VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1847/2019
Permit Application no. PLN18/0743	
CATCHWORDS	
Multiple dwellings; Interim decision; Response to interim decision; Dwelling diversity; Secluded open space provision; Design response to balancing roads, driveways and parking with landscaping.	

APPLICANT	Donvale Garden Estate Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Manningham City Council	
RESPONDENTs	ConnectEast Pty Ltd
Mr A Krolikowski and others	
SUBJECT LAND	25-35 Park Road
DONVALE  VIC  3111	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATEs OF HEARING	28, 29 & 30 October 2020 and 21 October 2021	
date of final order	19 May 2022	
CITATION	Donvale Garden Estate Pty Ltd v Manningham CC [2022] VCAT 555	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P1847/2019 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application PLN18/0743 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 25-35 Park Road, Donvale in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows development of thirty-five dwellings.

Rachel Naylor
Senior Member		Sarah McDonald
Member	

Appearances
For applicant	Mr J Cicero, solicitor of Best Hooper
He called the following expert witnesses:
•	Mr D Crowder, town planner of Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd;
•	Mr J Patrick, landscape architect of John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd; and
•	Ms H Marshall, traffic engineer of Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd.	
For responsible authority	Mr D Wong, solicitor of Planology	
For Mr A Krolikowski and others 	Mr A Krolikowski, Ms B Terpenou and Mr A Ae-Yeung	

Reasons
Overview
1	Donvale Garden Estate Pty Ltd (the applicant) seeks planning permission to construct 35 dwellings on the vacant land at 25-35 Park Road, Donvale (the site).  
2	Some of the surrounding residents, particularly in Wrendale Drive, Langford Crescent and Clements Avenue, oppose this proposal, in part because they consider it did not acceptably respond to the findings of a previous Tribunal decision for a residential development on this site.  The Council decided to refuse the application because of concerns including:
•	The response to the neighbourhood character including the presentation to the new road network;
•	The failure to provide a footpath along the new private road;
•	Failure to meet clause 55 objectives; and 
•	Creating poor internal amenity.
3	Having regard to the previous Tribunal decision, the substituted amended plans (Rev F), the submissions and the expert evidence presented as well as the provisions and policies of the planning scheme, there were a range of key issues that we considered in our Interim decision issued in May 2021.  We decided there are aspects of the proposed design that are acceptable, but also some matters that are not acceptable.  This is a large development, and we decided the aspects of the design that are not acceptable are capable of being addressed as part of this proposal.  They generally relate to matters of design detail, and it is important that we are satisfied with this detail.  We issued our Interim decision, providing the applicant with an opportunity to amend the design detail to address our concerns.  
4	The applicant submitted an amended design (Rev G plans) with further expert statements in town planning, traffic engineering and landscape architecture.  The Council and the residents responded to this material.  The applicant then submitted a reply that included further amendments to the ground and first floor plans (Rev H) and further expert statements in town planning and traffic engineering.  We arranged a further hearing day to consider the amended design, submissions and evidence, which occurred on 21 October 2021.  Having considered all of this material, we have decided to grant a permit subject to conditions.  Our reasons follow.
Our Interim Order
5	As part of the detailed reasons for our Interim decision, we set out the aspects of the design response that require modification, being:
i	The extent of the use of grey materials and finishes along the proposed public road, connecting Wrendale Avenue and Langford Crescent, should be reduced.  The introduction of cream or brown toned materials and finishes within this section would be preferable, as would some cream or brown toned materials and finishes at the western ends of the private road to be created.
ii	The inclusion of fencing/gates around the private open space areas in the Park Road frontage for townhouses 11, 12, 13 and 14.  This fencing can include both solid and transparent elements to provide some privacy and acoustic attenuation.  The fencing could be set back to enable some landscaping along the Park Road boundary as well.
iii	Creation of a greater diversity of housing by including some smaller dwellings in terms of the number of bedrooms.
iv	The private open space area locations including their integration with the associated dwelling (and any associated internal layout alterations) and the extent of overshadowing of the secluded private open space areas on the southern side of the development need to be reviewed in an effort to improve the internal amenity to an acceptable level.
v	The design of townhouses 29 to 32 should be changed.  Consideration should include whether to reduce the number of dwellings.  Consideration should also include whether the proposed sole aspect oriented living areas, solar access to open space and the opportunity to address the diversity of the number of bedrooms offered in each dwelling.  This in turn may reduce the need/desire for double garages.
vi	The shortfall of not providing 40 square metres of private open space for townhouses 11, 24, 25, 28 and 35 should be reconsidered as it can be addressed for most, if not all of these five dwellings by merely moving the proposed fenceline to increase the secluded private open space.  
vii	Permanent security lighting and low level landscaping that minimises the potential for hidden areas along the pedestrian path from Park Road to the private road.  
viii	A footpath must be provided along one side of the private road.
ix	Reconsider the design of the private road, a footpath and the landscape plan to address the matters identified in the reasons, including in paragraph 68.
x	The access track around the rim of basin widened to 3.5 metres.
xi	The deletion of the substation and the development and landscape plans updated to illustrate what the interface with the adjoining property in Wrendale Avenue will be.  
6	The applicant’s response to address these aspects of the design resulted in submissions from the Council and the residents raising some concerns.  These concerns were considered in the applicant’s reply and also factored into some proposed further modifications in indicative amended ground and first floor plans (Rev H).  
7	The last two items have been modified in the Rev G plans and are acceptable.  The other items we have grouped into more general issues and our findings on these are detailed below.  
The number of dwellings and dwelling diversity
8	The residents point out that the modifications made to the proposal do not include reducing the number of dwellings, even though our Interim decision allowed for this.  
9	We did provide this opportunity, and it was specifically directed at the central island of dwellings surrounded by the proposed private U shaped road.  We also provided the opportunity for the applicant to modify the diversity of dwellings, and again this was directed at the central island of dwellings.  The applicant has chosen to incorporate the second opportunity into the modifications by adding to the dwelling diversity and introducing four two bedroom dwellings.  The design benefits of these modifications include improvements to the dwelling layouts including outlook and sunlight access, and private open space integration.  These changes are all acceptable.  
10	Townhouse 29 has the whole length of the first floor of Townhouse 28 adjacent to its secluded private open space.  During the last hearing day, this was discussed, and the applicant suggested the design of Townhouse 28 could be modified to provide some visual relief and further outlook to Townhouse 29.  This is appropriate.  The first floor of Townhouse 28 must be modified by reducing the floor area of the first floor.  This is to be achieved by lining up the northern extent of the first floor with the northern wall of the ground floor laundry.  This will involve the deletion of bedroom 4 and part of bedroom 3.  The first floor could be reconfigured to extend further to the east above the garage as this is not a sensitive interface with Townhouse 27.  These changes may also result in Townhouse 28 being reduced to less than four bedrooms, which would also add to the housing diversity and convert the second tandem car space to a fortuitous visitor space in the driveway.  
11	Subject to this change, we find the number of dwellings and dwelling diversity as well as the amenity of Townhouses 29 and 28 to be acceptable.  
Materials, colours, finishes, bollard lighting and fencing
12	The modifications to the materials and finishes of the proposed dwellings are generally supported by Council and the residents.  We are satisfied that these modifications assist to integrate the new dwellings with materials, colours and finishes found in the existing neighbourhood.  
13	Fencing and gates have been included around the private open space areas in the Park Road frontage for Townhouses 11, 12, 13 and 14.  This fencing includes both solid and transparent elements.  
14	Concern was expressed about the 90 degree angles to the fencing, and Mr Crowder acknowledges this could be modified.  We have no concern about the angles so long as there remains sufficient room between the angled edge and the Park Road frontage to incorporate some landscaping.  Mr Patrick’s amended landscape plan tabled to accord with the Rev G plans provides no detail of what landscaping may occur outside of this fencing along Park Road.  During cross-examination, he explained relatively low maintenance ground cover and shrubs to 1-1.2 metre mature height is intended.  This needs to be detailed in the final landscape plan. 
15	Concern was also expressed about achieving the right balance between safety/security, surveillance between private and public realms and landscaping along the Park Road frontage.  Mr Crowder considers what is proposed achieves an acceptable balance but agrees it could be further modified.  This aspect of the design is generally acceptable but should be refined to achieve a more balanced outcome that has regard to the amenity and layout of the townhouses themselves.  For example:
•	Townhouse 11 transparent fencing could be adjacent to the porch, part of the living room and/or adjacent to the garage; and 
•	Townhouse 12 could have greater transparency adjacent to the whole of the porch and part of the living room.
16	The inclusion of permanent bollard security lighting, some transparency to the fencing of Townhouses 12 and 13 and low level landscaping assists to that minimise the potential for hidden areas along the pedestrian path from Park Road to the private road.  Mr Patrick’s amended landscape plan has not had regard to the Rev G plan locations for bollard lighting.  This means there is potential conflict between Mr Patrick’s potential raingarden locations and the bollard lighting.  Also, Mr Patrick expressed the view during cross-examination that it is acceptable to have such lighting adjacent to the proposed footpath but suggests it does not need to be next to the footpath.  He also suggests such lighting needs to be ‘robust’ and not ‘flimsy domestic’ lighting.  These are matters of detail that should be reviewed by the architect and landscape architect together during the finalisation of plans for Council endorsement.  
17	The fencing proposed in proximity to the private road is nominated as Merbau fencing.  The Council considers this to be an inappropriate fencing material, but Mr Crowder disagrees.  It is not uncommon for side fencing adjacent to a roadway to be solid timber paling fencing.  In this case, the plans (TP-06 Rev G) illustrate 1.8 metre high timber paling fencing for the typical boundary fencing and 1.8 metre high merbau horizontal slat fencing for SPOS fences facing roads and driveways.  We have no concerns with this design approach.  It creates visual interest as well as a balance between privacy and surveillance along the private road.  
Private open space provision
18	We suggested in our Interim decision that consideration be given to moving some of the fencing to a few townhouses to increase the private open space areas.  Submissions by the Council and the residents suggest that our Interim decision was seeking 40 square metres of secluded private open space (SPOS).  It is correct that we used those words in the summary of changes being sought, but Mr Crowder’s evidence is also correct that paragraph 45 of our Interim decision identified five townhouses that did not have 40 square metres of private open space (POS) as opposed to secluded private open space (SPOS).  The amended proposal modifies the private open space provision and Mr Crowder’s evidence explains this.  We have captured this in the table below:
Townhouse #	Areas of private open space identified in paragraph 45 of our Interim decision	Mr Crowder’s evidence about the open space provision in this amended proposal (being a combination of Rev G and Rev H plans)	
Townhouse 11	36.24sqm	135.27sqm of POS including 40.28sqm of SPOS (Rev G)	
Townhouse 24	30.22sqm	150.81sqm of POS including 40.02sqm of SPOS (Rev H)	
Townhouse 25	31.30sqm	138.42sqm of POS including 40.04sqm of SPOS (Rev H)	
Townhouse 28	34.31sqm	72.47sqm of POS including 44.82sqm of SPOS (Rev H)	
Townhouse 35	34.78sqm	185.15sqm of POS including 40.17sqm of SPOS	

19	We support the majority of these changes.  In regard to townhouses 24 and 25, we consider that the secluded private open space areas could be further increased by extending the fence as far out as the edge of CFA red dashed line for driving clearance.  In regard to townhouses 27 and 28, it is preferable for the secluded private open space to extend out to the CFA red dashed line but also be removed from being partly in front of the sitting room window.  If that means these areas fall under 40sqm, this will still be an acceptable outcome.  In both instances these are sideages and the only areas of secluded private open space.  Having fencing rather than landscaping adjacent to these parts of the private road will not unacceptably detract from the road design and its landscaping opportunities.   
20	Our Interim decision raised concern about the location of some private open space areas including their integration with the internal layout of the dwellings and the extent of overshadowing.  The amended proposal has reconfigured living areas, provided direct access from living areas and swapped areas of secluded private open space to improve solar access.  This is particularly the case for the dwellings on the southern side of the development, e.g. townhouses 15 to 20.  
21	Despite these changes, the Council is concerned about whether the overshadowing to the south townhouses such as 17 to 20 is acceptable as shadow diagrams are only provided for 9am, 12noon and 3pm.  The overshadowing objective and standard is not the relevant consideration.  Clause 55.05-5 is to allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings.  Standard B29 says private open space should be located on the north side of a dwelling if appropriate and provides a formula for the southern boundary of secluded private open space (SPOS) when it has a wall on its north side.  Mr Crowder’s evidence is that sunlight access to the primary areas of SPOS, which connect directly with living areas meet standard B29 and will achieve acceptable amenity in this regard.  The fact that these dwellings each have side SPOS areas that can benefit from northern sunlight has assisted to achieve standard B29 and to achieve an acceptable design outcome.  
The private road design including a footpath and landscaping
22	The amended documentation before us together with the evidence given is not sufficient yet to achieve an acceptable design outcome in terms of the private road design including landscaping adjacent to it.  We did consider whether to refuse this proposal because it was evident to us following the last hearing day that the design team (architect, town planner, landscape architect and traffic engineer) has not sufficiently worked together to achieve an acceptable balance.  However, progress is being made and with further permit conditions, we are confident that the Council can oversee through its endorsement of plans that an appropriate balance in the design is achieved.  
23	Our Interim decision, particularly paragraph 68, determined that further consideration was required for the design of the road, visitor parking locations, the footpath and the landscaping.  
24	The footpath on the outer side of the private road is an acceptable design outcome.  The inclusion of bollard or other lighting as discussed earlier in these reasons needs to be incorporated into the design of this footpath and the surrounding landscaping.  
25	In our Interim decision we agreed with Mr Patrick and the applicant that communal maintenance of the front gardens wrapping around the private road was a good feature.  We have included a permit condition for a maintenance plan for the communal areas to be submitted and approved by the Council.  The Rev G plans include a common area plan at TP_12 (extract below).  

26	Given the fence design along Park Road, we are of the opinion the common areas plan at TP_12 should be amended to include those landscaping areas outside of the Park Road front fencing as well.  Subject to this change, the common areas plan is acceptable.  The plan will need further updating to accord with variations to fence locations mentioned earlier in these reasons for townhouses 24 and 25 as well.
27	The private road has been narrowed to 3.5 metre and made one way with entry from the north (i.e. a clockwise direction).  We accept Ms Marshall’s evidence that that is the preferable direction of travel because otherwise townhouses 33 and 34 will have acute angles of entry.  The Council was critical of the whole of the road being 3.5 metres given we suggested in our Interim decision that only parts of the road needed to be narrowed.  Whilst we did suggest this, this suggestion did not contemplate a one-way road.  This proposal for a one-way and therefore narrower road, and in general terms a narrower road is an acceptable design response.  
28	The planning scheme does not require visitor car parking provision in this development.  Ms Marshall’s initial evidence is that there was capacity for 13 on-street visitor spaces as well as nine dwellings (townhouses 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 17, 22, 23 and 26) that could accommodate driveway parking in addition to a number of designated visitor car spaces along the private road.  Our Interim decision found there did not need to be designated visitor parking as well as 13 on-street spaces.  We required suitable landscaping in locations where visitor parking can occur, and modifications to the front gardens and driveways where driveways should not be used for additional parking because either the gradient or size of the garage was inadequate.  
29	In this amended proposal, one designated visitor car space remains at the top of the U shape closest to Park Road.  Given this space is proximate to those townhouses that will have a shared driveway and no opportunity for driveway parking, it is acceptable.  We questioned Mr Crowder about any potential noise impacts from this visitor car space to the nearby bedroom windows of townhouses 24 and 25.  He suggests they should be acoustically treated rather than screened with fencing.  We have included this as a permit condition.  
30	The shared driveways to townhouses 10 and 11 and to townhouses 13 to 15 appear in the architectural and landscape plans as having a similar pavement treatment to the private road.  Consideration should be given to creating some variations that can assist to blend these private driveway accessways with the landscaping treatment rather than the private road.  
31	The detail of the private road design is not specified at this point.  It will be subject to the approval of the Council’s engineering department.  However, at this planning stage, what is relevant to understand is whether the private road will have a rollover kerb design that has the potential to accommodate vehicles driving over it, which in doing so could result in driving over communal landscaped areas.  Mr Patrick considers an upstand kerb is less likely to be driven over, but Ms Marshall considers a rollover kerb more likely to occur at the functional layout plan stage of approval by the Council.  During the discussion about the draft permit conditions, it was agreed that a rollover kerb should be assumed.  
32	Given the private road is likely to have a rollover kerb and potentially such kerbing on both sides, there needs to be a detailed design that incorporates bollards and/or landscaping treatments that will prevent on-street parking that involves a vehicle half on/half off the road pavement.  Ms Marshall suggests a physical barrier is preferable on the inside of the private road rather than a bollard every couple of metres.  This is an example where the detail of achieving a landscaped setting along this private road has not been fully resolved and further work is necessary.  
33	Ms Marshall points out that visitor car parking provision can be controlled by the future owners corporation as this will be a private road.  Whilst this is true, planning plays an important role in the first instance in achieving an acceptable design outcome.  At the planning stage, matters of the layout and design of the road, footpath, landscaping, driveways and opportunities for visitor car parking can and should be incorporated.  Further traffic engineering input should be provided into where visitor car parking is provided both along and off the private road.  
34	Ms Marshall’s evidence identifies townhouses 2, 3, 6, 7, 15, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32 and 35 have the capacity for a visitor car space in the driveway.  However, on plan it appears that there are a number of other townhouses that could potentially accommodate a vehicle, even on an angle from the private road.  Ms Marshall’s evidence has analysed that many of these are affected by gradient or insufficient length.  Yet, during cross-examination she acknowledged the potential for parking even on gradients (e.g. townhouses 16 and 17) or by using the adjacent grassed landscaping area to park on an angle (e.g. townhouse 12).  Again, this is another example of where the detail has not been fully resolved and further work is necessary.
35	It is disappointing that the design has not addressed the gradient issues further or modified the design of these dwellings and their driveways so that it is clear that a vehicle cannot park there.  We have imposed a condition for these locations to be reviewed again, and if not deemed suitable for visitor parking, that consideration be given to design modifications to strongly discourage vehicles parking on the driveways.  Using townhouse 12 as an example, perhaps a design measure such as a driveway that narrows close to the private road would assist as a deterrent to potential angled parking across the garage frontage.  
36	The landscaping plan for the communal areas requires further work.  The location of rainwater gardens, the landscaping adjacent to both sides of the road, barriers to prevent parking half on and off the private road where determined necessary, and the location of lighting all require further consideration and detail in responding to the permit conditions and obtaining Council endorsement.  As we stated at the start of this section of our reasons, with further permit conditions, we are confident that the Council can oversee through its endorsement of plans that an appropriate balance in the design is achieved.  
Conclusion
37	For these reasons, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside and a permit is issued subject to conditions.  

Rachel Naylor
Senior Member		Sarah McDonald
Member	

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PLN18/0743	
Land	25-35 Park Road, Donvale	

What the permit allowS	
Development of thirty-five dwellings in accordance with the endorsed plans.	

Conditions
Amended Plans
1	Before the development starts, amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted via email and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved the plans will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the VCAT substituted plans but modified to show:
(a)	Changes shown in the Rev G and Rev H plans including those changes specifically mentioned in this condition.  
(b)	The first floor of Townhouse 28 modified by reducing the floor area by lining up the northern extent of the first floor with the northern wall of the ground floor laundry.  This will involve the deletion of bedroom 4 and part of bedroom 3.  The first floor could also be reconfigured to extend further to the east above the garage.  These changes may also result in Townhouse 28 being reduced to less than four bedrooms and converting the second tandem car space to a visitor space in the driveway.  
(c)	A review of the extent of solid and transparent fencing adjacent to Park Road for townhouses 11 to 14 to provide an acceptable balance of privacy and surveillance, including for example 
i	Townhouse 11 transparent fencing could be adjacent to the porch, part of the living room and/or adjacent to the garage; and 
ii	Townhouse 12 could have greater transparency adjacent to the whole of the porch and part of the living room.
(d)	A review of the location of bollard lighting to accord with the landscape plan including in regard to the potential raingarden locations.
(e)	The provision of private open space and secluded private open space for townhouses 11 and 35 in accordance with the Rev G plans and for townhouses 27 and 28 in accordance with the Rev H plans.  
(f)	The secluded private open space areas of townhouses 24 and 25 be further increased by extending the fence out to the edge of CFA red dashed line for driving clearance.
(g)	The secluded private open space of townhouses 27 and 28 to extend out to the CFA red dashed line but also be removed from being partly in front of the sitting room window.
(h)	Details of the bollard and/or other public lighting to be incorporated around the private U shaped road and footpath, including that it is of a ‘robust’ design quality to assist in its longevity.  
(i)	The common area plan at TP-12 amended to include the landscaping areas located outside of the fencing along the Park Road frontage as well as the new fence locations for townhouses 24 and 25.
(j)	A notation on the ground floor plan and associated elevation that the ground floor bedroom windows of townhouses 24 and 25 will be acoustically attenuated as they are proximate to a designated visitor car space.  
(k)	Consider creating some variations in the materials, colours and finishes of the shared driveways to townhouses 10 and 11 and to townhouses 13 to 15 that can assist to blend these private driveway accessways with the landscaping treatment rather than the private road.
(l)	The driveway gradients and/or lengths and widths to be reviewed again for townhouses 1, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 29.  If not deemed suitable for inclusion of a short term visitor space, that design modifications be considered to strongly discourage vehicles parking on the driveways
(m)	The layout and design of the road, the footpath, lighting, landscaping, driveways, any edging to driveways to prevent inappropriate angled parking, and opportunities for visitor car parking must be reviewed including further traffic engineering and landscape architecture input into where visitor car parking is provided both along and off the private road.  
(n)	The words “Freeway Reserve” replaced with “EastLink Freeway Reserve”.
(o)	Threshold treatments at the two points of access to the private loop road to demarcate and identify the access as being to a private road.
(p)	Speed management/traffic measures to manage vehicle movements on the private loop road, to include line marking, traffic calming devices, signage and nomination of speed limits as necessary and appropriate. 
(q)	Splays at the edges of the parallel visitor car parking space along the private loop road to enable efficient vehicle access to this space.
(r)	The private loop road to be one way only in a clockwise direction.
(s)	Vehicle crossovers to provide vehicle access to the access track around the retarding basin, with any lighting bollards relocated and spaced accordingly. 
(t)	Details of kerb and channel or other drainage measures for the new private loop road.  The type of channelling must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and may include rollover kerbing.
(u)	The location of fire hydrant/s along the new private loop road in accordance with CFA requirements.
(v)	Details of heights and materials of all internal fencing. 
(w)	The fencing along Park Road to provide sections of more visually permeable fencing in accordance with item (c) above. 
(x)	The location of the fencing along Park Road to be adjusted to remove the ‘pinch points’ in the areas for landscaping. 
(y)	A notation that all dwellings are to be constructed to a BAL 12.5 construction. 
(z)	External shading to all north-facing habitable room windows.
(aa)	Dwelling 17 and Dwelling 19 first floor, Bed 2 south-facing windows screened to limit overlooking to the adjoining property to the north in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking) of the Scheme.
(bb)	Dwelling 3 first floor, Bed 3 east-facing windows (both) screened to limit internal views to the adjacent private open space areas of Dwelling 32 in accordance with Standard B23 of Clause 55.04-7 (Internal Views) of the Scheme.
(cc)	All screening treatments to habitable room windows notated on the first floor plans against the specific window. 
(dd)	Tree protection zones for trees on neighbouring properties as per the tree protection and management plan required by this permit. 
(ee)	Any environmentally sustainable design measures required under the updated sustainability management plan required by this permit.  
(ff)	Any other design changes required as a result of the conditions of other authorities listed later in this permit.
Endorsed Plans
2	The development as shown on the approved plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Landscape Plan 
3	Before the development starts, a landscaping plan prepared by a landscape architect or person of approved competence must be submitted via email to the Responsible Authority for approval.  Such plan must be generally in accordance with the plans approved under Condition 1 of this permit and the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects, drawing number L-VCAT01, dated Aug 2021, but must be modified to include:
(a)	The layout and design of the road, the footpath, lighting, landscaping, driveways, any edging to driveways to prevent inappropriate angled parking, and opportunities for visitor car parking must be reviewed including further traffic engineering input into where visitor car parking is provided both along and off the private road.  
(b)	Further consideration and detail provided of the location of rainwater gardens, the landscaping adjacent to both sides of the private road, barriers to prevent parking half on and off the private road where determined necessary, and the location of lighting.
(c)	Relatively low maintenance ground cover and shrubs to 1-1.2 metre mature height to be included in the landscaping areas between the front fences and the Park Road frontage for townhouses 11 to 14.
(d)	A review of the location of bollard lighting in the condition 1 plans to accord with this landscape plan including in regard to the potential raingarden locations.
(e)	Consider creating some variations in the materials, colours and finishes of the shared driveways to townhouses 10 and 11 and to townhouses 13 to 15 that can assist to blend these private driveway accessways with the landscaping treatment rather than the private road.
(f)	Consideration of the inclusion of small canopy trees between townhouses 2 and 3, 6 and 7 and 25 and 26 as per the example at townhouses 16 and 17 and 18 and 19.
(g)	A notation of the landscaped areas to be communally maintained.
(h)	Details of the maintenance and establishment period for vegetation to be planted.
(i)	Details of soil preparation, mulch depth and garden bed edging for all garden beds and grassed areas.
(j)	Screen planting along the southern boundary of the site where the development layout allows, to be a minimum height of 0.5 metres at the time of planting. 
(k)	Inclusion of indigenous species within the selection of trees to be planted.
(l)	A greater variety in tree species to reduce the quantity of any one tree species to be planted.   
(m)	Measures to prevent cars parking on landscaped areas including lawn areas
4	The use of synthetic grass as a substitute for open lawn area within secluded private open space or a front setback will not be supported. Synthetic turf may be used in place of approved paving decking and/or other hardstand surfaces.
Landscape Bond
5	Before the review of development plans under Condition 1 of this permit, a $10,000 cash bond or bank guarantee must be lodged with the Responsible Authority to ensure the completion and maintenance of landscaped areas and such bond or bank guarantee will only be refunded or discharged after a period of 13 weeks from the completion of all works, provided the landscaped areas are being maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Completion
6	Before the occupation of the approved dwellings, landscaped areas must be fully planted and mulched or grassed generally in accordance with the approved landscape plan and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  In the event of the development being completed in stages (if agreed to by the Responsible Authority), the landscaping associated with each stage must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of any dwellings associated with the stage.  
7	Privacy screens and obscure glazing as required in accordance with the approved plans must be installed prior to occupation of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The use of obscure film or spray fixed to transparent windows is not considered to be ‘obscure glazing’ or an appropriate response to screen overlooking. 
8	Road and driveway gradients and transitions as shown on the plans approved under Condition 1 of this permit must be generally achieved through the construction process to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Construction Management Plan
9	Before the development starts, a construction management plan (CMP) must be submitted via email and approved by the Responsible Authority in consultation with ConnectEast (where appropriate). When approved the plan will form part of the permit.  The Construction Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the template within Council’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines.  The CMP must address:
(a)	Element A1: Public Safety, Amenity and Site Security;
(b)	Element A2: Operating Hours, Noise and Vibration Controls;
(c)	Element A3: Air Quality and Dust Management;
(d)	Element A4: Stormwater and Sediment Control and Tree Protection (also as per the specific requirements of this permit);
(e)	Element A5: Waste Minimisation and Litter Prevention; 
(f)	Element A6: Traffic and Parking Management; and
(g)	The following specific additional measures within an appendix:
i	Dust suppression measures to be undertaken during construction works to minimise dust impact to EastLink;
ii	Measures to be undertaken to prevent construction fill encroaching onto or being placed within the Eastlink Freeway Reserve;
iii	Unless otherwise agreed with ConnectEast, no fill is to extend onto the EastLink Freeway Reserve; and
iv	Measures to ensure that the construction works will not have any detrimental effect on the flood levels and drainage paths in and around the EastLink Freeway Reserve.
Council’s Works Code of Practice (June 2016) and Construction Management Plan Guideline (June 2016) are available on Council’s website.
Sustainability Management Plan
10	Simultaneous with the submission and endorsement of plans under Condition 1 of this permit, a sustainability management plan (SMP), prepared by a suitably qualified environmental engineer or suitable equivalent, must submitted via email and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plan must demonstrate best practice in environmentally sustainable development from the design stage through to construction and operation using industry assessment tools.  The plan must generally accord with the submitted SMP (prepared by Frater, dated 6 May 2019), but must be modified to reflect the updated development as shown on the plans submitted under Condition 1 of the permit.
11	Prior to the occupation of each building, written confirmation from the author of the approved Sustainability Management Plan, or a similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.  The report must confirm that the sustainable design features/initiatives specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been satisfactorily implemented in accordance with the approved plans.
Waste Management Plan
12	Simultaneous with the submission and endorsement of plans under Condition 1 of this permit, a waste management plan must be submitted via email and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plan will form part of the permit.  The plan must be generally in accordance with the submitted waste management plans (WMP) prepared by (prepared by Leigh Design, dated 24 April 2019), but must be modified to reflect the updated development as shown on the plans submitted under Condition 1 of the permit.
13	Waste collection for the dwellings with frontage and/or access to the private road must be undertaken by a private waste contractor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The private waste contractor must be able to access the new private loop road within the development and the private waste contractor bins at all relevant times.  No private waste contractor bins can be left on Council roads at any time. 
Tree protection
14	Simultaneous with the submission and endorsement of plans under Condition 1 of this permit, a tree protection and management plan (TPMP), setting out how trees on adjoining properties will be protected during construction, and which generally follows the layout of Section 5 of AS4970 'Protection of trees on development sites', must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved the TPMP will be endorsed and form part of the permit.  The TPMP must include:
(a)	A plan showing the TPZ and SRZ for all trees to be retained along with the location of protective fencing and/or areas where ground protection systems will be used. 
(b)	Details of proposed work within TPZ and Arborist supervision when this is proposed.
(c)	A statement advising any removal or pruning of Council owned trees must be undertaken by Council approved contractor.
(d)	A statement that Council will be notified within 24 hours of any breach of the TPMP or where damage has occurred to the tree.
15	All Tree Protection Fencing must be maintained in good condition until the completion of the construction works on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16	The owner must ensure that all contractors/tradespersons (including demolition workers) who install services or work near trees to be retained are made aware of the need to preserve the trees and to minimize impacts on the trees through appropriate work practices.
Management Plan Compliance
17	The management plans approved under conditions of this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.
Bushfire Hazard and Bushfire Attack Level
18	The development must be construct in accordance with the recommendations of the Bushfire Hazard and Bushfire Attack Level Assessment report prepared by Abzeco, dated May 2019 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  This includes the adherence to a BAL 12.5 construction and compliance with all relevant access requirements.
Road Construction Plans
19	Before the development starts, a functional layout plan/s (FLP) for the new public road connection must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The FLP must include:
(a)	Mitigation measures to address safety and potential ‘rat-running’ through the new public road connection, such as the introduction of traffic management devices on the public road to slow traffic prior to approaching the road bend and deter non-local through traffic;
(b)	Details of the threshold treatments at the two points of access to the new private loop road to demarcate and identify the access as to the private road;
(c)	Dimensions to demonstrate safe stopping distance requirements are satisfied for the north bound vehicles turning at both access points into the development; and
(d)	Swept paths for service vehicles at all intersections.
20	Before the development starts, a construction plan for the new public road connection depicted on the approved plans under Condition 1 of this permit must be submitted via email and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Such plan must detail the following:
(a)	Surface and underground drainage;
(b)	Overland flow paths;
(c)	Areas of fill;
(d)	Signage and Line marking, as required;
(e)	Road cross and long sections, pavement and kerb details;
(f)	Footpath pavement details including gradients, width and crossing points;
(g)	Road and main driveway lighting; and
(h)	Any speed regulation devices (on both the public and private road) as required by the Responsible Authority.
21	Prior to the occupation of the approved dwellings, the new public road connection and new private loop road must be constructed in accordance with the plans endorsed under this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Retarding Basin Construction Plan and Management
22	Before the development starts, detailed design, computations and construction details for the retarding basin must be submitted via email and approved by the Responsible Authority, where appropriate in consultation with Connect East.  These items must be generally in accordance with the submitted Retarding Basin/Wetland Functional Design report (prepared by Stormy Water Solutions, dated 28 June 2018) and must include:
(a)	A geotechnical report on the soil and groundwater conditions to inform the design of the retarding basin / wetland and associated infrastructure.
(b)	The basin being designed and constructed to cater for the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 100 year) run off from the proposed development and the existing catchment upstream and the outlet from the retarding basin must be restricted to pre-existing conditions.
(c)	Appropriate maintenance access to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to the CDS GPT system which is to incorporate a hardstand area for maintenance vehicle access to the CDS GPT system.
(d)	Some form of barrier (bollards or the like) to be provided around the perimeter of the retarding basin to prevent unauthorised vehicle entry. 
(e)	Subject to obtaining the consent of Connect East, to undertake minor earth works within the Connect East land, the water volume set out under condition 21.2 must be contained within the boundaries of the subject land. 
(f)	Measures to reduce the frequency of 50% blockage events to the high flow outlet pit. 
(g)	Measures to prevent infiltration from the retarding basin entering the East Link Freeway Reserve (including sub-surface material) if infiltration issues are identified by the geotechnical report required in condition 21.1. 
(h)	Dimensioned cross-sections of the retarding basin showing batter slopes and grades for access. 
23	Before the development starts, a maintenance management plan for the retarding basin must be submitted via email and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plan must be based on the principles from Melbourne Water’s guidelines, ‘Constructed Wetlands Design Manual - Part A2’ and relevant publications and must include: 
(a)	Consideration of Public safety;
(b)	Consideration of ease of maintenance with respect to safe maintenance vehicle access to the wetland and assets, for clearing of debris, vegetation management, including grass cutting, de-silting of the wetland and clearance of blockages – a minimum 3.5 metre wide track would be appropriate provided that:
i	The track loops to the road in a one-way profile;
ii	Swept path diagrams can demonstrate that maintenance vehicles can appropriately manoeuvre, maintain the retarding basin and exit the basin; and
iii	The open space area is to be largely mow-able.
24	Prior to occupation of the approved dwellings, the owner must transfer the land containing the retarding basin to Council.  All costs associated with the transfer of land must be borne by the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
25	Prior to the transfer of the land containing the retarding basin to Council, the retarding basin and all associated works must be constructed in accordance with the plans and reports endorsed under this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Following the completion of these works, the developer must maintain the retarding basin for 2 years in accordance with the maintenance management plan approved under this permit and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
Plan Checking and Supervision 
26	Before the development starts:
(a)	A supervision fee equal to 2.5% of the cost of construction of the new public road connection, associated footpath and drainage and the retarding basin, must be paid to the Responsible Authority.
(b)	A plan-checking fee equal to 0.75% of the cost of construction of the new public road connection, associated footpath and drainage and the retarding basin, must be paid to the Responsible Authority.
(c)	A maintenance bond equal to 5% of the cost of construction of the new public road connection and associated footpath and drainage, must be lodged with the Responsible Authority.  The bond will be refunded or discharged at the conclusion of a three (3) month maintenance period that commences following the completion of these works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, provided the works are being maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
(d)	A maintenance bond equal to 5% of the cost of construction of the retarding basin, must be lodged with the Responsible Authority.  The bond will be refunded or discharged at the conclusion of the two (2) year maintenance period that commences following the completion of these works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, provided the works are being maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
(e)	A schedule of costs for the construction of the new public road connection, associated footpath and drainage and the retarding basin, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
Drainage
27	Stormwater must not be discharged from the subject land other than by means of drainage to the point of discharge.  The drainage system within the development must be designed and constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor.  A connection to Council maintained assets must not be constructed unless a Connection to Council Drain Permit is first obtained from the Responsible Authority.
28	The whole of the land, including landscaped and paved areas must be graded and drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, to prevent ponding and to minimise overland flows onto adjoining properties.
Site Services
29	All services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage and telephone, must be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
30	All external services including pipes must be concealed and screened respectively to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
31	Communal lighting must be connected to reticulated mains electricity and be operated by a time switch, movement sensors or a daylight sensor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
32	Any reverse cycle air-conditioning unit, hot water boosters or other service plant erected on the walls of the approved dwellings must be appropriately designed and finished with screening if necessary to minimise general visual impacts from off the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Transport for Victoria Conditions
33	The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus operation along Park Road is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development.  Foreseen disruptions to bus operations and mitigation measures must be communicated to the Head, Transport for Victoria 8 weeks prior.
ConnectEast Conditions
34	There shall be no vehicular access from Park Road to the land.
35	All buildings on the land must be set back 2 metres from the northern boundary.
36	Fencing of the northern boundary shall be designed and constructed to meet the following requirements to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
(a)	Is an acoustically rated fence with a minimum surface density of 5kg/m2, all junctions sealed airtight and constructed from materials that will minimise the risk of warping or distortion;
(b)	Be at a minimum height of 1,800 millimetres;
(c)	Restricts access to the land immediately abutting the northern boundary known as the EastLink Freeway Reserve;
(d)	Be of material and finishes that reduces the risk of the application of graffiti to the fence surface.
37	Prior to the occupation of the approved dwellings, a written statement/s prepared by a suitably qualified person/s must be submitted to the Responsible Authority confirming that the design and construction requirements for fencing along the northern boundary have been met as-built to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
38	All lighting (including carpark lights, security lights and signage) must be designed to ensure that glare or light spill to EastLink is minimised to the satisfaction of the Department of Transport.
CFA Condition
39	Unless otherwise approved by the Country Fire Authority, prior to the occupation of the approved dwellings, fire hydrants must be provided within the development, generally in accordance with Standard C29 of Clause 56.09-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Fencing
40	Prior to the occupation of the approved dwellings, all fencing must be erected in good condition in accordance with the plans endorsed under Condition 1 of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Maintenance
41	Before the development is occupied, a maintenance plan for the communal landscaped areas must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  This plan may subsequently be varied with the consent of the Responsible Authority.  
42	Buildings, paved areas, drainage and landscaping (including all landscaping within the road reserve of the private road) as per the relevant plans endorsed under this permit must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
43	All retaining walls must be constructed and finished in a professional manner to ensure a neat presentation and longevity to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Retention of architect
44	As part of the ongoing consultant team, Taouk Architects or an architectural firm to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be engaged to:
(a)	Oversee design and construction of the development; and
(b)	Ensure the design quality and appearance of the development is realised as shown in the endorsed plans or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Permit Expiry
45	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within four (4) years of the date of this permit; and
(b)	The development is not completed within six (6) years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing by the owner or occupier either before the permit expires or in accordance with Section 69 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.

– End of conditions –