VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P11385/2021
Permit Application no. P/2021/6024	
CATCHWORDS	
Knox Planning Scheme, Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987, Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 5, bush suburban character area, setbacks, landscape space, space between dwellings.     	

Applicant	NDTDC Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Knox City Council	
Respondents	M Dulak, D and H Goulding and K Squire	
SUBJECT LAND	20 Ferguson Court,
FERNTREE GULLY  VIC  3156	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	24 March 2022	
DATE OF ORDER	6 April 2022	
CITATION	NDTDC Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2022] VCAT 370	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P11385/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application P/2021/6024 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 20 Ferguson Court, Ferntree Gully in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of three, double storey dwellings.

Alison Glynn
Member	

Appearances
For NDTDC Pty Ltd	Mr Andrew Clarke, town planner of Clarke Planning 
	
For Knox City Council	Mr John Klarica, town planner of Calibre Planning.
	
For Matthew Dulak	Mr Matthew Dulak, in person
	
For Don and Helen Goulding, and Keith Squire	Mr Jack Manion town planner of JM Planning	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of three, double storey dwellings.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Knox Planning Scheme 	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 5 (NRZ5)
Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 4 (VPO4)	
Permit requirements	Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15.01, 16, 21.02, 21.03, 21.04, 21.05, 21.06, 21.09, 22.04, 22.07, 32.09, 55 and 65.   	
Land description	The site has a 20.12 metre frontage to the east side of Ferguson Court and a depth of 50.29 metres to create a 1012 sqm site.  The land is generally flat and occupied by a single storey dwelling that spans much of the front of the site.  It has two crossovers that are both used to access the site.  A large native tree is located in the south-west, front corner of the site.
Ferguson Court is a long court with the site midway through the neck of the court where it appears more as a conventional street.  North and south are single storey dwellings as is across the road.  To the rear are a number of three dwelling developments facing Clyde Street.	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the site and surrounds, including a view from the rear yards of 20, 22 and 24 Ferguson Court, unaccompanied after the hearing on 30 March 2022.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Knox City Council (the council) has refused to grant a planning permit to NDTDC Pty Ltd (the applicant) for a proposal to construct three double storey dwellings at 20 Ferguson Court, Ferntree Gully.  It is a decision supported by four objector parties to the hearing.  Three of the objectors live north of the review site at 22 and 24 Ferguson Street.  The fourth objector lives directly opposite the site.
2	The council and the objectors oppose the development principally because they say the proposal is too intensive for the bush suburban character setting of the land and lacks space for landscaping commensurate with the planning scheme objectives applying to the area.
3	Having considered the submissions made, the relevant provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme (the planning scheme), as well as inspecting site and surrounding area I have determined the proposal presents an acceptable outcome.  I therefore have determined to set aside the decision of the council and direct a permit be granted.  My reasons follow.
What are the key issues?
4	The council and the objectors are all concerned that the proposal is out of character with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area due to its double storey form deep into the lot, the room available for landscaping and the space allocated to driveway.  Neighbours also have some concerns that the proposal will result in additional traffic and on-street parking.
5	To address these matters I find it relevant to consider the following issues:
•	Does the proposed design response acceptably respond to the character provisions applying to the land?
•	Does the proposal provide a suitable landscape response?
•	Are there any unreasonable amenity issues that may arise from the proposal?
6	I address each of these issues below.
Does the proposed design acceptably respond to character?
7	The council and the objectors submit the proposal is too intense for the neighbourhood character policy and existing character of the area.
Neighbourhood character policy context
8	The site is located in an area of Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 5 (NRZ5).  The zone applies to locations of biological significance located outside of the Dandenong Foothills.  The zone schedule does not set out any specific character objectives, but local policy at clause 22.07 sets out character objectives and guidelines for bush suburban areas.  The policy at clause 22.07 applies to both the foothill and non-foothill areas, although the zone schedule only applies to areas outside of the foothills, with different zone provisions applying to the foothills.  Relevant objectives and guidelines applying to both the foothill and non-foothill areas include to:
•	Contribute to the protection and enhancement of Knox’s distinctive environmental and biological values. 
•	Continue to be low-scale neighbourhoods where significant indigenous and native vegetation is retained and complemented. 
•	Require built form that is subservient to the area’s landscape dominant character. 
9	Clause 21.06-3 reinforces that in bush suburban areas (being both foothill and non-foothill areas), ‘limited and low scale residential development is anticipated’ ‘to protect the environmental and biological qualities that make these areas distinct’.
10	Clause 22.07 also states that the preferred dwelling typology in these areas is to support ‘detached dwellings and dual occupancies’.  There is also strategic housing direction at clauses 21.06-1 to direct growth away from bush suburban areas.  Clause 21.06-2, however, also acknowledges broader State policy of clause 16.01 to support a diverse range of housing, including smaller dwellings.  
11	State direction at clause 16.01-1S includes encouraging higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to jobs, services and public transport.  The site is located within the PPTN area and is relatively close to employment east of Clyde Street and the Mountain Gate Shopping Centre.  Providing increased housing choices around these locations is also supported by clause 16.01-1R that seeks to facilitate increased housing in established areas to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods close to existing services, jobs and public transport.  
12	Clause 16.01-1R goes on to include a strategy to provide certainty about the scale of growth by prescribing appropriate height and site coverage provisions for different areas.  The NRZ5 schedule provides some certainty with a mandatory maximum height limit of two storeys or 9 metres, and varied site coverage and private open space requirements.  The proposal meets all of the nominated height and site coverage provisions.  VPO1 also applies to the land, protecting large trees in the area.  The proposal does not result in any loss of trees protected by the VPO1.
13	The proposal is not for two dwellings (sometimes colloquially referred to as a dual occupancy), but the permit triggers applying to the proposal are only that a permit is required for the development of two or more dwellings, not the specific number of dwellings.  The council’s written submission also acknowledges that two or more dwellings may be contemplated, but submits the typology is to encourage a lower level of development to enable spaciousness in developments.  
14	It is the built form outcome that is relevant, not the number of dwellings when assessing character.  This is simply because, by example, two large dwellings may create a much greater built form impact than three smaller dwellings.  I am therefore not concerned that the proposal is for three dwellings, two of which are attached at ground level.  It is the response of the form to the character of the area that is important.  In particular whether the proposal provides sufficient space for landscape around dwellings.
15	Clause 22.07 sets out design objectives and guidelines to consider when assessing a proposed development in the bush suburban areas (both foothill and non-foothill).  I assess the proposal against these below.  
What is proposed?
16	The proposal is for three, double storey dwellings.  Indicatively, the footprint of the proposal, including first floor, is set out in figure 1 below.  

Figure 1 - layout of dwellings showing first floor internal layout.  Retained trees are also nominated.
17	The layout sets out a conventional, pitched roof form with a mix of materials common to the area.
Physical context
18	The tests of the planning scheme, including relevant policy, is directed by the provisions of clause 32.09, being the NRZ5 zone provisions and clause 55 that direct the need to have regard to relevant character and residential policy as well as the existing physical context.  
19	In this instance the existing physical context is an area of relatively large lots, where there are some large trees that establish a canopy treed character.  Many of these large trees are in front setbacks or the road reserve.  As depicted in figure 2 below the review site itself and nearby properties have limited large trees in their rear yards.  Many, including the review site and the site to the south have retained some vegetation in rear yards but these are hedge trees (notably photinias) and flowering fruit trees (including a Manchurian Flowering Pear tree directly south of the site).  There are other notable large exotic trees such as two conifer trees in the rear yard of No. 24 Ferguson Court, along with native trees on the same site.

Figure 2 - Nearmap image of site (blue marker) and surrounding sites. 
20	At the south-west corner of the front of the review site is a large Eucalypt that sits on the boundary of the road reserve.  At 19 Ferguson Court, opposite the site, Mr Dulak explained there had been a large Eucalpyt that was recently removed due to structural limb loss in a recent storm.  A new tree to replace it is to be planted soon.  The removed tree, with its lost limb, is still shown in the aerial photo above.  There is also a large canopy tree sitting at the front boundary of 22 Ferguson Court.
Assessment
21	I am satisfied the design response, relative to its physical context and the planning scheme provisions applying to the land, is acceptable for reasons I set out below.
22	Firstly, I agree with parties that this site, in Ferguson Court, is different to the character of Clyde Street to the east.  On my inspection I went to Clyde Street and acknowledge that this is a busier, through road, where there has been a number of multi-dwelling developments and east of Clyde Street part of the land is used for industrial purposes.  The west side of Clyde Street is, however, in the same NRZ5 policy and zone provisions as the review site.  This carries some relevance.  
23	Ferguson Court itself has more of a character of a street that is closed at its north end, with pedestrian access to the north.  I also agree with the applicant’s commentary that much of the large tree canopy that is sought to be maintained is found in the road reserve and pedestrian reserves, not necessarily in rear yards.  The dwellings in Ferguson Court are characterised by wide open front setbacks, some with large trees.  The proposal maintains this aspect.
24	The proposal retains canopy trees and provides for the planting of new indigenous canopy trees.  It does so in secluded private open spaces that meet or exceed the NRZ5 schedule requirements.  The buildings are two storey, but many new buildings are such height and the height is within the NRZ5 schedule requirements.  The height is below the larger tree canopy heights enabling the building to be nestled into the landscape as sought by clause 22.07.
25	The council submits that the proposal does not allow appropriate setbacks for adequate landscaping and is not ‘subservient’ to the landscape character.  I disagree.  The proposal retains a nine metre front setback and uses existing crossovers to the site.  It also includes space for canopy trees to be planted in accordance with the requirements of the NRZ5 schedule, a matter sought by the design guidelines of clause 22.07.  I am therefore satisfied the proposal meets the design objective to maintain the continuity of vegetation and landscape character around and in front of dwellings.  
26	The proposal can accommodate landscaping including canopy trees in front and rear gardens.  This is reinforced in the landscape plan and can be further refined through permit condition to refine the landscape plan to ensure details of the council NRZ5, policy and VPO1 objectives are met.
27	The council submits the proposal provides insufficient breaks in building form and lacks recession from ground floor to upper levels thereby failing the design objective to avoid buildings being prominent from the street.  In particular it submits the proposal provides a wide building form to the street (at ground and first floor level), with the first floor inadequately set back from the ground level façade.
28	The proposed presentation to the street, while double storey, extends less across the width of the site than the existing single storey dwelling on the land.  I was also advised it was only some time after 1 September 2021 (after the council consideration of the application) that a carport sitting in front of the existing dwelling was removed.  
29	The proposed front dwelling includes an upper storey but I am satisfied it is recessed sufficiently from its ground level, with landscape space in front of the dwelling to ensure it is not overly prominent in the street.  It maintains the consistent nine metre front setback as its adjoining dwellings.
30	The proposal includes two driveways, but the site already accommodates two crossovers, and up until recently a carport in front of the dwelling.  The proposed double garage to dwelling 1 is set slightly behind the main façade line so that it does not project or dominate.  The proposed three dwellings are large, including the front dwelling, but the site is also large.  Relatively I am satisfied that the buildings have sufficient breaks at upper level to ensure the character response sought by policy, relative to the physical context of this area is met.  
Does the proposal provide a suitable landscape response?
31	The council submits that the proposed design and footprint restricts the ability to provide landscaping along the length of the site, impacting on the character and on the sense of spaciousness that Knox is trying to achieve in these areas.   It states the proposal is not site responsive and limits planting to patchy perimeter landscaping, which is inconsistent with advancing the green and leafy character of Knox and is contrary to the design objectives and design guidelines of NRZ5 and VPO1. 
32	The proposal retains a number of trees and shrubs including a dense row of photinias to the rear of the site and a mature Japanese Maple in the north, side setback of dwelling 2.  There is limited landscaping along the drive along the south side of the site, but this is in an area where there is existing driveway, building and paved area.  In this location the proposal includes an approximate 0.5 metre wide landscape strip along the length of the drive to the garage to dwelling 3.  At the front of the site this widens out to accommodate a large, retained Eucalypt at the front of the site.  At the rear south-east corner the site already contains a garden shed where the tandem parking arrangement to dwelling 3 is proposed.  In this existing context I am satisfied the proposal provides sufficient landscape space to meet the objectives of clause 22.07 and NRZ5.
33	Mr Dulak commented as part of his submission, that his understanding of the landscape objectives for the area was to retain and promote new planting of large eucalypts, not smaller shrubs and plants.  The proposal includes retaining both the eucalypts to the front of the site and exotic trees and shrubs already in the rear of the site.  The landscape plan forming part of the proposal includes planting two Blackwood Wattle trees in the front setback.  These are indigenous, but not Eucalypts.
34	The NRZ5 schedule directs that within a front setback a minimum of one canopy tree per five metres of width of the site (excluding the width of one driveway) should be provided.  The proposal achieves this with the 10 metres of landscape width provided between driveways.  Planting trees for every five metres of width potentially leads to planting smaller species, such as Blackwood Wattles rather than a singular Eucalypt (that could complement the retained Stringybark Eucalypt retained at the front of the site).
35	I am not opposed to the blackwood species proposed, but agree with Mr Dulak that there is some merit in the species selection being reviewed between the council and the applicant through the finalisation of a landscape plan to determine if an alternative eucalyptus could be provided that would reinforce the VPO1 landscape objective to improve the continuity of tree cover over time by replacing trees with new indigenous canopy trees and a larger number of smaller plants.
36	I am satisfied there is sufficient room in the front setback for indigenous canopy planting whether it be the two proposed wattle trees or a single larger, eucalypt species.  I am satisfied that in either planting, the landscape objectives of clause 22.07 and VPO1 can be met.  This is noting the existing Silver Leafed Stringybark (Eucalyptus cephalocarpa) to be retained at the south-west corner of the site and a semi-mature red flowering gum (Corymbia ficifolia) also to be retained in the front setback.
Are there any unreasonable amenity issues?
37	The council submits that generally, double storey construction at the rear of sites should be approached with some level of caution, given the potential amenity impacts on adjoining properties and potential adverse neighbourhood character outcomes.  The council submits that dwelling 3 in the rear of the site results in a large building form adjacent to the secluded private open space areas of adjoining dwellings, which impacts on the landscaping, rear yard character and on the sense of spaciousness that Knox is trying to achieve in these areas. 
38	Having viewed the site and reviewed the proposal I am satisfied that while there is double storey building in the rear yard, it is sufficiently recessed to avoid unreasonable character impacts.  To the north, close to the objectors’ property, the proposal includes the retention of the Japanese Maple tree to retain some landscape softening and includes new open space where new planting can occur.  To both the north and south the upper level is well separated from the front two dwellings and not extensive in width when viewed from adjoining sites.  It is well recessed from either side boundary, well exceeding the minimum requirements of clause 55.04-1 of the planning scheme.
39	I am satisfied that any issues of visual bulk are reasonable and acceptable.  No party sought to indicate that shadow or overlooking issues exist, or cannot be addressed by permit condition.  
40	Mr Dulak is concerned that the proposal may lead to additional on-street parking that may impact on the ability for him to exit his trailer out of his drive opposite the site.  The proposal includes the prescribed number of car spaces for each dwelling.  This includes that dwelling 3 has a tandem space.  Tandem parking is a regular form of parking accepted under the planning scheme.  
41	While there may be some occasional additional cars parked on the street, the planning scheme directs that the provision made is acceptable.  I am satisfied that any additional occasional on-street parking is well within what could be deemed a reasonable maintenance of amenity for this street.  In commenting on this, I note that while the review site is in a court, it is not at the head of the court where sometimes parking can be awkward.  Rather it is in part of a long throat of the court, which in effect is a road with a closed end.  
Conclusion
42	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.  The conditions reflect the draft, without prejudice, conditions provided by the council other than for the following matters:
43	I have amended the landscape condition to refer to the Greeno Group plan, that forms part of the application material as the starting point to condition 4.  I have deleted the word ‘additional’ from the requirement of condition 4.8 as it is not clear as to what trees they are in addition to.  The Greeno Group plan provides a number of trees that potentially meet the requirements of NRZ5.  As set out already I also am of the view that this could be reviewed to consider one rather than two trees in the front setback if it resulted in a larger tree.  The council material provided prior to the hearing also includes a landscape plan dated 11 February 2021.  It refers to providing 
•	Front setback -1 large indigenous canopy tree and 1 small native or indigenous canopy tree in addition to existing Corymbia ficifolia proposed to be retained.
•	SPOS 1 -1 small canopy tree and 2 large feature shrubs with a mature height of 4-5 metres.
•	SPOS 2-1 small canopy tree in addition to existing Acer palmatum proposed to be retained.
•	SPOS 3 -1 small canopy tree and 1 large feature shrub with a mature height of 4-5 metres in addition to existing group of Photinia serratifolia proposed to be retained.
44	This provides a useful starting point to a review of the existing landscape plan.  Ultimately the make up of the final landscape plan can be approved by the council through the meeting of condition 1 and condition 4.  It is a matter that can be addressed by secondary consent in approval of a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
45	I have not amended the preamble to condition 1 as suggested by the applicant.  The preamble refers to the application plans which are the plans referred to in the Tribunal hearing and form the basis to the condition.  I see no need to list out specific plan numbers.  I have also retained the drainage condition as proposed by the council.  While it is perhaps overly detailed, ultimately the council in its role as drainage authority will direct the extent of information needed to drain the site .  I find in this instance not unreasonable to set out what that may entail in the planning permit.
46	The applicant sought condition 12 for a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) to be amended stating the draft condition proposed by the council is too detailed and unnecessary.  The council submitted it was happy for me to review what I considered necessary for a three dwelling development in light of the council sustainable building policy at clause 22.04.
47	The council officer report that assessed the proposal included a comment that the council ESD officer simply commented that ‘standard conditions’ should be applied, including the submission of an amended SDA but the application of specific outcomes, such as double glazing to all windows.  The intent of a SDA is for the relevant benchmarks and goals for sustainable development to be met, not necessarily specific means of achieving this.  I have therefore amended condition 12 to refer to the need for relevant reports that show compliance, but have deleted prescribed outcomes of the draft permit condition.

Alison Glynn
Member	

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No:	P/2021/6024	
Land:	20 Ferguson Court,
FERNTREE GULLY  VIC  3156	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of three, double storey dwellings.	

Conditions:
Amended Plans
1.	Prior to the commencement of the development approved under this Permit, amended development plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The development plans must be approved prior to other plans required by this permit. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show: 
1.1	Accessway grades to be a maximum gradient of 1:10 (10 percent) within 5 metres of the frontage as per the requirements off Clause 52.06-9. 
1.2	Garage 3 tandem car space shown with minimum dimensions of 2.6 metre wide and 5.4 metres long. Car space to be delineated from the driveway through the use of alterative paving with colour contrast or line marking. 
1.3	The provision of a 1.8 metre high paling fence along the southern boundary. 
1.4	Provision of full bridging platform details for the construction of Dwelling 3’s tandem car space. 
1.5	Annotation stating, ‘Construction of the bridging structure over the SRZ for Tree no. 9 (adjacent to Dwelling 3 tandem car space) to be supervised by a suitably qualified Arborist’. 
1.6	Annotation stating, ‘existing crossovers to be re-constructed to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’.
1.7	Annotation stating, ‘all structures (including fences, letterboxes and meter boxes) must be constructed to a maximum height of 900mm or relocated clear of a splayed area near the access way to ensure safe sight distances.’ Letterboxes must front the street.
1.8	The height, location and design of fencing, the mail boxes and electricity supply structures to comply with Condition 1.7 of this Planning Permit.
1.9	A notation on the plans stating that windows to be screened will have fixed obscure glazing (non-openable) to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level. The windows may be clear and openable above 1.7 metres. Adhesive film must not be used.
1.10	All window screening to be shown in accordance with the specifications of Condition 1.9. 
1.11	Delete reference of water tanks. Details to be shown on Drainage Plans. 
1.12	Tree Protection Fencing and Tree Protection Zones (including street tree) to be drawn on the Development, Drainage and Landscape Plans in accordance with Conditions 14-26.
1.13	All levels to be to AHD (Australian Height Datum).
1.14	Amended Sustainable Design Assessment in accordance with Condition 12.
1.15	Any changes to comply with Condition 3.5. 
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Other Plans
2.	Prior to the commencement of the development and issue of a Building Permit for the development approved under this Permit, the following plans and computations must be submitted to the Responsible Authority as a complete set.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  Construction must be in accordance with these plans. The plans must comprise the following:
2.1	Drainage plans in accordance with Condition 3.
2.2	Landscape plans in accordance with Condition 4.
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Drainage Plans
3.	Prior to the commencement of the development approved under this Permit, drainage plans and computations must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  Construction of the drainage must be in accordance with these plans.  The plans must show the following:
3.1	All stormwater drainage discharge from the site connected to a legal point of discharge.
3.2	The internal drains of the dwellings to be independent of each other.
3.3	An on-site detention system designed by a suitably qualified Civil Engineering Consultant to ensure no net increase in stormwater discharge from the proposed development.
3.4	The on-site detention system to be installed in a suitable location for easy access and maintenance.
3.5	A suitable overland flow path for the entire site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Details of the overland flow path are to be included on the plans.
3.6	Any Environmental Sustainable Design initiatives shown on the Development Plans approved pursuant to Condition 1 of this permit.
3.7	Location of fencing in accordance with the Development Plans approved pursuant to Condition 1 of this permit.
3.8	All levels to be to AHD (Australian Height Datum).
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Landscaping 
4.	Prior to the commencement of the development approved under this Permit, a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect or a suitably qualified landscape designer to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority in accordance with Council’s ‘Landscape Plan Guidelines’.  When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plan should be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Greeno Group (GR 21-303), dated 15 April 2021, but modified to show:
4.1	A survey (including botanical names, height and width) of all existing vegetation to be retained and / or removed.
4.2	The identification and removal of all vegetation identified as an environmental weed in Knox (as outlined in Council’s ‘Landscape Plan Guidelines).
4.3	Buildings and trees (including botanical names, height and width) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary including all trees that have their Tree Protection Zone extending into the subject site.
4.4	Details of the surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
4.5	Details and location of all existing and proposed services including above and below ground lines, cables and pipes.
4.6	A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.
4.7	Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site (including additional planting within open space areas of the existing dwelling/s).
4.8	The plan must also show the provision of trees and medium/large shrubs chosen from plant list 1 or 2 of Council’s ‘Landscape Plan Guidelines’. These canopy trees must be a minimum of 1.5 – 2.0 metres tall when planted.
4.9	Planting of this site to comprise 60% of the vegetation species to be indigenous (across all plant forms) from plant list 1 of the ‘Landscape Plan Guidelines’ and 30% additional native species (across all plant forms) from plant list 2 of the ‘Landscape Plan Guidelines’. Remaining plant species (10%) can be indigenous, native or exotic (across all plant forms) provided they are not listed as weeds.
4.10	Tree protection measures for all trees (Street, Neighbouring and on Subject Site) to be retained must be shown on plans.
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5.	Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
6.	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
General
7.	All development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans.
8.	The layout of buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.  
9.	Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10.	Prior to the occupation of the dwellings the development is to be completed in accordance with the endorsed plan/s to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11.	All walls on the boundaries of adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Sustainable Design Assessment
12.	Prior to the commencement of the development approved under this Permit, a Sustainable Design Assessment detailing Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) initiatives to be incorporated into the development must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Sustainable Design Assessment must include:
12.1	A STORM Assessment, InSite Water Report or equivalent addressing stormwater quality performance, in addition to ensuring that the Responsible Authority’s collective integrated water management requirements and expectations pursuant to Clauses 34 and 44 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters), are satisfied which includes sufficiently sized rainwater tank(s) for retention purposes for each dwelling, as well as, permeable paving to the driveway areas in lieu of raingardens.
12.2	Rainwater tanks connected to all toilet flushing, laundry and irrigation areas.
12.3	A complete, published BESS Report, with an acceptable overall score of at least 50% which also meets the ‘pass’ marks in the categories of Water, Energy, Stormwater and Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) or is otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.4	Preliminary First Rate 5 Reports for thermally unique dwellings which demonstrates that the development achieves a minimum average NatHERS 6.5 star energy efficiency rating.
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
13.	Prior to the occupation of the development, the development must be constructed in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment, except for stormwater and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) requirements which are adopted, pursuant to the collective Responsible Authority’s expectations and requirements, reflected on Drainage Plans.
Tree Protection
14.	All works, including excavation, within the critical root zone areas of the tree/s to be retained and other critical root zones on the land must be undertaken under the supervision of a qualified Arborist to ensure that there is no unreasonable damage to the root system of trees to be retained and/or protected, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.   Before the development starts, the owner must submit to the Responsible Authority details of the name of the Arborist who will supervise the works and the tasks to be undertaken by the Arborist, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.	Prior to any works commencing on the site (including demolition and tree removal), all trees and vegetation to be retained including other critical root zones must be fenced off to create a protection zone.  The protection zone must extend around the tree canopy drip-line unless an alternative tree protection zone has been approved by the responsible authority.  
16.	The fence is to be chain link or wire mesh, comprise either wooden or steel posts set into the ground or on concrete pads, and be a minimum height of 1.8 metres. Signage is to be affixed to the fence advising that the area is a tree protection zone and a no-go development area.
17.	The fence and signage is to be maintained throughout the construction period and removed at the completion of all works.
18.	No temporary removal of the fence, or encroachment into the protection zone is permitted without the written consent of the responsible authority.
19.	TPZ ground protection is to be provided to the street tree adjacent to the crossover (Eucalyptus cephalocarpa, TPZ 11.3m). ground protection over TPZ is to consist of rumble boards or 100mm mulch. Any underground services requiring to go through a TPZ must be installed using non-destructive methods to prevent root damage (i.e. Hydro excavation).  
20.	Any street tree roots identified (<50mm), and requiring to be pruned, must be pruned under the guidance of a suitably qualified arborist in accordance with AS 4373-2007 – Pruning of amenity trees.
21.	Any street tree roots identified (>50mm), and requiring to be pruned, must be inspected by a Council arborist.
22.	LV service wire located directly besides the trunk of the street tree to be repositioned away from the tree at the cost of the developer.
23.	Prior to erecting the fence around the TPZ, all unwanted vegetation and weed species must be removed from within the zone, and the ground within the protection zone must be covered with a layer of well composted organic mulch (maximum 100mm depth).  The area is to be watered at least fortnightly throughout the construction period.
24.	Construction of the bridging structure over the SRZ for Tree no. 9 (adjacent to Dwelling 3 tandem car space) to be supervised by a suitably qualified Arborist. 
25.	The following activities are prohibited from the tree protection area, without the written consent of the responsible authority:
25.1	Construction activities.
25.2	Dumping and/or storage of materials, goods and/or soil.
25.3	Trenching or excavation.
25.4	Lopping branches, nailing or affixing signs, service lines, lights etc to the trees.
26.	Prior to any works commencing on site, the Responsible Authority must be contacted to inspect the Tree Protection fencing.
Car Parking and accessways 
27.	Before the dwellings are occupied, driveways and car parking areas must be:
27.1	Fully constructed and available for use in accordance with the plans submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority; and 
27.2	Formed to such levels and drained so that they can be used in accordance with the approved plan; and
27.3	Treated with an all-weather seal or some other durable surface.
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
28.	Parking areas and driveways must be kept available and maintained for these purposes at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
29.	Before the development is occupied vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All redundant crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
30.	Existing crossovers utilised by development are to be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
Fencing
31.	All costs associated with the provision of the fencing are to be borne by the owner/developer under this permit.
32.	Prior to the occupancy of the development all fencing must be in a good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Amenity During Construction
33.	Upon commencement and until conclusion of the development, the developer must ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of the area in any way, including:
33.1	the appearance of building, works or materials on the land
33.2	parking of motor vehicles
33.3	transporting of materials or goods to or from the site
33.4	hours of operation
33.5	stockpiling of top soil or fill materials
33.6	air borne dust emanating from the site
33.7	noise
33.8	rubbish and litter
33.9	sediment runoff
33.10	vibration
Should the development cause undue detriment to the amenity of the area then immediate remedial measures must be undertaken to address the issue as directed by, and to the satisfaction of, the Responsible Authority.
Stormwater
34.	Stormwater runoff from all buildings and hardstanding surfaces must be properly collected and discharged in a complete and effective system of drains within the property and must not cause or create a nuisance to abutting properties to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Permit Expiry
35.	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
35.1	The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
35.2	The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
Pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, the Responsible Authority may extend:
•	The commencement date referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six (6) months afterwards.
•	The completion date referred to if a request is made in writing within 12 months after the permit expires and the development started lawfully before the permit expired.  

- End of conditions -