1. Before the development begins, three sets of detailed plans indicating the method of stormwater discharge to the nominated Legal Point of Discharge (and Stormwater Detention Systems where applicable) must be lodged with Council's Engineering Services department for approval to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The driveway / Parking areas / paved courtyards / paths and 'pervious' pavements must be graded / drained to prevent stormwater discharge onto the front footpath and into adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. VicRoads Conditions

1. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, a sealed vehicle crossover, generally in accordance with drawing TP3-02a by Bravov Design Architects, must be constructed at least 6.1 metres in width as measured at the property boundary and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary. 2. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, redundant vehicles crossovers on Beach Road must be removed and the footpath, kerb, channel and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The basement ramp gradient must not be steeper than 1:10 for at least the first five metres inside the property boundary.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
   2. The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing before the permit expires; or

• within 6 months afterwards if development has not commenced; or
• within 12 months afterwards if development has lawfully commenced.

[1] The need for a permit to remove one native tree (Brush Cherry) was identified in the evidence of Mr. Patrick and the application was amended accordingly at the commencement of the hearing.

[2] Amendment C134 was approved on 7 August 2014. This amendment updates Clauses 21.02 and 21.03 .

[3] The Tribunal received further correspondence from the permit applicant following the hearing on the 7 August 2014 directing attention to a decision at 98 Asling Street, Brighton. I have not placed weight on this decision given the parties were not provided with an opportunity to respond.

[4] I have considered the submissions of all parties, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties and all statements of grounds filed by parties. These documents are retained on the Tribunal's file. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[5] Renback Pty Ltd & Ors v Bayside CC [2012] VCAT 1632

[8] p. 59 Plan Melbourne, Clause 11 and Clause 16.01

[10] p. 67 Plan Melbourne Direction 2.1, Initiative 2.1.1

[11] Renback Pty Ltd & Ors v Bayside CC [2012] VCAT 1632

[12] See for example: Glenvill Homes Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [ 2014] VCAT 154; Steward v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 441; Thistle Nominees Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 664

[14] Thistle Nominees Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [ 2014] VCAT 664

[15] P2713 2013 Highett Grove Pty Ltd v Bayside CC (24 July 2014)

[16] Renback Pty Ltd & Ors v Bayside CC [2012] VCAT 1632