VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P918/2021
Permit Application no. KP-2020/297	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Kingston Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Construction of three dwellings; Neighbourhood Character; Amenity Impacts.     	

APPLICANT	Kim Michelle Lawless	
responsible authority	Kingston City Council 	
RESPONDENT	Frieda Esquelin, Nicola Coe & others	
SUBJECT LAND	12 Russell Court, MENTONE VIC 3194	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	25 January 2022	
DATE OF ORDER	25 February 2022	
CITATION	Lawless v Kingston CC [2022] VCAT 187	

Order
Amend permit application 
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Plans prepared by:	KG Architecture. 
	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP01 to TP09.
	
•	Dated:	November 2021. 
	
Permit granted
2	In application P918/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. 

3	In planning permit application KP-2020/297 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 12 Russell Court, MENTONE VIC 3194 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
•	Construction of three dwellings on a lot.

Joel Templar 
Member			

Appearances
For Kim Michelle Lawless	Ms Sophie Loddo, town planner of Acorn Planning.	
For Kingston City Council	Mr James Leonard, town planner of Kingston City Council.	
For Frieda Esquelin, Nicola Coe & others	Mr How Ng, town planner of Melbourne Planning Pty Ltd.	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of three dwellings on a lot.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Kingston Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 3 (GRZ3)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.	
Land description	The subject site comprises a single allotment, and is located at the western end of Russell Court, approximately 1 kilometre north-west of the Mentone Activity Centre. 
It is irregular in shape with a street frontage of 15.93 metres, a maximum length of 29.02 metres and rear boundary width of 33.51 metres for a total site area of 898 square metres. 
The subject site is developed with a single storey rendered dwelling, set back approximately 6.1 metres from the front property boundary. There is an existing garage located along the northern and western boundaries. There is a large swimming pool located in the rear south-west corner of the site. An existing crossover is located to the north of the Russell Court frontage with a driveway adjacent to the northern side boundary. Side and rear boundaries are delineated with timber paling and brick fences of varying heights. The site is generally flat and contains scattered vegetation within the front set back including palm trees. 	
Tribunal inspection	17 February 2022	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This proceeding concerns the review of the council’s decision to refuse to grant a permit for the construction of three dwellings on a lot at 12 Russell Court, Mentone.
2	The council refused the proposal based on a number of grounds generally relating to the proposed built form response to neighbourhood character and the impact the proposal would have both to the public realm and upon nearby properties. However, this was contrary to the officer recommendation which recommended a permit be granted subject to conditions.
3	As part of the planning permit application process through the council, the proposal was advertised and attracted a number of objections. Many of those objectors are party to this proceeding. They reiterated the concerns of the council, but also raised other issues including access to the proposed car parking spaces and lack of northern orientation to the living rooms of units 1 and 2.
4	As part of respective submissions, the parties relied on different parts of the surrounding area in support of their neighbourhood character assessment and in support of their respective cases. 
5	The applicant sought to amend the permit application plans at the hearing. Both the council and some of the objectors raised concerns with a number of errors or omissions on the plans but did not object to the substitution and leave was granted. These were largely differences between what was shown on floor plans and what was shown in the elevation drawings, with elements depicted on the floor plans not correspondingly illustrated on the elevation drawings.
6	There was no dispute between the parties that the review site could support three dwellings on a lot in principle, however the key disputes related to how the proposal responds to neighbourhood character policy and the impact the proposal would have to both the streetscape as well as adjoining and nearby properties.
7	The key issues in this matter relate to whether the proposed built form responds appropriately to the policy setting for an acceptable neighbourhood character response, including to both the public and private realms, and whether the proposal provides an acceptable car parking and access layout. 
8	In this case, I have found that the proposal will be an acceptable outcome. My reasons are set out below.
is the built form acceptable?
9	The review site itself is irregular in shape, although broadly takes on a rectangular form except along its eastern boundary.

Cadastral plan of the review site (outlined in red) and surrounding area.
10	The review site is generally larger than most of the other lots both in Russell Court but also other lots proximate to the site in the surrounding area.
11	Russell Court supports a mixture of single and double storey dwellings, with the predominant scale being single storey and is largely comprised of single dwellings on what appear to be lots created as part of the original subdivision. However, part of the review site was subdivided a number of years ago with the lot abutting the south-eastern corner of the site also forming part of the original lot. There are also three units located at 6 Russell Court.
12	The review site is zoned GRZ3, with areas of Neighbourhood Residential Zone further to the west, on the western side of Charman Road. Areas much further to the east and closer to the Mentone activity centre (either side of, as well as east of Elizabeth Street) are also zoned GRZ but in Schedule 2, as well as Activity Centre Zone. These areas are identified as areas that can support higher density housing than what policy identifies for the review site and more immediate surrounding area.

13	GRZ3 has variations to clause 55 standards for site coverage (50%), and private open space (60m2 required for each dwelling, with one part having 40m2 with a minimum 5 metre dimension) and maximum front fence height (1.2 metres).
14	GRZ2 has more limited variations to clause 55 standards (B32, Front fence height) and does not include a height limit. GRZ3, applying to the review site, includes variations to some of the standards including a lower site coverage, requirement for greater private open space and also includes a maximum height limit of 8 metres. 
15	The Kingston planning scheme recognises that diversity in housing types is necessary to cater for projected demographic change, noting that detached dwellings are the predominant style of housing.
16	Clauses 21.07 and 22.06 set out a framework where housing growth is divided into three categories, being increased housing diversity areas, incremental housing change areas, and minimal housing change areas. However, the minimal housing change areas are few and very confined relative to the area of the municipality.
17	Clause 21.07 of the planning scheme seeks development that:
a.	Has high levels of amenity; 
b.	is responsive to neighbourhood character; and 
c.	providing structure and certainty regarding where differing levels of development will occur.
18	This policy has the following objective:
To provide a range of housing types across the municipality taking account of the differential capacity of local areas to accommodate different types and rates of housing change.
19	Under this clause, the site is identified as being within an Incremental Housing Change Area, which sets out the following preferred housing outcome:
The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained.
20	Clause 21.07 also has objectives that seek to ensure that new development respects neighbourhood character, is site responsive and that medium density development be of the highest quality design. It also seeks more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development.
21	The review site is located approximately 1 kilometre from the Mentone activity centre including the Mentone railway station.
22	Clause 22.06, residential development policy, designates the review site as being within an incremental housing change area where it is policy to:
In suburban locations which are not within convenient walking distance of public transport and activity centres, encourage lower density housing forms with a predominance of single dwelling and the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots. These areas are identified for ‘incremental housing change’ on the Residential Framework Plan within the MSS.
23	This clause also includes policy that seeks:
For incremental housing change areas, the policy seeks to ensure that new housing development is responsive to maintaining the existing and preferred single dwelling and lower density nature of these areas.
24	Incremental housing change areas form the vast majority of residentially zoned land within the municipality, with GRZ3 covering most of this land. 
25	The Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, August 2007, is an incorporated document into the planning scheme. The review site is located within character area 17 which sets out broad characteristics of this particular precinct. These include site areas of approximately 600 to 675m², buildings set back from all boundaries, with a mixture of development layout.
26	Although this document is an incorporated document, it is quite dated and the area surrounding the review site does not consistently display the features described for this character area.
27	The council and the objectors submitted that the most relevant neighbourhood character to be used in this case, is that within Russell Court. The applicant, on the other hand, submitted that the character more broadly should also be taken into account, particularly considering the broader area is contained within the GRZ3.
28	Development in Russell Court is generally detached dwellings, with modest front gardens. Site areas are generally around 600-700m2 and architectural styles and materials vary. Scale varies also but with single storey being the predominant scale. There is, however, double storey development directly adjoining to the north and south of the review site. 
29	The existing dwelling on the review site is set back a minimum of 2.03 metres but this varies, with the front boundary alignment being stepped, and where directly adjacent to the majority of the street, the front set back is 5.135 metres (although this is likely to be greater as the dimension on the plans is taken to the edge of the eave, not the front wall).

Setbacks of the existing dwelling (shaded dark grey) on the review site.
Streetscape
30	The council and objectors submitted that the presentation to Russell Court would be imposing, considering the small front setback, double storey scale and box-like form, as well as foreign materials such as Colorbond cladding.
31	Adding to this, the council said the incorrectly depicted elevations give a false impression of what the dwellings would present, given additional wall elements would provide a greater extent of enclosure of the gap between dwellings 1 and 3, as would be seen from the street.
32	The council included an illustration of what it said a more correct illustration of the east elevation facing Russell Court would be and this is extracted below, with the ‘missing’ elements in dark grey. This shows the stairwell wall of unit 3 and upper floor bedroom wall of unit 2.  

Council’s illustration of additional upper floor elements to the east elevation.
33	In response, the applicant said these elements were ones which would not normall be illustrated given they are setback from the front walls of units 1 and 3. It was also submitted that these elements are ‘recessive’, with the stairwell wall of unit 3 set back 10.87 metres from the frontage and approximately 5 metres behind the front wall. The east wall of the upper floor bedroom of unit 2 is also well set back from the frontage, in the order of 20 metres.
34	I accept that these are errors on the elevations, which do not correspond to the floor plans. I agree with the council and the objectors that the applicant’s submission that these would not normally be shown on elevations is a stretch, as elevation drawings depict features in two-dimensional form, regardless of distance.
35	However, the council officer’s assessment of the front setback was that the proposal did not comply with Standard B6 of clause 55.01-3 (Street setback) but that it was acceptable:
It is noted that the proposal does not meet the recommended standard.  a review of the prevailing Street setbacks reveals a deeper character of setbacks in the area along the north and south side of the street.
However the existing dwelling is closer with a 5.1-6.1 metre street setback and a different orientation than the rest of the street. as such the proposed Street setback is considered to respect the existing neighbourhood character and makes efficient use of the site, meeting the overarching objective. A variation is appropriate in this instance.
36	It must be noted that the assessment from the council officer in relation to the front setback was based on a proposal which had a lesser setback than what is now before the Tribunal. In the amended plans, the front setback of unit three has been increased from 4.5 metres to 5.1 metres. The setback of unit 1 remains unchanged. 
37	I agree that the setbacks in the street vary, and the review site has a somewhat different presentation to the street, given the variation in the alignment of the eastern boundary. Further, the review site is quite a different shape to that of the majority of properties in the street and part of it sits behind, or to the west, of the driveway of 15 Russell Court which means it is more removed from direct views from the court bowl.
38	I am not persuaded that the proposal will present an unacceptable visual outcome to the Russell Court streetscape, for the following reasons:
a.	The unique position and shape of the lot, including the southern portion being set further from the street and behind the front section of 15 Russell Court; 
b.	the variation in built form in Russell Court, including architectural styles and materials; 
c.	the relatively narrow width of unit 3, which will be one of the most visible elements within the street;
d.	the spacing between units 1 & 2 and unit 3, even acknowledging that the elevations will need to be corrected to accurately depict what is proposed; 
e.	the space at the front of units 1 and 3 and beside the driveway that will provide both open space as well as landscaping to help integrate the proposal into the street; and
f.	the contemporary materials proposed.
39	Whilst the proposal is for three dwellings on a lot, and the site is an area identified for incremental change, there is some level of encouragement, as accepted by both the council and the objectors, that the site can support a multi-dwelling development of some kind. Given the zoning of the land which is GRZ, and not NRZ, along with the relatively large size of the site, I find that the mix of policy setting, size of the site, and the design response will provide an acceptable outcome with respect to presentation to the street.
Interface with adjoining properties
40	The council described the surrounding area as having a character of an ‘open backyard realm’, which the proposal would have a detrimental impact on.
41	Similarly, the objectors say that the proposal, particularly the upper floors, will have an unreasonable impact on the surrounding adjoining properties. This is due to what they describe as minimal boundary setbacks and lack of articulation across upper floor elevations. 
42	Mr Ng also submitted that the proximity of the ground floor, western wall of unit 2 to the western boundary would have an unacceptable impact on the adjoining property.
43	When assessing the character of the surrounding area in terms of built form that is visible from backyards and private open space, there is substantial evidence of existing buildings that are set deep into respective sites whether they be single dwellings or multi-dwelling developments. This is evident with the number of multi-dwelling developments abutting the review site to the north-west, west and south, as well as the single dwelling directly to the north at 10 Russell Court. This dwelling has a double storey component set back approximately 2 metres from the common boundary.
44	There is also a character of buildings being constructed to both sides and/or rear boundaries, including those properties abutting the review site. The review site itself also has an existing garage that abuts parts of both the north and western boundaries.
To the west
45	With respect to proposed unit 3, the amended plans have set back the lounge room at ground floor level from the western boundary at 1 metre, and also set back most of the upper floor from the western boundary 4 metres, with the exception of the ensuite wall being set back at 3.6 metres. This is an increase over the original plans before Council which set back the upper floor 3.125 m from the western boundary.
46	Although the applicant submitted that the secluded private open space (SPOS) of the adjoining dwelling to the west at 3/128-130 Charman Road did not have direct access to its SPOS, this was corrected by the respondent at the hearing and direct access is provided to this area, including the covered verandah.
47	However, I am not persuaded that the proposal will present an unacceptable visual impact to this property. The western setbacks of unit 2 all comply with standard B17 of clause 55.04-1, and space is also provided to include some landscaping along this side boundary, albeit it is unlikely to be able to include significant canopy trees, but some screen planting could easily be achieved along this interface, to soften the appearance of the built form.
To the north
48	With respect to the interface to the north, it is the interface with the property at 10 Russell Court that is most relevant.
49	The amended plans, aerial photography, and other photographs provided with the material for the hearing, vary with respect to the use of the area immediately abutting the review site on the southern side of 10 Russell Court. This area is partly concrete and partly grass. It forms one of three areas of private open space on this property, with a swimming pool on the northern side of the dwelling and another larger area of private open space on the western side of this property. 
50	There are also habitable room windows of the dwelling that face the review site. There is also a balcony on the eastern side of the upper floor close to the boundary with the review site, however this balcony faces east, away from the review site.

Extract of the design response plan showing 10 Russell Court to the top.

Extract of aerial photograph provided by the council, page 4 submissions.
51	The proposed upper floor of unit 3 is set back 2.63 metres from the northern boundary for its entire 18 metre (approximately) length, although it will have windows and varied materials including metal cladding and painted render. The maximum wall height along this elevation is approximately 6.54 metres. The wall height and setbacks comply with Standard B17 of clause 55.04-1.
52	The applicant accepted that changes could be made to this elevation to increase the level of articulation, and that the rear bedroom could be set back further from the northern boundary, but that the setting back of the front bedroom posed consequential issues to the design.
53	The southern SPOS of 10 Russell Court may not be regarded as the primary area of SPOS for this property, however, it is nonetheless SPOS. 
54	However, although the proposed upper floor north elevation of unit 3 is a continuous, unbroken length of wall, it is not fully opposite any one particular feature of the adjoining property. Along the southern part of 10 Russell Court are two distinct areas of SPOS separated by part of the dwelling. Further, the northern upper floor wall of unit 3 is proposed to include a mix of materials, as well as windows of varying proportions which will assist in visually breaking up any bulk impact. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the upper floor north elevation will not have an unacceptable impact to 10 Russell Court.
To the south
55	There are two separate properties which abut the southern boundary of the review site. One is 15 Russell Court, which once formed part of the review site before it was subdivided. The other is 2/126 Charman Road.
56	The property at 2/126 Charman Road contains a single storey dwelling, located towards the rear of the site and is one of two dwellings in a multi- dwelling development. The dwelling is constructed approximately 1 metre from the common boundary, with an area of SPOS along its eastern side, part of which abuts the review site.
57	The property at 15 Russell Court contains a double storey dwelling set back from the review site, with a relatively large area of SPOS between the dwelling and the review site. A strip of land also exists on the eastern side of the review site which provides access to 15 Russell Court. A large living room window at ground floor level also looks directly towards the review site and is somewhat elevated above ground level.

2/126 Charman Road

Review Site

15 Russell Court

Extract of aerial photograph included in the council’s submission, with Tribunal annotations identifying respective properties.

Extract of design response plan.
58	The setback of the proposal at ground floor will vary between 3 metres (at the south-eastern corner) to 5 metres along much of the southern elevation and up to 5.8 metres. The upper floor will be set back a minimum of 7.5 metres and up to 8.66 metres from the southern boundary.
59	I am satisfied that the proposal will not have any unacceptable impacts to either of the properties abutting the southern boundary of the review site.
60	With respect to 2/126 Charman Road, the proposal will be well set back at both ground and first floor levels from the common boundary. This setback provides both the SPOS for each of proposed units 1 and 2 and these areas provide space for some landscaping that could accommodate some screening vegetation, despite this not being required in my view, given the setbacks proposed. The proposal will also not create any additional overshadowing in accordance with Standard B21 of clause 55.04-5.
61	In terms of the impacts to 15 Russell Court, whilst Mr Ng argued that the narrower strip of land was in fact SPOS, in my view, it is not the primary area of SPOS, which appears to be that larger area further south of that strip of land and which directly abuts the northern side of the dwelling on that property. On the proposed plans, this strip of land is identified as ‘Driveway’.
62	Part of the ground floor of unit 1 is proposed to be constructed to the eastern boundary of the review site, abutting this strip of land. However, the ground floor of unit 1 is otherwise set back a minimum of 3 metres from the southern boundary, with the upper floor set back 7.5 metres.

63	I find that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the property at 15 Russell Court. I accept that the proposal will be visible from this property, including the SPOS areas and from inside the dwelling itself. However, the setbacks proposed, particularly the upper floor which is substantially set back from this property, will ensure that there will be no unacceptable visual bulk impact.
64	The proposal will cast some additional overshadowing over the ‘Driveway’ area, however, the primary area of SPOS will remain unaffected by additional overshadowing in accordance with Standard B21 of clause 55.04-5.
car parking
Tandem garage length
65	The objector parties raised concerns with respect to the tandem arrangement of the garages to units 1 and 2 and whether the garages proposed were of the minimum required length.
66	Specifically, the objectors raised concerns with what it described as the non-compliant length of the tandem garages for units 1 and 2, stating that clause 52.06 required an internal length of 11.4 metres. It was submitted that this length was derived from clause 52.06-9 requiring a single car garage has a minimum length requirement of 6 metres, and a single uncovered vehicle space has a minimum length requirement of 4.9 metres, with an additional 500 mm clearance required. The proposed garages have an internal length of 11.3 metres, being 100mm short of what the objectors described as being the required length.
67	Clause 52.06 does not set out the minimum internal length of a tandem garage of the type proposed where two car parking spaces are proposed in tandem, inside a garage. However, I accept the objectors’ logic with respect to how they arrived at what was said the minimum requirement was.
68	However, the proposed garages for units 1 and 2 provide substantial area for two cars to park in a tandem arrangement despite the fact they are 100 mm shorter than what the objectors said was required. On this basis, I find that the internal length of the garages for units 1 and 2 are of acceptable dimensions.
Access to garages
69	The council and the objectors raised issues with the manoeuvrability of vehicles from both of the spaces within the garage for unit 3, as well as the garages for units 1 and 2. 
70	It was also submitted that if both spaces in either tandem garage were occupied, in order for the vehicle occupying the inner car space, the other vehicle would have to completely exit the site, as there was insufficient space available within the site to allow it to exit, prop and return once the other vehicle had exited.
71	Further, it was submitted that the corrective manoeuvres required for the exit movement of both spaces in the garage of unit 3 amounts to inconvenience for future occupants and will result in vehicles parking in the street.
72	The council submitted that clause 52.06 does not specify that vehicles must exit in a forwards direction but that ‘it is considered common for new developments to minimise the number of manoeuvres required by future occupants to ensure the functionality of the internal accessways, ease of use and convenience.’
73	Otherwise, the council was satisfied that the design requirements of clause 52.06-9 had been met.
74	Both the purpose and decision guidelines of clause 52.06 require the safety and efficiency of car parking to be considered. 
75	Whilst I agree that the proposed layout would necessitate corrective manoeuvres and may have a level of inconvenience for the tandem garage spaces, and that such an outcome is not particularly convenient, I am not persuaded that the proposed design will result in a level of inconvenience such that future occupants would not utilise the garage spaces provided and therefore park in the street. Whilst corrective manoeuvres and tandem parking are not ideal, the concerns raised are not, in my view, so substantial to warrant refusal of the proposal.
76	It should be noted that mere provision of on-site parking does not compel occupants to use them for parking of all vehicles associated with respective dwellings. 
77	However, I am satisfied that the proposed parking arrangement is acceptable such that future occupants would not be so dissuaded from utilising the garages on design and inconvenience grounds that they would not utilise the car parking spaces. In addition, there were no submissions put that on-street parking was so saturated that additional parking could not be accommodated.
Are there any other issues?
78	The council and the respondents were concerned regarding the absence of adequate space on the street for bins of the proposed dwellings to be placed at a convenient distance from the review site and submitted that there are already issues with bin storage on the street on collection days due to lack of space.
79	The end of the court bowl, directly adjacent to the review site, is absent of any nature strip, which in turn appears to result in bins for the properties at the end of the court bowl needing to utilise other parts of the street. 
80	I am not persuaded that this issue is one which should warrant refusal of this proposal in this case. The distance for future residents of the proposal to wheel bins further along the street than immediately adjacent to the review site is perhaps not ideal, but is a matter of metres. It is not a reason to refuse the proposal. 
81	The respondents also raised concerns with respect to a lack of north facing windows to living areas.
82	I accept that two of the three dwellings proposed do not include north facing living areas. However, unit 3 does include north facing windows to living areas, as well as to the upper floor rumpus room to unit 1.
83	Although it would be preferable to have north facing windows to all dwellings, this in isolation or in combination with other issues identified does not, in my view, warrant refusal.
84	A number of errors were identified on the architectural drawings. I have already addressed the main ones with respect to the east elevation. 
85	Others identified referred to discrepancies between floor plans and elevations, mainly relating to windows. Further errors include some setbacks shown to windows rather than walls. These differences are relatively minor and as far as I was advised, would not result in a difference between compliance and non-compliance with relevant clause 55 standards, but should nonetheless be shown to walls, where these are less than the windows. These matters are in my view, minor but should be rectified and I have included conditions to that effect.
What conditions are appropriate?
86	During the discussion of conditions towards the end of the hearing, Mr Ng suggested that shading devices should be included for windows to the north elevation of each of the dwellings. The applicant did not oppose this in principle so I have included a condition accordingly.
Conclusion
87	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Joel Templar 
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	KP-2020/297	
Land	12 Russell Court, MENTONE VIC 3194	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of three dwellings on a lot.	

Conditions
Amended Plans
1	Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions.  The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by KG Architecture, comprising Drawing No’s. TP01 to T08 inclusive, Revision B dated 19.11.2021. but modified to show: 
(a)	All relevant Elevation Plans amended to accurately show the full extent of the upper floor, in particular the East Elevation to show the built form above the dwelling entry of unit 3 and the western most bedroom of unit 2. 
(b)	All setbacks from boundaries shown to walls.
(c)	Provision of secure storage areas, including dimensions for each dwelling demonstrating compliance with Standard B30 of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
(d)	Maximum height of the mailboxes nominated, demonstrating compliance with visibility splay requirements. 
(e)	Notation for the provision of a minimum 2000L rainwater tank clearly nominated for each new dwelling and connected to toilets for flushing.
(f)	The driveway to be nominated to be constructed of light coloured permeable material, which will mitigate the Urban Heat Effect created by this development and allow adequate usable soil volume for root growth of trees within proximity to the driveway, in accordance with Kingston Planning Scheme (Clauses: 55.03-4 and 55.03-8) and Kington’s Urban Cooling Strategy (Clause: 6.2.3).
(g)	The provision of a full colour palette, finishes and building materials schedule for all external elevations and driveways of the development
(h)	A notation specifying the proposed stormwater discharge located at least 500mm from the vehicle crossing, notated on plans. 
(i)	The location of bin storage in each area of private open space.
(j)	The provision of an amended landscape plan in accordance with the submitted Landscape Plan prepared by Etched (Date: 30.11.21, Rev: VCAT Issue), with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and revised to include the following;
i	A planting schedule of all proposed trees and shrubs, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;
ii	A survey, including, botanical names of all existing trees to be retained or removed on the site including Tree Protection Zones for trees to be retained calculated in accordance with AS4970-2009;
iii	Identify the existing Olea europea (Olive) at 15 Russell Court, Mentone and illustrate and notate its Tree Protection Zone and Tree Protection Fencing in accordance with AS4970-2009; 
iv	The delineation of all garden beds, paving, grassed area, retaining walls, fences and other landscape works. This must include the garden bed for climbers on the wall of Unit 3 adjacent to the garage of Unit 3 with notation referring to method of wire fixings, if different to Sectional View: D4-VC1.
v	Replacement of the proposed gravel in the sideways of Unit 2 and 3 with stepping stones and groundcovers to mitigate the Urban Heat Island Effect providing a more favourable environmental outcome in accordance with the Kingston Planning Scheme (Clause: 55.03-8) and Kington’s Urban Cooling Strategy (Clause: 6.2.3).
vi	Substitution of the Hardstand Paving in the secluded private open space of Unit 3 for permeable paving or timber decking to allow adequate usable soil volume for root growth of the two (2) canopy trees in this space and mitigate the Urban Heat Effect, in accordance with the Kingston Planning Scheme (Clauses: 55.03-4, 55.03-8) and Kington’s Urban Cooling Strategy (Clause: 6.2.3).
vii	The driveway material to be nominated, being consistent with that required in condition 1e. 
viii	A range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees, provided at adequate planting densities (e.g. plants 1 metre width at maturity planted 1 metre apart); with the species chosen to comprise of a minimum 80% coastal indigenous species by plant type and total quantities, with the two (2) native trees in Condition ix. being the only exception; Refer to Council’s Gardens for Wildlife webpage for a comprehensive list of species indigenous to Kingston https://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Community/Sustainability-and-Workshops/Gardens-for-Wildlife
ix	Two (2) native canopy trees capable of growing to minimum mature dimensions of 10 metres in height and 6 metres in width (Replacement of the Tristaniopsis laurina ‘Luscious’ (Kanooka) and to be planted in the front setback of the property. 
x	Substitution of all other nominated trees (nine (9) in total) with a minimum of 80% coastal indigenous tree species, capable of reaching a minimum mature dimension of 8 metres in height and 5 metres in width, as per Council’s Gardens for Wildlife webpage Link above.
xi	All trees provided at a minimum of 2 metres in height at time of planting, except for the Brachychiton acerifolius (Illawarra Flame Tree) which is to be supplied at a minimum 3 metres in height at the time of planting, with medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm. 
xii	Notes regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements. 
xiii	Screening vegetation between the western wall of the ground floor family room of unit 2 and the western boundary.
(k)	The location of tree protection measures illustrated to scale and labeled on the Ground Floor Plan.
(l)	A sustainable design assessment in accordance with the requirements of condition 6 of the planning permit.  All relevant commitments identified within the sustainable design assessment must be shown on the plans.
(m)	The location of appropriately designed, baffled lighting within the shared accessway.
(n)	The location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like, clearly shown.
(o)	Shading devices to the north elevation windows of each dwelling.
Endorsed Plans
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
Drainage and Water Sensitive Urban Design
4	Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, before the development commences, the following Integrated Stormwater Management documents must be prepared, by a suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(a)	Stormwater Management/drainage (drainage) Plan(s) must be prepared, with supporting computations, showing the stormwater (drainage) works to the nominated point of discharge. The plan(s) must show all details of the proposed stormwater (drainage) works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact on the stormwater (drainage) works, including landscaping details. 
(b)	The Stormwater Management (drainage) Plan must address the requirements specified within Council’s “Civil Design requirements for Developers – Part A: Integrated Stormwater Management”.
(c)	A STORM modelling report with results demonstrating water sensitive urban design treatments that achieve Victorian best practice objectives with a minimum 100% rating must be provided as part of the Stormwater Management (drainage) Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. These may include the use of an infiltration or bio-retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse, or other treatments to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(d)	The water sensitive urban design treatments as per conditions above must be implemented on-site, unless an alternative agreement for stormwater quality in-lieu contribution is reached with the Responsible Authority.
5	Stormwater/drainage works must be implemented in accordance with the approved stormwater management/drainage plan(s) and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority including the following:
(a)	All stormwater/drainage works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.
(b)	The implementation of stormwater/drainage detention system(s) which restricts stormwater discharge to the maximum allowable flowrate of 8.3L/s.
(c)	All stormwater/drainage works must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Sustainable Design Assessment
6	Prior to the endorsement of the plans required pursuant to Condition 1 of this permit, the provision of a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) to be prepared by a suitably qualified professional must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The SDA must include, but is not limited to, detailing initiatives for stormwater harvesting, insulation, building materials, daylighting, collective rainwater tanks and/or individual rainwater tanks, public and private landscape irrigation and car washing, energy efficient concepts, glazing and internal ventilation and the like.
7	All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed sustainable design assessment to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. No alterations to the sustainable design assessment may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Infrastructure and Road Works
8	Any relocation of pits/power poles or other services affected by this development must be relocated to the satisfaction of the relevant servicing authority and the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the owner/developer.
9	Property boundary and footpath levels must not be altered without the prior written consent form the Responsible Authority.
10	Any reinstatements and vehicle crossings are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11	The replacement of all footpaths, including offsets, must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Any redundant vehicle crossings must be removed (including redundant portions of vehicle crossings) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
General amenity conditions
13	All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
14	All externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like must not be located adjacent to bedroom windows on adjoining properties and must not be located where they will be highly visible from any public area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15	All piping, ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater, guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Completion of Works
16	Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
17	Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Expiry of permit for development
18	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 –