VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1419/2020
Permit Application no.PA2019/6853/1 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, neighbourhood character, built form response	

Applicant	Realty Projects Pty Ltd	

Respondent	Melton City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	8 Vinko Court
PLUMPTON VIC 3335	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	

DATE OF HEARING	23 June 2021	

DATE OF ORDER	16 July 2021	

CITATION	Realty Projects Pty Ltd v Melton CC [2021] VCAT 766	
Order
1	Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the application is amended by changing the name of the applicant to:
Realty Projects Pty Ltd
2	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:
Realty Projects Pty Ltd  
3	In application P1419/2020 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
4	In planning permit application PA2019/6853/1 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 8 Vinko Court, Plumpton  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of ten, two storey dwellings in the Urban Growth Zone – Schedule 1

K Birtwistle
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr A Gray, town planner of GrayKinnane	
For Melton City Council	Ms A Tansley, solicitor of Harwood Andrews	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of 10 two storey dwellings, each comprising an open plan kitchen, dining and living room, and three bedrooms.  Each dwelling is provided with an attached double garage.  The maximum building height is 7.7 metres.
The dwellings are located in two rows with a centralised accessway with six dwellings located on the western side of the access and four dwellings located on the eastern side.  
Materials and finishes include face brickwork, timber-look cladding and render and concrete roof tiles.  	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Melton Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Urban Growth Zone – Schedule 1 (UGZ1) – Applied zone General Residential Zone (GRZ)
Development Contributions Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (DCPO1)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the GRZ	
Land description	The site is located on the south west corner of Vinko Court and Hawking Crescent, Fraser Rise.  The lot is an irregular allotment with a large front splayed area which faces the adjoining Hawking Crescent.  It is irregular in shape with a maximum depth of 73.35 metres and total area of 2,012 square metres. Its frontage is irregular with a total length 35 metres.  The site has a minimal slope generally from north east to south west of  less than 1 metre, and is currently vacant.  The site is within a developing residential area which contains a mix of single and double storey detached dwellings as well as multi-dwelling developments.  There is a local activity centre approximately 450 metres south of the site.	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied subsequent to the hearing	
Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Realty Projects Pty Ltd (the applicant) proposes to develop ten, two storey dwellings at 8 Vinko Court, Plumpton. In July 2020, Melton City Council (the Council) determined to refuse to grant a planning permit for the proposed development, against the recommendation of its planning officers. The permit applicant has requested the Tribunal to review Council’s decision.
2	Council refused the proposal on the following grounds:
•	The height, scale and built form of the proposed dwellings is inappropriate and out of character with development in the surrounding area, particularly the semi-detached nature of the double storey dwellings and minimal separation between buildings which will have a dominating impact upon the streetscape and surrounding area.
•	The proposal does not satisfactorily address the objectives and standards of ResCode pursuant to Clause 55 of the Melton Planning Scheme, with respect to neighbourhood character, dwelling entry, front setback, parking location objectives and solar access to open space.
•	The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.
3	The applicant says the proposal provides an acceptable planning outcome and a net community benefit as it proposes additional housing in a strategically appropriate location, responds to the relevant zone and Clause 55 objectives,  minimises off site amenity impacts and provides for an appropriate level of onsite amenity for future occupiers.
4	No party disputes, and I agree, that the site is located within an area and a streetscape where medium density infill housing is evident and could be accommodated. The issue in dispute is whether the particular design response is appropriate based on the specific neighbourhood character.
5	The key questions for determination are whether the proposal provides an appropriate response to the neighbourhood character and whether there are any Clause 55 matters that are not appropriately addressed.
6	I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Melton Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the responsible authority and direct that a permit be granted.
7	My detailed reasons follow.
The physical context
8	The site is within a new master planned estate in the City of Melton. The subdivision pattern comprises a mix of standard residential lots and larger “super lots”, of which the review site is one. A cadastral map of the site and area is provided below.

9	Abutting the site to the north west, at 110 Hawking Crescent, is a vacant lot of approximately 1,987 square metres. Council has refused a permit for the construction of 10 double storey dwellings on this lot and this matter is listed for a future hearing at the Tribunal. 
10	To the south west (rear), there are three dwellings fronting Lockwood Court.  At No. 3 Lockwood Court there are two attached, side by side double storey dwellings set back approximately 7.5 metres from the boundary with the review site.  At No. 5 Lockwood Court there is a single storey dwelling set back approximately 7.9 metres from the boundary to the review site. 
11	Abutting the site to its south east, at 13 Vinko Court, are 11 triple storey dwellings which are currently being completed. 
12	To the north east, on the opposite side of Vinko Court, are single storey detached dwellings set back between 3.7 and 5.0 metres from the street. 
The proposal
13	The application seeks approval for the construction of ten, two storey dwellings in an attached tandem configuration. Both Dwellings 1 and 10 address Vinko Court with the remaining dwellings oriented to a common driveway that runs centrally though the site.
14	The dwellings are of conventional layout with living and private open space at the ground floor of all dwellings.  The second storey of the dwellings comprise bedrooms and bathrooms.  Each dwelling is provided with an attached two car garage.
15	Two on-site visitor car-spaces are proposed located towards the front of the site, near the entry area of the development.
16	Materials comprise a mix of face brickwork, render and feature cladding. The development is of a traditional contemporary design, incorporating parapets, porches and pitched roof forms for the first floors. A mixture of flat roofs and pitched roofs are proposed for the ground floors of the development. The development will have maximum height of approximately 7.7 metres.
17	A Landscape Plan shows the planting of trees and other vegetation throughout the development in both the secluded private open space areas and the communal accessway with larger trees marking the entrance to the site.
IS THE PROPOSAL AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THE nEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?
18	The Council acknowledges that the site is capable of being developed with multiple dwellings, being part of a grouping of larger super-lots within this newly developing residential estate.  It agrees that the site is a lot designated for medium density housing in the approved precinct structure plan, and that these lots are located close to the local shopping centre, open space, public transport and education facilities and hence are therefore the locations where higher density development is required to be provided to meet the housing objectives of the relevant Precinct Structure Plan.
19	However, while it acknowledges that medium density development is expected to result in a different intensity of built form, it says the following design features will result in an unacceptable response to that character:
•	An intensity of form within the site that allows little opportunity for landscaping that will contribute to the public realm, internally to the communal realm or to adjoining properties to soften the appearance of the long, attached and consistently double storey built form.
•	A design to the street frontage that will result in hard surface dominating the streetscape and a front setback that is not respectful of the nearby streetscape presentation.
•	The lack of separation at ground floor (except for a 7.2 metre break between Dwellings 1 and 2 containing the visitor car space) and minimal breaks at first floor which results in a monotonous building bulk to the properties to the east and west. 
•	The one metre rear setback and the termination of the shared driveway adjacent to this boundary provides limited opportunity for landscaping that would soften the proposal when viewed from the adjoining secluded private open spaces.
•	The vehicle access width combined with the two metre wide visibility splays either side and the six metre width as the access turns west into the site will create a street presentation dominated by hard paving. There is little opportunity for landscaping this area to soften its appearance when viewed from the street.
20	In rebuttal, the applicant says the predominant character is of single or two storey dwellings, predominately constructed of brick and render with pitched roofs, small front setbacks and modest landscaping. Double garages are common. It says that the development of the adjoining site at 13 Vinko Court also influences the character of the area, together with the recognition that this pocket of the estate will be developed for higher density residential development, thereby creating its own, preferred, character.
21	It says that the "townhouse" typology efficiently aligns the development along the spine of the lot, with open space provided to the rear of each dwelling. Further, that the following elements of the design respond to the existing neighbourhood character:
•	The two storey scale which provides a transition from the three storey scale on the adjoining site while recognising other examples of two storey dwellings on single lots in the area.
•	The layout provides for a break between dwellings along the south side of the development and, where dwellings are attached at ground floor level, there is a break between the upper levels of the dwellings so as to avoid any issue of bulk at the upper floor levels.
•	Dwellings 1 & 10 address Vinko Court with habitable rooms that provide activation and surveillance of the street and footpath. 
•	Landscaping opportunities are provided to the street to soften the appearance of the development.
•	The central accessway is activated with habitable rooms with windows facing the accessway to provide passive surveillance and safety and the driveway is broken up through the provision of landscaping outstands.
•	The material selection includes rendered brickwork, with the use of the timber cladding on the upper level.
What are my findings?
22	The Council acknowledges that there are no relevant local planning policies that identify preferred neigbourhood character or built form outcomes for its new growth areas.  I must therefore rely on the existing neighbourhood character to determine whether the proposal responds acceptably to the character considerations of the Planning Scheme.  
23	Responding to Council’s grounds of refusal, I am not persuaded that the proposal is out of character with the existing immediate context by virtue of its height or scale or the semi-detached nature of the double storey dwellings and minimal separation between buildings.  
24	This is because, being a newly developing residential estate, the built form character is only just emerging.  But what is evident from the site inspection is that generally, the newly constructed dwellings in the immediate area exhibit a high site coverage, have minimal side and front setbacks, and landscaping is absent or only newly emerging. Predominantly dwellings are either single or two storeys and have a contemporary form with minimal upper level articulation. 
25	The proposed building height (at 7.7 metres) and scale is entirely consistent with that evident in the locality and that allowable (up to 9 metres) in the applied zone.  Where multi-dwellings are located on the adjacent site, these are attached at ground level and have small gaps at first and second floor that are largely unappreciable from street view.  I am unpersuaded that the proposed two storey form is excessive or will dominate the street or public realm.  Double story form is a common typology evident in the street. In my view the overall height of the building as it presents to Vinko Court is a moderate response to what is permitted in the zone, and less than its neighbouring development. 
26	Further, I am not persuaded that the tandem attached (at ground level) built form arrangement on a lot with an elongated depth is an inappropriate or unreasonable design response from a streetscape perspective. While the development is predominantly attached at ground level, each dwelling is separated at first floor by a minimum of 2 metres, increasing to up to 9.8 metres between Dwellings 1 and 2.
27	The design response relies on one shared accessway. This responds to the unusual site configuration which restricts access to the site.  Dwelling 10 is setback 3 metres from the frontage which allows for the establishment of appropriate planting commensurate with that evident in the immediate neighbourhood.  Dwelling 1 is set back at least 6 metres from the street frontage and while the access configuration relies on a curved driveway arrangement with commensurate hardstand area, I am satisfied that the set back of Dwelling 1 allows for the planting of at least one canopy tree and other supplementary planting.
28	The siting of all dwellings off all boundaries results in secluded private open space areas alongside boundaries that will support the planting of a mix of canopy and supplementary vegetation.  The design approach also enables important secluded private open space to be provided at ground floor level, with an average area of approximately 40sqm to each dwelling. This space is capable of accommodating one canopy tree per dwelling. 
29	The proposed development also incorporates emerging architectural elements I observed in the surrounding area, including pitched tile roofs, protruding porches, eaves on ground and first floor and garages that are recessive in the streetscape. 
30	Finally, I am satisfied that the proposal is not an overdevelopment of the site and provides a reasonable and balanced response to the existing and emerging neighbourhood character of the area.  While existing single dwellings in the immediate area have a high site coverage, the proposal has a site coverage of 46% less than the 60% allowable under Standard B8 of Clause 55.03-3.
31	The minimum garden area requirement of clause 32.08-4 does not apply (because the application is to construct on a lot identified for medium density housing under an approved Structure Plan), however it is satisfied in any event with a 35% garden area.  Private open spaces for each dwelling range between 40 and 66 sq.m. which exceed the relevant Clause 55 Standard B28.  Permeability is 33% which is more than the 20% sought by Standard B9 of Clause 55.03-4.
Are other Clause 55 matters appropriately addressed?
32	Broadly, the Council agrees that the proposal satisfies a number of Clause 55 Objectives and Standards, as well as the required garden area requirement.  However, it says that there are some standards of Clause 55 that are not met by the proposal – and where they are not met, that this is indicative that the proposal is an overdevelopment. The matters they identify are:
•	Standard B6 Street setback objective of Clause 55.03-1 – with Dwelling 10 not set back in accordance with the Standard. 
•	Standard B15 Parking Location objectives of Clause 55.03-10 - as the habitable living room windows of Dwellings 2 to 9 are setback 1 metre from the shared driveway, and the sill height of these windows is less than 1.4m above the driveway. 
•	Standard B26 Dwelling Entry objective of Clause 55.05-2- It says that the entry to Dwellings 2-9 is poor, and that the façade of each of these dwellings facing the common driveway is dominated by a double garage with small sections of wall protruding into the driveway, which limits the sense of identity for each dwelling.  
•	Standard B29 Solar access to open space objective of Clause 55.05-5- It says that the secluded private open space of Dwellings 2, 3 and 4 does not meet the solar access objective or standard. This is because, based on the wall height of these dwellings, the southern boundary of these spaces should be set back 7.4 metres from Dwellings 2, 3 and 4, and the setback is only 5.9 metres. It says that the spos of these dwellings will not receive adequate solar access when almost all of the spaces are in shadow from 12noon. 
33	In rebuttal, the applicant says:
•	While Standard B6 may not be met, the assessment of the front setback arrangements on this site are unusual given the unusual shape of the lot, the location of the lot at the end of a “dead end” court as well as on the corner of Vinko Court and Hawking Crescent.  It says that whether there is technical compliance with Standard B6 or not is not the key issue in these circumstances.
•	It accepts that the proposal does not satisfy Standard B15.  It has no objection to raising the sill heights to 1.4 metres above the accessway in order to comply with the standard, however, it submits that this is not necessary as these rooms are living rooms as opposed to bedrooms, and as such, the issue of noise from cars is less of a concern.
•	The entrances to all dwellings can be identified from the street or from the common driveway and are consistent with the Objective to Standard B26.
•	Given the orientation of the lot it is not possible to provide all dwellings with secluded private open space (spos) on the northern side of all dwellings as sought by Standard B29.  However, it says that Dwellings 5 to 10 all have a north-eastern orientation for their spos.  While the Council suggests that Dwellings 2 to 4 do not comply with the second limb of Standard B29, these spos areas are not directly south of any northern walls, being on a 45 degree alignment west of north.
What are my findings?
34	With respect to the front setback, Council's assessment is that due to the adjoining dwelling at 13 Vinko Court being set back 12.1 metres from the street, that the minimum required front setback is 9 metres under Standard B6.  However, it is arguable whether there is any meaningful direct relationship with this site with respect to setbacks to the street and the appreciation of a building setback when standing in Vinko Court.
35	The unusual shape of the lot in this location, with tapering and angled boundaries, plus the pronounced splay with the intersection of the two streets are, in my view, more relevant factors in assessing an appropriate setback.
36	Dwelling 10 has a ground level setback of between 4.7 metres and 6.5 metres from Hawking Crescent.  The abutting site is currently vacant.  Opposite, on the corner of Hawking Crescent and Vinko Court, the dwelling (at No. 6) has a side setback of 2 metres.  Front setbacks for single dwellings along Vinko Court range from 3 metres to in excess of 5 metres. 
37	The inconsistent range of setbacks evident within the street support a variance from Standard B6.  I am satisfied that the objectives of the standard, being to ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site, are met by the proposal. This is because of the lack of consistent prevailing setbacks of existing buildings on nearby lots, the lack of any significant visual impact of the building when viewed from the street and from adjoining properties, and the ability for the front setback to provide for vegetation within the front setback.
38	With respect to Standard B15, I agree with Council that the design should be modified to require a minimum sill height of 1.4 metres for habitable room windows along the common accessway. While I accept the applicant’s submission that these are living room and not bedroom windows, these windows are located close to the neighbours garages (and manoeuvring areas) and therefore a protection from unreasonable noise that may arise, is appropriate.  I will require this via condition.
39	I am satisfied that each dwelling has its own sense of legible identity as sought by Standard B26.  The pavement threshold in front of each entry door and the canopy and transitional space at the entrance provide shelter and safety while the windows of habitable spaces facing the accessway further mark the entrances to each of the dwellings.
40	Finally, I am satisfied that appropriate solar access is provided into the secluded private open space of each new dwelling as sought by Standard B29.  Where the spos areas along the north-western side of the development achieve the Standard, those on the south-eastern orientation (particularly Dwellings 3 and 4) have poorer solar access after 12 noon.  On balance, and having considered the design response and the useability and amenity of the secluded private open space based on the sunlight it will receive, I am satisfied that solar penetration will occur to various parts of the spos to these dwellings during most parts of the day and that these spaces are wider than normal (5.8 metres) wrap around two sides of the dwelling and are viewable and accessible from two sides of the dwelling.
What conditions are appropriate?
41	Although not specifically identified in Council’s grounds of refusal, the extent of screening for upper level windows was identified in Council’s submission. Every upper level window of Dwellings, 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 is screened with a solid screen to 1.7 metres above finished floor level. Council submits a design that incorporates 21 habitable room windows with screening in a 10 dwelling development has not been well designed. A responsive design would limit the need for screening of upper level windows. 
42	A review of the plans indicates that there is opportunity to clarify where screening is not required or where screening could be improved (rather than relying simply on obscured glazing). The applicant agrees to this and modifications agreed in the hearing (and expressed in revised conditions).  
Conclusion
43	In conclusion and having regard to the requirements of Clauses 65 and 71.02, I consider that the proposal is an acceptable outcome, and that when assessed against all relevant policies it does, on balance, achieve a net community benefit.  The decision of the responsible authority is set aside.     A permit is granted subject to conditions.

K Birtwistle
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PA2019/6853/1	
Land	8 Vinko Court
PLUMPTON 	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of ten, two storey dwellings in the Urban Growth Zone – Schedule 1	

Conditions
1	Before the developments 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 A3, drawn to scale with dimensions and 2 copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show: 
(a)	The on-site detention system.
(b)	Upper level windows to bedrooms facing the internal accessway modified to require one grouping of dwellings (Dwellings 1-4 or Dwellings 5-10) provide unobscured window treatments.  Where the windows are located within 9 metres of an abutting property, such window treatments must comply with Standard B22 of clause 55.04-6.
(c)	The vehicle crossing in Vinko Court is constructed to Melton Industrial standards.
(d)	The habitable living room windows at the ground floor of Dwellings 2 to 8 with sill height of at least 1.4 metres above the accessway in accordance with Standard B15 of clause 55.03-10.
(e)	The habitable living room windows at the ground floor of Dwelling 9 located in accordance with Standard B15 of clause 55.03-10.
(f)	A materials and colour schedule.
(g)	Details of external lighting capable of illuminating the internal accessway.
2	Before the development starts, a landscape plan prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design 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. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show: 
(a)	Location and identification of all proposed plants. 
(b)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. 
(c)	A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed. 
(d)	Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary. 
(e)	Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways. 
(f)	Plants within the landscaping areas along the accessway with a maturity height of less than 600mm to allow vehicles to overhang during manoeuvring. 
3	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and used for no other purpose, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
4	Before the occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5	The layout of the development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6	During the construction phase, a truck wheel washing facility or similar device must be installed and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.
7	Any proposed vehicle crossing must be constructed to an industrial standard in accordance with Council’s Standard Drawings prior to occupation of the development. A ‘Consent to Work within a Road Reserve’ must be obtained from Council prior to the commencement of construction.
8	Before the development starts, drainage plans and design calculations for the proposed development must be submitted to Council’s Engineering Services Unit Att: Infrastructure Planning Coordinator for approval.
9	The maximum storm water discharge rate from the proposed development is 20.27 litres per second. An on-site stormwater detention system will need to be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be submitted to Council’s Engineering Services Unit Att: Infrastructure Planning Coordinator for approval:
(a)	Time of Concentration for the catchment: Tc = 10.4 min
(b)	Travel time from the discharge point to the catchment outlet: Tso = 2.2 min
(c)	Weighted coefficient of runoff at the initial subdivision: Cw = 0.57
All on-site stormwater must be collected from the hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties. The on-site drainage system must prevent discharge from the driveway onto the footpath.
10	Protective kerbs of a minimum height of 150mm must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.
11	Stormwater must not be discharged from the site other than by means of an underground pipe drain discharged to a legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	The road pavement design must be shown on an engineering plan and provided to the Responsible Authority. The lot owner is fully responsible for the design and maintenance of the road pavement internal to the site.
13	Prior to covering of the on-site detention system, the developer must contact Council’s Engineering Department to organise inspection of the works.
14	All existing conditions affected by the development works must be reinstated at no cost and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15	All associated works related to the development that encroaches into any road reserve must require the approval of the Responsible Authority.
16	The obscure glazing to the windows shown on the endorsed plans must be through fixed frosted glass or similarly treated glass, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Adhesive film or the like that can be removed must not be used.
17	Prior to occupation of the development external lighting capable of illuminating the internal accessway must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Lighting must be located, directed and shielded and of limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site.
18	Before any works, including works required by other authorities start, a Construction 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. The Plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The Plan must include details of:
(a)	Proposed working hours;
(b)	Haulage routes to the site;
(c)	Traffic management;
(d)	Noise;
(e)	Public safety;
(f)	Methods of dust suppression;
(g)	Sediment control and gross pollutant management;
(h)	Procedures to ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur as a result of the development;
(i)	Earthworks (Consistent with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA, 1991);
(j)	Showing where stockpiling, machinery wash down, lay down, storage and personnel rest areas occur;
(k)	Vehicle exclusion areas; and
(l)	Weed management measures to be undertaken during and post construction.
In addition, the construction management plan must ensure:
(m)	All machinery brought on site to be weed and pathogen free;
(n)	All machinery wash down, lay down and personnel rest areas to be clearly fenced and located in disturbed areas.
(o)	Contractors working on the site to be inducted into an environmental management program for construction work.
(p)	Best practice erosion and sediment control techniques to be used to protect any native flora and fauna.
19	Construction activities must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the:
(a)	Retention and disposal of litter within the site.
(b)	Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land. 
(c)	Inappropriate storage of any works or construction materials.
(d)	Hours of construction activity.
(e)	Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste and storm water runoff, waste products, grit or oil.
(f)	Presence of vermin.
(g)	Any other way as determined by the Responsible Authority.
20	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within three years of the date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within five years from the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months afterwards (for a request to extend the time to commence the development) or twelve months after the permit expires (for a request to extend the time to complete the development).
– End of conditions –