VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P758/2021
Permit Application no.D-635/2020 	
CATCHWORDS	
Darebin Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Incremental Change Area; Three storey townhouses; character; amenity; traffic.	

Applicant	Branson Property Group Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Darebin City Council	
Respondents	Jeffrey Ang, Margaret Marciano, Stephanie Kakris, Tino Puglisi, Emrah & Luciana Rifat, D & B Allan, Patricia MacGregor, Patrick Walsh & Cathy Caruso, Tracy Budin & Guy Stephens, Tessa White, and Vincenza Velleva	

SUBJECT LAND	3 Furzer Street
PRESTON VIC 3072	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	25 October 2021	

DATE OF ORDER	22 November 2021 	

CITATION	Branson Property Group Pty Ltd v Darebin CC [2021] VCAT 1403 	
Order
Amendment of plans
1	Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	DKO Architects	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP100-111, TP200-204, TP300-310, TP400-402 - All Revision C	
•	Dated:	1 September 2021	
•	Prepared by:	John Patrick Landscape Architects	
•	Drawing numbers	Landscape Plan for VCAT L-VCAT 01	
•	Dated	2 September 2021	
2	Pursuant to section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the following people are joined as parties to the proceeding:
Tessa White
Vincenza Villeva
Permit granted
3	In application P758/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
4	In planning permit application D-635/2020 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 3 Furzer Street Preston VIC 3072  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of a multi-dwelling development with basement car parking.
Reimbursement of fees refused
5	The Applicant’s application for reimbursement of the VCAT lodging fee and daily hearing fees pursuant to section 115CA of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 is refused.

Michael Nelthorpe
Member			

Appearances
For Branson Property Group Pty Ltd	Ms Tania Cincotta, lawyer of Best Hooper Lawyers.  She called the following witnesses:
•	Mr Lloyd Elliot, town planner of Urbis;
•	Mr Russell Fairlie, traffic engineer of Ratio Consultants; and
•	Mr John Patrick, landscape architect of John Patrick Landscape Architects.	
For Darebin City Council	Mr Anthony Scarpaci, town planner of Clement Stone Town Planners.	
For Jeffrey Ang	Mr Ang.	
For Margaret Marciano	Ms Rifat.	
For Stephanie Kakris	Ms Kakris.	
For Emrah & Luciana Rifat	Ms Rifat.	
For Patricia MacGregor	Ms McGregor (on Day 1).	
For Patrick Walsh and Cathy Caruso	Ms Caruso.	
For Tracy Budin and Guy Stephens	Ms Budin (on Day 1) and Mr Stephens on both days.	
For Tessa White	Ms White (on Day 1).	
For Vincent Velleva	Ms White (on Day 1).	

Information
Description of proposal	Seven attached dwellings comprising three two-storey dwellings and four three-storey dwellings with 17 car spaces in a basement.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.	
Planning scheme	Darebin Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2)
Development Contributions Overlay Schedule 1	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6:  to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, 21.05, 2.02, 22.12, 32.08, 45.06, 52.06, 53.18, 55, 65 & 71.02.   	
Land description	This rectangular site is located near the eastern end of the street and is on the south side of the street.  It has a 20.1m frontage, a depth of 45.6m and an area of 917m2.  A single storey dwelling occupies the site.	
Tribunal inspection	17 and 29 October 2021   	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Branson Property Group Pty Ltd (‘the Applicant’) sought a planning permit to construct 8 three-storey attached dwellings at 3 Furzer Street, Preston.  Darebin City Council (‘the Council’) did not grant a permit within the prescribed time.  The Applicant seeks a decision from the Tribunal.
2	Subsequently, the Council decided that it would not have granted a permit because the building’s size was excessive, with consequent impacts on neighbourhood character and amenity.  It says that the building does not represent incremental change as sought by policy.
3	Prior to the hearing, the Applicant circulated amended plans for seven attached dwellings with less height and bulk at the front and rear.  With the parties’ consent, I granted leave to substitute the permit application plans for these plans.
4	The Council maintains its opposition to the proposal.
5	Several adjoining and nearby residents have joined this review (‘the Respondents’).  They share the Council’s grounds and add concerns regarding the impact of traffic generated by the proposal.
6	The Applicant also seeks reimbursement of fees associated with the Application for Review and the hearing.  I address this issue after resolving the merits of the proposal.
What are the key issues?
7	Based on the parties’ submissions, I consider that the key issues are:
•	Is the building’s size excessive?
•	Does the building represent incremental change?
•	Are the traffic impacts acceptable?
What are my findings?
8	Having considered the submissions and evidence and having inspected the site and surrounding area before and after the hearing, I find the proposal is an acceptable planning outcome.  
9	I find that the building’s size is not excessive.  Ever since the General Residential Zone allowed three-storey buildings, applicants have sought to use this extra air space.  Often, they have not succeeded on single lots located mid-block because their proposals ask too much of the site.
10	However, this proposal succeeds because of the following factors:
a	at 20.1m, the site is 5m wider than most residential lots;
b	the basement frees up space for dwellings, courtyard gardens and landscaping; 
c	the very modest third level combined with careful massing and presentation of the building successfully reduces the perception of visual bulk; and
d	each townhouse provides high quality amenity in compact spaces; and 
e	an excellent balance is achieved between lighting the internal spaces and avoiding overlooking.
11	In all, I find this to be a very good development. 
12	I acknowledge the neighbour’s submissions on incremental change.  However, my reading of the policy framework is that small, well resolved apartment buildings can constitute incremental change.  I also find that the ‘spill-over’ effects such as more parking on the street and more traffic on the roads are not reasons to refuse this proposal.
13	I agree that terms like ‘low scale’ or ‘medium density’ development are open to interpretation, but I must apply what the Planning Scheme tells us about these terms.  In these terms, I find that this proposal is low scale and medium density.
14	Before expanding on these findings, I will briefly describe the site and surrounding area.
The site and surrounding area

15	The site is in an established residential area north of Murray Road and near the former Kodak site.  The original dwellings date from the 1940s and 1950s and many have been replaced by single-storey villa units, new two-storey houses and new two-storey townhouses.

16	The Respondents say that traffic on Furzer Street has increased considerably since Woolworths was built on the Kodak plant.  I expect that this is the case, as Furzer Street provides access between this supermarket and the residential area to the east.
The proposal
17	It is proposed to construct seven attached dwellings as shown below:

Artist impression from the street with the basement ramp to the left (east) and the mansard roof containing the third story behind the front two dwellings.

Image of the ground floor.  The dwellings at the front and rear have two storeys while the four central dwellings have a third storey of one room within the mansard roof.
18	The basement contains 15 car parking spaces along with bicycle parking and storage.  All dwellings bar one have ground floor living areas next to courtyard gardens.  Pedestrian access to the five east-west dwellings is via a shared path on the site’s eastern side.
is the building’s size excessive? 
19	The Council’s grounds indicate that its argument is not strong.  The grounds refer to the objectives of clause 55 on all matters except for those relating to the private open space of the proposed dwellings.  This indicates that all quantitative standards relating to the proposal’s siting and massing are met.  This is a very good start for a proposal.
20	Regarding neighbourhood character policy, I agree with the Applicant that the policy is outdated, applies across two different residential zones, and does not reflect the Council’s own housing strategy.  As such, I accept the Applicant’s submission that it should be applied cautiously.
21	As well as this, recent medium-density development in Furzer Street does not reflect key aspects of the preferred character for Precinct F9.  The preferred character statement says that the ‘predominant single storey scale of building frontages in the area’ will be maintained, yet Furzer Street has several two-storey townhouses facing the street.  This diminishes the character statement’s role in assessing new development in this street.
22	The character statement encourages new dwellings to:
a	interpret elements of the post-war era, which the proposal does by being primarily clad in brick with several decorative brick elements;
b	respect the predominant height and setbacks, which the proposal does through compliant front setbacks, generous side and rear setbacks and a modest third storey in a mansard roof;
c	maintain generous front and side setbacks, which the proposal does;
d	keep front fences low, which the proposal does; and
e	encourage additional planting in all gardens, which the proposal does.
23	The Council’s submissions confirm the weakness of its position.  Its criticism of the proposal’s excessive scale is limited to:
a	the limited landscaping on the east side of the building;
b	the sheer two storey walls on the east and west elevations;
c	the lack of recession between ground and first floor at the frontage; and
d	the use of a mansard roof, which is a foreign element in the streetscape.
24	I address these matters below:
The limited landscaping on the building’s east side
25	The Council says that the large paved areas on this side of the building prohibit a proportionate landscape response to the proposal’s three-storey scale.  It says that this causes visual bulk impacts to the east and toward the street.
26	I find that this argument unreasonably discounts the landscaping provided in the compliant front and rear setbacks, and the six courtyard gardens along the west side of the site.  I am not persuaded that an alleged failure on one of four elevations warrants refusal of this proposal.
27	Further to this, the landscape bed on the east elevation allows for a hedge that Mr Patrick says can be clipped at 5m.  This is a proportionate landscape response to the building’s scale.  In fact, I find a 5m hedge is disproportionately tall and have amended this detail to allow the hedge to be clipped to 3m.
28	In terms of the building’s three-storey scale, the Council discounts the facts that:
a	the third storey is a single room that is 3.9m wide and has a sloping ceiling under the mansard roof; 
b	at least half the building’s length is two-storey rather than three; and
c	the building comfortably exceeds the side setback standard, as shown below:

The blue dashed lines show the side setback standard.
29	Each of these factors reduces the impact of the building’s scale and must be considered when assessing what is a proportionate landscape response.
30	I disagree with the Council’s conclusion that there are unreasonable visual impacts to the east.  Four two-storey townhouses with single-storey garages occupy that site.  The driveway to the central and rear townhouses is next to the site, resulting in these buildings being 7m apart.  This is a comfortable distance.
31	As well as this, the most sensitive areas of these townhouses to the east, being where their living rooms open to their courtyards, are on the opposite side to the proposal.  This lessens the relevance of the proposal’s scale.
32	Finally, the proposal’s east elevation is highly articulated due to its two-storey form at front and rear, its vertical recesses that visually distinguish each east-west dwelling, and its roof that slopes away from these eastern neighbours.

The articulated east elevation referred to above.
33	I disagree with the Council that the proposal’s scale causes unreasonable visual impacts from the street, particularly from the north-east.  The third storey is setback 19m from the street.  From the north-east, it will largely be screened by the two-storey height of 1/1 Furzer Street.  It will be more visible from the west but will be seen in profile as a part two storey/part three storey building softened by landscaping.
34	Mr Stephens, a neighbour to the east, raises a separate issue of the difference in level between the proposal and the townhouses to the east.  He notes that the land falls away to the south and east whereas the proposal is built on a flat plane.  This results in the proposal being higher at the rear.  I find that two factors make this satisfactory.  The first is the generous compliance with the side setback standard.  The second is that the garage of 4/1 Furzer Street is on the shared boundary opposite the lowest point of the land.  This reduces the visual impact caused by the rear section of the proposal.
The sheer two-storey walls on the east and west elevations
35	The Council says that the sheer two storey walls are incongruous in the neighbourhood and the first floor is bulky at the streetscape.  I rely on my earlier finding regarding the articulation of the side walls.  As well as this, the variety of buildings in Furzer Street results in this proposal being an addition rather than an outlier.
The lack of recession at the frontage
36	I am not persuaded that proposal’s bulk at the frontage dominates the street.  The front two dwellings occupy less than half of the frontage, and the front façade is well articulated by the partially enclosed first floor balcony of Dwelling 1 (to the east).  Apart from this, the front setback standard is met, resulting in a respectful response to the streetscape and adequate space for landscaping.  Finally, the mature street tree in front of the site is barely affected by the proposed works, and it assists in settling the proposed building into the streetscape.
The mansard roof being a foreign element
37	Along with the three-storey form, the mansard roof is deep in the site and is not a dominant element.  I consider that the entire proposal presents as a different kind of building to others in Furzer Street, with the mansard roof being a relatively minor element.
38	I am not persuaded that being ‘different’ is a fatal flaw.  Built form in Furzer Street tends to reflect the era of its development and the preferred style of the owners.  It is a varied streetscape that can accommodate this distinctly 21st century building. 
On spaciousness generally
39	Apart from these character issues raised by the Council, Ms Budin and Ms Kakris raised the question of spaciousness generally.  They say that the proposal has nothing of the spaciousness that characterises the single dwellings of the area.  
40	I agree that the proposal is nothing like the area’s single dwellings, but the Planning Scheme promotes infill development in areas like this.  It identifies that many households are seeking other forms of accommodation, and that single houses on large lots are still the predominant product in Melbourne’s middle and outer suburbs.  The Planning Scheme encourages diversity in housing stock to rebalance this situation.
41	I find the proposal is an intelligent response to these policies.  Mr Elliot’s evidence persuades me that these are intentionally small dwellings, with proportional internal and external spaces.  These dwellings offer an alternative to other recent housing stock, i.e., apartments and other two or three level townhouses that are being constructed in and around Preston.  I am satisfied that this meets the Planning Scheme’s objectives for diversity in housing stock.
On Standards B28 and B28
42	The Council submits that the east-west dwellings (Dwellings 3 to 6) fail to comply with Standard B28 as they do not provide the required 40m2 of private open space.  I find against this argument.  These dwellings provide between 35m2 and 38m2 and will meet the reasonable recreational needs of future residents.  At 10m2, they are large enough for a modest outdoor setting, proportional to the overall modest size of these dwellings.
43	While Dwellings 3 and 4 do not meet Standard B29 - solar access to open space, I find this does not warrant refusal of the proposal.  Some shading of open space areas of townhouses oriented to the east or west always occurs at some time of the day, and I am satisfied that the overall amenity of these dwellings is adequate.
44	I agree with Ms Rifat’s submissions that townhouses often have less than ideal access to daylight.  As she said, courtyard gardens often do not have enough direct sunlight to grow herbs and vegetables.  However, amenity benefits are a trade-off.  Excellent access to daylight often comes with the maintenance burden of a large garden, and not all households want that. 
45	I acknowledge Ms Caruso’s submission that Covid-19 has highlighted the need for good internal amenity in housing.  However, I find these dwellings have good internal amenity.  The internal spaces are small but well designed.  The living spaces would suit a small household, the bedrooms are private, and the third level bedroom/workspace is very secluded.  The key is that these dwellings are for small households.
does the building represent incremental change?
46	Many of the respondents doubt that the building represents incremental change or low scale development.  They say that replacing one dwelling with seven is not an incremental change, and that three storey developments are not low scale.  They observe that proposals like this are better suited to main roads.
47	I agree that a change from one dwelling to seven is unexpected, but this is not a reason to refuse the grant of a permit.  The Planning Scheme does not limit the number of dwellings on a site.  Rather, it focuses on the size of new development and the impact on character and amenity.  My findings are that the size of the proposal is acceptable.
48	Apart from this, local policy for incremental change areas says that these areas already include a diversity of housing stock, including ‘medium density and small apartment development’.  In the past, blocks of flats have been the most common form of these small apartment developments but modern attached townhouses, such as proposed here, are a new iteration of this form.
49	Regarding submissions on ‘low scale’ development, I must accept that ‘low scale’ accords with what the Zone envisages, being three-storey buildings up to 11m in height.
are the traffic impacts acceptable?
50	Most of the Respondents say that the traffic impacts are not acceptable.  Mr Ang doubts whether cars can safely exit the basement car park due to the slope of the ramp.  Other Respondents say that the driveway is too close to the dogleg between Union and Furzer Streets, and that traffic movement is unsafe or inconvenient due to the number of cars parked on the street.
51	I accept Mr Fairlie’s evidence that the ramp complies with the relevant Australian Standard and agree with his observation that safety is optimised by vehicles leaving a site in a forward direction.  I visited the Woolworth’s store on my second site inspection and used the relatively steep ramp to the basement.  While the proposed ramp will be marginally steeper, I found the Woolworth’s ramp to be safe to navigate.  I expect that future residents of this development will become accustomed to the proposed ramp, and I agree with Mr Fairlie that it raises no undue safety concerns.
52	I agree with Mr Fairlie that the driveway’s location is safe.  It is a sufficient distance from the dogleg to allow drivers to see oncoming traffic and take appropriate action.  
53	I also agree with Mr Fairlie that the number of vehicle movements to and from this proposal are low and are well within the street’s capacity.
54	I cannot see the signalised ‘stop-go’ system on the plans, so will require this as a condition on the permit.  As discussed at the hearing, this can be programmed to only show the ‘red’ stop light.
Are there any other issues?
55	I have touched on the viability of the existing street tree.  This was discussed in detail at the hearing, and Mr Patrick’s opinion satisfies me that the proposal can proceed without unduly affecting the tree’s health. I will include a condition regarding the solid element on the front fence.
56	I note Ms Budin’s observation that future residents of Dwelling 1 would need to walk a considerable distance from their parking space to their front door.  This is an inconvenient consequence of the design, rather than a fatal flaw.  The Planning Scheme does not require immediate access between dwellings and their car parking spaces.
57	I note Mr Stephen’s suggestion that the basement should have charging stations for electric vehicles.  This is a matter for the Applicant as the Planning Scheme does not require it.
58	In response to questions from the Council, Mr Patrick suggested that I could change the balance between evergreen and deciduous trees along the western boundary.  I will not change his plan as I consider that the west-facing courtyards will receive sufficient dappled light between and around the trees he has chosen.
59	Several respondents were certain that this proposal would set a precedent for other three-storey developments in Furzer Street.  This is not guaranteed.  Developers of other sites in Furzer Street may choose to stay with a product they know, or may recoil from the extra cost of constructing a basement.  The concept of precedent is not a relevant consideration under the Planning Scheme, as the only requirement is that the proposal itself is acceptable.
What conditions are appropriate?
60	We discussed the draft conditions at the hearing.  I have made the changes sought by the Applicant as they were not contested.  I have further revised the draft conditions as part of my review.  
61	I have included a notation requiring a signalised ‘stop-go’ system programmed to only show the ‘red’ stop light as discussed at the hearing.
62	I have altered the proposed wording for Condition 1(b) to require the bedroom windows above 1.7m to be openable.  This allows ventilation but avoids overlooking. This condition does not apply to Dwelling 6 because its windows are more than 9m from windows in the townhouses to the east.  I note that this treatment can only occur on the west elevation because the townhouses to the east have first floor windows facing the site.
63	From draft Condition 1(c), I have removed the sentence ‘Casement, sliding and sash windows must be used for habitable room windows’ as this prescription denies other forms of operable windows that may be satisfactory.
64	I have revised draft Condition 1(d) to refer to any modifications required by the Street Tree Management Plan.
65	I have moved the reference to Standard W1 of Clause 53.18-4 from draft Condition 1(i) to Condition 11. 
66	I have replaced draft Condition 3 with the wording preferred by the Tribunal as it ensures flexibility if the relevant sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 are amended during the life of the permit.
67	I have deleted draft Conditions 7(f) and 7(g) because the construction of the crossover is addressed by Condition 5 and have deleted draft Condition 7(i) because no vegetation is being retained on the site.
68	I have revised draft Condition 8 to refer to Mr Patrick’s landscape plan and have deleted the sub-conditions that refer to details shown on that plan.
69	I have revised draft Conditions 9 and 10 to refer to the Sustainable Design Assessment and Waste Management Plans that formed part of the permit application and have removed the detailed sub-conditions because their content is shown in these documents.
70	I have deleted draft Condition 13 that requires a surveyor’s report confirming the constructed ground floor level because the proposal is comfortably within the height limit of the General Residential Zone.
71	I have deleted draft Condition 17 because the location of letterboxes is shown on the plans.
72	I have deleted the requirement in draft Condition 19 to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and driveways as this is a residential development with a single width basement ramp.  Residents and visitors will not need this information to be line marked on the ramp or accessways. 
73	I have deleted draft Condition 21 as it duplicates draft Condition 18.
74	I have deleted draft Condition 22 because the construction of the vehicle crossing is not regulated by the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
75	I have deleted draft Condition 23 because it duplicates draft Condition 14.
76	As I have said before, all permit conditions should relate specifically to the proposal.  To this end, ‘standard conditions’ must be customised to clearly express what is required of the permit holder.  Applying ‘standard conditions’ that cover all possible outcomes creates confusion and duplication of effort by the permit holder and Council officers.  Ultimately, it diminishes the credibility of the permit. 
Conclusion
77	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.
Should the Applicant’s fees be reimbursed?
78	The Applicant seeks an order for the reimbursement of its lodging and daily hearing fees under Section 115CA.  It says that the Council had no reasonable justification to fail to grant a permit in the prescribed time.  
79	Having reviewed the chronologies of events provided by the Applicant and the Council, I find that the Applicant’s conduct was a factor in this outcome.  
80	I accept that the statutory clock had almost expired before the permit application was even advertised.  However, the Applicant wanted the application to be advertised but also wanted to discuss revised plans that, hopefully, would change the Council’s position.  I consider that these mixed message contributed to the Council delaying the advertising process.
81	The Applicant continued this consultation process after the statutory clock had expired.  This leaves the impression that gaining the Council’s support was its priority, rather than receiving a timely but negative decision.  As such, the Applicant’s conduct contributed to the Council’s failure to grant a permit in the prescribed time.
82	On a separate but related matter, I find that the proposed basement does not make this a complex application.  The officers of this Council should be well practiced at assessing the issues associated with basements given the amount of higher density development that has occurred in the municipality.
83	The Council’s failure to settle its position prior to the Compulsory Conference is less defensible, as it denied the opportunity for the parties to negotiate in good faith.  
84	However, one can only speculate that the proceeding would have settled at the Compulsory Conference. Even had the Council changed its position, the respondents’ opposition goes beyond the plans and the issues raised by the Council.  These broader concerns may not have been resolved in that forum,
85	It is for these reasons that I refuse Applicant’s application for reimbursement of the VCAT lodging fee and daily hearing fees.

Michael Nelthorpe
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	D-635/2020	
Land	3 Furzer Street
PRESTON  VIC  3072	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of a multi-dwelling development with basement car parking	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as VCAT Plans, prepared by DKO Architecture and dated 1.9.2021) but modified to show:
(a)	The location of all plant and equipment (including air-conditioners, condenser units, rainwater tanks, solar panels, hot water units and the like). These are to be:
i	co-located where possible;
ii	located or screened to be minimally visible from the public realm;
iii	air conditioners located as far as practicable from neighbouring bedroom windows or acoustically screened; and
iv	integrated into the design of the building. 
(b)	The east-facing first floor bedroom windows of Townhouses 3-5 shown as fixed fluted glazing to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level, and openable above 1.7m; 
(c)	All habitable room windows to be operable. Window operation must not increase overlooking of adjoining secluded private open space and/or habitable room windows.
(d)	A signalised ‘stop-go’ system on the basement ramp, with a notation that this system is programmed to only show the ‘red’ stop light;
(e)	Any modification to the architectural plans to accord with the Street Tree Management Plan required by Condition No. 5 of this Permit.
(f)	Annotations detailing Tree Protection Zones, associated tree protection fencing and tree protection measures in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 5, 6 and 7 of this Permit.
(g)	Any modifications required as a result of the approved Landscape Plan required by Condition No. 8 of this Permit.
(h)	Any modifications to the front fence resulting from the Street Tree Management Plan;
(i)	Any modifications required as a result of the approved Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) required by Condition No. 9 of this Permit.
(j)	Any modifications required as a result of the approved Waste Management Plan (WMP) required by Condition No. 10 of this Permit.
(k)	The provision of a Stormwater Management System Plan in accordance with Condition No. 11 of this Permit. 
(l)	The provision of a Site Management Plan in accordance with Condition No. 12 of this Permit. 
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within three (3) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within five (5) 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.
4	The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5	Before the development starts, a Street Tree Management Plan (STMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The STMP must detail measures to ensure the retention and protection of the existing street tree and must:
(a)	Be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist.
(b)	Include a non-invasive root investigation and recommendations for the front fence and associated structures within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).
(c)	Provide for a TPZ for the existing street tree generally in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.
(d)	Provide for suitable tree protection fencing to be erected and maintained around the TPZ, which is confined to the width of the nature strip.
(e)	The tree protection fencing must be maintained at all times and may only be moved the minimum amount necessary for approved buildings and works to occur within a TPZ. The movement of the fencing to allow such buildings and works shall only occur for the period that the buildings and works are undertaken, after which time the full extent of the fencing must be reinstated. 
(f)	Require the construction of the crossover (and any other buildings and works within a TPZ) to be undertaken under the supervision and direction of a qualified arborist.
The development must be constructed in accordance with the measures outlined in the STMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6	Before the development (including demolition) starts, tree protection fencing (TPF) must be erected within the site in accordance with the following requirements to provide a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):
Tree*	Location	TPZ (radius from the base of the tree trunk)	
Tree 5	Adjoining property (south)	2.15 metres	
Tree 6	Adjoining property (south)	2.0 metres	
Tree 7	Adjoining property (south)	2.23 metres	
Tree 9	Adjoining property (west)	2.64 metres	
Tree 10	Adjoining property (west)	2.0 metres	
*as defined in arborist report prepared by Landscapes by Design and dated 4.1.2021.	
7	The following tree protection measures must be implemented for trees identified in the table to Condition 6 of this Permit:
(a)	Tree protection measures must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970 – 2009: Protection of trees on development sites or as otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
(b)	Tree protection fencing must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh (or similar) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed or unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority in writing.
(c)	The tree protection fencing must be maintained at all times and may only be moved the minimum amount necessary for approved buildings and works to occur within a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).  The movement of the fencing to allow such buildings and works shall only occur for the period that such buildings and works are undertaken, after which time the full extent of the fencing must be reinstated. 
(d)	Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority: 
i	The area within the TPZ and Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1cm of trunk girth measured at the soil/trunk interface on a weekly basis.
ii	No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within a TPZ, save for that allowed to complete the approved development.
iii	No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within a TPZ.
(e)	Any pruning works must be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4373 - 2007: Pruning of Amenity Trees and undertaken by a suitably qualified arborist.
(f)	Where applicable to a tree on a neighbouring lot, a TPZ only applies where within the site.
8	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the Landscape Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.
The Landscape Plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan for VCAT L-VCAT 01 prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects dated 2 September 2021 and must incorporate: 
(a)	Tree protection measures in accordance with Condition No. 5 of this Permit.
(b)	A revised notation on the east boundary stating:  Clipped hedge of Syzigium Australe ‘Aussie Southern to 3mh along eastern boundary’ 
(c)	Any modifications relating to landscaping required as a result of the Sustainable Design Assessment required by Condition No. 9 of this Permit
(d)	Any modifications relating to landscaping required as a result of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Plan/Report required by Condition No. 11 of this Permit 
(e)	The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services.  Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided.
The requirements of the endorsed Landscape Plan must be complied with and implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The development must not be occupied, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, until the landscaping works shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
The landscaping shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including by replacing any dead, diseased, dying or damaged plants to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
All landscaped areas must be provided with an appropriate irrigation system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
9	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No.1 of this Permit, the Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) prepared by Sustainable Development Consultants dated October 2020 must be amended to reflect the plans for endorsement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the SDA will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The requirements of the endorsed SDA must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, a Waste Management Plan prepared by Ratio Consultants dated 21 October 2021 must be amended to reflect the plans for endorsement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. 
The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the approved Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, a detailed Stormwater Management System Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Stormwater Management System Report will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.  The report must include:
(a)	Details of how the stormwater management system accords with Standard W1 of Clause 53.18-4 of the Darebin Planning Scheme and meets the best practice performance objectives for stormwater quality contained in the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999), including;
i	An assessment using an industry recognised stormwater tool;
ii	The type of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) stormwater treatment measures to be used and details of these treatment measures including cross sections, materials, plants and drainage directions; 
iii	The location of stormwater treatment measures in relation to buildings, sealed surfaces, neighbouring properties and landscaped areas; 
iv	A plan illustrating where all impervious surfaces will be treated and drained;
v	A construction and maintenance schedule;
(b)	Details of how the stormwater management system contributes to cooling, improving local habitat and providing attractive and enjoyable spaces;
(c)	Consideration of how the WSUD stormwater treatment measures will integrate with on-site detention requirements;
The requirements of the endorsed Stormwater Management System Report must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Before plans are endorsed under Condition No. 1 of this Permit, a Site Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Site Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Site Management Plan must accord with Standard W3 of Clause 53.18-6 of the Darebin Planning Scheme and be generally in accordance with Melbourne Water’s Keeping Our Stormwater Clean – A Builder’s Guide (2002).  It must describe how the site will be managed prior to and during the construction period, including requirements for:
(a)	Erosion and sediment.
(b)	Stormwater.
(c)	Litter, concrete and other construction wastes.
(d)	Chemical contamination.
The requirements of the endorsed Site Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13	Before the use starts, an automatic external lighting system capable of illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining and nearby land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14	All guttering, rainheads, pipes including downpipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site including those associated with a balcony must be:
(a)	concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view; or
(b)	located and designed to integrate with the development,
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15	No plant, equipment, services or structures other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
16	A clothesline must be provided to each dwelling. Clotheslines must not be visible from Furzer Street. If clotheslines are located on a balcony, the balcony balustrade must be solid or obscure material.
17	Before occupation of the development the areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
(a)	constructed;
(b)	properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
(c)	surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat;
(d)	drained;
(e)	line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes; and 
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18	Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.
– End of conditions –