VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1108/2022
Permit Application no.TPA/53568 	

Applicant	Dinesh Gamage	

Responsible Authority	Monash City Council	
Respondent	Kathleen Jennifer Bolger	

SUBJECT LAND	4 Colin Road
CLAYTON VIC 3168	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	9 February 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	13 February 2023	
DATE OF WRITTEN REASONS	27 February 2023	
CITATION	Gamage v Monash CC [2023] VCAT 203	

Order
1	Pursuant to Clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

•	Prepared by:	Archimedium Australia Pty Ltd 	
•	Drawing numbers:	TP01 to TP09 	
•	Dated:	December 2022	

Permit granted
2	In application P1108/2022 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application TPA/53568 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 4 Colin Road Clayton VIC 3168 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of four dwellings in a General Residential Zone

Alison Slattery
Member			
Appearances
For applicant	Mr Simon Skinner of Planning Sense 	
For responsible authority	Mr Gerard Gilfedder of Currie Brown	
For respondent	Ms Bolger in person 	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of four 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	Monash Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 3	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 construction or extension of two or more dwellings on a lot	

Reasons
1	A request for written reasons was made by Kathleen Bolger via email on 13 February 2023.  The following is a written copy of the reasons delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing of 13 February 2023.   
What is this proceeding about?
2	On 10 August 2022 Monash City Council issued a refusal to grant a planning permit for the construction of four double storey dwellings at 4 Colin Road Clayton.  
3	The decision was based on Council’s view that the design is contrary to the character of the neighbourhood regarding mass, bulk and form and is an overdevelopment of the site, providing insufficient opportunity for landscaping.  Council contends that this development also does not comply with the objectives of ResCode with regard to neighbourhood character, site layout and building massing, visual amenity impacts, landscaping, and design detail.  
4	Ms Bolger supports this decision, but goes further and notes concerns with overlooking, concerns with construction methods including the need for the construction of a basement garage (which is not a matter that is appropriately addressed at a planning stage but rather a building permit stage), shading, walls on boundary, height of the buildings, obscuring of views, reduction in light and shading of windows, excessive site coverage resulting in minimal garden areas, impacts on existing trees, and traffic congestion.  
5	The review applicants, through Mr Skinner, applied to the Tribunal to review this decision.  The applicants disagree with Council and assert that the design has taken into account the constraints of the site and is responsive.  Mr Skinner argued that the areas of non-compliance with the standards of ResCode are justified and contends that the proposal meets the objectives of ResCode.  It was his contention that the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) and local policies lend support to the proposed development.  He suggested that the development allows for opportunity for landscaping in line with the expectation of the planning scheme for a garden city development.  In this position he relied on the landscaping evidence of Mr Robert Thompson of Habitat Landscape and Environmental Design Consultants 
What are the key issues?
6	The key issue for determination is:
a	Does the development represent an appropriate response to the neighbourhood? 
b	Are the amenity impacts reasonable?
7	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision and order the grant of a permit.  My reasons follow.
Does the development represent an appropriate response to the neighbourhood?  
Urban Consolidation
8	There is no doubt that the site enjoys strategic policy direction towards a greater level of development and density than currently exists.  This position is on the basis that the site is well located as it is:
•	Near the junction of two main roads within the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN);
•	Near a commercial centre to the east; and
•	Near fixed rail to the east.  
9	As such policy reasonably directs the accommodation of a greater density for the site than it currently does.  An increase of three further dwellings on the lot is reasonably described as medium density development.  
10	However, increased density does not come at any price. As always development must be contextual and of a design that provides reasonable amenity for its future residence.  In this regard I have been satisfied that this proposed development has achieved design outcomes that are respectful of neighbourhood character.  I also find the development facilitates appropriate levels of internal and external amenity.
Neighbourhood Character 
11	Within the Monash Planning Scheme, local policy retains an imperative the protection of existing neighbourhood character through the promotion of the Garden City Character theme.  This Garden City Character element of the Monash Planning Scheme is iterated throughout its local policy, and is reflective of the desires within the Monash community.  Any new development needs to be respectful of these character considerations.  
12	This Garden City emphasis is reiterated within the Residential Development Policy which states:
•	The City of Monash’s residential areas have a garden city character that is highly valued by the community. The Municipal Strategic Statement recognises that these residential environments are important to the well being of the community and that Monash City Council is committed to the effective management of the ongoing process of change that is occurring in the urban areas of the municipality.
13	Clause 22.01 also seeks to encourage new development that responds to the character of existing residential areas, integrating the theme of Garden City with maintenance of a highly vegetated environment.  Specifically, Clause 22.01 seeks:
•	To build upon the important contribution that landscaping makes to the garden city character of Monash. 
•	To encourage new development to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that positively contribute to neighbourhood character having particular regard to the applicable preferred future character statement for the area. 
•	To encourage the provision of a variety of housing types to accommodate future housing needs and preferences. 
•	To achieve best practice environmentally sustainable development. 
•	To direct residential growth to neighbourhood and activity centres, the Monash National Employment Cluster and the boulevards (Springvale Road and Princes Highway).
14	A key issue for the municipality as identified in the local policy at Clause 21.04 includes:
•	The retention of neighbourhood character and enhancement of garden city character is very important to the Monash community and redevelopment needs to be respectful of these character considerations.
15	Again, this emphasis toward Garden City is reiterated at Clause 21.01 which states:
Monash’s policy of large front setbacks facilitates the retention and enhancement of canopy tree cover which acts to soften the built form and provide shelter and shade. The presence of “greenery” and vegetation within developed areas is visually appealing and results in benefits to the environment in terms of air quality and water balance.
And
Erosion of the garden city character through loss of significant vegetation and tree canopy and inappropriate redevelopment of residential, commercial and industrial areas is a key concern of Council and the community. Council has addressed this through the planting of street trees along arterial roads and consistently applying a decision making process to planning decisions where garden city character is a key consideration. This significant investment will ensure the garden city character continues to dominate the landscape.
16	Relevantly, the Monash Planning Scheme seeks to manage the retention of the garden city character through planning strategies as outlined at Clause 21.04-3, which include (amongst others): 
Ensure that new residential development enhances the character of the neighbourhood, having regard to the preferred future character statements contained within Clause 22.01. 
Ensure that development enhances the garden city and landscaped streetscape character of the neighbourhood, responds to the features of the site and surrounding area and promotes good streetscape design. 
Encourage vegetation retention and provision on development sites. 
Ensure that new residential development provides a high level of amenity including internal amenity, privacy for occupants and neighbours, access to sunlight, high quality private and public open space, canopy tree cover, and effective traffic management and parking. 
Use best practice environmentally sustainable design to maximise comfort and residential amenity, and minimise the environmental impact and running costs of residential development. 
17	Council further advised that the site is located within a neighbourhood classified as Garden City Suburbs Southern Areas character area at Clause 22.01.  The preferred character statement of this area includes:
Modest dwellings with simple pitched rooflines and articulated facades will continue the prevailing development themes. On larger sites, low rise apartment development may be appropriate, provided the development is sited within generous open space, is well landscaped, retains the ‘open landscape character’ of the garden suburban setting and tapers down in scale closer to the boundaries of the site.
While the housing mix within this area will continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of the community, new development will complement the scale and siting of the original housing within the area. In doing so, it will enhance the generous spacious, open, landscaped character of the area.
This character area will be notable for its spacious garden settings, tall canopy trees, consistency in front setbacks and the maintenance of setbacks from at least one boundary and from the rear of the site. New dwellings will address the street and upper levels will be recessed and/or articulated to minimise the impression of building scale.
Front fences will be low to enable vegetation to be visible from the street, allow clear views of buildings and give the street an open quality. Fencing will complement the architecture of the building in design, colour and materials.
Existing mature trees and shrubs within properties should be retained and additional tree planting proposed to gradually create a tree canopy in the private domain, including at the rear of properties. This will create a visually permeable buffer between the house and street. The soft quality of the street that is derived from the wide nature strips and street tree planting will be maintained by ensuring that there is only one crossover per lot frontage.
Expanses of blank, or continuous, walls will be avoided, particularly when adjacent to public parks or creating the appearance of a continuous building mass. The character of existing public open space within the area will be protected by ensuring that buildings directly adjacent are set back and buffered with planting that complements that within the public open space.
Sympathetically designed architecture is encouraged in preference to imitations of historic styles.
18	Mr Gilfedder submitted that the proposed development did not appropriately respond to the policy that seeks to enhance the valued low scale character of the area through the implementation of sympathetic styles and scale whilst maintaining and enhancing the landscaped streetscape.  He submitted that the development fails to respect the quality and style of surrounding development and is discordant with the neighbourhood character of the area.  Mr Gilfedder submitted that the policy seeks to maintain and enhance the streetscape character of ‘Garden City’ through the inclusion of appropriate building forms and opportunity for landscaping that reduces the impact of new development.  He noted that the extent of built form across the frontage of the lot needs to be designed so it maintains the opportunity for built form to be comprehended in a garden setting.   
19	I agree that the site context, the PPF and local policy points to this area as being able to sustain a more intense level of change to accommodate future increases in dwelling stock.  I also agree that the policy also seeks to enhance the valued low scale character of consistent streetscapes the area through the implementation of styles and scale that are sympathetic to the area.  I agree with the submissions of Council, but I do not find that the proposed development offends against these local policies having regard to the massing of the buildings across the frontage of the site such that they appear as extending well across the site. 
20	I accept that the proposed dwellings satisfy the policy at Clause 22.01 with regard to minimising the scale and massing of the development by way of a reasonable maximum height of 8.2 metres.  I am satisfied that this height responds well to the scale of the buildings on the immediately adjoining properties to the north and east where dwellings are constructed to a two storey scale, and in the case of the northern elevation, include multi unit development.  I noted during my site visit that the streetscape is clearly experiencing change by way of multi unit developments of up to two storeys replacing older dwellings.  I am satisfied that the height of the buildings will not dominate either streetscape as the two storey scale responds well to the inconsistent built form scale in the streetscapes, with dwellings ranging from one to two storeys, and with multi unit development the emerging form.    
21	I have not been persuaded that the construction to either street frontage is excessive in its extent.  I find it entirely appropriate that the development orients itself to both streets, reducing the appearance of backyards to the street and high fencing that is often involved with back yards.  I note that as the development presents to the street in Colin Road there are reasonable side setbacks with the development (Unit 1) set back variously between 1.0 metre at ground level and 2.1 metres at the first floor, with these setbacks increasing as the development extends into the lot.  To Unit 2 the setback to the side varies between 2.0 metres at ground level and 3.0 metres and more to the upper level.  I am satisfied that these setbacks respond appropriately to emerging multi unit form and provide, in conjunction with the generous front setback to the street of over 7.6 metres, opportunity for reasonable planting, including canopy tree planting.  To Fulton Street the front setback varies from 3.5 to 4.5 metres with side setbacks to this frontage including the 7.6 metres to the Colin Road frontage and 1.6 metres to the eastern boundary, with a wall on the boundary (within 200mm) up to 1.885 metres at the upper level.  These setbacks are reasonable given that the minimum frontage to Fulton Street varies from 3.5 metres at ground level to 4.075 metres at the upper level and due to the generous setbacks between dwellings at the upper level of between 3.6 metres up to 8.519 metres.
22	I find that these setbacks, in line with the stepped form both vertically and horizontally, results in built form that sits comfortably on the site and within the streetscape without impacting unreasonably on the character of the area or the reasonable opportunities for planting.  In this way, I find that the building form proposed is reasonable, and reflective of the character of built form in the area where a setback to at least one boundary is generally provided.  In this way I find that the proposed development appropriately ‘respect(s) the character of surrounding development, including the maintenance of consistent setbacks’ as is sought within local policy at Clause 22.01-3.  During my site visit the presentation of development down the lot was apparent in the streetscape.  Due to this, the inclusion of new development down the lot when experienced from Colins Road, or side by side when experienced from Fulton Street, takes its cues from the rhythm and spacing of recently constructed multi unit development.  I find that the development does not present as an overbearing or dominant element in the streetscape and limits sheer and unbroken facades, in line with policy expectation for the area.  I am satisfied that the combination of the above elements serve to minimise the appearance of the development in both the streetscapes, comparative to the dwellings currently existing and expected to be built in this area.  
23	I do not agree with Council or Ms Bolger that limited opportunity for planting that might soften the appearance in the streetscape has been provided.  I have reviewed the landscaping plan of Mr Thompson and find that appropriate levels of landscaping, in appropriate areas, and with good levels of canopy trees to replace those trees recently lost, can be included such that the development will appear as a recessive element in the streetscape and will further the local policy which seeks to include built form and landscaping that enshrines the importance of the following:  
a	Providing sufficient and well located private open space, primarily unencumbered by easements, to provide for vegetation and large trees to be planted within front, side and rear setbacks and secluded open space areas. 
b	I am satisfied that the trees to the frontage, including but not limited to the Elaeocarpus, Tristaniopsis and Waterhousia are located in an area with sufficient soil volume in an area where built form will not unreasonably impede their growth, with trees growing in an opportunistic manner, with canopy meshing resulting.  Mr Thompson confirmed such in his response to Mr Gilfedder’s questioning.
c	Avoiding environmental weeds and artificial grass.
d	The development is adequately set back from existing and proposed trees to ensure their protection and longevity.
e	The development include the planting of canopy trees, particularly within front setbacks to soften the appearance of the built form and contribute to the landscape character of the area.
f	Additionally the development includes the planting of canopy trees in rear setbacks to screen built form from adjoining backyards and contribute to garden character.
g	The landscaping plan from Mr Thompson provides trees and vegetation that improve the environmental sustainability of buildings.  Providing canopy trees to the north and west creates shade that improves the air temperature in the dwellings and the open spaces.  Dense evergreen shade will provided by the trees to the west.  The general level of planting around the dwellings will create a microclimate that is more even and pleasant.  Deciduous trees to the north provide opportunity for northern light to the open spaces and the dwellings habitable rooms.  Species chosen are drought tolerant, and either indigenous or native.  
h	Street trees are retained and protected.  The current Photinia to the west will be more than adequately replaced by the Corymbias which will be taller, more ornamental, and provide a more appropriate native response to the streetscape.  
24	Concerns were raised regarding the loss of vegetation to the rear of the site within 12 months of the application having been lodged, and the replacement canopy not being satisfactory to replace such loss.  I am satisfied that a reasonable level of planting can occur in the north, south and western setback, which has an unimpeded area of between 40 square metres and 63 square metres (my measure) which could accommodate canopy trees, complemented with lower order planting in line with the objectives of policy.  I do not agree that the built form as proposed will unreasonably limit opportunities for appropriate landscaping.
25	In addition to the frontage (west), open spaces to the north and south provide good opportunities for planting of larger trees, including canopy trees, with small break out areas to the east and west of the driveways providing opportunity for lower order planting down the length of the lot, especially with the Fulton Street frontage.  I am satisfied that in concert, these areas are enough to maximise the landscaping opportunities that enhance the Garden City Character of the streetscape.  This is entirely in line with planning provisions and policy that seeks to include planting of canopy trees in open space areas, along boundaries adjacent to neighbouring open space and in front setback areas to reinforce the Garden City Character of the area.
26	I am also generally satisfied that the proposal represents an appropriate response to the broader objectives and policy in Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character Policy.  I say this for the following reasons:
•	The location is appropriate for medium density due to the close vicinity of Huntingdale shopping precinct, which caters to daily shopping and community needs, including providing good public transport options.  
•	The existing building is not an intact heritage dwelling and its loss will not impact on the character of the street.
•	There is no impact on places of environmental or heritage significance
•	The development siting allows for reasonable levels of planting to the front (western) elevation.  This will serve to soften the appearance of the building from the Colin Road streetscape.  Planting in the frontage to Fulton Street includes opportunity for layered planting of lower order shrubs interspersed with taller feature trees.  
•	The development will not detract from the character of the area where built form typology is inconsistent ranging from single and multi-unit dwellings through 1 to 2 storeys.   
•	The emerging character of the area is one where development is often two storey and often includes substantial first floor footprints.
•	The development includes a graduated building envelope with the upper levels set back from the facades of the lower levels that will satisfactorily protect the amenity of adjoining dwellings, whilst respecting the character of the area.  Sheer walls are avoided.  
•	The spacing of the development responds to the rhythm in both Colin Road and Fulton Street with the setbacks reinforcing the prevailing emerging built form massing in that development of double storey dwellings that form part of the recent construction typology.  
•	No front fence is proposed, avoiding the need for high front fencing to either street frontage, with limited higher fencing to the secluded private open space of dwelling 2.  
•	Appropriate provision of car parking is provided with a double garage provided for each dwelling.  The garages are not overly visible in the streetscape, especially to Colin Road where they are located in a basement, and in the Fulton Street Streetscape recessed from the frontage of the dwellings.  This ensures car parking facilities do not dominate or visually disrupt the streetscape.
•	The pitched roof and wide eaves respond to the character of the area.
•	Building materials include brick, timber panelling and rendered finishes (ground level), tiled and metal roofing, and timber panelling and rendered finishes (first floor) which reflect the prevailing and emerging built form in the area.  These external surfaces include low reflectivity materials.
•	Continuous building lines and blank walls are avoided, with reasonable setbacks between ground and first floors.  Walls to each elevation include reasonable levels of fenestration, which, in combination with the use of brickwork at ground and lightweight cladding at upper levels creates an impression of articulation.  This serves to minimise the appearance of sheerness in walls.  
•	One garage wall is proposed to be located on the boundary, minimising unreasonable impacts on habitable from windows.  
27	In these ways, the proposal represents an appropriate response to local policy requirements at Clauses 21.04, 22.01 and 22.05 along with state policy requirements in that the bulk scale of the development respects the predominant built form character of the neighbourhood whilst providing opportunity for reasonable landscaping. 

Does the development achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with Clause 55 (ResCode)? 
28	Several areas of ResCode compliance were raised as being of concern to the Council and Ms Bolger.  These include as discussed above landscaping and neighbourhood character, in addition to height, loss of views, shading, overlooking, walls on boundary, side and rear setbacks, solar access to secluded private open spaces, energy efficiency, design detail, front fencing, daylight to windows, minimal garden areas, impacts on existing trees, driveway dominance, noise impacts and impacts from traffic. 
29	I am satisfied that the preferred future character of the area will be properly respected within the proposed development.  I am satisfied that the scale of the development reinforces the character of the streetscape in that the two storey form is appropriately responsive to the emerging double storey typology in the wider area, and side and rear setbacks are sufficient to the task of providing for the planting of medium to larger trees.  The development responds to the garden character of the area and includes modest planting around dwellings.  The proposal will allow for the planting of trees in line with the character of the area.  In this way, the proposed development represents an appropriate response to PPF and Local Policy objectives 
30	I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with the remainder of the objectives of Clause 55 (ResCode).  I say this for the following reasons:
a	The maximum height of the dwellings is 8.2 metres and responds appropriately to the preferred character for both Colin Road and Fulton Street as sought within state and local policy.  This height responds well to the adjoining double storey dwellings.  
b	The front setback to Colin Road (at ground level) of 7.6 metres responds appropriately to the character of the area where setbacks range from 7 to 9 metres.  
c	The development provides an active frontage to both street frontages with easily identifiable pedestrian access points and windows to the front elevation.
d	Infrastructure is readily available.
e	The site coverage is reasonable at 47.7% 
f	The permeability is 43.3% which is high for a development of this typology.  I have not been persuaded that the extent of hard surfacing for the driveways is unreasonable.  
g	One new wall on the boundary is proposed to be located mostly adjacent to the existing garage wall at Ms Bolger’s property in Fulton Street.  This design response is appropriate in that it limits the appreciation of built form from the property to the east and makes efficient use of the site.  I am not persuaded to increase the setback at this point as I find it would not be of benefit in an appreciable manner, and would result in a small dwelling for unit 4.  I have not been persuaded that landscaping that might be accommodated within a 1 metre wide strip adjacent to two walls would be substantial enough to warrant such a reduction in floor area. 
h	I am satisfied that Standard B17 has been appropriately addressed and find that the setbacks to the rear respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings surrounding the site.  To the north, the non-compliance is opposite the driveway and car parking area of the units in Colin Rd, and to the east, the impacts are limited in depth, setback from the boundary, and limited in height.   I have not been persuaded that the ‘punchout’ will unreasonably impact on the amenity of the habitable room windows and secluded private open space of Ms Bolger’s property.
i	Reliance on borrowed light is avoided.
j	Development potential for adjoining sites is retained so that equitable access direct sunlight is achieved.  
k	No north facing windows are impacted upon and other windows of adjoining properties are properly protected and receive adequate light in line with setback standards.  Opposite Ms Bolger’s property, the first floor is set back over 2 metres from the boundary and around 6 metres from the windows (my measure), with built form proposed to be constructed opposite only one window.  I am satisfied that the setback is sufficient and the design of the dwellings appropriately demure such that any impacts on the west facing window at the upper level will be reasonable.  The loss of outlook is not of a level that is unreasonable, and shading to the windows is reasonably limited.  
l	Adequate provision is made for storage and bins.
m	Mr Thompson suggested changes to the clotheslines and water tanks that do not impact on the usability of the open spaces unreasonably.  
n	If desired, the plans can be amended to include a skylight to the living area of unit 2.  
o	If desired, the plans can be amended to include an amenity highlight window to the northern elevation of unit 1.  
p	Mailboxes can be appropriately located to the frontage of the site, 
q	Parking spaces have reasonable access to dwellings from the basement car garages and from the at grade garages 
r	A ground level bedroom and living areas is provided for all dwellings providing excellent opportunities for those of limited mobility.
s	Secluded private open spaces for dwellings are provided by way of a gardens at ground level ranging from 35.0 to 63.2 square metres.  I am satisfied that the private open space areas for the dwellings are practical and useable with reasonable depth and dimensions and have good access to living areas.  This ensures open spaces satisfy the objective which seeks ‘to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.’
t	Shading of windows and private open space is minimised with the level of shade falling within the reasonable limits as enshrined by Clause 55.
u	I see no sources of noise that are located close to boundaries, such as mechanical devices.  
v	Overlooking has been addressed within reasonable limits and complies with standard B22.  
w	Solar access to open spaces are generally appropriate.  I am not persuaded to require an increased setback to the upper level of dwelling 2 as I am satisfied that the non-compliance is minor with the useability and amenity of the secluded private open space reasonably maximised.  
x	I have not been provided with evidence to suggest that the impact on existing trees from the proposed development will be unreasonable.  I am buoyed by there being little direct development opposite the existing trees on Ms Bolger’s property.
y	Car parking provided on site accords with Clause 52.06.  It is not appropriate for me to presume that use of the site will not be in accordance with the original intention for the car parks.  I have not been persuaded that traffic impacts are unreasonable.
z	The concerns relating to safety of people climbing over the fencing adjoining Ms Bolger’s property are a current condition and not a result of the proposed development.
aa	From my site visit I noted that attached dwellings are evident in the area (Colin Rd), as are double crossovers.  I am satisfied that the inclusion of a double crossover to each elevation is reasonable and will not unduly impact on traffic or street parking.   
31	I find that the development incorporates a reasonable stepped design that adequately responds to the character of the area, takes into account the more robust streetscape of Colin Road and adequately protects the amenity of the surrounding properties.  I am satisfied the standards and objectives of ResCode are met.  This ensures that the design will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding dwellings nor the internal amenity of the proposed dwellings.
Conclusion
32	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A planning permit is granted for four dwellings on the lot.

Alison Slattery
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	TPA/53568	
Land	4 Colin Road
CLAYTON VIC 3168	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of four dwellings in a General Residential Zone.	

Conditions
Amended Plans
1	Before the development starts, plans drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans are to be generally in accordance with Plans: TP1 (Site Context Plan) – Revision E – December 2022, TP2 (Design Response Plan) – Revision F – December 2022; TP3 (Lower Ground Floor Plan) - Revision G – December 2022; TP4 (Ground Floor Plan) – Revision G – December 2022; TP5 (First Floor Plan) - Revision G – December 2022; TP6 (Elevations) – Revision G – December 2022; TP7 (Elevations & Sections) - Revision G – December 2022; TP8 (Shadow Plans) - Revision F – December 2022; TP9 (Minimum Garden Area Plan) – Revision B – Dec 2022 by Archimedium Australia Pty Ltd but modified to show:
a)	Any required changes from the Sustainable Design Assessment required by Condition 23.
b)	Provision of 6 cubic metres of external storage for each dwelling
c)	No fencing between the dwellings in the front setback.
d)	Tree protection fencing in accordance with the AS4970-2009 for the Council street trees.
e)	Any trellis provided being freestanding.
f)	Gas/water meter locations in unobtrusive locations.
g)	Letter boxes no greater than 900mm in height convenient to the dwellings. 
h)	The location and design of any proposed electricity supply meter boxes.  The electricity supply meter boxes and any associated infrastructure must be located at a distance from the street which is at or behind the setback alignment of buildings on the site.  Alternatively, it must be setback a minimum of 3 metres from the front title boundary, be no greater than 1.4 metres in height and must be adjacent a side boundary fence where the most minimal level of visual impact arises.
i)	Provide a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2 metres), which may include adjacent landscaping areas with a height of less than 0.9 metres, extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) on both sides of the proposed vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road. 
j)	A Tree Management Plan in accordance with Conditions 7 & 8.
k)	A clear identifiable notation on the ground floor plan advising the development is subject to a Tree Management Plan. 
l)	A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 9.
m)	The location of water tanks and clotheslines consistent with the landscape plan.
No Alterations
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Tree Protection
3	The existing Photinia street tree in Colin Road, will be removed and replaced by Council at the cost of the developer prior to the commencement of the development.
4	Any Council street tree in Fulton Street that is to be retained, must be protected by temporary rectangular wire fencing accordance with AS4970-2009 for a distance of at least 3.0 metres from the base of the tree.
5	No building material, demolition material or earthworks shall be stored or stockpiled under the canopy line of any tree to be retained on or on adjoining sites during the construction period of the development hereby permitted.
6	Concurrent with the submission of amended plans required by Condition 1 and prior to any demolition or site works, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) must be submitted to and be approved as being satisfactory by the Responsible Authority. The TMP must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist.  
7	The Tree Management Plan must make specific reference to the Condition 1 and Condition 9 plans confirming they have been assessed.
8	The TMP must make specific recommendations in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4970: 2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites and detail the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority ensuring the trees to be retained remain healthy and viable during construction:
9	A Tree Protection Plan drawn to scale that shows:
a)	Tree protection zones and structural root zones of all trees to be retained, 
b)	All tree protection fenced off areas and areas where ground protection systems will be used;
c)	The type of footings within any tree protection zones;
d)	Any services to be located within the tree protection zone and a notation stating all services will either be located outside of the tree protection zone, bored under the tree protection zone, or installed using hydro excavation under the supervision of the Project Arborist; and
e)	A notation to refer to the Tree Management Plan for specific detail on what actions are required within the tree protection zones.
f)	Details of how the root system of any tree to be retained will be managed. This must detail any initial non-destructive trenching and pruning of any roots required to be undertaken by the Project Arborist.
g)	Supervision timetable and certification of tree management activities required by the Project Arborist to the satisfaction of the responsible authority; and
h)	Any remedial pruning works required to be performed on tree canopies located within subject site. The pruning comments must reference Australian Standards 4373:2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees and a detailed photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur.
i)	The recommendations contained in the approved tree management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
 Landscaping
10	Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans requested pursuant to Condition 1 modified to reflect any changes under that condition, a Landscape Plan drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The Landscape Plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan Sheet 1 of 1 dated January 2023 by Habitat and modified to show: 
a)	Any landscape design alterations arising from the project arborist needed to protect trees on abutting land including the nature strip.
b)	A survey and location of all existing trees, using botanical names to be retained and of those to be removed.  The intended status of the trees shown on the landscape plan must be consistent with that depicted on the development layout plan;
c)	A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the size of all plants (at planting and at maturity), pot / planting size, location, botanical names and quantities; 
d)	Provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located throughout the site including the major open space areas of the development;
e)	The location of any fencing internal to the site and on the title boundary;
f)	Planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways and other paved areas;
g)	Canopy trees / significant plantings on adjoining properties within 3 metres of the site;
h)	The location of any retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site;
i)	Details of all proposed surface finishes including pathways, accessways, patio or decked areas;
j)	The location of Tree Protection Zones and Tree Protection Fencing as outlined in Conditions 4 to 7;
k)	An in-ground, automatic watering system linked to rainwater tanks on the land must be installed and maintained to the common garden areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
l)	The location of external lighting (if any);
m)	Planting required by any other condition of this permit; and
n)	Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.
o)	The location of clotheslines and tanks.
When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
Landscaping Prior to Occupation
11	Before the occupation of the buildings allowed by this permit, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Drainage
12	Drainage of the site is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13	All stormwater collected on the site from all hard surface areas must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties or the road reserve.
14	The private on-site drainage system must prevent stormwater discharge from the/each driveway over the footpath and into the road reserve.  The internal drainage system may include either:
15	a trench grate (minimum internal width of 150 mm) located within the property boundary and not the back of footpath; and/or
16	shaping the internal driveway so that stormwater is collected in grated pits within the property; and or
17	another Council approved equivalent.
18	All stormwater collected on the site is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge.  The design of any internal detention system is to be approved by Council’s Engineering Department prior to drainage works commencing and is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authoirty.  
19	The nominated point of stormwater connection for the site is to the south-west corner of the property where the entire site's stormwater must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the existing Council pit in the nature strip outside Fulton Street to be constructed to Council standards.  Note:  If the point of connection cannot be located then notify Council's Engineering Department immediately.
Road Infrastructure
20	All new crossings must be a minimum of 3.0 metres in width. 
21	All new vehicle crossings are to be no closer than 1.0 metres, measured at the kerb, to the edge of any power pole, drainage of service pit, or other services.  Approval from affected service authorities is required as part of the vehicle crossing application process.
22	Any works within the road reserve must ensure the footpath and natrue strip are to be reinastated to Council standards.
23	Engineering permits must be obtained for new or altered ehicle crossings and new connections to Council drains and these works are to be inspected by Council’s Engineering Department.  A refudable security deposit ot $3000 is to be paid prior to the drainage works commencing.
Traffic Department
24	The layout of the development shall follow the Design Standards for car parking set out in Clause 52.06-9 of the Monash Planning Scheme as detailed below:
a)	Driveway to be at least 3 metres wide. 
b)	Driveway to provide at least 2.1m headroom beneath overhead obstructions. 
c)	Driveway gradient to be no steeper than 1 in 10 (10%) within 5 metres of the frontage to ensure safety for pedestrians and vehicles. 
d)	Ramp grades (except within 5 metres of the frontage) to be designed as follows:
e)	Maximum grade of 1 in 4.
f)	Provision of minimum 2.0 metre grade transitions between different section of ramp or floor for changes in grade in excess of 12.5% (summit grade change) or 15% (sag grade change). 
g)	Grade changes greater than 18% or less than 3 metres apart are to be assessed for clearances in accordance with Appendix C of the Australian Standard for Off - Street Car Parking, AS/NZS 2890.1.
h)	Where parking spaces are in a tandem arrangement, an additional 500mm in length must be provided between each space. 
i)	Clearance to car parking spaces to be in accordance with Diagram 1 in relation to the placement of a wall, fence, column, tree, tree guard or any other structure that abuts a car space.  
j)	Garages or carports must be at least 6 metres long and 3.5 metres wide for a single space and 5.5 metres wide for a double space measured inside the garage or carport.  
k)	In accordance with Australian Standard for Off-Street car Parking AS/NZS 2890.1, the maximum grade within a parking module measured parallel to the angle of parking is to be 1 in 20. Measured in any other direction is to be 1 in 16.
Completion of Buildings and Works
25	Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Sustainable Design Assessment
26	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans requested pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Design Assessment (in accordance with Clause 22.13) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  Upon approval the Sustainable Design Assessment will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Permit Expiry 
27	This permit will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies:
The development has not started before two (2) years from the date of issue.
The development is not completed before four (4) years from the date of issue.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months of the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; or within 12 months of the permit expiry date, where the development has lawfully started before the permit expires.
– End of conditions –