VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1756/2020
Permit Application no. PLN19/0390 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 82 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Review of Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit; Yarra Planning Scheme; Neighbourhood Residential Zone; Heritage Overlay; partial demolition and buildings and works; deck and pergola; existing Hotel; existing use rights and the distinction between development and use; amenity and noise impacts	

Applicants	Ian Andrew Noel Petersen, Marie Petersen, Abuk Chol, Dalmar Abdirahman and Nawab Mohamed	

Responsible Authority	Yarra City Council	
Respondent	Jon De Fraga	

SUBJECT LAND	55 Highett Street
RICHMOND VIC 3121	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	26 and 27 July 2021	

DATE OF ORDER	1 October 2021	

CITATION	Petersen v Yarra CC [2021] VCAT 1133	

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 respondent to:
Jon De Fraga
2	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:
Jon De Fraga    
3	In application P1756/2020 the decision of the responsible authority is varied. 
4	In planning permit application PLN19/0390 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 55 Highett Street RICHMOND VIC 3121 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:

•		Part demolition and construction of a ground floor deck and pergola to the existing hotel

Christopher Harty
Member			

Appearances
For applicants	Mr Ian Petersen.  He called the following expert witness:
•	Mr Lucas Brooker, Acoustic Engineer from Acoustic Dynamics	
For responsible authority	Ms Tamara Orrlov, Town Planner from Tamara Orrlov Consulting	
For respondent	Mr Daniel Bowden, Town Planner from SongBowden Planning.  He called the following expert witness:
•	Mr Darren Tardio, Acoustic Engineer from Enfield Acoustics Pty Ltd	

Information
Description of proposal	To undertake partial demolition works and construction of a ground floor deck and pergola located in an existing beer garden to the rear and eastern side of the existing Kingston Hotel.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Yarra Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 – Yarra Residential Areas (NRZ1).
Heritage Overlay Schedule 338 – West Richmond Precinct – Incorporated Plan under the provisions of Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay, Planning Permit Exemptions July 2014 (HO338).	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-9 - to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.09-2 (permit required use).
Clause 43.01-1 – to demolish or remove a building, to construct a building or construct or carry out works, and externally alter a building by structural works, rendering, sandblasting or in any other way.
Clause 63.05 – to construct buildings and works associated with an existing use.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 13, 15, 17, 21.05, 21.08, 22.02, 22.07, 32.09, 43.01, 63, 65 and 71.02   	
Land description	The application relates to the Kingston Hotel located at 55 Highett Street, Richmond (site).  It is located on the northern side of Highett Street, 40 metres west of Egan Place and 145 metres west of Lennox Street in Richmond.  The land on which the hotel is situated has a frontage width of 18.02 metres, a depth of 50.48 metres and a site area of 909.5 square metres.
The site is occupied by a prominent double storey Victorian era building used as the Kingston Hotel.  The double storey building is constructed to the street frontage and has narrow setbacks to the western and eastern side boundaries.  There is a substantial single-storey addition to the rear (north), concentrated along the western boundary of the site.  Two outdoor terrace beer garden areas are located to the rear of the building, one to the east side and the other to the north-east of the single-storey addition.  A sealed yard is located to the rear used for bin storage and staff parking.
The Hotel is located within a residential area.  To the west of the site is a single storey Edwardian dwelling.  This dwelling and the site are included in the Heritage Overlay.  To the east of the site is a terraced row of modest two-storey dwellings.  These dwellings form part of a larger infill development that extends east to Egan Place and north to Kingston Place.  These dwellings were constructed in the 1990s and are not included in the Heritage Overlay.   	
Tribunal inspection	29 September 2021 unaccompanied   	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Jon De Fraga, the respondent (permit applicant) seeks to undertake partial demolition works and construction of a deck and pergola with window and bi-fold doors in the eastern outdoor beer garden of the Kingston Hotel at 55 Highett Street, Richmond (site).  The location of the existing eastern outdoor beer garden is shown in Figure 1.  

Figure 1: Existing layout of the Kingston Hotel eastern outdoor beer garden.  
2	On 25 September 2020, Yarra City Council (Council) resolved to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit No. PLN 19/0390 with conditions.
3	The proposal is for buildings and works to the rear of the existing Hotel building (refer to Figures 2 and 3).  
4	A permit is required under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) for buildings and works due to the permit required land use status of the Hotel and under the Heritage Overlay (HO338) that affects the site.  Due to the existing use rights of the Hotel, a permit is also required under Clause 63 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.  

Figure 2: Proposed development.

Figure 3: Proposed new window, bi-fold doors, deck and pergola.
5	The proposal involves removal of an existing large north-facing window and north-facing double door to the rear of the Hotel building, and demolition of the existing external stairs and deck landing in the eastern outdoor beer garden.  I understand the removal of this fabric of the existing Hotel is non-contentious, as it is of contemporary construction dating around the 1980s.
6	The existing window and door will be replaced with bi-folding glazed doors and a new operable window.  The bi-fold doors will provide access to a new deck area approximately 4.36 metres in depth and 6.53 metres in width with an area of approximately 28 square metres.  The deck is raised (1.35 metres above ground level) to be level with the internal floor area of the Hotel and replaces the existing stairs, landing and ramp that provides access to the eastern outdoor beer garden.  The deck will be 2.43 metres setback from the eastern side boundary with new adjoining stairs located 1.18 metres from the same boundary.
7	A new pergola structure is proposed proximate to the western boundary (600mm offset that retains the existing landscape along the boundary).  The pergola will be open at 1.8 metres deep, 8 metres in length and 2.5 metres in height.  
8	No other changes are proposed to the general layout of the eastern outdoor beer garden area.   
9	Ian and Marie Petersen lodged a joint application with the Tribunal which included Abdul Chol, Dalmar Abdirahman and Nawab Mohamed, who are the review applicants (objectors).  Collectively, they seek a review of the Council's decision.  The issues of concern to the objectors relate to amenity impacts they consider would occur because of the proposed works, specifically, an increase in noise emissions.  They contend this would be a result from:
•	New bi-fold doors which when open would allow amplified music from within the Hotel to be heard externally.
•	The raised deck area located above ground level would increase the level of noise from the beer garden into the neighbourhood.
•	The Kingston Hotel is in the NRZ and its existing use rights should be limited to how the operation has run and not allow any change to that use or the building.  This includes limiting the openings on the building to contain the emission of noise.
10	Council assessed the application for buildings and works and determined that the alterations to the building were acceptable under the provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme.
11	The permit applicant supports Council’s decision and considers the proposal is for modest buildings and works, which do not conflict with the amenity of the area as it does not modify the extent of existing use rights of the Hotel use or the way the use operates.
What are the key issues?
12	The issues raised within the context of this review relate to the relationship between the existing use rights of the Kingston Hotel and the proposed development and whether impacts on amenity from noise that may occur because of the development are relevant and whether those impacts are acceptable.
13	Having heard the submissions, the key threshold issue arising from this proposal is whether the impacts of development are acceptable?
14	I must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the Yarra Planning Scheme.  Net community benefit is central in reaching a conclusion.  Clause 71.02 - Integrated Decision Making of the planning scheme, requires the decision-maker to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.  
15	With this proposed development I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  
16	Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regards to the applicable policies and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme, I find the proposal represents an acceptable outcome.  
17	I find the proposal is for modest buildings and works to an existing beer garden area that will not result in changes to the extent or intensity of the use of the Kingston Hotel.  I have decided to vary the decision of Council and direct that a permit with amended conditions be granted.  My reasons follow.
Procedural issues  
18	The matter raised two procedural issues.  Mr Petersen raised an issue with regards to notification of the application and the appropriateness of its extent.  The other issue relates to the existence of existing use rights for the Kingston Hotel.
Notification
19	I note that this matter had originally been brought to the Tribunal in 2020 but was remitted back to Council due to discovery of a procedural error with notification of the application.  Mr Petersen expressed concern that the re-notification process was flawed.  He considered the re-notification of the application should have ‘cast a wider net’ due to the perceived wider effects arising from the proposal through letters to more than merely the adjoining properties but to properties further afield to the west, east and north and across the road to the south from the site.  He also considered a sign on-site should have been displayed.
20	Council’s response was that the extent of notification undertaken was commensurate with the extent of buildings and works proposed.  Council considered that the extent of notification was appropriate given the proposal was for the replacement of windows and doors and steps which do not alter use, the liquor licence red line, or the way the use operates across the site. 
21	I have considered this issue and find that the extent of the re-notification undertaken by Council appropriate.  Section 52(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires Council to notify owners and occupiers of lots adjoining the subject land.  I am satisfied that Council has met this requirement.  
22	Regarding giving notice to other properties, I note that section 52(1)(d) requires notice to any other persons, if Council considers the grant of a permit may cause material detriment to them and that under section 52(d), this may take the form of a sign on-site or notice in a local newspaper or by any other way.  I note Council formed the view that notice only to adjoining properties was required.  I do not query Council’s view in this regard noting that the merits of the matter are before me and the relevant issues ventilated for consideration.
Existing use rights
23	Council advised that the site is developed with a purpose-built Hotel, known as the Kingston Hotel.  I understand the Hotel has been on the site since the mid-late 1800s but that the building was constructed in the inter-war period (1915-25), being of later construction than the Victorian and Edwardian dwellings located in the West Richmond Heritage Precinct.  
24	Council records indicated that several permits have been issued since 1970 for various buildings and works noting that the use of the building as a Hotel had been recognised in those permits.  Council advised that there are no permits or conditions on known permits that control the use.
25	A hotel (under the use of food and drink premises) is a permit required use under the NRZ.  With no planning permit having been issued for the use, pursuant to Clause 63.01 – Extent of Existing Use Rights, an existing use right exists:
•	As the use was operating before the approval of the Yarra Planning Scheme on 27 May 1999; and
•	The use has been operating continuously for 15 years demonstrated by imagery, liquor licencing correspondence and food registration notices dating back to as far as 1988.    
26	Council, and I, accept and am satisfied that the Hotel has existing use rights.
are the impacts of development acceptable? 
27	The application before me is a building and works application relating to minor demolition works of non-heritage fabric in a heritage area, and alterations and additions to the rear of the Kingston Hotel to provide new bi-folding doors, deck, and external pergola.
28	The Kingston Hotel enjoys the benefits of existing use rights.  However, those existing use rights are defined by the nature and extent of the Hotel use.  Clause 63.05 – Sections 2 and 3 Uses provides that a section 2, permit required use, for which an existing use right is established, may continue provided:
•	No building or works are constructed or carried out without a permit.  A permit must not be granted unless the building or works complies with any other building or works requirement in this scheme.
•	Any condition or restriction to which the use was subject continues to be met.  This includes any implied restriction on the extent of the land subject to the existing use right or the extent of activities within the use.
•	The amenity of the area is not damaged or further damaged by a change in the activities beyond the limited purpose of the use preserved by the existing use right.
29	Council described how the operation of the use of the Kingston Hotel is regulated by its liquor licence.  The Hotel has a General Licence No. 31907726 with the following requirements for maximum patron numbers, trading hours and operation:
Maximum capacity (150 patrons as follows):
•	Lounge (20 persons).
•	Restaurant (70 persons).
•	Public Bar (30 Persons).
•	Beer Garden (30 Persons).
Trading Hours:
For consumption off the licensed premises:
•	Sunday between 10am and 11pm.
•	Good Friday & Anzac Day between 12 noon and 11pm.
•	On any other day between 7am and 11pm.
For consumption on the licensed premises:
In the Restaurant:
•	Sunday between 10am and 11pm.
•	Monday to Friday between 7am and 12 midnight.
•	Saturday between 7am and 1am the following day.
In the Bar:
•	Sunday between 10am and 11pm.
•	Monday to Saturday between 7am and 12 midnight.
In the remainder of the premises- (including outdoors):
•	Sunday between 10am and 11pm.
•	Good Friday & Anzac Day between 12 noon and 11pm.
•	On any other day between 7am and 11pm.
Music function and noise:
•	The licensee shall ensure that the level of noise emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the permissible noise levels for entertainment noise as specified in the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music from Public Premises) No. N-2.
•	No live entertainment or amplified music in the Beer Garden at any time.
•	No live entertainment other than a single musician providing background music shall take place inside the building.
30	The eastern outdoor beer garden where the partial demolition and buildings and works are proposed is limited under the Hotel’s liquor licence to a maximum of 30 patrons, trading no later than 11pm and that there is no live or amplified music.
Development and noise
31	The application for review has been lodged on the basis that the works will lead to an increase in noise from the premises and lead to the erosion or further erosion of residential amenity for the neighbouring properties.  
32	The objectors contend that the creation of a new raised deck that will extend to within 2.43 metres from the eastern side boundary and new stairs setback closer at 1.18 metres will allow greater use of the area by patrons.  In combination with the open bi-fold doors, greater noise levels will be allowed to be emitted which will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential area, particularly to properties to the east at 57 Highett Street and 2 and 4 Kingston Place (refer to Figure 4).  Mr Petersen contends that these impacts will occur with the proposed removal of a 1-metre-wide double door and large fixed window and their replacement with a 3 metres wide bi-fold door and a 1.2-metre-wide opening window.
33	Council says the ambit of discretion in this case does not allow consideration of matters relating to noise from the existing use.  Council’s position is that the proposed development does not alter, vary, or extend the current use of the Hotel and therefore the effects on amenity.  Noise issues are associated with the Hotel use and not with the proposed development.  The application for the proposed development is not linked to use and amenity issues associated with noise or activity associated with the Hotel use are not relevant to the consideration of the proposal for buildings and works.

Figure 4: Location of proposal in relation to adjoining residential dwellings.
34	Mr Petersen submitted that irrespective of the proposal not altering the Hotel use, it will change how noise is emitted from the eastern outdoor beer garden area and impact on the amenity of neighbouring secluded private open space areas immediately adjacent to the east.  He referred to the general decision guidelines of the Yarra Planning Scheme under Clause 65, which requires that before deciding on an application, the responsible authority, and in turn the Tribunal, must consider, amongst other matters, as appropriate:
The effect on the environment, human health and amenity of the area.   
35	Mr Petersen reiterated that there is a higher expectation for residential amenity given the site and surrounding areas are zoned for residential purposes rather than being zoned for non-residential use.
36	Council contends the proposed development is minor in nature and assists in updating the eastern outdoor beer garden of the existing Hotel.  The impacts from such development will not be significant. 
37	Mr Petersen disagrees and contends that the proposed development will likely result in the new decking regularly becoming a party/dance floor and large enough to have 30 patrons on it at any one time.  The objectors engaged two acoustic experts who were instructed by Mr Petersen to analyse noise.  Mr Petersen argued that the noise that will occur from 30 patrons partying on a raised deck will be much worse than what was modelled in the experts’ reports.  He claimed the effects are already unacceptable and will become worse because of the proposal.
38	Mr Leo’s evidence on behalf of the objectors was not able to be tested through cross examination due to his unavailability to attend the hearing.  However, Mr Brooker’s evidence on behalf of the objectors was tested, as was the evidence of Mr Tardio on behalf of the permit applicant.  Another significant constraint was the fact that neither Mr Leo or Mr Brooker conducted recordings of existing noise conditions associated with the Hotel and hence relied on modelling of acoustic conditions.
39	The results showed that the noise emitted from the Hotel even when doors are closed may not comply with the requirements of either the former State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music from Public Premises) No. N-2 (SEPP N-2) or with the new Noise Limit and Assessment Protocol for the Control of Noise from Commercial, Industrial and Trade Premises and Entertainment Venues, Environment Protection Authority Publication 1826.4 dated May 2021 (Noise Protocol) established under the new Environment Protection Act 2017. 
40	I note from the evidence of both Mr Leo and Mr Brooker that noise emissions would be compliant with respect to Mr Petersen’s dwelling at 51 Highett Street, but not with those to the east of the site.
41	Mr Leo’s evidence correctly recognised that noise from patrons’ voices were not covered by the former SEPP N-2, nor are they under the Noise Protocol.  Alternatively, he sought to refer to the noise provisions that have been included in the Yarra Planning Scheme for the Collingwood Arts Precinct under Schedule 6 to the Special Use Zone (SUZ6).  
42	I have not given these provisions significant weight as they relate specifically to a defined area in Collingwood, which has a particular focus different to that of the Kingston Hotel in Richmond.
43	I also note that Mr Brooker’s evidence referred to the City of Yarra Guidelines- Managing Noise Impacts in Urban Development, October 2019 to assess sleep disturbance potential from patron noise.  
44	I have not given the Guidelines significant weight because, although they have been recently adopted by Council on 3 August 2021, they form part of a larger Amendment C269 to the Yarra Planning Scheme for which Council has requested the appointment of a Planning Panel to assess submissions that have been lodged to the public exhibition of the Amendment.  The Guidelines remain part of an embryonic planning scheme amendment which is yet to be independently tested and may yet undergo further changes as a result of any such process.  I also note that the Guidelines themselves only relate to new outdoor patron areas and hence are not applicable to the Hotel’s existing eastern outdoor beer garden area.
45	Council argued that while there may generally be an increase in noise associated with the use because of the change to an elevated deck, this is related to an existing use where the nature of that use is not changing.  The use is not intensifying, and the building changes are subtle.     
46	The evidence was clear that a raised deck with around 15 patrons seated would contribute an additional 2-3 decibels in noise generation, which was accepted by both Mr Tardio and Mr Brooker as being considered borderline noticeable.
47	Regarding the bi-fold doors, Mr Tardio found that:
With regard to the Applicant’s concern about increased noise being emitted from inside the Hotel due to the proposed bi-fold doors, I note again that there is nothing which prohibits the Hotel from having the existing stair landing door opened and I have been instructed that this is typical operation.  On this basis, there would be no material difference between the existing door being ajar vs the proposed bifold doors being left opened.  While the surface area of the bi-fold doors may be greater than a single swing door, this is an immaterial difference to noise egress.  Typically, a 1% opening in a façade already results in a 20dB reduction in the acoustic performance of whatever solid material surrounds the opening.  What this means is that once there is an obvious opening, even as little as 1%, a partition starts to behave as though there is no barrier and therefore, there is little practical difference in acoustic performance from increasing the size of that opening. 
48	Having regard to the above, I find that any focus on noise impacts on amenity arising from the proposal is mis-directed.  I find that the position of Council and the permit applicant are correct in that the proposal does not alter how the Hotel use operates and that the liquor licence controls what happens with respect to impacts on residential amenity.
49	I note the suggestion from Mr Bowden that an acoustic fence could be erected on the eastern boundary of the eastern outdoor beer garden area.  Council also supported this suggestion.  
50	During my inspection, I noted that the beer garden area is elevated above the rear private open space of the dwelling to the east and that the existing fence along the eastern beer garden area consists of a mix of timber palings, chain mesh, shade-cloth, and creeper vegetation, which offers little acoustic attenuation value.
51	I consider that given the elevated nature of the deck, an acoustic fence that can break the line of sight would be an improvement to acoustic conditions in conjunction with the existing vegetated mesh and timber fence and accordingly, at the suggestion of the applicant and agreement of Council, I will impose a condition.  
52	Council referred me to the principle outlined in the decision of Deputy President Dwyer in Wellington V Surf Coast & Ors (Red Dot) [2011] VCAT 2317, which notes that the existing use of land (such as in this case, the Kingston Hotel) may continue, even with intensification of the use and/or additional amenity impacts, provided the purpose of the use does not change.  The proposal does not affect use and whether 15 or 30 patrons are on the deck becomes an issue for the operator of the Hotel and not a matter related to the permissions being sought for development under the planning scheme.
53	I agree with Council when it says that if the Hotel is not compliant with the conditions of its liquor licence, then the issue becomes an enforcement matter. 
54	I find the proposal is acceptable because:
•	It does not change the functional aspects of the Hotel use, does not permit more patrons (in the beer garden, on the deck or in the Hotel generally) and does not propose any change to the operating hours.  
•	The Hotel is a use that has been in operation for many years.  The proposal does not affect amenity because it does not alter the use of the site, its extent or intensity.  The proposal merely seeks a renovation.    
•	The minor changes to the configuration of the outdoor seating area do not give rise to any significantly altered amenity impacts, and the existing liquor licence remains in effect to control, amongst other things, noise.
•	The existing use rights do not constrain the ability to apply for a planning permit for buildings and works, noting that such works need to meet the relevant provisions of the planning scheme.
Amenity and development
55	Amenity issues remain relevant with regards to the form of the development that is proposed.  Clause 32.09-13 includes the following decision guidelines for non-residential development in the local neighbourhood context:
•	Whether the development is compatible with residential use.
•	The scale and intensity of the development.
•	The design, height, setback, and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
56	During my inspection, it was noticeable that the Hotel beer garden area was elevated above the private open space areas of the dwellings to the east, which I observed did not appear to be actively used and appeared more akin to use as service yards or car parking areas.   
57	I find the raised deck will not have significant impacts on amenity because:
•	It is concealed from both the street and the rear laneway.
•	The deck does not change the nature of the use.  It is an area that is currently a publicly accessible area associated with the bar and dining area.  I note Mr Tardio considered that the existing stair and landing is used by small groups of patrons and will be little different to how this part of the outdoor beer garden may be used by patrons.
•	The liquor licence restricts the number of patrons outdoors to 30 people, and the application does not change this restriction.
58	The elevated nature of the deck and its use by patrons standing may lead to privacy concerns from overlooking into the adjoining property to the east.  However, I observed a chain mesh fence with some shade-cloth which is heavily vegetated that currently limits overlooking.  The permit applicant suggested that to ensure overlooking is prevented, a screen could be placed on the east side of the proposed stair.  I consider this an appropriate suggestion and accordingly will impose a condition.
59	I find the proposed pergola structure acceptable as it is an open structure that will not result in overlooking or other impacts on amenity.
Heritage matters 
60	The site is affected by HO338 and requires a permit for demolition and buildings and works.  The proposed development is located to the rear of the existing Hotel building.  The buildings and works are being undertaken either external to the building (in the case of the demolition of the stairs, and the construction of a deck and pergola) or are undertaken in fabric that is not original (the replacement windows in the north elevation).
61	The original inter-war Hotel building at the front of the site is to be retained and will not be altered under the proposal.
62	The proposal was reviewed internally by Council’s Heritage Advisor.  The Heritage Advisor found no issues with the works to the rear, including demolition.  The works will not impact on the significance of the heritage place as it removes non-heritage fabric from a later addition to the building and is not visible from the street.
63	I agree with the findings of Council’s Heritage Advisor and consider the proposal satisfactory with respect to heritage considerations.
What conditions are appropriate?
64	I have considered the conditions contained in Council’s Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit and had the benefit of submissions and the expert evidence.  I have included a condition requiring screening of the east side of the proposed stairs and for acoustic fencing to be erected to assist with noise mitigation.
Conclusion
65	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied.  A permit is granted subject to varied conditions.

Christopher Harty
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PLN19/0390	
Land	55 Highett Street
RICHMOND  VIC  3121 	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Part demolition and construction of a ground floor deck and pergola to the existing hotel	

Conditions
1	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered (unless the Yarra Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
2	That a screen is erected on the east side of the proposed stair and deck to prevent overlooking to the east to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3	That an acoustic fence is erected along the eastern outdoor beer garden area sufficiently setback from the eastern side boundary to retain the existing vegetation and landscaping for an approximate length of 15 metres from opposite the existing rear wall of the Hotel bar to opposite the northern wall of the Hotel dining room and to be designed and at a height determined by a qualified acoustic engineer and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
4	Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the responsible authority, any damage to Council infrastructure resulting from the development must be reinstated:
(a)	at the permit holder's cost; and
(b)	to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 
5	Except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority, demolition or construction works must not be carried out:  
(a)	Monday-Friday (excluding public holidays) before 7 am or after 6 pm; 
(b)	Saturdays and public holidays (other than ANZAC Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday) before 9 am or after 3 pm; or
(c)	Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday at any time. 
6	This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.  

– End of conditions –