VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P11275/2021
Permit Application no.PA2048437 	
CATCHWORDS	
Side-by-side dwellings; two-storey garages with studios on laneway; laneway definition; laneway character and amenity; backyardscape; design detail.	

Applicants	Simon Kingston & Della Helen Robb & Mark Anthony Dixon	

Responsible Authority	Hobsons Bay City Council	
Respondent	Blur Architecture	

SUBJECT LAND	58 Newcastle Street
NEWPORT VIC 3015	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	11 April 2022	

DATE OF ORDER	19 April 2022	

CITATION	Kingston v Hobsons Bay CC [2022] VCAT 425	
Order
1	In application P11275/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is varied. 
2	In planning permit application PA2048437 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 58 Newcastle Street NEWPORT VIC 3015 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	The construction of two or more dwellings on a lot under clause 32.08-6.

Michael Nelthorpe
Member			

Appearances
For applicants	Mr Ahmed Osman, director/town planner of Blur Architecture.	
For responsible authority	Ms Alexandra Rio, town planner.	
For respondents	Mr Mark Dixon and Mr Simon Kingston.	
Information
Description of proposal	Two side-by-side double-storey dwellings each with a two-storey, side-by-side garage and studio on the rear boundary.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 1	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6:  to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 2.03-1, 2.03-5, 2.03-6, 11.02-1S, 15.01-1S, 15.01-1R, 15.01-1L-02, 15.01.2L-02, 15.01-5D, 15.02-1L, 32.08, 52.06, 55, 65 & 71.02.	
Land description	This rectangular site is located mid-block on the north side of Newcastle Street, opposite the Leo Hoffman reserve.  It has rear access via Chalmers Lane.  It has a 13.06m frontage, a 40.23m depth and an area of 525m2.  A single-storey dwelling occupies the site.  Single storey double-fronted weatherboard Victorian era dwellings occupy the sites to the east and west.  Two double-storey contemporary dwellings are located behind the site on the opposite side of Chalmers Lane.	
Tribunal inspection	11 April 2022 (after the hearing).   	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Simon Kingston, Della Robb and Mark Dixon (‘the Applicants’) seek a review of the decision of the Hobsons Bay City Council (‘the Council’) to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for two dwellings at 58 Newcastle Street, Newport.
What are the key issues?
2	The issues in dispute are confined to:
•	Is the impact of the studios proposed above the garages at the rear of the site acceptable?
•	Is the impact on the backyardscape of adjoining properties acceptable?
•	Is the design of the front elevations acceptable?
3	I use the word ‘acceptable’ in the context explained by Osborn J in Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd as follows:
13(d)	The planning scheme does not require an ideal outcome as a pre-requisite to a permit.  If it did, very few, if any, permits for development would ever be granted and there would be difficult differences of opinion as to whether the outcomes were in fact ideal.  The Tribunal is entitled to grant a permit where it is satisfied that the permit will result in a reasonably acceptable outcome having regard to the matters relevant to its decision under the planning scheme.  
4	Having heard and considered submissions and having inspected the site (including from Mr Dixon’s living area and upstairs balcony), I find that:
a	the proposal, with minor changes to the studio’s setback where it faces the lane and with a light colour applied to the studios’ walls opposite Mr Dixon’s property, is an acceptable outcome given the laneway location of Mr Dixon’s property;
b	the proposal’s visual impact on the backyardscape of the properties to its east and west is acceptable given that two storey buildings are reasonably anticipated given the site’s context and zoning; and
c	the curved edges of the front façade are an acceptable design detail because the proposal, as a whole, respects the neighbourhood’s character.  Some innovation or contemporary expression, such as curved edges, is encouraged in new development whereas replication of existing details is not.
5	I elaborate on these findings after describing the site, the surrounds, the policy framework, and the proposal.
The site and surrounds
6	The site is in an established residential area a short walk to the west of the Newport shopping area and railway station on Melbourne Road.  It is a relatively flat area with most original dwellings dating from the 1920s or thereabouts.  The lots are regular in dimension and the road network includes a series of 4.8m wide lanes running north-south and sometimes east-west between the streets.
7	The site has a south-facing frontage to Newcastle Street with rear access available from Chalmers Lane – a part crushed rock/part concrete paved laneway that runs east-west, with a similarly-sized lane running north-south at the centre point between William and Elizabeth Streets.  
8	Many single storey garages or rear fences face Chalmers Lane, except for the Dixon/Robb property and their neighbour to the west.  These properties are occupied by compact two-storey dwellings facing Chalmers Lane and set back 1.6m at ground level and 2.4m at first floor level (with first floor balconies that extend to approximately 700mm from the lane).  Mr Dixon advises that the recently constructed gym of the Newport Primary School immediately north of his property has enclosed his northern aspect.
9	There has been, and continues to be, a reasonable amount of redevelopment in this residential area.  Two storey developments, mainly of two dwellings, have replaced many original dwellings in William and Elizabeth Streets as well as more broadly.  From the Respondent’s submission and from my site inspection, it is apparent that access to garages and rear yards is mainly from the lanes.
10	I observed several different styles of rear access on my site inspection, ranging from well-established gates and roller doors to new brick garages with either pitched or flat roofs.  Amongst these are several recent examples of developments with ground floor garages and first floor studios or other living space.  I could not discern any consistency in upper-level setbacks.
The policy framework
11	The site is in the General Residential Zone.  This Zone encourages incremental change, with buildings of up to three storeys in appropriate circumstances.  Two storey medium density development is common in this zone. 
12	At the hearing, I described how State planning policy supports this level of change so that demand for new housing on the fringe of the metropolis is reduced.  I described the social and economic benefits that underly this support, including the benefit of optimising the rich social and community infrastructure of established residential areas.
13	While two and three storey redevelopment is encouraged, it must respect the neighbourhood’s character.  The Council advises that recent changes to the Planning Scheme require me to assess the proposal’s response to the neighbourhood’s existing character, which I briefly described earlier.
14	I acknowledge the Respondent’s submission that Planning Practice Note 43: Understanding Neighbourhood Character identifies the following built form cues as guides to a respectful response from new development:
•	The pattern of development of the neighbourhood;
•	The built form, scale and character of surrounding development;
•	Architectural and roof styles’; and
•	Any other notable features or characteristics of the area.
15	These cues do not necessarily constrain contemporary architecture or prohibit development that is more intensive than currently exists.  Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme, which relates specifically to medium density development, includes a series of standards that indicate the balance sought between more intensive development, respect for existing character and response to existing neighbour’s amenity.
16	The network of lanes in the area containing the review site is a notable characteristic of the area.  Local policy anticipates development along laneways in the following ways:
Clause 15.01-2L-01 (Building design)
Design development abutting a laneway or public parkland to provide for passive surveillance of these public spaces including through:
•	Habitable rooms and balconies with an outlook onto these spaces.
•	Low, permeable or transparent fencing, particularly in areas where this already occurs.
Clause 15.01-2L-02 (Residential development design)
•	Support development to exceed minimum compliance with the requirements of Clause 54, 55 and 58 to ensure the protection and enhancement of residential amenity.
•	Support innovation and creativity in the design and planning of medium and high density residential development.
•	Minimise the loss of front garden space by avoiding the creation of additional vehicular crossings and require vehicular access from adjacent laneways if available.
17	The first of these clauses encourages development like the Dixon/Robb dwelling, which has an outlook to the lane, while the second clause encourages garages on laneways for the benefit of the main streetscape.
The proposal
18	Two side-by-side two-storey dwellings with garages and studios on the rear boundary are proposed for the site.  

Site plans for the proposed development.
19	Notably, the proposal complies with most of the quantitative standards of clause 55.  For example, the front and side setbacks meet the standard, the development’s height is well below the maximum height, and the overlooking and overshadowing of adjoining properties meet the relevant standards.  
20	There are three relevant areas of non-compliance.  These are:
•	The site coverage is 61% - 1% above the maximum 60%;
•	The rear setbacks of the first floor studios are 0.72m (Dwelling 1) and 0.83m (Dwelling 2) whereas the standard requires a 1.78m setback; and
•	The stairs leading to these studios impinge on the sunlight available to the proposed rear yards.
21	The compliant front and side setbacks, along with the proposal’s pitched roofs are the primary response to the neighbourhood’s character.  They set a scale and form of development that respects the Newcastle Street streetscape.  The response to Chalmers Lane is more robust and reflect its primary use as a service lane providing vehicle access for dwellings facing Newcastle Street.
is the impact of the studios proposed above the garages at the rear of the site acceptable?
The submissions
22	The Applicants contend that the studios above the garages at the rear of the site are not acceptable.  They say that:
•	the setbacks from the council have been treated as a laneway.
•	the lane is now a named street and HBCC are charging full rates for the properties of which this is their primary frontage.
•	Of the many current examples of double story garages in lanes of the local area none face the front of an existing home at such a close proximity.
•	Consideration needs to be made as to the amenity of these homes, it is being considerably reduced by the second story on the garage, effectively boxing them in.
•	The setbacks permitted should not be different from one side of the lane to another for a similar structure.
•	Why is the setback not the same for new second story studio as the homes who face onto Chalmers Lane?
23	Further to this, they note that the proposal would meet the standard regarding sunlight in the proposed rear yards if the studios were deleted and say this would result in a better outcome for all involved.
24	Regarding these points, the Council and Respondent say that the studios are an acceptable part of the proposal.  They say that the garages with first floor studios are reflective of existing development in the area’s laneways.  
25	The Council says that compliance with the side setback standard plus the use of a flat roof to reduce overall height are reasonable responses to the amenity of the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour.  Further to this, it notes that the location of the garages and studios on the south side of the lane avoids overshadowing of the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour, and that overlooking of these properties is avoided by screening on the studio windows.
26	The Respondent also relies on the distance between the two sets of buildings.  They say it is approximately 7.2m at the ground floor and 8.3m to the bedroom walls at the first floor.
My findings and reasons
Is Chalmers Lane a street or a lane?
27	I find that Chalmers Lane must be regarded as a lane rather than a street.  I find that the existence of the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour do not change this designation.  It is a question of fact based on the existing conditions and character of Chalmers Lane and other nearby lanes compared to William, Elizabeth and Newcastle Streets.
28	Having inspected these streets and lanes, I consider that their character is set by their original purpose combined with the siting and presentation of buildings that face them.  The streets have footpaths, nature strips and street trees that reflect their original purpose of providing a primary frontage to the lots.  The lanes have none of these features, which reflects their original purpose as service lanes, possibly for night carts.  The buildings facing the streets are generally setback to provide modest front gardens that frame the entrance to the dwellings.  The buildings facing the lanes are generally built hard up against the lane’s edges and are generally quite plain.  They convey a sense of being at the rear of sites.
Appropriate setbacks where two-storey garage/studios face a dwelling
29	I agree with the Applicants that the site and its immediate surrounds differ from other nearby developments because the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour face Chalmers Lane.  There are very few developments in the area that are similar, with the examples being limited to sites having access to both a street and a lane (as has occurred with the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour and the corner site on the west side of Elizabeth Street).

The developments on the corner lots on north side of Chalmers Lane showing four or five dwellings with two or three facing the lane.
30	I accept the Applicants’ submission that consideration must be given to the amenity of dwellings like the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour however, I disagree with their submission that the setbacks permitted should not be different from one side of the lane to another.  
31	Firstly, clause 55 is a guide and variations from its standards can be acceptable.  In other words, there are no prescribed setbacks.  Apart from this, clause 55 treats corner site developments (such as the one including the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour) differently than mid-block developments (such as the proposal before me).  
32	The front setback standard that applies to corner site developments anticipates the following minimum setback from a ‘side street ‘(Chalmers Lane in this case):
Front walls of new development fronting the side street of a corner site should be setback at least the same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 3 metres, whichever is the lesser.
Side walls of new development on a corner site should be setback at least the same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 2 metres, whichever is the lesser.
33	The first limb of this standard applies to the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour.  Arguably, the ‘front wall’ of the bungalow in the rear yard of 29 William Street defines the minimum setback, yet I would not place much weight on this outcome given that the bungalow’s ‘frontage’ consists of a gate in the fence and a simple front door on that building.  However, it indicates that the lane’s character is one of buildings are sited close to the lane’s edge.  It implies that other buildings, such as the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour can respect the lane’s character by being close to its edge.
34	In contrast, the rear setback standard applies to mid-block developments that have a lane at the rear.  The following diagram explains the standard.  It indicates that the ground floor of any new development can be set on the rear boundary and that the first floor should be setback 1m and then taper away from the boundary:

35	This standard requires consideration of:
The impact on the amenity of the habitable room windows and secluded private open space of existing dwellings; and
Whether the wall abuts a side or rear lane.
36	Such consideration may allow the standard to be varied if it results in an acceptable outcome.
37	Due to this standard, occupants of the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour must anticipate development similar to what is proposed.  Generally speaking, ‘laneway living’ implies a secluded yet robust setting – a sense of being tucked away from the surrounding area.  
38	Based on the standard, the ground floor is barely at issue, rather the question relates to the mass of the upper floor.  What favours the Council and Respondent is that the standard anticipates a neighbour’s backyard beyond the boundary and seeks to ensure that this neighbour’s amenity is not unreasonably diminished by a first floor that looms over their yard.
39	Our circumstances are different because:
a	the Applicants are seeking to protect the amenity of the Dixon/Robb’s outlook from their frontage rather than their rear yard; and
b	a 4.8m wide lane separates the two properties, with the walls of the buildings being separated by 7.2m at the ground floor and 8.3m at the first floor.
40	What also favours the Council and Respondent is that the proposed garage/studios do not cast shadow on the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour because they are to the south of those properties.
41	I am satisfied that the distance between the two buildings protects the amenity of the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour to a considerable degree.  The proposed studios ‘loom over’ these properties far less than anticipated by the standard.
42	However, given that the outlook is from the front of these properties, I consider it is reasonable to require the studios to be setback further than the garages to respect and acknowledge these properties.  A setback that articulates this elevation is all that is required.  Accordingly, I will require that the north walls of the studios are setback a minimum of 280mm from the walls of the garages below.  I consider that this strikes an appropriate balance between the amenity of the Dixon/Robb dwelling and its neighbour and the functionality of the studios.  Any greater distance would impinge too much on the usability of those spaces.
43	I will also require the walls of the studios to be clad in a material of a lighter colour.  While it is generally considered that darker colours assist in a building being absorbed in its context, I am not convinced that this principle applies across a distance of 7.2m to 8.3m.  I observed several two-storey laneway developments on my site inspection and found that those with upper floors clad in dark colours were more dominant than those clad in light colours.

This image shows the light colours used at the rear of 36 William Street
Removing the studios would be a better outcome
44	The Applicants contend that removing the studios would be a better outcome.  At a minimum, the standard regarding solar access to a development’s open space areas would be met.
45	I am not persuaded that this is the case.  The studios add a point of difference for these dwellings and contribute to the Planning Scheme’s objective of providing a diversity of housing types.  This objective seeks to ensure that housing stock is better matched to the range of different households found in Melbourne.
46	I am not persuaded that the degree of non-compliance with the solar access standard outweighs this objective.  Only the stairs do not comply and the shadow they cast is marginal.
is the impact on the backyardscape of adjoining properties acceptable?
47	The Applicants say that the proposal will adversely impact on views and amenity of the backyard of the neighbour to the west.  They also say that the overshadowing of this yard is unreasonable.  They refer to the Neighbourhood Character Study 2019, which envisages single-storey dwellings at the rear of lots in this precinct.
48	I accept that there will be a loss of amenity however, it is within the range anticipated by clause 55.  The proposed development retains the spine of open space between dwellings and garages in this section of Newcastle Street given that the proposed dwellings are of similar length to those adjoining.
49	While double storey development has a greater presence than single storey development, it is anticipated under the Zone, and it is common in the area.  Clause 55 seeks to protect neighbouring amenity to a reasonable degree through standards for side setbacks and overshadowing.  The proposal complies with these standards.
50	On this basis, the impacts on the backyardscape of the adjoining properties is acceptable.
is the design of the front elevations acceptable?
51	The Applicants say that the proposed recycled brick curved structures topped with ‘shipping container like’ second storeys hardly fit in an extended row of period homes.  They say that the design is completely out of character with the streetscape.
52	I find that these submissions are contrary to the purpose of the General Residential Zone.  This calls for increased housing density of a form that respects, rather than replicates, the existing character.
53	To a large degree, the character of the neighbourhood is respected by providing front and side setbacks that match other dwellings in the street.  This maintains the openness of the streetscape.  Other details of the design such as the curved corners and first floor balconies decorate the front facades, just as front balconies and iron lacework decorate the façades of the period homes.
54	The Planning Scheme’s guidance on building design does not unduly restrict contemporary architecture.  It accommodates the fact that architectural design, building materials and internal amenity standard change over time.  On this basis, the requirement to respect existing character allows new development to borrow cues from existing buildings without having to replicate the form or detail of their design.
Are there any other issues?
55	The Applicants also say that the 10 bedrooms in the proposed development could mean that future occupants have 6-8 cars whereas only four spaces are available.  They say that this increase in parking demand will impact on the area’s amenity.  They say that removing the studios will assist in reducing this parking demand.
56	I cannot adopt the Applicants’ suggestion.  The Planning Scheme requires two parking spaces for a dwelling of three or more bedrooms.  I do not have the power to require additional car spaces or to justify a reduction in the number of bedrooms due to parking demand.
What conditions are appropriate?
57	We discussed the draft conditions at the hearing.  As requested by the Applicant, I have revised draft Condition 1m) i) to clarify that the average NatHERS rating applies across both dwellings.  I have also retained draft Condition 1a) that requires a 200mm reduction in the maximum building height.  While the parties agreed not to contest the overshadowing of solar panels on the adjoining property to the west, there was a difference of opinion on whether this was based on the current proposal or on the current proposal subject to this condition.  I have proceeded with caution by retaining this condition.
58	I have also revised Condition 1 by:
a	Including the amendments discussed in my reasons;
b	removing the requirement for bicycle parking as clause 52.34 exempts a development of two dwellings from this requirement;
c	revising draft conditions 1f) and g) to be more clearly expressed and to allow one medium or large canopy tree per dwelling with those trees located in the frontage, so that the proposed rear yards and those of the adjoining properties can retain a high level of northern sunlight; 
d	removing draft Condition 1h) that requires the undergrounding of services as this is not a power that can be exercised under the Planning and Environment Act 1987; and
e	removing draft Condition 1i) that requires stormwater infrastructure to be located outside landscape areas because all land in the front setback is set aside for landscaping (rather than landscaping and driveways).
59	I have removed draft Condition 3 because the patio, as shown on the plans, is not enclosed and because draft conditions cannot foreshadow issues that are properly addressed through enforcement proceedings.
60	I have revised draft Condition 7 because the location of the mailboxes is shown on the plans.
61	I have deleted draft Condition 8 because the details of the street numbering can be left to the permit holder.
62	I have deleted the reference to exposed concrete slabs in draft Condition 10 because the plans do not show exposed concrete slabs.
63	I have deleted draft Condition 12 because it repeats the last sentence of draft Condition 11 and otherwise, unduly restricts the use of the garages for the storage of bicycles and other household items in addition to the garaging of vehicles.
64	I have revised draft Condition 13 because it seeks to exercise powers that cannot be exercised under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
65	I have deleted draft Conditions 18 and 19 because the management of the Council’s assets (nature strip, footpath and rear lane) and the management of service authority’s assets are regulated by other legislation.
66	I have revised draft Condition 21 (permit expiry) to reflect the wording preferred by the Tribunal.  The Council should be aware that sections 68 and 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 could be amended at any time and it is preferable for permit expiry conditions to accommodate any future amendment rather than reflect the current wording of these sections.

Conclusion
67	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Michael Nelthorpe
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PA2048437	
Land	58 Newcastle Street
NEWPORT VIC 3015	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	The construction of two or more dwellings on a lot under clause 32.08-6.	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, plans drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The plans must be substantially in accordance with the advertised plans but modified to show:
(a)	The maximum building height is to be reduced by 200mm to minimise overshadowing to adjoining development and allow adequate solar access to the existing solar panels on adjoining development.  
(b)	The studios of Units 1 and 2 set back an additional 280mm from the northern boundary.
(c)	A materials and finishes schedule (including colours) with a light grey or cream colour shown for the northern walls of the studios of Units 1 and 2.
(d)	Include a notation to refer to the SDA / BESS / INSITE reports for a list of ESD requirements. The development must meet all commitments in the SDA even when not noted on plans. 
(e)	The colour of the roof and paving areas must be specified.  They must have solar absorptance value = or < 0.60 to assist urban cooling and reduction in peak cooling load.
(f)	A landscape plan including: 
i	water efficient landscaping covering mulching, planting selection and information on the drought tolerance/low water use capability of the various plant (including grasses and lawn) selections (including whether native or exotic);
ii	The irrigated garden area connected to RW tank (as per the INSITE Report) must also be included in a note on the plan;
iii	The landscape plan must be consistent with the WSUD plan.  The minimum vegetation area (%) as per BESS must also be noted on the landscape plan; and
iv	The landscape plan submitted must include at least one medium to large canopy tree (i.e. canopy width minimum 5m) per dwelling with this tree located in the front setback.
(g)	A notation on the 1:100 site and layout plans which states that the laneway that abuts the northern boundary of the site is to be constructed from the existing concrete pavement for a length of 3.0 metres beyond the eastern boundary of the site in accordance with Condition 11. 
(h)	The positioning of all plant and equipment (including air conditioning units, heating units, hot water systems, etc.) which is proposed to be located externally.  Such plant and equipment must be positioned to prevent unreasonable noise and visual impact. 
(i)	The Site Plan and Landscaping Plan to nominate a Tree Protection Zone in accordance with Condition 5 of this permit.
(j)	The SDA report updated as follows: 
i	The average NatHERS rating of 6.5 stars across the two dwellings will be achieved. 
ii	Removal of cross flow ventilation credit unless plans are updated to include appropriate breeze paths. The thermal performance specifications consistent with the NatHERS report must be mentioned in the SDA in the energy section.
iii	Permeable paving area must be included as a treatment input into InSIte calculations.
iv	The WSUD plan must show the permeable paving at the rear with a specific colour code.
v	The vegetation credit must be revised to include only tufted or planted areas and exclude other landscape elements.
vi	The full NatHERS reports for both dwellings must be submitted.
Any subsequent resubmission must clearly highlight the changes on all plans/drawings (e.g. clouding around changes) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3	Concurrently with a request for endorsed plans under this permit, the owner must lodge a bank guarantee or bond of $2000 with the Responsible Authority to ensure the satisfactory establishment of landscaping works.  Once landscaping has been completed in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan, Council must be notified so a six week establishment period will commence.  The bank guarantee or bond will be returned after an inspection has confirmed the landscaping has been maintained for that period to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  After the establishment period, the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4	Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and thereafter must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
5	Prior to commencement of works, the following provisions relating to the protection of the existing street tree must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: 
(a)	A suitable Tree Protection Zone of 1.0 metre radius with barrier fence must be established around the street tree to be retained on the Newcastle Street frontage. 
(b)	The Tree Protection Zone must be enclosed using a 2 metre high temporary cyclone fence or similar, which must remain in place through all stages of the development.  This fence must not enclose the footpath which must be kept clear for pedestrian access and a sign must be erected on the fence informing that the fence is a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. 
(c)	The area within the Tree Protection Zone must not be disturbed by any means (including parking of vehicles or storage of plant & equipment, materials, soil or waste). 
(d)	No excavation is allowed within the Tree Protection Zone except with the consent of Council’s Town Planning Department and under the supervision of a qualified Arborist.
6	The proposed mailboxes must allow mail delivery from the footpath area in accordance with the requirements of Australia Post.
7	All service pipes, (excluding downpipes), fixtures and fittings must be concealed on exposed elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8	Prior to the occupation of the buildings, all boundary walls on or facing the boundaries of the site must be either raked and cleaned (face brickwork) or rendered and painted or bagged and painted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
9	Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be:
(a)	Constructed.
(b)	Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
(c)	Surfaced with concrete.
(d)	Drained and maintained.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times. 
10	All above ground meters must be located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
11	Concurrently with a request for endorsed plans under this permit, detailed construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, Council’s Infrastructure and Projects Department.  The plans must be drawn to scale and show all drainage and pavement works associated with the construction on Chalmers Lane to the north of the site, from the existing concrete pavement to 3 metres beyond the eastern boundary.  The design must include a concrete pavement (200mm thick 25 MPA concrete on 75 mm class 3 crushed rock bedding with F92 reinforcement), and drainage with a grated pit. 
12	Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, Chalmers Lane must be constructed in accordance with the construction plans required under Condition 14. 
13	Prior to commencement of the development the owner must prepare stormwater drainage design plans to the satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor.  An application to Council must be made for a Legal Point of Discharge for the disposal of stormwater from the subject land and to determine the relevant Council standards for the stormwater drainage system design.  An on-site storm water detention system will be required if the volume of stormwater exceeds the capacity of the legal point of discharge.
14	Before any construction or demolition works commence on the land, a secure fence must be provided around the perimeter of the land to prevent access to the land by unauthorised persons.  This fence must be maintained for the duration of the construction and demolition, be a minimum height of 1.5m (or such alternative height as is approved in writing by the Responsible Authority) and be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The gate or opening to the fence must be securely locked at all times when work is not being undertaken on the land.
15	Except as otherwise specified in another condition of this permit, boundary fences must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at no less than 1.8 metres and no more than 2.0 metres in height and at the cost of the owner unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.  
16	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: 
(a)	The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four years of the 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 –