VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P11544/2021
Permit Application no. PLN/2021/68 	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. Low Density Residential Zone. Two lot subdivision. Consistency with policy. Neighbourhood character.	
Applicant	Milward Engineering Management Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Macedon Ranges Shire Council	
Referral Authorities	Greater Western Water	
	Melbourne Water Corporation	

SUBJECT LAND	4 McCluskey Street
RIDDELLS CREEK VIC 3431	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	29 April 2022	

DATE OF ORDER	10 June 2022	

CITATION	Milward Engineering Management Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2022] VCAT 635	

Order

Permit granted
1	In application P11544/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application PLN/2021/68 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 4 McCluskey Street, Riddells Creek in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows a two lot subdivision. 

Cindy Wilson 
Member			

Appearances
For Milward Engineering Management Pty Ltd	Mr William Reddick, town planner of Lifestyle Town Planning & Services and Mr Justin Hinch, project manager.	
For Macedon Ranges Shire Council	Mr Andrew Clarke, town planner of Clarke Planning Pty Ltd 	
For Greater Western Water 	No appearance 	
For Melbourne Water Corporation	No appearance	

Information
Description of proposal	Subdivide the land into two lots	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme 	
Zone and overlays	Low Density Residential Zone 	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.03-3 A permit is required to subdivide land in the Low Density Residential Zone	
Land description	The review site is located on the west side of McCluskey Street, Riddells Creek. It is irregular in shape with a frontage of 43.04 metres and an area of 4028 square metres. The site is vacant.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the review site and surrounds prior to the hearing.   	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Macedon Ranges Shire Council (Council) has refused to grant a permit for a two lot subdivision creating two lots each of 2014 square metres at 4 McCluskey Street, Riddells Creek. Milward Engineering Management Pty Ltd (Applicant) seeks a review of that decision. 
2	A statement of grounds lodged by an objector to the permit application opposes the grant of a permit.
3	The Tribunal is required to determine whether a permit should be granted, and if so, what conditions should apply. Having inspected the site and surrounds, considered the submissions, the statement of grounds and had regard to the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (Planning Scheme), I have decided to set aside the decision of Council and direct that a permit be granted.  
4	I reach this decision on the basis of my findings on the following key issues:
•	Is there strategic support for the proposed subdivision?
•	Will the subdivision adversely impact neighbourhood character?
•	Is the subdivision contrary to the Low Density Residential Zone provisions?
5	Before addressing these issues, I describe the site context, summarise the relevant planning context and provide details of the proposal. 
What is the site context?
6	The review site is lot 3 on a plan of subdivision approved by Council in 2010 as part of a 10 lot subdivision. The land subdivided was a parcel of 5.21 hectares located on the southwest corner of Melvins Road and McCluskey Street. The subdivision created Butters Close off McCluskey Street and each lot in that subdivision has an area of greater than 4000 square metres. Construction of a dwelling has commenced on two of the lots with the remaining being vacant. 
7	The review site has a frontage of 43.04 metres and a site area of 4028 square metres. It is irregular in shape with a rear boundary that widens to 64.6 metres. The land is vacant and contains an exotic tree near the northern site boundary. The site slopes down from the north to the south falling over 4 metres along the rear boundary and approximately 2 metres over the shorter front boundary. 
8	Adjoining to the north is a vacant lot of 4027 square metres on the southwest corner of Melvins Road and McCluskey’s Street. To the south is a vacant lot on the northwest corner of Butters Close and McCluskey Street. This lot is 4010 square metres in area. 
9	To the west is a lot of 4022 square metres upon which a house is currently under construction. This lot is of ‘battle axe’ configuration with a 5 metre accessway leading to Butters Close. McCluskey Street is sealed and a concrete footpath extends along the frontage of the review site. 
10	Opposite, on the east side of McCluskey Street, is a single storey house with vehicle access off Melvins Road. It presents with a high timber railing fence to McCluskey Street set behind a well treed road reserve. To the southeast is a large lot containing a dwelling well setback from McCluskey Street. The road reserve in front of this site is mostly cleared but there is a bushland setting created by vegetation on the land. 
11	Further to the north, along the northeast side of Melvins Road is residential development comprising single dwellings on lots that vary in size. Extending to the southeast, along both sides of Melvins Road, there are detached dwellings in garden settings mostly with low or no front fencing. Wide verges on both sides of Melvins Road together with trees and the absence of formed footpaths create an informal and attractive streetscape. Views to the Macedon Ranges to the west add to the scenic setting of the town.
12	Distances to facilities and services are approximately 1 km to the Riddells Creek community centre and nearby shops, 1.4 kms to the primary school and a similar distance to the railway station. The main recreation reserve is 2 km distant with the Wybejong reserve some 350 metres to the southeast. Figure 1 shows the site in context of the town centre and railway station.

Figure 1: Aerial view of site (red marker) and surrounds Source: Google maps imagery 2022 
What is the planning Context?
13	The review site is zoned Low Density Residential (LDRZ). The purpose of the zone is:
To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
To provide for low-density residential development on lots which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater.
14	A permit is required to subdivide land and, in the absence of any schedule requirement, the minimum lot size is 0.4 hectares where reticulated sewerage is not connected and 0.2 hectare for each lot with connected reticulated sewerage. 
15	Decision guidelines in the LDRZ require consideration of the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) in addition to the following matters:
The protection and enhancement of the natural environment and character of the area including the retention of vegetation and faunal habitat and the need to plant vegetation along waterways, gullies, ridgelines and property boundaries.
The availability and provision of utility services, including sewerage, water, drainage, electricity, gas and telecommunications.
In the absence of reticulated sewerage:
•	The capability and suitability of the lot to treat and retain all wastewater as determined by a Land Capability Assessment on the risks to human health and the environment of an on-site wastewater management system constructed, installed, or altered on the lot in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Regulations under the Environment Protection Act 2017. 
•	The benefits of restricting the size of lots to generally no more than 2 hectares to enable lots to be efficiently maintained without the need for agricultural techniques and equipment.
The relevant standards of Clauses 56.07-1 to 56.07-4.
16	There is a range of policy relevant to the proposal which I set out in a summary form:
•	Riddells Creek is a peri-urban town where character, identity and attractiveness are to be enhanced and where growth boundaries are to be established to protect agricultural land and environmental assets and to prevent urban sprawl.
•	Settlement growth is to be contained in the long term within the protected settlement boundary applied by the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy, 2019.
•	Riddells Creek is identified as a small town with encouragement in the PPF for moderate growth to achieve district town size. This is in recognition of its position on the railway line and the relative absence of impediments to growth. Constraints relating to infrastructure, flooding and bushfire risk are to be addressed via the structure plan process.
•	The site is included within an area recognised for a valued distinctive area and landscape. 
•	There is direction to strengthen the resilience of settlement to bushfire through risk based planning that prioritises the protection of human life.
•	Emphasis is placed on ensuring development, including subdivision, responds to its surrounding landscape, character and cultural context and protects native habitat. 
•	Support for subdivision that creates compact neighbourhoods with walkable distances between activities and that allows for housing in proximity to services to take advantage of established infrastructure.
•	Provision of a range of lot sizes is supported to suit a variety of dwellings and households types to meet the needs and aspirations of different groups of people.
17	The PPF includes specific objectives and strategies for settlements in the Shire including Riddells Creek. Key objectives include:
•	Providing for managed growth within the identified town boundary and the protected settlement boundary.
•	Protecting and enhancing ecological and landscape values.
•	Directing development away from areas subject to high risk of bushfire and flooding.
•	Increasing the range of housing options.
•	Encouraging development that respects the rural village character.
18	The Riddells Creek Strategic Framework Plan (Riddells Creek FP) show the review site and nearby land as ‘low density residential land’. 
19	The Riddells Creek Structure Plan, September 2013 is a reference document at clauses 21.04 and 21.13-5. It includes the review site in a ‘low density residential area’ where there will be limited low density infill opportunities.
20	Relevant particular provisions of the Planning Scheme include clause 51.07 Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy, clause 56 relating to subdivision, clause 65 containing the general decision guidelines and clause 71.02-3 requiring integrated decision making.  
what is proposed? 
21	The two lot subdivision (see Figure 2) comprises:
•	Both lots containing an area of 2014 square metres and a frontage of 21.52 metres to McCluskey Street.
•	Both lots slightly irregular in shape. 
•	An existing crossover on the north side of the site providing vehicle access to lot 1. A new crossover on the north side of lot 2 providing vehicle access to that lot. 
•	Building envelopes designated which limit the construction of a dwelling within 3 metres of a side boundary, 9 metres of the frontage and 5 metres of the rear boundary.

Figure 2: Plan of subdivision Source: Design response prepared by Spatial Works dated 30/03/2021 
Is there strategic support for the proposed subdivision?
22	Council submits the strategic decision to support growth in Riddells Creek should not be construed to mean growth is encouraged in all areas of the town. Council says this view is supported by the range of zoning controls that have been imposed on various areas of the township limiting lot size. Council says the current 4000 square metre size of this lot and nearby land is appropriate to achieve a transition in lot sizes between land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) and the rural land outside the township settlement boundary.  
23	Although acknowledging an extra lot within the township carries some strategic support, Council says the imperative for growth in this location is diminished due to a number of factors:
•	The site is at the edge of the town and the smaller lot size will not respect the increased graduation of lot size identified as part of the existing character.
•	The site is not overly walkable to the ‘activity centre’ or train station.
•	The lots sizes proposed are unlikely to add to housing diversity given there are similar sized lots in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).
•	Growth is directed to land in the Urban Growth Zone (UGZ) to the northeast of the town on the Riddells Creek FP. 
24	The Applicant submits the proposal will contribute to diversity of choice, avoid adverse landscape impacts, integrate with nearby development and contribute to growth in Riddells Creek, all outcomes sought in the Planning Scheme. 
Tribunal findings
25	Having considered the Planning Scheme provisions and policies, I find significant strategic support for the proposal for a number of reasons. 
26	The land is contained within the protected settlement boundary in accordance with the Macedon Ranges Statement of Planning Policy, 2019. This means the additional lot to be created accords with the limits to growth in the Macedon Ranges and will not compromise the protection of the area’s significant landscapes, protection of catchments, biodiversity, ecological and environmental values. 
27	Riddells Creek is included in the settlement hierarchy as a small town (2,000+) that will grow to a district town (6,000+) by 2036. Moderate growth in the town is sought in recognition, in part, of its position on the railway line. An additional lot will contribute, in a minor way, to that growth and will not offend the concept of ‘moderate’ growth. It will add to the mix of lot sizes and associated future housing options, as sought in policy. 
28	Lot sizes that progressively increase in size towards the north and the west of the township is identified as an existing characteristic. I am not persuaded this translates to support for maintaining 4000 square metre lot sizes over the entire LDRZ land. The objectives relating to settlement in Riddells Creek seek managed growth to be contained within the protected settlement boundary and do not refer to the need for a graduated progression of lot sizes. The zoning controls that apply to various parts of the town will direct lot sizes. The NRZ8 that applies to most to the land between the review site and commercial area of the town has no minimum lot size for subdivision. An area to the northeast of Gap Road is within NRZ7 where the minimum lot size is 4000 square metres. To the north and west of that land there is land within the LRDZ where the minimum lot size is 2000 square metres where reticulated sewerage is available or 4000 square metres where not available. The varied restrictions on lot sizes applied through zoning do not suggest a clear pattern of graduated lot sizes is sought. 
29	The subdivision and future development to the lots will not result in loss of remnant vegetation or adversely impact scenic landscapes or views of the Macedon Ranges. There is no constraint imposed by flooding.
30	The Riddells Creek Structure Plan and the PPF promotes infill development where there is proximity to services and public transport and where there is opportunity to utilise the capacity of existing infrastructure. Infrastructure including road access, a footpath and reticulated sewerage is available to the site. I am satisfied that the site is within reasonable proximity to the services and facilities in the town including shops, the community centre and the railway station. 
31	Council did not raise any concern about bushfire risk, but I consider it a relevant matter as the site is in a designated bushfire prone area, I do not reject the proposal for reasons relating to bushfire risk having regard to the following matters:
•	The Riddells Creek FP does not include the review site or nearby land within the areas identified as subject to ‘high bushfire threat’. The site is shown as ‘2 Low Density Residential Land’ on the Riddells Creek FP. This is distinct from two other low density areas that are located north of the review site. These areas are designated ‘3 Low Density Residential Land (Enhanced Bushfire Measures)’ and ‘4 Low density Residential Land (BMO Coverage)’ and are located adjacent to the red arrows that indicate ‘high bushfire threat’ on the Riddells Creek FP (reproduced at Figure 3 below).
•	Clause 13.02-1S relating to planning for bushfire does not specifically require consideration of bushfire risk when assessing an application for a subdivision of two lots. 
•	The location of the review site in a residential zone and not immediately in or adjoining land in a rural zone means that fuel loads are taken to create a more managed environment. 

Figure 3: Riddells Creek Strategic Framework Plan – review site marked with orange star Source: Clause 21.13-5 Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme
32	I acknowledge there is land to the northeast of the town which has been included in the UGZ and where residential growth will be directed once a Precinct Structure Plan is prepared (on land marked with diagonal dark lines on Figure 3 designated a ‘Priority Residential Development Precinct’). This does not alter my view that the Planning Scheme supports moderate growth elsewhere within the existing township boundary. I agree with Council that the policy directs that this moderate growth must not negatively impact the character of the town ship. It is this matter I address next.
Will the subdivision adversely impact neighbourhood character?
33	Council submits this case is fundamentally about neighbourhood character and there is clear support in policy for development to respond appropriately to character and to context. In the absence of a preferred character statement for this area, Council says it is the existing character that must be considered in assessing the acceptability of the proposal.
34	Council says proposed subdivision if approved, will detract from the transitional role that the locality plays at the edge of the township near the surrounding rural areas and will create lots that are unacceptable for the following reasons:
•	The lot sizes proposed will be half the size of their immediate neighbours in the same subdivision which will present as an abrupt change. 
•	The 2000 square metres area of each lot will be similar in size to lots found in the land to the northeast in the NRZ thereby failing to provide a transition in lot size as distance from the town centre increases. 
•	The frontage width of the lots, at 21 metres, will be discordant with lots in the immediate vicinity, including lots in the nearby NRZ where 30 metre widths are common. 
•	The review site is located within undulating terrain which is a factor that does not support further subdivision.
•	The restrictions imposed by the proposed building envelope that include setbacks of 9 metres to the frontage, 5 metres to the rear boundary and 3 metres to side boundaries will result in future house siting that is inconsistent with development on the opposite side of McCluskey Street. The lots sizes will not provide the spaciousness that would occur on the larger lots in the surrounding subdivision.
•	The location of the vehicle access point on the north side of the road is likely to result in the garage structures on the high side of each lot appearing prominent in view and will hinder the maximisation of northern aspect.
35	The Applicant says the character of the area is strongly derived from the natural landscape setting and the backdrop of the Macedon Ranges and submits the proposed lots will provide a transition between the township residential and farming zones as lot sizes progressively increase in size towards the west.  In the submission of the Applicant, the proposed lots easily accommodate a building envelope that will ensure the spacious low density character of the area is maintained.
Tribunal findings 
36	The review site is designated a ‘Low Density Residential Precinct’ on the Riddells Creek FP. It is outside the Neighbourhood Character Precincts described in the PPF and there is thus no preferred neighbourhood character set for the area. Without a preferred character statement, policy seeks development to respect existing character and respond to context, including environmental and infrastructure constraints. 
37	Arising from my inspection of the review site and surrounding area, I make some observations about the existing neighbourhood character of this area:
•	There is a range of lots sizes in the nearby residential area but typically they are generous in size.  
•	There are substantial areas of land in the LDRZ within the township boundary, some of which contains lots much larger than 4000 square metres. 
•	Housing styles, size and siting vary leading to an absence of consistent setbacks and patterns of siting. There is, however, a sense of space between dwellings. 
•	The wide road reserves, often with expansive grassed verges, contribute to an open, informal and attractive streetscapes. 
•	There are trees along the road reserves and to a varying degree in private gardens. 
•	The backdrop of the Macedon Ranges provides a scenic setting. 
•	McCluskey Road presents with a vegetated road reserve on its east side with dwellings on that side of the road set in well vegetated settings. On the west side the landscape is more open with the review site and surrounding subdivision mostly cleared of vegetation. 
38	The land on the northeast side of Melvins Road and on the southeast corner of Melvins Road and McCluskey Street is within the NRZ8 and included in Precinct 2 Garden Setting B. This precinct is described as characterised by very large lots and low site coverage, consistent with my observations of the area. The precinct is identified as having some capacity for carefully designed infill development with garden settings to be maintained and for lots to be an average of at least 1500 square metres. There is no mandatory minimum lot size for subdivision in the NRZ8. 
39	I am not persuaded Council’s concern that the proposed lots will result in loss of transition in lots sizes moving from the NRZ to the LDRZ will negatively impact neighbourhood character given:  
•	Although the PPF identifies that lot sizes in the town progressively increase in size toward the north and west of the township, there is no clear direction in policy to maintain that pattern or to provide a transition in lot size within the township boundary.  Rather, objectives seek to prioritise growth and increase housing choice within the identified town boundary while concurrently respond to environmental constraints and landscape values. 
•	The Riddells Creek Structure Plan refers to accommodating limited low density infill opportunities in the areas designated for low density residential but does not include a preferred minimum lot size. 
•	The preferred character for the NRZ8 seeks a minimum lot size of 1500 square metres which means over time the lots in that zone are likely to be smaller than the 2000 square metre lots proposed in this application. 
•	The lot sizes proposed meet the minimum size set for the LDRZ.
40	It is my view that the lot sizes proposed, although smaller than the 4000 square metres of the remaining nine lots in the subdivision, will not result in an outcome that is discordant with the varied lot sizes in the area. The two smaller lots will instead add to the range of lot sizes in a manner that does not disrupt a consistent pattern in the area and still contributes to the transition in lot size to the large lots in the Rural Conservation zoned land further to the west.  
41	Importantly in my assessment of the proposal, the review site has few constraints that make subdivision unacceptable. It does not have excessive slope, there is no gully or ridgeline, vegetation is limited and can be managed and reticulated services are available. I do not share the view expressed in the statement of grounds that there are environmental and drainage issues which preclude subdivision. 
42	The building envelope proposed for each lot will, in my view, ensure that future development is setback from boundaries and is respectful of the building spacing in the area. Although future siting will be different to the very generous spacing evident on the site to the southeast which contains a single house on a lot in excess of 15,000 square metres and to development on the nearby 4000 square metres lots, it will not be so incongruent to appear intrusive in terms of neighbourhood character.
43	I am not persuaded that the location of the vehicle access points on the north side of each lot is unacceptable. Car accommodation is likely to be a relatively confined element in the overall development of each lot and will not result in domination of the lots or unreasonable restriction on northern aspect. 
is the subdivision contrary to the Low density residential zone provisions?
44	Council says the 2000 square metre minimum lot size in the LDRZ does not mean lots of such size are a given. In this case, Council submits the following matters support refusal of the proposal:
•	The purpose of the LDRZ does not encourage growth.
•	The self-evident name of the zone seeks low density development.
•	Not all land in the same zone is equal and the location of the site away from the town centre and opposite land in the NRZ supports larger lot sizes to provide for transition.
•	That 2000 square metre lot sizes will not be contextually appropriate in character in terms of surrounding larger lot sizes.
Tribunal findings
45	I cannot reach the conclusion that the proposed lots which meet the minimum size specified in the LDRZ are not ‘low density’. A minimum 2000 square metres has been set as an acceptable minimum for the LDRZ provided each lot can be connected to reticulated sewer. There is opportunity to vary this minimum via a schedule to the zone. This has been done for parts of the LDRZ in Gisborne and Woodend where the minimum subdivision areas specified include 4000 or 6000 square metres. There is no minimum lot size specified in the schedule to the zone for Riddells Creek. In the absence of such a variation, I find the size of the lots proposed accord with what is anticipated in the zone and can be considered ‘low density’.  
46	That is not to say that a permit is automatically granted for a subdivision that meets the minimum lot size. A proposal must result in an acceptable outcome that responds to context, including site constraints, achieves respect for neighbourhood character and accords with the relevant decision guidelines of the LDRZ. I am satisfied that the two lots proposed are acceptable having regard to those matters.
47	I acknowledge the purpose of the LDRZ does not refer to growth. However, it does require implementation of the PPF and this contains clear support for residential growth within the identified township boundary. The review site is within that boundary.
48	Other matters to be considered pursuant to decision guidelines in the LDRZ include the availability of utility services and the standards of clause 56 relating to integrated water management. I find these matters are satisfactorily addressed, noting Council did not oppose the proposal for reasons relating to drainage or servicing matters.
Are there any other issues?
49	Council raises concern about the potential precedent created for subdivision of other lots in the LDRZ, especially within the same subdivision. It is pointed out that four separate permit applications to subdivide lots in the original 10 lot subdivision have been refused by Council. I acknowledge my decision to approve this application has potential implications for subdivision for other nearby lots. However, this does not alter my conclusion that the lots proposed are acceptable when assessed against the relevant considerations. Furthermore, any application for subdivision of other lots will require an individual assessment having regard to the particular circumstances and merits including matters such as slope, location of water courses and vegetation. 
50	There is an exotic tree near the northern boundary of the land. This tree is shown to be retained on a plan endorsed pursuant to a previous permit. The application before me does not seek removal of the tree. If in the future it is proposed to remove the tree, approval of Council will be required. 
51	The section 173 Agreement that applies to the land imposes various requirements including that boundary fencing is to be post and wire or open style. The requirements of the section 173 Agreement continue to apply, unless approval to vary or remove those requirements is obtained. I do not share Council’s view that open style fencing is inappropriate for the lots sizes proposed. I agree with the Applicant that issues of privacy can be dealt with through landscaping or the design of future dwellings. 
52	The statement of grounds lodged raised concern about the proposed lots being advertised for sale ahead of approval of the subdivision. The Applicant advised that this approach was intended to generate interest but acknowledged it is provocative to market the land prior to approval. This is not a matter that is before me but I observe that without approval there could be no sale of the lots.  
What conditions are appropriate?
53	Draft permit conditions circulated by Council were discussed at the hearing. I have generally adopted those conditions subject to some changes that reflect those discussions. 
Conclusion
54	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Cindy Wilson
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PLN/2021/68	
Land	4 McCluskey Street
RIDDELLS CREEK VIC 3431	

What the permit allowS	
A two lot subdivision in accordance with the endorsed plans	

Conditions
1	The subdivision allowed by this permit and shown on the plans endorsed to accompany the permit shall not be amended for any reason unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2	The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.
3	All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.
4	The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.  
5	The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:
(a)	A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
(b)	A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.
6	Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:
(a)	A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
(b)	A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.
7	Measures must be undertaken to minimise any loss of amenity to the neighbourhood from the development caused by dust, noise, the transport of materials to and from the land and the deposit of mud and debris on public roads, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8	Prior to the commencement of works, an “Asset Protection Permit” must be obtained from Council for any of the following circumstances:
(a)	Entering a building site by means of a motor vehicle having a gross weight exceeding two tonnes. 
(b)	Occupying a road for works. 
(c)	Connecting any Council land to a stormwater drain. 
(d)	Opening, altering or repairing a Council road. 
(e)	Opening, altering or repairing a Council drain. 
(f)	Accessing a building site from a point other than a crossover. 
(g)	Construct/repair/widen/remove any crossover.
9	The subdivision is to be provided with a drainage system to a design approved by the Responsible Authority and such that:
(a)	The subdivision as a whole is provided with a legal point of discharge approved by the Responsible Authority and any other statutory authority from which approval must be received for the discharge of drainage.
(b)	All drainage courses or outfall drainage lines required to the legal point of discharge and which pass through lands other than those within the boundaries of the subdivision are constructed at no cost to the Responsible Authority.
(c)	Objectives of the Urban Stormwater – Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999) are satisfied.
10	The subdivision is to be constructed in accordance with Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s Policy Engineering Requirements for Infrastructure Construction (June 2010).
11	No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into drains or watercourses. Soil erosion control measures must be employed throughout the works in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12	Prior to the Statement of Compliance, a new sealed crossover for lot 2 must be constructed in within McCluskey Street for the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13	Crossovers are to be a minimum of 10 metres from any intersection, 1 metre from any power pole, sign or service pit and an absolute minimum of 3 metres from any street tree to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14	Prior to the Statement of Compliance, the driveway to the dwelling must be constructed to meet the following requirements to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	The driveway, including any waterway crossing, must be constructed to a standard so that it is accessible in all weather conditions and be capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width.
(b)	The driveway must have a minimum trafficable width of 3.5m, be clear of encroachments 4 metres vertically and have no obstructions within 0.5m either side of the formed width of the driveway.
(c)	Curves must have a minimum inner radius of 10 metres.
(d)	The average grade must be no more than 1 in 7 with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 for no more than 50 metres.
(e)	Dips must have no more than a 1 in 8 entry and exit angle.
15	Prior to issue of a Statement of Compliance of the subdivision, all works shown on the approved Engineering Plans must be constructed or carried out all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Grater Western Water Conditions
16	Payment of new customer contributions for each lot created by the development, such amount being determined by Greater Western Water at the time of payment.
17	Provision of reticulated water and associated construction works to front each allotment at the developer's expense.
18	Provision of reticulated sewerage and associated construction works to each allotment, at the developer's expense.
19	The operator under this permit must enter into an Agreement with Greater Western Water relating to the design and construction of any sewerage or water works required. The form of such Agreement shall be to the satisfaction of Greater Western Water. The owner/applicant shall make a written request to Greater Western Water for the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Permit Expiry 
20	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The plan of subdivision has not been certified within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
(b)	A statement of compliance is not issued within five (5) years of the date of certification. 
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 –