior by telephoning 1800 800 007 or emailing costomerservice@ptv.vic.gov.au.
South-East Water Conditions
32	The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with South East Water for the provision of sewerage and fulfil all requirements to its satisfaction.  This must include the location of all new sewer connection points.
33	The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with South East Water for the provision of drinking water supply and fulfil all requirements to its satisfaction.
Permit Expiry
34	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 -