VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1091/2020
Permit Application no. PP-243-2018	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Greater Geelong Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone (GRZ1); proposed townhouse development; design response to planning requirements and neighbourhood character.	

APPLICANT	Arcibuilt Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Greater Geelong City Council 	
Referral Authorities 	Barwon Region Water Authority, Country Fire Authority, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority	
RESPONDENTs	Barry White and Lionel McWilliam	
SUBJECT LAND	48-58 Station Lake Road
LARA  VIC  3212	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	14  and 15 December 2020	
DATE OF ORDER	29 December 2020	
CITATION	Arcibuilt Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2020] VCAT 1460	

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:
a	Prepared by:	3T  Architecture	
b	Issue:	Revision Q	
c	Dated:	30.10.2020	
d	Landscape plan:	Landscape Concept Plan by HH Human Habitat dated 7.12.2020	
Permit granted
2	In application PP-243-2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application P1091/2020 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 48-58 Station Lake Road, LARA in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Development of seventeen (17) double storey dwellings and one (1) single storey dwelling and works in a Road Zone at 48-58 Station Lake Road, LARA; and 
•	Works in a Road Zone.

Christina Fong
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Rory O’Connor, solicitor, Hall & Wilcox. He called Travis Finlayson, town planner, to give expert evidence.	
For responsible authority	Louise Nunn, town planner, Louise Nunn Planning.	
For referral authority	No appearance	
For respondent	Barry White and Lionel McWilliam in person.	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of 17 attached double storey townhouse type dwellings and one single storey dwelling in three groups: seven double storey east-west oriented and facing Station Lake Road (TH1 to TH7), six double storey dwellings parallel to the front row and close to the southern boundary (TH8 to TH13), and five double storey  plus one single storey dwelling perpendicular to Station Lake Road (TH14 to TH17).
The dwelling type for the first group is reverse living with a double carport each. This means the private open space off the living rooms of these dwellings is by means of a first floor balcony. The second group is internal facing, with a garage and a tandem car space for each dwelling. Private open space of these dwellings is on the ground level and at the rear of the dwellings. The third group is also internal facing and constructed outside the defined flood line. Each of these dwellings has extensive private open space, which extends from the house to the rear boundary including the flood prone area.
The design of the development is contemporary and adopts a flat roof profile for all the dwellings.
Five visitor car spaces are provided. Vehicular access is from a single point almost at the middle of the Station Lake road frontage.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Greater Geelong Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone (GRZ1). Station Lake Road is in Road Zone Category 2. The public open space area along Hovells Creek is in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone.	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 for development of more than one dwelling.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 18, 21.02, 21.04, 21.06, 21.13, 55, and 65.  Amendment C395 is an amendment currently before the Minister for approval, having gone through a planning scheme amendment process, including panel reporting and adoption by council.	
Land description	The land is located on the south side of Station Lake Road between Peak Street to the west and Hovells Creek to the east. It is comprised of three lots, with a total frontage of 124 metres, a depth of 48.2 metres, and a site area of nearly 6000 square metres. It has a fall from west to east towards Hovells Creek of about 6 metres. The eastern third of the land is subject to flooding from Hovells Creek.
Development in the street and immediate area west of Hovells Creek is primarily residential, with some dual occupancies. There is a four unit development at No. 40 Station Lake Road, a three unit development at No. 32, another four on the north side of Station Lake Road opposite the site. These developments are single storeys. A medical centre is located at the corner of Station Lake Road and Peak Street. At the rear of the land are single dwellings facing Bank Street, with their backyards abutting the southern boundary of the land.
The Lara town centre is located on the east side of Hovells Creek. The Lara Train Station is to the south east of the town centre.	
Tribunal inspection	19 December 2020, not accompanied by the parties.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This is a review against council’s refusal to grant a permit for a multi-dwelling development on a nearly 6000 square metre site. The grounds of refusal is extensive, relating to excessive density, reliance on motor transport, failure to retain the rural character of Lara, not providing diversity of housing types, not meeting several areas of clause 55, overdevelopment,  and design not consistent with the character of the area.
2	This refusal is contrary to council officer’s recommendation to approve subject to permit conditions. Condition 1 of this recommendation requires minor modifications to the design to ensure compliance with clause 55 standards.
3	I record formal leave granted to amend the application by substituting the plans filed and served in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Note. The Amended design is Version Q and the landscape plans dated 7 December 2020.
What are the key issues?
4	The key issues of this review are the design of the development, whether it is consistent with the current provisions (that is zoning and policies) and the seriously entertained Amendment C395, and whether this design is acceptable, given a previous Tribunal decision in 2011 on the site for a townhouse development.
design of development
5	The zoning of the land is General Residential Zone (GRZ1). The purpose of the zone, amongst others, is to encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area and diversity of housing types and growth particular for sites offering good access to transport and services. Maximum height under this zone is 11 metres, and higher if the land is on a slope.
6	The GRZ1 applies to residential areas described as ‘general residential area’. There are three GRZ in Greater Geelong. GRZ1 refers to ‘general residential area’, GRZ2 refers to ‘incremental change area’, and GRZ3 is specifically for a particular area: the Ocean Grove Hillside-Field Street South area where a specific neighbourhood character is nominated.
7	For the GRZ1 zone, which applies to the site, there is no variation to clause 55 standards. For the GRZ2 zone which applies to ‘incremental change area’, there are several variations, such as a lower height of 9 metres instead of 11 metres in the GRZ1, a larger area of private open space (60 metres with the secluded portion at 40 square metres and a minimum dimension of 5 metres) and where balcony or roof terrace is not counted as secluded private open space. GRZ3 for the Ocean Grove Hillside-Field Street South area also contains variations to clause 55 standards, such as lower site coverage, higher requirements for private open space, and specific neighbourhood character nominated. Below the GRZ is the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a zone where neighbourhood character takes on a more prominent role rather than increased housing intensity. 
8	This hierarchy of residential zones is a clear indication of the comparative intensity of development, from an opportunity for more intensive development in the GRZ1 to a lower intensity in the GRZ2 for incremental change area, and the GRZ3 zone which is to achieve a particular character. Of course, there are other residential zones which express in their provisions higher or lower intensity of development, such as Mixed Use and Residential Growth Zone for higher intensity, and Low Density Residential Zone for lower intensity.
9	As for planning policies, urban consolidation and respecting neighbourhood character are well known themes in the Planning Policy Framework section of the planning scheme. Policies in the Local Planning Policy Framework give the local context for development in Greater Geelong. Clause 21.06-3 (for urban consolidation) is about consolidation of existing urban areas. Strategies to achieve urban consolidation is to accommodate medium and high density housing in Key Development Areas and the Increased Housing Diversity areas, with appropriate medium density housing in the GRZ1. Development in the GRZ2 area is to be of an incremental nature, and limited change in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
10	Clause 21.06-4 regarding neighbourhood character acknowledges the evolving nature of the Increased Housing Diversity area, and development in the GRZ area should respect the existing neighbourhood character of the area.
11	Clause 21.13 specifically refers to Lara. This clause notes that Lara is a township designated for urban growth and is strategically located between Geelong and Melbourne with excellent road, seaport and airport links. Development in Lara is expected to maintain a compact urban form, to enhance the rural characteristics of Lara, and protect flood prone areas. It is policy to contain urban development within the defined settlement boundary in accordance with the Lara Structure Plan. In this plan, the site is within the ‘consolidation boundary’ and ‘settlement boundary’.
12	Clause 22.63 is the local policy for identified ‘increased housing diversity areas’. There is one such identified area in Lara, an area around the town centre and up to the Hovells Creek reserve, against which the review site abuts. Hovells Creek thus separates Lara’s housing diversity area and the site. For development in the ‘increased housing diversity area’, this policy recommends two and three storey development.
13	Another relevant consideration is Amendment C395, acknowledged by the parties to be a seriously entertained planning proposal. This amendment is to implement the City of Greater Geelong’s Settlement Strategy (2018) and the North and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan (2019). This amendment has completed the stages of planning scheme amendment in exhibition, submissions, panel hearing, adoption by council, and is currently before the Minister for approval, which has been the case since 27 August 2020.
14	Relevant to this review is the replacement of clause 21.06 with a new version. The new clause has specific recommendations for existing urban areas to deliver increased housing. The strategy is to focus housing diversity in the established areas in the Geelong urban area which includes Lara, and to contain growth in several Bellarine Peninsula townships in order to maintain the unique qualities of the peninsula. The new clause 21.06-2 recommends:
•	Direct the majority of future housing needs to urban Geelong (urban infill, Armstrong Creek and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas).
•	Reduce the shared of new housing development on the Bellarine Peninsula.
•	Ensure development occurs within designated settlement boundaries.
15	The new clause 21.06 contains a map, the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan. In this clause, the urban areas of Lara are identified to be within the Urban Geelong Settlement Boundary. The town centre and an area south of Station Lake Road east of Hovells Creek are identified as an area for high and medium density housing. This area is in the Residential Growth Zone in the planning scheme. Most of the established areas of Lara, including the site have been identified as ‘established urban areas’ and for ‘high and medium density housing’. The zoning of this area is the GRZ1.
16	In refusing the application, one of council’s arguments is that the density is not consistent with clause 21.06-3, and that the Settlement Strategy has specific description for housing density:
High density – 40+ dwellings per hectare
Medium density – 20 to 40 dwellings per hectare
Conventional density – 10-15 dwellings per hectare.
17	Based on these descriptions, council submits that the lot sizes of the proposed dwellings should be between 250 to 500 square metres, and notes that 13 of the dwellings have lot areas less than 200 square metres. 
18	It also argues that the land sits outside the Increased Housing Diversity Area in clause 22.63 and located more than 400 metres from the town centre, and 1.4 kilometres from the train station, which are not convenient walking distances. Ms. Lunn’s measurement is that the site is approximately 700 metres walking distance from the Lara Township, well outside the 400 metre threshold set by council within which greater density development is supported.
19	As for neighbourhood character, council submits that the existing and preferred character of the area is that of detached dwellings, generally single storey with front and rear setbacks and landscaping. Instead, she argues that the design challenges this character, due to:
•	Extent of attached built form across the Station Lake Road frontage;
•	Lack of articulation to break up the sense of bulk associated with the attached townhouses 1 to 7 as it presents to Station Lake Road;
•	Private open space located in the front setback, especially for townhouses 2 to 7 and facing the street;
•	Reduced front setbacks for dwellings 1 to 7;
•	Bulk and massing of TH14 to 18 when viewed from the east. The finished floor levels of these dwellings are also generally between 1 and 2 metres above ground level; and
•	The intensity of development failing to reinforce the rural characteristics of the town.
20	Respondents support council’s view. They described the attraction of Lara in its rural character, single storey character and single dwelling pattern in the town, which is not the character of the proposal. They suggest that the development should be no more than three to four single storey dwellings.
21	Regarding the dispute of whether the site is well located or within walking distance of the town centre, council’s measurement is 700 metres.  Council officer’s report nominated this distance as 360 metres and 1 km to the Lara Train Station. Mr. Finlayson, called to give planning evidence nominates a walking distance of 400 metre (to the edge of the Commercial 1 Zone of the town centre) and within 1 km radius of the train station (but 1.3 to 1.4 km walking distance). He demonstrated his measurements by using the Google Map app. 
22	What is beyond dispute is that the site is within a convenient access to the town centre and walking distance of the Lara Train Station. If someone is walking between the site and the town centre, the terrain is flat and the footpath on the south side of Station Lake Road well constructed. As for using the train station, there is an extensive parking area at the train station. Further, the Housing and Settlement Framework Plan in the new clause 21.06 identifies the site as an established urban area for high and medium density development, despite it falling outside the boundary of an Increased Housing Density area and not in the Residential Growth Zone. Further, land in the GRZ1 zone is not for an incremental change area, which is the GRZ2.
23	In understanding whether the design is acceptable, the Tribunal’s previous decision is relevant and informative. In that decision, the Tribunal approved a townhouse type development comprising of three groups of double storey attached dwellings. The built form of that development is similar to the current proposal. The number of dwellings is higher at 26, with the part of the land subject to flooding also built on.
24	In that decision, the planning circumstances are similar: the zoning of the land was General Residential 1 at the time and the site was outside the Increased Housing Density area. The Tribunal made a finding that the site being just outside the boundary of an increased Housing Diversity area “does not result in a prohibition on medium density development”. It notes that the site has excellent access to the town centre located around 500 metres away to the east and the train station is within walking distance.  The Tribunal observed that:
… In the case of Lara, its designation in the Planning Scheme as one of the primary urban growth areas within the municipality provides a very strong message that significant change is to be expected. …………….. Although this development has a different character to the mainly single storey dwellings in the area, there is nothing inherently wrong with constructing double storey dwellings in an attached form, and I do not accept that policy prevents the approval of such a development.
25	Amendment C395 further strengthens the development direction for Lara. The zoning of the land has changed from General Residential 1 to today’s GRZ1. GRZ1 clearly is for residential development that is more than incremental in nature, the rightful domain of the GRZ2. 
26	The revised 21.06 confirms the intention of medium density development for the site and the affirmation for increased intensity of development in the urban areas of Geelong in order to achieve the increased housing densities for the municipality and reduce the pressure of other townships in the Bellarine Peninsula.
27	As for neighbourhood character, there is no identified preferred character. The existing character of the immediate area is dominated by single dwellings and some medium density in single storey units. If to respect the existing character is to replicate this character, it would be a futile planning exercise to have all the strategies to achieve increased housing.
28	As for the rural character of Lara, my inspection of the site, including the drive from Melbourne to Lara, is one of open country and agricultural production beyond Werribee. There was grain harvesting on the day of inspection. As for the township of Lara, it still retains features of a country town. 
29	The township of Lara is not rural in the planning sense. The site and the township in general are in urban zones, such as Commercial Zone, Residential Growth Zone and GRZ1. My understanding is that Greater Geelong is trying very hard to maintain the open country ambience outside the urban areas by focussing development in established urban areas, a cornerstone of Amendment C395. Further, recent development has taken a suburban look in new housing. The traffic control measures in traffic lights and roundabouts are now part of Lara.
30	The design of the proposal is compact and different from the existing building stock in the area. To look the same as promoted by the parties would be a roadblock to innovation and architectural expressions. Similar to the Tribunal’s view in the previous design, which is also for an attached format and flat roof, I find the built form of the design acceptable.
31	The only area where I would seek a modification is the setback of TH1 and TH2, the dwellings closest the house at No. 46 (set back at 6.76 metres). The proposed setback is 6.5 metres which is short of the recommendation of standard B6. There will be a permit condition requiring the setback of these two dwellings to be no less than 6.76 metres and in accordance with standard B6 of clause 55.03-1.
32	If the zoning of the land is different, such as GRZ2 or Neighbourhood Residential Zone, I would agree that the proposed built form is not a transitional or moderate increase in intensity. 
33	As for the interface of the development against its immediate neighbours, the setbacks of the development meet standard B17 against No. 46 Station Lake Road. The interface with the backyards of the Bank Street dwellings (from Nos. 47 to 59 Bank Street) are the backyards of TH8 to TH13, and the single storey built form of TH18 from the backyard of No. 55 to 57 Bank Street. This is appropriate.
34	As for the interface with the eastern boundary for Dwellings TH14 to TH18, these dwellings are deeply setback from the eastern boundary and the Hovells Creek reserve. These setbacks vary from over 53 metres for TH13 to 34 metres for TH18. These deep setbacks are necessary for the development to keep clear of the flood prone part of the land. These deep setbacks and the proposed landscaping along the eastern boundary of the land would assist in reducing the visibility and built form when viewed from the linear corridor that is the Hovells Creek reserve. 
35	A landscape concept plan is part of the package of substituted plans. The proposed row of trees along the northern boundary and eastern boundary are appropriate in softening and screening the development when viewed from the road and the creek corridor. This landscaping adds to the landscaping qualities of the mature Peppercorn trees lining Station Lake Road. 
36	In all, I am satisfied that the scale and building massing of the development is consistent with the intensity of development designated in the planning scheme for the site.
clause 55 performance
37	Clause 55 is the assessment tool for medium density development. Council officer report and Mr. Finlayson’s report contain an assessment of the proposal against clause 55. I have dealt with the issue of street setback, for which I will be requiring TH1 and TH2 to be setback in line with the front setback of No. 46. Other than that, the proposal meets all the standards of clause 55, subject to adjustments as expressed in permit conditions.
Are there any other issues?
38	Respondents raised issues of increase in traffic in the area, which they described as already congested. They also expressed safety concerns for pedestrians, a lack of surveys carried out to reflect the real traffic conditions of Station Lake Road and the service roads, and the problems of flooding, such as those in 1988 and 2009. 
39	With regard to traffic, council submits that Station Lake Road is able to accommodate the traffic associated with the development, and that its traffic engineers had no objection to the development. However, it remains concerned that the location of the site, being 700 metres to the Lara Township and 1.4 km from the train station, is a scenario that residents are likely to drive to these facilities.
40	The development relies on its access from Station Lake Road. Station Lake Road is a main road in the Road Zone Category 2. This is a road where traffic, including through traffic is channelled through. Unless it can be demonstrated that this road and the local road system is unable to handle the traffic or confirmed by the local traffic management authority, which is council, I cannot conclude that the development should be refused on the grounds of traffic volume. I note that there is only one access point into and out of the development rather than multiple access points which would cause multiple points of conflict and disruptions, and that all traffic can exit the site in a forward manner. This arrangement is superior to multiple entry/conflict points and the propensity to need to reverse into the road similar to most of the single dwellings fronting the Station Lake Road service road.
41	Regarding flooding, the site is not affected by an overlay specifically to manage flooding, such as an Inundation Overlay or a Special Building Overlay. Both council and applicant are aware of the flooding issue. The application was referred to the floodway management authority, which is the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA). This authority offered no objection but recommended several permit conditions. These conditions have been included in the permit.
42	Apart from the CCMA, the application was also referred to Barwon Water, the CFA, and DELWP, who did not object. Further, approval has been obtained regarding a Cultural Heritage Management Plan.
What conditions are appropriate?
43	Council’s without prejudice conditions have been considered, and the applicant made suggestions to changes. Council did not object to the changes, which reflect changes achieved by the plans substituted at the hearing and proposed landscaping. I have adopted these conditions.
Conclusion
44	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A in this order.

Christina Fong
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PP-243-2018 	
Land	48-58 Station Lake Road, LARA	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Development of seventeen double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling; and
•	Works in a Road Zone. 	

Amended Plans Required
1	Prior to the commencement of the development, 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 must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted (Project No. 106-2019 Version Q dated 30 October 2020 - Sheets TP01 –TP013 by T3 Architecture Pty Ltd), but modified to show:
(a)	The front setbacks of TH1 and TH2 to meet standard B6 of clause 55.03-1.
(b)	The changes shown on updated plans TP003 and TP006, Revision R dated 27 November 2020 by T3 Architecture Pty Ltd. 
(c)	The proposed accessway adjacent to Dwelling 8 setback 1.7m from the west boundary (outside the 2m Tree Protection Zone of Tree group 10) and widened on the south side to accommodate vehicle egress from Dwelling 1 garage.
(d)	Screening devices to limit overlooking habitable room windows and/or private open space of adjoining dwellings to the following areas:
i	Dwelling 1 west facing upper storey windows.
(e)	Ground floor site plan corrected to show Dwelling 18 low-set kitchen window (as shown on the elevation plans).
(f)	Details of all boundary retaining walls (height and dimensions) annotated on the plans to show a minimum 1.8m high fence along the west and south boundaries to prevent overlooking of adjoining private open space.
(g)	Gate to Dwelling 17 realigned to access the common accessway.
(h)	Dwelling 6 and 7 Bedroom 1 with windows clear to the sky and access to courtyard for Dwelling 7.
(i)	All water tanks and Dwelling 14, 16 and 18 storage moved outside the flood prone area.
(j)	Dwelling 1 (TH1) correctly labelled on the west elevations.
(k)	All trees and Tree Protection Zones in accordance with the Tree Protection Management Plan required by condition 5.  
Endorsed Plan
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 
Landscape Plan
3	Prior to the works commencing, a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified or experienced, person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan(s) must be generally in accordance with the concept landscape plan submitted (Job No. 10173 by Human Habitats, received by City of Greater Geelong 31 October 2019) but modified to show:
4	The changes shown on the updated landscape plans prepared by Human Habitats, Revision E dated 7 December 2020.
5	Landscaping and structures (e.g. fencing and letterboxes) in the areas 2 metres along the frontage to Station Lake Road from the edges of the common accessway and 2.5 metres along the accessway/driveways from the Station Lake Road frontage less than 900mm (including plant heights at maturity) to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath.
6	When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7	The landscape planting must be maintained and replaced as necessary for a period of 24 months from planting to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Tree Protection Management Plan
8	Prior to the commencement of works a Tree Protection Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified Arborist and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The Tree Protection Management Plan must address all council, privately owned trees and trees owned by other parties that may be impacted upon during the works (including roadworks). The plan must also include specific recommendations for the management of the following trees:
9	Tree 8 (including alterations to Dwelling 8 if required) to ensure the tree is not detrimentally affected by the proposal. 
10	Buildings (including sheds and water tanks) and works (including earthworks) within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 7.
DELWP does not support salvage and relocation. Once approved the Tree Protection Management Plan will form part of the Planning Permit. All recommended remedial actions being undertaken must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and Australian Standard 4970 – 2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites using qualified arboricultural staff to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and remain in place for the duration of the development.
Note
Unauthorised pruning works must not be undertaken without the consent of the Responsible Authority.  In the instance that minor pruning is anticipated the applicant must contact Council’s Parks Unit on 5272 4530 to lodge a request. Failure to adhere to this condition may result in the applicant being held fully liable for all costs associated with the following items:
•	Amenity Tree Value
•	Tree removal
•	Stump removal 
•	Offset replanting and re-establishment of a number of trees to be determined by the Responsible Authority
Street Tree Planting
11	Prior to the completion or occupation of the development (whichever is earlier), 12 new street tree(s) must be planted in the Station Lake Road reserve adjacent to the subject site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Note
•	All landscaping works (including street tree planting) within the street and/or reserve requires approval by Council’s Parks Unit. Please contact 5272 4530 to lodge a request.
Drainage Plans
12	Prior to the commencement of the development, a Site Storm Water Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. A suitably experienced Civil Consulting Engineer must prepare the document, and when approved it shall form part of this permit. The plan must include, but is not limited to, detailed hydrological, hydraulic and water quality treatment analysis and site flooding.
Stormwater Quality / Management
13	The site stormwater system must be designed and installed such that:   
(a)	The site stormwater discharge is not increased by the proposed development. An appropriate on-site detention system designed in accordance with the Infrastructure Design Manual may be required; 
(b)	Runoff is to be treated to achieve current best practice pollutant removal targets by connection to an appropriate Water Treatment Facility, with capacity to treat at least a 3 month ARI storm event, unless approved otherwise by the Responsible Authority. The Water Treatment Facility must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
To the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
Engineering Plans
14	Prior to the commencement of the development, detailed road and drainage construction plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Consulting engineer must show that the design complies with the requirements of the Infrastructure Design Manual and any other relevant standards. The Plans must include, but not limited to:
(a)	Proposed roadworks.
(b)	Footpath along the Station Lake Road Frontage of the property. Footpath is to be shown connecting into the existing footpath network.
(c)	Any drainage works external to the site.
Construction Management Plan
15	Prior to commencement of any construction on this site, a detailed Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  This plan must detail the following:
(a)	overall environmental objectives for construction and techniques for their achievement relating to stormwater, pollution and runoff.
(b)	procedures to ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur as a result of construction.
(c)	identification of possible risks of operational failure and response measures to be implemented.
(d)	Prior to the removal of Tree 17, the tree must be examined by a suitably qualified zoologist. If native fauna species are located, they must be salvaged and relocated to the closest suitable vegetation.
When approved this Construction Management Plan shall form part of this permit as it relates to the development.
16	All development and works must be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan required by the above condition and endorsed under this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Pump System
17	Unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority and prior to the Commencement of the Development, the land owner must enter an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. All costs associated with setting up the agreement must be borne by the land owner. The agreement is to be registered on title and run with the land, and is to provide to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	All storm water runoff is to be collected on site and discharged to the legal point of discharge using a pump system or as otherwise nominated by the responsible authority. The pump system is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard 3500 Part 3.2 Section 9 
(b)	In the event of any operational difficulties with the pump system, it is the Responsibility of the land owner to rectify these difficulties;
(c)	Any pump system is to be replaced by gravity discharge if and when available, and if directed by the Responsible Authority, at the land owner’s full cost.
(d)	Provision is made (if appropriate) in any subdivision for Body Corporate drainage works, and access to those drainage works to be on common property or within an easement in favour of the Body Corporate
Note: 
Where the legal point of discharge is kerb and channel, discharge velocity at the kerb must be no greater than 1.5 m/s with a maximum discharge flow rate of 10 l/s and the outlet directed at an angle of 45 degrees to the direction of flow in the kerb and channel.
Waste Management Plan 
18	The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
Prior to the Completion/Occupation of the Development
19	Prior to the occupation or completion of the development (whichever is earlier), the developer must:
(a)	Construct the site stormwater system including separate connections for each unit into a common drain located within the accessway with an outlet to the existing junction pit adjacent to Hovells Creek, or other nominated point/s as approved by the Responsible Authority. The stormwater connection must be in accordance with City of Greater Geelong Standard Drawings.
(b)	Construct vehicular crossings in accordance with the requirements and standards of the City of Greater Geelong. 
(c)	Remove any redundant vehicular crossings with kerb and channel and the footpath/nature strip area reinstated to match existing construction in the street;
(d)	Construct and drain the common property accessway and car parking areas in accordance with the endorsed plans;
(e)	Clean and finish all external walls on boundaries;
(f)	Complete all buildings and works and landscaping in accordance with the endorsed plans
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Installation and Maintenance of Screening
20	Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
21	There must be no access through or storage of materials on the adjoining council reserve (Hovells Creek) at any time during the construction period.
22	There is to be a maximum of one (1) access gate for each of the dwellings installed on the fence adjoining the council reserve (Hovells Creek). This gate must be no more than one (1) metre wide and open inward into the subject land.
CFA CONDITIONS
23	Reticulated Water Supply
(a)	Operable hydrants, above or below ground must be provided to satisfaction of CFA;
(b)	The maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all building envelopes (or in the absence of the building envelope, the rear of all lots) must be 120m and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart; and
(c)	Hydrants must be identified as specified in ‘Identification of Street Hydrants for Firefighting Purposes’ available under publications on the Country Fire Authority web site (www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/guides)
24	Roads
(a)	An unobstructed trafficable road, minimum 4m wide and with 4m height clearance must be provided to allow access by fire and emergency vehicles to every part of the allotment;
(b)	The road pavements must have a minimum load of 15 tonnes; and 
(c)	Curves in driveway must have a minimum radius of 9 metres.
CCMA CONDITIONS
25	The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling must be no lower than 7.9 to Australian Height Datum (AHD). (300 mm above the flood level).
26	The finished floor level of the proposed garage must be no lower than 7.75 to Australian Height Datum (AHD). (150 mm above the flood level).
27	Any fencing within the floodplain must be of an open style that would not obstruct the conveyance of flood water across the property and will not trap flood debris.
28	There must be no filling or raising of ground levels within the mapped 1% AEP flood extent without the prior consent of the responsibly Authority.
29	The proposed decking must be constructed with unenclosed foundations to allow for the free passage of floodwaters.
EXPIRY
30	This permit as it relates to the development of buildings will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development has not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
(b)	The development has not commenced within four (4) years of the date of this permit
31	The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires; or
(a)	Within six (6) months after the permit expires where the development has not yet started; or
(b)	Within twelve (12) months after the permit expires, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully commenced before the permit expiry.
			
-	End of Conditions -