VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P532/2022
permit application no. WH/2021/548
	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Whitehorse Planning Scheme; Neighbourhood Residential Zone; Significant Landscape Overlay SLO2; One dwelling; Landscaping; Scale; Setbacks.	

Applicant	Pinxiang Li	

Responsible Authority	Whitehorse City Council	
Respondents	Blackburn Village Residents Group Inc.	
	Kim Rusling 	
	Kelly Tulk & Jeff Tulk	
SUBJECT LAND	6 Brenda Court
NUNAWADING  VIC  3131	
hearing type	Hearing	
date of hearing	30 September 2022	
DATE OF ORDER	6 October 2022	
CITATION	Li v Whitehorse CC [2022] VCAT 1135	
Order
Permit application amended
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the permit application is amended:
•	By substituting the following plans for the application plans - Development plans prepared by Boutique Homes (revision date 19/07/2022, sheets TP1-TP10), and Landscape plan prepared by Taylors (‘Landscape Plan for VCAT’ 20/07/2022) 
•	By amending the description of what the permit allows to ‘Buildings and works (dwelling and a fence) pursuant to SLO2’.
Permit granted
2	In application P532/2022 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application WH/2021/548, a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 6 Brenda Court, Nunawading, in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Buildings and works (dwelling and a fence) pursuant to SLO2.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			
APPEARANCES	
For Pinxiang Li (applicant)	Mr A Spence, town planner, Taylors Development Strategists. 	
For Whitehorse City Council (Council)	Ms L Lunn, town planner, Louise Lunn Planning Pty Ltd.	
For Blackburn Village Residents Group Inc. (BVRG)	Mr M Taafe, President, BVRG.	
For Kim Rusling	Ms K Rusling.	
For Kelly Tulk & Jeff Tulk	Mrs K Tulk.	
Information
Description of proposal	Buildings and works for the construction of a double storey dwelling.  	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) (Act) – to review the failure to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Whitehorse Planning Scheme (scheme).	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1 (NRZ1) Bush Environment Areas. Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2 (SLO2) Blackburn Area 2. 	
Permit requirements	Clause 42.03 for buildings and works (dwelling and a fence) pursuant to SLO2.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21, 22.03, 22.04, 32.09, 42.03, 65 and 71.	
Subject land description	The subject land is on the west side of Brenda Court.  It is 605m2 in area with a street frontage of 15.55 metres.  An easement extends along the rear boundary.  The land contains a single storey weatherboard dwelling, with access via a crossover from Brenda Court to a carport.  A very large Yellow Box – Eucalyptus melliodora (Tree 2) is located to the rear of the land. 	
Tribunal inspection 	Unaccompanied, after the hearing.	

REASONS
INTRODUCTION
1	Mr Pinxiang Li (applicant) applied to the Whitehorse City Council (Council) to construct a two storey dwelling on the subject land.  The Council failed to grant a permit within the prescribed time, leading the permit applicant to apply to the Tribunal seeking a permit.
2	Subsequent to the application for review being lodged, the permit application has been amended, including through the substitution of amended plans.  No party or other person has objected to the amendments.
OVERVIEW OF parties’ POSITIONS
3	The Council initially opposed a permit issuing.  Plan amendments have altered its position.  It now supports the application subject to conditions.  The change in its position is because the Yellow Box is no longer sought to be pruned.  In addition, modifications have been made to the proposed dwelling including to building materials and the size of the first floor.
4	BVRG opposes the proposal because of unacceptable amenity impacts through visual bulk, inadequate setbacks and landscaping opportunities, and the failure to achieve a bush character for the site.  Its detailed submission sets out why it submits the proposal is not an acceptable response to many scheme policies, clause 22.03 and SLO2.  If a permit is granted, it is argued that there will be a further erosion of the character of the Bush Environment precinct in Brenda Court and the surrounding area. 
5	Other respondents opposing a permit (supported by residents in the Court) submit the modern design does not fit with the prevailing streetscape of Brenda Court.  Flat roof elements and proposed building materials (render and ‘industrial-look’ bricks) are part of their concern.  The forward position of the front porch also does not fit with the streetscape.  The dwelling is described as being too large and too wide.  Its side setbacks are insufficient given the site’s location in Brenda Court and its abuttal to single storey dwellings, and lack of vegetation in the front setback.  The side setbacks do not allow for canopy planting to reduce the visual bulk of the dwelling when viewed in Brenda Court.  Respondents submit SLO2 setbacks should be met to allow space for canopy planting to the north and south.
6	The applicant challenges all of the grounds advanced against it, saying the dwelling is appropriate and responsive to the SLO2.  It relies on the amended plans that include greater first floor façade recession, changes in façade materiality and a more comprehensive landscaping outcome.  It states that it no longer proposes to prune the Yellow Box, as the applicant intends to explore other construction methodology to avoid tree pruning.  Permit conditions relating to tree protection are accepted.  The applicant also relies on the Council’s agreement that the outcome is appropriate in the context of the relevant objectives and decision guidelines in SLO2. 
SLO2 PERMIT TRIGGER
7	A permit is not required to construct a single dwelling or fence associated with one dwelling in the NRZ1 given the subject land exceeds 500m2. 
8	A planning permit is triggered because the proposal does not meet all of the permit requirements in clause 3.0 of SLO2.  No pruning or lopping is proposed with respect to the Yellow Box.  Other on-site vegetation removal meets SLO2 exemptions and no permit is sought (or exemptions relied on) with respect to the street tree.  
9	The Council’s submission sets out where the advertised permit application and now the amended plans do not meet three aspects in clause 3.0:  
Setback from front boundary 
The advertised plans provide for a 8m setback at ground level and 9.3m setback at the upper level, less than the 9m at ground level and 11m at the upper level required to exempt the requirement for a permit. 
The VCAT amended plans provide for a setback at ground level of between 8m to 8.9m with the upper level setback in the range of 10.3, 11.3 and 14.55 metres. 
Side setbacks 
The advertised plans provide for the first floor south facing wall to be setback 3.21 metres increasing to 3.81 metre. The provision calls for a 4.45m setback. The first floor, north-facing wall was proposed to be setback 3.05 increasing to 3.65 metres, less than the 4.79m required to be exempt from a permit. SLO2 requires setbacks from at least 1.2 metres for a building wall height of no more than 3.6 metres or 1.5 metres plus half the building height if the building wall height is more than 3.6 metres 
The VCAT amended plans provide for southern setbacks of 1-3.16 metres at ground level and 3.2-3.8 metres at the upper level. Setbacks on the north are 1.8m to 3m and at the upper level 3.15m to 3.65 metres. These setbacks are still less than recommended by the SLO.  Council determined that these setbacks are acceptable given the reduction in visual bulk of the proposed upper storey that has resulted in the increased setback of the upper storey bedroom.
Site permeability 
Ground floor site cover, excluding hard surface and impervious areas, measured from the plans at ground floor is 43% and not 33%. The first floor has a site coverage of 28%, not the 25% required to be exempt from the requirement for a planning permit. 
The VCAT amended plans provide for site permeability of 43.89%. 
10	Further, it has been agreed at the hearing that the development does not meet the requirement that ‘Less than 33 per cent of the site area at ground level and 25 per cent of the site area at first floor level, excluding hard surfaced and impervious areas’.   
11	It is common ground that all other matters in clause 3.0 are met.
12	The parties have proceeded on the basis that the front fence is not exempt from planning permission under clause 42.03 and SLO2.
PLANNING CONTEXT
13	Strategic directions for housing are implemented through three categories of change, being Substantial Change, Natural Change and Limited Change.  
14	The subject land is in a Limited Change Area, where the objectives are:
•	Conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the valued environmental, heritage and neighbourhood character of the place. 
•	Ensure new development protects and reinforces the environmental, heritage values and / or preferred future neighbourhood character of the area. 
•	Ensure new development mainly takes the form of renovations to existing houses, replacement of single dwellings with new dwellings and some limited medium density development.
15	Trees and vegetation are considered one of the most significant determinants of neighbourhood character in the municipality, and therefore tree preservation and regeneration is of vital importance if the character of residential areas is to be maintained and enhanced.  
16	The subject land is within the Bush Environment Area.  Clause 22.03 applies to all applications for development within the NRZ.  While no permit application is required for the proposed development in the NRZ, clause 22.03 has been interpreted by the parties as applying to the current permit application given development is proposed in the NRZ.  All parties have proceeded on the basis that this clause is a relevant matter and applies.  
17	An objective in clause 22.03 is ‘To ensure that new development provides adequate vegetation and gardens consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character’.
18	The preferred character for the Bush Environment Areas is:
The streetscapes will be dominated by vegetation with subservient buildings frequently hidden from view behind vegetation and tall trees. The buildings will nestle into the topography of the landscape and be surrounded by bush-like native and indigenous gardens, including large indigenous trees in the private and public domains. 
Buildings and hard surfaces will occupy a very low proportion of the site. They will be sited to reflect the prevailing front, rear, and side setbacks. The larger rear setbacks will accommodate substantial vegetation including large canopy trees. The bushy environs are complemented by street trees and a lack of front fencing. Properties abutting and close to creeks and lake environs will contain more indigenous trees and shrubs that act in part as wildlife corridors.
This precinct is identified for the lowest scale of intended residential growth in Whitehorse (Limited Change area) and the preservation of its significant landscape character and environmental integrity is the highest priority
19	The ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’ in SLO2 is:
The significance of the area is attributed to the quality of the environment, which includes vegetation notable for its height, density, maturity and high proportion of Australian native trees.
This in turn contributes to the significance of the area as a valuable bird and wildlife habitat.
20	The ‘Landscape character objective to be achieved’ in SLO2 is:
To retain the dominance of vegetation cover in keeping with the bush character environment.
To encourage the retention and regeneration of native vegetation for the protection of wildlife habitat.
To ensure that a reasonable proportion of a lot is free of buildings to provide for the planting of tall trees in a natural garden setting.
To encourage the development of sympathetic buildings within an envelope, which ensures the maintenance of a tree-dominated landscape.
To ensure that buildings and works retain an inconspicuous profile and do not dominate the landscape.
To ensure that development is compatible with the character of the area.
21	In addition to the decision guidelines in clause 42.03, the following decision guidelines apply through SLO2 (with my emphasis added):
•	Whether the proposed building is set back a reasonable distance from the property boundaries to provide for landscaping.
•	Whether the proposed building or works retain an inconspicuous profile and do not dominate the landscape.
•	Whether a reasonable proportion of the lot is free of buildings and available for tree planting, landscaping and open space use.
•	The impact of the proposed development on the conservation of trees.
•	The impact of the proposed development on natural ground levels and drainage patterns which may have a detrimental impact on the health and viability of surrounding trees.
•	The maintenance of an adequate buffer strip along watercourses, roads, rail lines and other property boundaries.
•	The species of vegetation, its age, health and growth characteristics.
•	The location of the vegetation on the land and its contribution to the lot garden area, neighbourhood and streetscape character.
•	Whether the tree is isolated or part of a grouping.
•	The potential to achieve an average density of one tree reaching a height of over 15 metres to each 150 square metres of site area.
•	The availability of sufficient unencumbered land to provide for replacement planting.
•	The impact of the tree on the structural integrity of existing buildings including foundations.
•	Other options for further planting on the site.
•	Vegetation management requirements to reduce fire hazard, prevent erosion and maintain flood control measures.
•	Whether works within 4 metres of a tree propose to alter the existing ground level or topography of the land.
22	I must determine whether, as a consequence of the four SLO2 matters set out above, the proposed development satisfies the landscape character objectives of the SLO2.  
23	Policy at clause 22.04 is also relevant.  It applies to all land.  It seeks: 
•	To ensure that new development does not detract from the natural environment and ecological systems. 
•	To promote the regeneration of tall trees through the provision of adequate open space and landscaping areas in new development 
24	The scope of the decision to be made does not include off-site amenity impacts such as clause 54.04 with respect to setbacks, overshadowing and overlooking to other properties.  This is because there is no permit triggered under clause 32.09.
25	I must decide whether the proposal will produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the scheme.  Clause 71.02-3 requires the decision-maker to endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
26	Some respondents refer to potential changes to the proposed dwelling as part of their submissions.  The decision to be made by a responsible authority, and Tribunal on review, is whether the permit application achieves an ‘acceptable’ outcome based on an assessment against the relevant provisions and policies in the scheme and relevant matters under the Act.  It is important to state that:
•	It is not the role of the decision-maker in assessing the permit application afresh to find a better or ideal solution.  
•	I am not required to direct changes to the proposal if I conclude the proposal in the application plans (as amended) is acceptable. 
•	The matters in clause 3.0 are not mandatory; where not met a permit is triggered and an assessment is required using the decision guidelines and objectives in SLO2.
Tribunal findings
Physical context
27	The subject land presents an open aspect to Brenda Court as there is little landscaping in the front setback of the existing single storey dwelling.  There is no front fence. A wide concrete driveway leads to a carport on the boundary that also has a strong presence.  The Yellow Box, which is approximately 20 metres high, has a high level of visibility.  

28	The subject land abuts single storey dwellings to its north and south.  Further single storey dwellings are opposite.  There are some two storey dwellings in Brenda Court, however the predominant pattern is of single storey dwellings of horizontal weatherboard and of brick, with pitched roof forms.  There is some mix in front fencing.  Multiple properties have no front fence and rely on landscaping, variously including shrubs and trees. 
29	There are varied front building setbacks and siting positions, notably toward the northern end of the street.  There are evident boundary carports/garages.
30	Brenda Court slopes towards the court bowl, abutting a well-vegetated walking track along a creek. Much of the Court also has a strong vegetated character, although street trees are generally not of a significant height.  There is a stronger bush character toward the northern end of the Court.
31	Although the subject land shares its rear boundary with the AdventCare Retirement Village, the development associated with that Village is not particularly apparent in the Brenda Court streetscape. 
32	The next part of these reasons consider the contested matters.  While they are dealt with separately, I have considered the outcome holistically.
Proposed front setback
33	Compared with ‘deemed to comply’ SLO2 requirements, the dwelling:
•	Has a ground floor minimum front setback of 8 metres, rather than 9 metres.  The ground floor setback increases to 8.9 metres. 
•	Has an upper level minimum setback of 10.3 metres, rather than 11 metres, which increases to 14.55 metres. 
34	Plainly the dwelling will be seen, and is therefore not inconspicuous.   The dwelling would be more apparent than the existing house when read with its single storey neighbours.  Its breadth is not dissimilar to other dwellings in this section of Brenda Court where houses with carports/garages extend across the lots.  The northern end of Brenda Court is evidently distinguished with the angled alignment of dwellings and lots that are larger and irregularly shaped.
35	The upper level front façade of the proposed dwelling is approximately 5.3 metres wide, at a setback of 10.3 metres, with the balance of this level further setback by approximately 4 metres.  At a minimum, the proposed first floor front setback is recessed by approximately 2.383 metres from the ground floor façade increasing to 6.55 metres.  The upper level is stepped from the lower level as presented to the street, with tree views behind.  

36	The weatherboard-look cladding references existing buildings in the streetscape.  The garage is recessed behind the face of the dwelling, albeit not substantially.  
37	Overall, the presentation of the proposed dwelling is similar to several existing double storey dwellings nearby.  It fits in this regard and is compatible with the character of the area.  This is the case notwithstanding the age of existing dwellings and the different planning context that now applies.  While standard A3 of clause 54 does not apply to this application, I note Mr Spence’s submission that it would be met, including the porch (which Mr Taafe also fairly conceded).
38	Importantly, there is sufficient unencumbered land in the front setback to achieve a strong canopy treed setting with the proposed new plantings.  This will offer a positive outcome compared with the current stark situation.  The wide driveway remains, however, visible carports and garages are evident in the streetscape.  The dwelling’s stepped form will afford good views to the Yellow Box from the street.  The proposed dwelling can be a comfortable streetscape element and, over time as the new trees mature, it will not stand-out as discordant or disrespectful of the landscape, streetscape and neighbourhood character.
39	Based on the amended landscape plan, the proposal can achieve an average density of one tree reaching a height of over 15 metres to each 150 square metres of site area.  This includes the provision of three (3) new blackwood trees within the front setback that have the ability to reach a height of 15 metres at maturity.  Some side boundary hedging is proposed.

40	The BVRG expresses concern about the potential for the proposed trees to grow to 15 metres in height given their location and spacing.   It relies on clause 22.04 performance standards that seek to enable canopy trees to reach maturity and provide space for tree regeneration.  It is concerned that the Council’s guidelines to which the applicant has referred need to be updated to reflect this.
41	I appreciate the concerns raised.  However, it is relevant that three of the large new trees are to be located in the site’s frontage where there is space for them to mature, and without the pressure that can arise with large trees in a small side or rear garden area. They have space to grow higher than the proposed dwelling, including avoiding powerlines and the street tree.
42	Further, an informal, and not too orderly, bush environment setting can be achieved for the dwelling including with proposed permit conditions 1(c) and 1(d).  The situation differs from that considered by me in Feng, to which the BVRG refers.  The multi-unit development in that case was found to be unacceptable, and not to achieve the bush character, for a combination of reasons of which the proposed landscaping was one.
43	The dwelling’s porch and living room do not have pitched roofing, however, the majority of the dwelling does:

44	I am not persuaded that the extent of flat roof forms results in a development that is incompatible taking account of the overall presentation of the dwelling and the landscape that will grow in time to filter views to the building. 
45	Significant concerns have also been raised about proposed colours and materials including the use of render, the colour palette and ‘industrial-look’ that are not part of the existing streetscape.  Materials are not listed in clause 3.0 of SLO2 which is concerned with a building envelope, vegetation retention and regeneration, and associated space for landscaping.  Weatherboard-look cladding has been added in the amended plans, although not to the full extent of all upper level elevations.
46	There is variation in dwelling styles evident in Brenda Court, even though there are some predominant elements.  While not to everyone’s taste, and having regard to the landscape response that will filter views in time, I do not consider the proposal fails or is unacceptable in this context. I accept submissions for the applicant and Council in this regard.
47	The proposed front fence has a height of 0.9 metres, as shown in the landscape plan and comprises brick pillars (to match the house bricks) and grey horizontal slats.  The proposed fence is low, as are most others nearby, and is considered to be acceptable by the Council.  I accept that submission.  

Side setbacks
48	The proposed dwelling is set back from both side boundaries at ground level, and increases to over 3 metres on both side boundaries (as evident in the landscape plan included earlier in these reasons).  The extent of side setbacks aligns with the side setbacks of other dwellings in this part of Brenda Court (as can be appreciated in the aerial image included earlier in these reasons).  
49	A decision guideline in SLO2 is ‘Whether the proposed building is set back a reasonable distance from the property boundaries to provide for landscaping’.  
50	Canopy tree planting along the side boundaries of dwellings is not a feature of this part of Brenda Court where dwellings are regularly positioned on their lot.  When viewed from side boundaries, there will be obvious built form presence as occurs elsewhere in this location for two storey houses.  Importantly, there are no boundary walls and there is spacing between lots.  The ‘deemed to comply’ setbacks are, for example, 1.2 metres for a single storey dwelling while the proposal provides a side setback along the southern boundary of 1 metre (single storey garage) to 3.16 metre for the balance of the dwelling and 1.8 – 3 metres for the northern boundary.  I do not consider more planting or changes are required to reduce the visible presence of the proposed development when viewed either from Brenda Court or beyond the northern and southern boundaries.
51	The appearance of the two storey form has been criticised as unacceptable visual bulk given the site’s central location in the street.  However, I am not persuaded that it is unacceptable in the site’s physical context or the planning context.  Two storey houses with recessed upper levels are contemplated in SLO2 including where single storey homes predominate.
52	It is correct that there is limited new planting to the rear of the site, with one new tree proposed.  However, retention and protection of the Yellow Box limits this potential.  It is important that retention and protection of that tree is prioritised.  I am satisfied that the approach adopted in the amended permit application is acceptable in the circumstances of this site.
Building coverage and permeability
53	The development does not meet clause 3.0 of SLO2 with respect to - ‘Less than 33 per cent of the site area at ground level and 25 per cent of the site area at first floor level, excluding hard surfaced and impervious areas’.   
54	The proposed ground floor building coverage is greater than 33% but is less than the existing dwelling on the subject land.  The upper level building envelope is 0.37% above the trigger.  
55	The 0.3% variation for the upper level (from 25%) would be unlikely to be perceived.  This level is not too bulky.  The ground level is around 37%.  This is a greater variation from the clause 3.0 trigger point, however, I do not accept submissions that this means the proposal is an over-development of the land.  Rather, I accept submissions for the applicant and Council that the extent of building coverage and permeability are acceptable because of the space provided and sufficient opportunities for new landscaping that can contribute to the bush environment and streetscape character.  It has not been persuasively demonstrated by respondents that the site coverage is excessive relative to other properties in this part of Breda Court.
Tree 2 – Yellow Box
56	There are no submissions that:
•	The tree cannot be protected and conserved; or 
•	The development will impinge on the tree’s health and longevity; or
•	The development will affect natural ground levels and drainage patterns which may have a detrimental impact on the health and viability of Tree 2, the street tree, or any trees on adjacent sites.
Clause 22.03
57	A decision guideline in SLO2 is ‘The location of the vegetation on the land and its contribution to the lot garden area, neighbourhood and streetscape character’.  I have set out my findings on these matters, above.
58	The proposal will not erode the character of Brenda Court because it:
•	Contributes canopy trees to the streetscape that will mature to be taller than the proposed dwelling and will substantially improve upon the current absence of any tree planting in the front setback.  
•	Respects and reflects prevailing front, rear and side setbacks.
•	Adopts a comparable scale and siting of some existing dwellings.  
•	Adequately respects the appearance of other dwellings.  
59	While front fencing is not preferred in the Bush Environment Precinct, the proposed fence is, as already indicated, low in profile as are most others nearby.  It is not vertical timber as is the predominant form, but the brickwork will respond to the new dwelling and other lots that with brick dwellings and sometimes visible brick paving.  Dark fence railings are not seen in the street, however, there are multiple examples of dark metal associated with some side fencing and garage doors.  The fence will also be read with the new landscaping.
CONCLUSION
60	Having considered all submissions and grounds, I find the proposal represents an acceptable outcome.   For the above reasons, the responsible authority’s decision is set aside. 
61	A permit is granted subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A.  
62	The conditions take account of submissions made at the hearing noting that they align with the Council’s draft other than several wording changes.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No:	WH/2021/548	
Land:	6 Brenda Court, Nunawading	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Buildings and works (dwelling and a fence) pursuant to SLO2.	

Conditions:
1.	Before the development starts, or vegetation is removed, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in a digital format.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale, with dimensions, and be generally in accordance with the development plans prepared by Boutique Homes (revision date 19/07/2022, sheets TP1-TP10), and landscape plan prepared by Taylors (‘Landscape Plan for VCAT’ 20/07/2022) but modified to show:
a)	The locations of Tree Protection Zones described in condition 5, with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on both ground floor plan and landscape plan, and the requirements of conditions 5 and 6 to be annotated on the development and landscape plans.
b)	Deletion of reference to ‘artificial turf’ with these areas either labelled as ‘lawn’, ‘garden’ or other landscaping purposes;
c)	The ‘proposed concrete’ pathways around the perimeter of the dwelling replaced with permeable paving, crushed rock or another permeable surface.
All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

2.	The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3.	No building or works must be commenced (and no trees or vegetation are to be removed) until a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.  This plan when endorsed shall form part of this permit.  This plan shall show:
a)	The front open space of the site providing for a complete landscape response preferring native species including ground covers, low to mid-height shrubs and canopy plantings which can contribute to the surrounding ‘bush’ character of the landscape and objectives of the bush environment character statement.
b)	Deletion of reference to ‘artificial turf’ with these areas replaced with ‘lawn’ or other garden bed spaces;
c)	Provision of at least one (1) mid-height, native tree or shrub adjacent to both the north and southern boundary where opposite the approved building;
d)	Buildings, outbuildings and trees in neighbouring lots that would affect the landscape design.
e)	A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of condition No. 1.
f)	The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.
g)	A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) which includes, botanical names, common names, pot size, mature size and total quantities of each plant.
Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule must be completed before the development is occupied.
Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

4.	The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan must only be used as gardens and must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed it must be required to be replaced by a tree or shrub of similar size and variety.

5.	Prior to commencement of any building or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be established on the subject site (and nature strip if required) and maintained during, and until completion of, all buildings and works including landscaping, around the following trees in accordance with the distances and measures specified below, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
a)	Tree Protection Zone distances:
i)	Tree 2 (Eucalyptus meliodora) – 9.1 metre radius from centre base of tree;
ii)	Tree 3 (Pittosporum eugeniodes) – 2.9 metre radius from centre base of tree;
iii)	Tree 4 (Syzygium smithii) – 2.0 metre radius from centre base of tree;
iv)	Tree 5 (Callistemon) – 3.2 metre radius from centre base of tree;
v)	Tree 6 (Purus usseriensis) – 2.0 metre radius from centre base of tree.
b)	Tree Protection Zone measures are to be established in accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 and are to include the following:
i)	Erection of solid chain mesh or similar type fencing at a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height held in place with concrete feet. 
ii)	Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter fencing identifying the area as a TPZ. The signage should be visible from within the development, with the lettering complying with AS 1319. 
iii)	Mulch across the surface of the TPZ to a depth of 100mm and undertake supplementary provide watering/irrigation within the TPZ, prior and during any works performed. 
iv)	No excavation, constructions works or activities, grade changes, surface treatments or storage of materials of any kind are permitted within the TPZ unless otherwise approved within this permit or further approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
v)	All supports and bracing should be outside the TPZ and any excavation for supports or bracing should avoid damaging roots where possible. 
vi)	No trenching is allowed within the TPZ for the installation of utility services unless tree sensitive installation methods such as boring have been approved by the Responsible Authority.
vii)	Where construction is approved within the TPZ, fencing and mulching should be placed at the outer point of the construction area.
viii)	Where there are approved works within the TPZ, it may only be reduced to the required amount by an authorized person only during approved construction within the TPZ, and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.

6.	During construction of any buildings, or during other works, the following tree protection requirements are to be adhered to, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
a)	For Trees 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 no roots greater than 40mm in diameter are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.
b)	All buildings and works for the demolition of the site and construction of the development (as shown on the endorsed plans) must not alter the existing ground level or topography of the land (which includes trenching and site scrapes) within greater than 10% of the TPZs of Trees 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

c)	No trenching is allowed within the TPZs of Trees 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for the installation of utility services. All utility services must be bored to a depth of 600mm below natural ground level where within the TPZs of these trees and the entering points for the boring works must be outside the TPZs.
d)	The builder / site manager must ensure that any buildings and works within or adjacent to the TPZs of Trees 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 do not adversely impact the health and / or stability of the trees now or into the future.
e)	The builder / site manager must ensure the TPZ Fencing Conditions and the Tree Protection Conditions for Trees 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are being adhered to throughout the entire building process, including site demolition, levelling, and landscape works. 

7.	The Applicant/Owner must be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development.  The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible to obtain an “Asset Protection Permit” from Council at least 7 days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

8.	The existing street tree must not be removed or damaged except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 

9.	The subject land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10.	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a)	the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit;
b)	the development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing pursuant to the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

- End of conditions -