1. Leave is given to the applicant to substitute for the permit application plans, the plans marked as A3 and dated 22.08.11.
2. In permit application no. PP10/00573, a permit is granted and permit is to be issued for the land at No. 143 - 147 Riversdale Road, Hawthorn. The permit will allow the construction of multiple dwellings, a reduction in car parking for dwellings, and alteration to access to a Road 1 Zone in accordance with the endorsed plans.
3. The permit is subject to the conditions included in Appendix A.

Mr M Naughton, solicitor, Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd. Expert evidence was called from Mr T De Young, traffic engineer of GTA Consultants; Mr M Sheppard, urban designer of David Lock Associates; and Mr L Chamberlain, town planner of Tract. A statement of evidence by Mr J Hopwood, author of photomontages, was tendered.

For Joseph Butler, Rebecca Shand & Brendan Minogue, Paul & Karen Edwards

Mr S Martyn, Fulcrum Urban Planning Pty Ltd. Mr J Butler also made a submission.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 [PEAct].

The review site comprises two lots with a total area of 1,255 square metres. It is located on the north-west corner of Riversdale Road and Violet Grove.

A four storey residential development comprising 24 dwellings and 29 car spaces including some car stackers. Access is proposed from Violet Grove. A large elm tree would be retained.

Clause 32.01 to develop two or more dwellings. Clause 52.06 to reduce car parking for dwellings. Clause 52.29 to alter access to a Road 1 Zone.

Clauses 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22.03, 22.07, 52.34, 52.35 and 65. The review site is in Character Area 97 and abuts Character Area 100.

6 October 2011 after the hearing including the review site and Nos. 2, 4 and 6 Violet Grove.

1. Bayside Project Management applied to the Boroondara City Council seeking approval for a four storey apartment building on two lots generally at the north-west corner of Riversdale Road and Violet Grove, Hawthorn.
2. The Council determined to refuse a permit for the proposal although the assessing officer had recommended approval. The Council's grounds focus on the scale and bulk of the proposal in streetscape terms, lack of landscaping opportunities, and insufficient on-site visitor car parking.
3. The Council's decision is supported by a number of residents who are parties in this proceeding. They agree that the scale and bulk of the development is too great in this location, that the proposal would have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of nearby residential properties, and that traffic and parking impacts will be unreasonable. Some are concerned that the proposal will set a precedent for more four storey developments along the Riversdale Road corridor mindful that many existing apartments between the Glenferrie and Auburn neighbourhood activity centres are three storeys.
4. All grounds are challenged by the permit applicant including through the expert evidence of Messrs De Young, Sheppard and Chamberlain.
5. I must decide whether to grant a permit for the proposal having regard to the physical and planning contexts that are relevant to a decision.

What are the applicable physical and planning contexts?

1. The review site is on a corner and will consolidate two lots. The land is at a rise in the topography of Riversdale Road. Land to the north, associated with properties fronting Violet Grove, falls whereas buildings on the south side of Riversdale Road sit higher in the landform.
2. Riversdale Road has a number of apartment buildings along both sides of the road with older detached dwellings also significantly represented. The apartment buildings near to the site are older, three storey, whereas newer apartment buildings have been constructed closer to Glenferrie Road and west of that road. Many of the lots are quite well vegetated as they present to the main road. That landscape character is supplemented by street trees.
3. By contrast, Violet Grove comprises small lots with mostly older dwelling stock. There is a row of older weatherboard dwellings directly north of the review site. Unlike some other lots fronting Riversdale Road, there is no lane separating the review site from the closest dwelling in Violet Grove. The smaller scale of buildings with lesser front setbacks and more limited plantings are quite distinct from the Riversdale Road corridor.
4. The planning context is set by the Boroondara Planning Scheme. It includes the review site in a Residential 1 Zone. There are no Overlays. The substantial attractive heritage building on the review site is not within a Heritage Overlay and thus a planning permit is not required for its demolition.
5. State and local policy give emphasis to more intensive residential development along roads such as Riversdale Road mindful of the excellent access to tram services and two nearby neighbourhood activity centres. The built form context with established larger scale buildings is another reason why apartments of a scale that is different to Violet Grove are reasonable in principle. The different character contexts are recognised in the local character study that includes the review site in Area 97, that addresses Riversdale Road, whereas Violet Grove dwellings are part of Area 100. Violet Grove has many Victorian era dwellings but it not within a Heritage Overlay. Progressively more double storey elements may occur in Violet Grove such as first floor additions. The lot sizes mean planning permits will be required for most new buildings and additions.
6. While a development on the review site must have regard to both streetscapes, it is self-evident that the larger structures along Riversdale Road, particularly on corner sites, will have a visual impact in the local street setting. Examples can be seen further west such as on Dalley Street. I also note that the review site is just offset from the northern end of Kooyongkoot Road and thus a development on the review site will be readily visible for those departing that Road to the north.
7. The Guidelines for Higher Density Housing and local policy do not require new development to match that existing today. Rather, a sufficiently respectful outcome must be achieved having regard to the fact that more intensive development is expected along this part of Riversdale Road. The approach typically taken with respect to the interface with lower rise residential properties is to achieve a transitional built form outcome. That generally means scaling down toward the lower buildings. Some Planning Schemes, such as Darebin, provide good guidance as to how this is to be approached mindful that the interface between larger scale development on main roads and the fine grain of local side streets is difficult to resolve and will often be contentious. The Boroondara Planning Scheme does not have this specific guidance although general principles are contained in the Guidelines for Higher Density Housing that assist.
8. Other key planning principles to which I have alluded are impacts on the amenity of existing dwellings. That includes residences to the north and east as well as apartments to the west. Some standards in Clause 55 are referred to in the Guidelines even though Clause 55 does not technically apply.
9. A final decision requires me to balance all of these and related matters such as housing policy (including diversity and affordability) as required by Clause 10 of the Scheme.

Does the proposal achieve an acceptable built form outcome?

1. I have referred to the need for a design response to address the different character contexts involving the main road and the more modest and low rise dwelling stock in Violet Grove. A development on the review site will be read in both streetscapes and must be sufficiently respectful without being required to be of the same height and architectural style.
2. The presentation of the proposed development to Glenferrie Road is in dispute given the inclusion of a recessed fourth level, which is without precedent in the immediate environs, and in terms of landscaping opportunities.
3. The design provides a prominent three storey form equivalent in height to the three storey units to the immediate west of the review site. The recessed fourth level will be seen but would less apparent in the streetscape when compared with views along Violet Grove. I return to this interface below.
4. The front setback of the proposed building to Riversdale Road was criticised by the Council as it has been reduced in the substituted plans to allow for a greater separation from No. 2 Violet Grove. At 6.5 metres, the building with balconies will sit forward of No. 141 Riversdale Road. There is, however, enough variety in setbacks along Riversdale Road for this to be accommodated when also taking into the degree to which the front façade of the building is articulated and modulated. The proposed building will be wider than many other apartment buildings because the site covers two blocks. The site benefits from the separation provided by the driveway associated with No. 141 Riversdale Road. The design has allowed for a varied front fence form, including some transparent elements, and some canopy tree opportunities, as well as planting forward of sections of the front fence. In time, landscaping on-site would assist to provide a level of integration. I find the proposal can be accommodated within the Riversdale Road streetscape mindful of ongoing change that can be expected.
5. More challenging is the Violet Grove streetscape and interface. I appreciate why the Council and residents consider the proposal would be a discordant element in terms of scale, height, massing and design. However, I am unable to agree that the outcome is not acceptable given the planning and physical contexts. Rather, I accept the evidence of Messrs Sheppard and Chamberlain that the design response warrants support. In particular:
   • The retention of the elm tree enables an important streetscape feature to be retained, allows that tree to provide some filtering of views to parts of the development (mindful the tree is deciduous), and provides a physical separation from the lower rise buildings to the north.
   • The vehicle access is positioned away from Riversdale Road for safety reasons and to allow use of the lowest part of the land. This is logical. I do not consider vehicle access direct from Riversdale Road is desirable from a road safety perspective given the alternative that is available.
   • All but two units would be accessed from Violet Grove despite the site's Riversdale Road street address. I do not consider this problematic as was suggested in some submissions noting that the arrangement is not unusual for apartment buildings. The proposed pedestrian entry from Violet Grove will be readily identifiable and two units would have private access from Riversdale Road.
   • The design is well modulated and articulated with few sheer wall planes.
   • There is variation in colours and materials although the montages show more detail than the elevations. I would prefer to see greater visual interest than blank rendered panels and this can be addressed through permit conditions.
   • Transitional elements step away from the single storey buildings and rise toward the main road. I find the extent of separation is sufficient, at 7 - 11 metres at the upper levels, even with the fourth level being visible. The fourth level would be setback a similar distance from the northern site boundary as the adjacent flats at No. 141 Riversdale Road albeit that is a three storey building with open parking apron to its rear. I give weight to the acceptability of this interface because the key amenity spaces associated with the closest dwellings to the north generally turn away from the site. Planting along the northern side of the driveway access needs to ensure a good green edge is created and this can be addressed in the landscape plan.
   • Proposed setbacks along the Violet Grove site frontage are relatively shallow but are greater than 3 metres. I would prefer water tanks to be below ground to maximise open space for the units and minimise the intrusive of built elements along the Violet Grove frontage. Perimeter planting should provide for higher trees than 2-5 metres shown in the landscape plan.
6. Mr Martyn questioned the ability to retain and protect the elm tree. I have considered Mr Greenwood's report for the permit applicant and the position of the Council's arborist on this question. It is common ground in those assessments that the tree can be retained. The design has not, however, sought to maximise an aspect to the tree from units such as D13 resulting in a partly blank wall. I consider this could be enhanced and will provide for slot or other (screened) windows to be inserted into the northern elevation of this unit.
7. None of the units rely on borrowed light to bedrooms. There are a number of units with a southern orientation and east-facing ground level units that may be exposed to public views. I do not consider either of these matters are fatal to the application but there is a need to ensure planting along the eastern part of the site supplements fencing to ensure suitable privacy for the ground level dwellings D5 and D6.

Would there be unreasonable adverse impacts on nearby dwellings?

1. A four storey building on the review site will be apparent to other dwellings in the street however the most sensitive areas of the closest dwellings are quite shielded from views to most of the proposed development.
2. The secluded open space of the nearest Violet Grove dwellings are generally oriented away from the review site. No. 2 Violet Grove has its single storey extension extending along the southern part of the site with several highlight windows in the southern elevation. The secluded open space faces west and north. No. 4 Violet Grove has a driveway and carport/garage along the southern parts of its lot with open space facing west and north. No. 4 Violet Grove has several upper level bedroom windows facing south and ground level dining/family room windows that would gain views of the building. A covered deck would limit views to the proposed development.
3. The proposal complies with Standard B17 should it be applied with respect to setbacks from No. 2 Violet Grove. While the Violet Grove dwellings may see parts of the proposed building, the visual impact can not be regarded as significant when considering the alternative views available from the rooms and the primary direction of secluded open spaces. This degree of visibility is not an unreasonable visual impact to the affected rooms and the modest views that would be gained from rear yards. Any additions to dwellings or two storey forms associated with No. 2 Violet Grove would mask the development further although I have not presumed any such works would occur in reaching my conclusion. The situation is very different when compared, by way of example, with the apartments built at No. 111 Riversdale Road that abut the south-facing open space of single dwellings fronting Henrietta Street. As a consequence, that apartment building has been scaled down more substantially than proposed in the design before me.
4. The visibility of the proposed building would be apparent from the front of No. 1 Violet Grove and No. 149 Riversdale Road but the separation provided by the road and expectations for development along this main road corridor mean that the outcome can be regarded as acceptable.

1. Design suggestions in the Guidelines for Higher Density Housing provide a basis for assessing whether the impacts associated with potential overlooking are acceptable. They adopt the overlooking standard of Clause 55 (B22) which is based on a separation distance of 9 metres.
2. Windows within 9 metres of abutting habitable room windows are proposed to be screened, although there are some discrepancies on the plans as discussed at the hearing.
3. Further as discussed through the oral evidence of Messrs Sheppard and Chamberlain, additional screening is required to limit views within the development notably downward views to other private open spaces within the apartment building. This can be addressed by permit conditions. The additional screening would also benefit existing residents to the north with respect to perceived overlooking from upper floors of the building notwithstanding the separation is well beyond 9 metres.
4. With suitable screening as proposed, the potential for unreasonable overlooking is limited including to habitable room windows in No. 141 Riversdale Road.

1. The main shadowing impact is to the lower units in No. 141 Riversdale Road. Cross-sectional shadow diagrams show the ground level east-facing windows would be shadowed at 9am at the equinox. That shadow would move well before 10am. I find the impact is acceptable for these dwellings noting that the separation provided by the driveway along the eastern side of No. 141 Riversdale Road maintains good daylight and allows for some solar access.
2. Residences to the north of the review site would not experience adverse shadowing impacts. Properties to the east would not be unreasonably shadowed. Shadow to the public realm of Riversdale Road and Violet Grove would occur but this is not a reason to warrant changes to the building.

1. Noise likely to be generated by occupants of the development will not be anything other than associated with normal residential use of land. On land zoned for residential purposes in an area where more intensive development is expected, noise associated with residential use will occur. The location of servicing equipment can be addressed by permit conditions.

Are the traffic and parking impacts associated with the proposal acceptable?

1. The proposal provides 29 car spaces for 24 dwellings (3 x one bedroom, 19 x two bedrooms and 2 x three bedrooms). Clause 52.06 requires 48 car spaces while the rates in Clause 22.03 would require 41 spaces. Based on Clause 55 rates, and empirical data, the proposal for one car space for each of the smaller units and two for the two larger units should meet the needs of occupants. This allocation would leave a surplus of three spaces.
2. The modest unit sizes and the ready access to tram services and activity centres gives weight to supporting this volume of parking which is less than the rates in Clauses 22.03 and 52.06.
3. While some parties referred to the need for more cars per dwelling given on-street parking limitations and pressures, I do not consider that is necessary or appropriate when the expected occupant needs will be met. Although residents of the development may park on street from time to time even though they have an on-site car space, the proposal meets its expected needs.

1. Clause 55, if applied, would require five visitor car spaces as would Clause 22.03. The surplus of three on-site spaces can be allocated to visitors notwithstanding expert evidence that there is sufficient on-street parking available at times when visitors to the dwellings are most likely. That assessment has taken into account the clearway restrictions on Riversdale Road.
2. The proposal will result in the removal of a crossover on Riversdale Road and changes to the existing crossover on Violet Grove. There may be some additional kerbside parking created. Even if that does not occur, I consider the three on-site spaces to be sufficient when also mindful of the available supply in the nearby area.

1. The more intensive use of the land will increase traffic in Violet Grove. I do not consider undue safety concerns, congestion or conflict would result that warrant refusal of a permit for these reasons. I accept the expert evidence and advice of the Council's engineers on these matters. Added delays at Violet Grove and Riversdale Road may occur but are not unreasonable for this local street. Conflicts with pedestrians will be minimised by reasonable sightlines to the south while a lower fence can be provided to the north of the ramp access as discussed at the hearing. I will adopt several suggestions made by Mr De Young with respect to a rubber speed hump and signage along the ramp to enhance safety and warn of pedestrians.
2. I was referred to the significant volume of traffic movement through the area and on Violet Grove noting the potential delays associated with garbage collection given parked cars limit the road space available for through movement. The proposal is to rely on a private waste collection service. Through proposed conditions requiring a waste management plan and nominating collection times, I am satisfied the Council has addressed waste collection arrangements notwithstanding that collection may involve some local disturbance as occurs with standard Council waste collection.

1. For the above reasons, I find the proposal to be acceptable.
2. While bringing a change to the local setting as a consequence of the scale of the development, that change is acceptable in the planning context that applies and given the limited direct off-site amenity impacts that would result.
3. I will set aside the Council's decision and direct the issue of a permit subject to conditions.
4. I have considered submissions with respect to possible permit conditions including a request by Objectors for a bond to protect the elm tree and comments on draft conditions given in expert evidence. I do not consider a bond for the tree must be required given the Council's extensive conditions to deal with the protection and ongoing management of the tree which are accepted by the permit applicant. Recommendations arising from the expert evidence are reflected in the conditions.

• Construction of multiple dwelling on a lot;
• Reduction in car parking for dwellings;
• Alteration to access in a Road 1 Zone;

1. Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided, generally in accordance with the plans marked "A3" and dated 22.08.11 but modified to show:

(a) The dimension of the height of the proposed southern and eastern boundary fences and details of the construction materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If no eastern boundary fence is proposed in the vicinity of the Dutch Elm / English Elm tree to be retained, the setback to the fence must be dimensioned (measured from the base of the edge of the trunk of the tree).

(b) The height of the northern boundary fence that must taper down to Violet Grove to allow an adequate sightline to pedestrians moving along Violet Grove.

(c) The provision of a schedule of materials showing the proposed palette of materials and finishes (including a sample board). The palette should demonstrate the high quality of finishes selected and their compatibility with each other and the streetscape, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(d) The provision of fixed (unopenable) screening to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level consistent with Clause 55.04-6 (Standard B22) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme as follows:

• (i) West-facing windows of bedroom 2 in Unit D18 and bedroom 2 in Unit D17;

• (ii) North-facing windows of bedroom 1 in Unit D5; bedroom 2 in Unit 20; and the north-facing bedroom window of Dwelling 12;

(e) The introduction of north-facing windows into the northern elevation of Bedroom 2 in Unit D13 and the north-east bedroom in D5 provided the windows are highlight or screened;

(f) The provision of stormwater harvest tank/s for re-use in garden irrigation in a location to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tank/s must have a capacity of at least 55 litres per square metre of soft landscape area (including lawn). Tanks within the front setback along Violet Grove should be located to not be visible from the street;

(g) The proposed fences within the Tree Protection Zone of the English Elm / Dutch Elm tree to be retained must be of light construction and without strip or sheet footing excavation;

(h) The fence located along the south side of the driveway ramp should be mounted on the actual ramp where located within the Structural Root Zone of the English Elm / Dutch Elm tree to be retained. Additional post holes for fences within the Structural Root Zone of the tree should be avoided if possible to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If additional post holes are required within the Structural Root Zone for this tree, the location of the holes should be determined using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) root location scanning to avoid significant roots;

(i) Details of all retaining walls;

(j) Details of plant and equipment including air conditioning units;

(k) Allocation of parking spaces in accordance with Condition 18.

(l) The provision of an intercom in accordance with Condition 22.

(m) No objects, fence (excluding the northern boundary fence) or plants greater than 600mm in height are to be located at the northern boundary where it intersects with Violet Grove to maximise sightlines.

(n) A speed hump, signage and a convex mirror near to the Violet Grove entry to the access ramp to limit the potential for vehicle conflict with pedestrians using Violet Grove.

(o) The storage spaces above the car spaces reduced to a height above floor level of 1.5 metres.

(p) Any redundant vehicle crossing (or part thereof) is to be reinstated to kerb, channel, nature strip and footpath to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(q) The redundant vehicle crossover to Riversdale Road to be removed and the footpath, nature strip, kerb and channel reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(r) A minimum height clearance of 2.1m within the basement level, measured to the underside of any ductwork/piping etc to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(s) Rubber speed hump near to the entry of the accessway from Violet Grove and signage to warn drivers of pedestrians using Violet Grove.

1. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to commencement of the use of the permitted development, all redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerbing reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans referred to in Condition 1 of this, a Tree Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Tree Management Plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the Tree Management Plan. The Tree Management Plan must be substantially in accordance with the arboricultural report prepared by Greenwood Consulting, dated 14 March 2011, but modified to show:
   • (a) The purpose of the drainage grates in the basement access ramp and whether they will be linked to underground services;
   • (b) The location of the site office and any other associated site shed/s during the construction period.

The requirements and recommendations contained within the approved Tree Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All buildings and works within the Tree Protection Zone and Critical Root Zone as specified in the endorsed Tree Management Plan must be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any person acting on the permit must advise Council's Arborist (Statutory Planning) in writing at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the works to be supervised.

1. All trees specified in the endorsed Tree Management Plan are to be protected and maintained in accordance with the recommendations set out in the report, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before any development (including demolition) starts on the land, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Dutch Elm / English Elm at a radius from the base of the trunk(s) to define a "Tree Protection Zone" as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan. The fence must be constructed as specified in the endorsed Tree Management Plan. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed on the land, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Contractors to be advised of trees to be retained

1. The owner and occupier of the site must ensure that, prior to the commencement of buildings and works, all contractors and tradespersons operating on the site are advised of the status of trees to be retained as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan and are advised of any obligations in relation to the protection of those trees.

Regulation of activities in Tree Protection Zone

1. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

1. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans referred to in Condition 1 of this permit, a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified and experienced person or firm incorporating:
   • (a) An accurate survey of all existing vegetation to be removed;
   • (b) The area(s) set aside for landscaping located within common property;
   • (c) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the location, number, size at the time of planting, height and spread at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified;
   • (d) The details of all proposed planter boxes, including but not limited to soil depth and composition;
   • (e) The provision of a minimum of three (3) trees with spreading canopies, planted at a minimum height of 2.5m, planted in locations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (f) Screen planting along the northern site boundary and along the Violet Grove frontage;
   • (g) Paving, retaining walls, fence design details, and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill and finished site levels;

must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the landscape plan is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority it will be endorsed and will form part of this Permit.

1. Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

1. All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plans must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The approved plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must provide the following details of a regular private waste collection service (including recyclables) for the subject land including:
   • (a) The type/s and number of waste bins;
   • (b) Type/size of trucks;
   • (c) The location of waste collection point/s;
   • (d) Frequency of waste collection;
   • (e) Delivery of bins to waste collection points and retrieval of bins once collected or location of collection points within basement;
   • (f) Times/days for waste collection consistent with Condition 14;

1. Collection of waste must be conducted so as not to cause any unreasonable disturbance to nearby residential properties and may only take place during the following times:
   • (a) Monday to Friday: 7:00am to 8:00pm
   • (b) Saturday & Sunday: No collection allowed

Driveways and Car Parking areas to be constructed

1. Before the building is occupied, the areas set aside for car parking and access shown on the endorsed plans must be:
   • (a) Constructed;
   • (b) Formed to such levels and properly drained so that they can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans;
   • (c) Surfaced with an all weather seal coat;
   • (d) Clearly line marked to indicate each car space;
   • (e) Clearly marked throughout the car park and near the vehicle entrance to show the direction of traffic flow along the accessways and to show the location of visitor parking spaces;

1. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plan must not be used for any other purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All signs, mirrors and line marking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

1. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, car spaces provided on the land must be allocated at the following minimum rates:
   • (a) One (1) car space for each 1- and 2-bedroom dwelling;
   • (b) Two (2) car spaces for each 3-bedroom dwelling;
   • (c) Three (3) car spaces for shared use by visitors.

1. The areas set aside for visitor car parking shown on the endorsed plans must be made available for use free of charge to visitors at all times and must not be used for any other purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the use starts or any building is occupied, car stackers must be installed in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. The car stackers must be routinely serviced and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure satisfactory access to all car spaces and to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land by the emission of noise.

1. Before any building is occupied, details of any car park control equipment (controlling access to and egress from the internal/basement car parks) must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

These details must include a car park control device which can be accessed by visitors to the development including clear instructions on how to operate any security system, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent light from the site causing any detriment to the locality, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All pipes (except down-pipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from external view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Reticulated Electricity to be Provided Underground

1. Reticulated electricity must be provided underground to the subject land and all buildings on the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Report which is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be prepared by a suitably qualified expert and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The report must address ESD principles proposed for the site including, but not limited to, energy efficiency, stormwater collection and re-use on the site and waste and building materials. Any recommended changes to the building must be incorporated into the plans required by Condition 1. Once approved, such a plan must be implemented prior to the occupation of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works (including demolition), the owner must submit a Construction Management Plan to the Responsible Authority for approval. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must provide details of the following:
   • (a) Hours for construction activity (including demolition) in accordance with the requirements of Condition 28;
   • (b) Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
   • (c) The location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site;
   • (d) The location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows, with any basement car park on the land being made available without delay for use by sub-contractors/tradespersons upon completion of such basement car park areas;
   • (e) Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan;
   • (f) Contact details of key construction site staff;
   • (g) The location of any site sheds and the like;
   • (h) Vehicle access locations and truck routes; and
   • (i) Any other relevant matters, including the requirements of VicRoads and Yarra Trams.

1. All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated with the approved development must take place only during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) Monday to Friday: 7:00am to 7:00pm
   • (b) Saturday: 7:00am to 5:00pm
   • (c) Sunday & Public Holidays: No construction

1. This Permit will expire if:
   • (a) The development does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this Permit; or
   • (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the Permit expires or within the three (3) months afterwards.

[1] I have considered all submissions, evidence, and statements of grounds filed and presented by all parties but do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.