1. The Responsible Authority contends the development plan should cover the whole of the site, to ensure the proposed subdivision fits into a whole of site context that would achieve the sustainable reuse of the former Gaol, including elements identified as being of primary significance.
2. The Development Plan Overlay was introduced into the Indigo Planning Scheme by way of Amendment C41. This was following a request by the Responsible Authority to the Minister for Planning after the permit application was lodged, to introduce a Design and Development Overlay into the planning scheme. On the 12 February 2008 the Minister introduced Amendment C41, but in the form of a Development Plan Overlay, not a Design and Development Overlay as requested.
3. The Overlay that was introduced is considered unusual as it does not contain a Schedule. This raised an issue of debate between the applicant and Responsible Authority, who had requested the applicant include in the development plan a number of listed requirements. This issue was determined by Deputy President Gibson, who held that the Overlay was valid[2], despite not containing a schedule, and that a development plan for the subject land is required to describe two things: the land to which the plan applies and the proposed use and development of each part of the land. In reference to the list of 'requirements' sought to be included on the development plan by the Responsible Authority, Deputy President Gibson stated:

The list of requirements which the council planning officer has prepared has no legal status. The only way they can be required to be included in a development plan is by further amendment of the planning scheme by way of introduction of a schedule, which includes them as requirements.[3]

1. The Minister for Planning in his letter dated 13 February 2008 to the Responsible Authority regarding the amendment stated:

Your Council should consult with the landowner on the form of the final control for the site, which would then be subject to the normal amendment process including a full public exhibition. This exhibition of an amendment should occur without delay and within one year of the date of this letter.

1. The Overlay has been described by the Minister and the Responsible Authority as an interim Overlay, there however does not appear to be any reference contained within the control as to when it is to expire. Certainly if the Responsible Authority was to take heed of the comments by Deputy President Gibson regarding the requirements it has sought, as well as the Minister's comments, an amendment to consider the inclusion of a Schedule to the Overlay would be appropriate. No such proposal was evident.
2. The Responsible Authority submits the Tribunal should give effect to the Minister's expectations expressed in the Explanatory Report:

A development plan is required to ensure that any proposal for the development of the subject land considers the development of the site as a whole, including the reuse of the significant building contained on the Victorian Heritage Register, and not only the development of vacant land forming part of the site.

1. The Explanatory Report which accompanied the amendment also states:

The proposed amendment will facilitate the future orderly planning and sensitive redevelopment of the site contained on the Victorian Heritage Register, allowing for a range of redevelopment opportunities which:

• Are consistent with the existing and likely future pattern of development within the vicinity of the subject land;
• Reflects a desirable outcome from the public perspective allowing for the sensitive economic reuse and development of an historically significant area within the existing Beechworth township boundaries.

1. The Explanatory Report provides what can be described as a background explanation of the amendment. The Explanatory Report does not form part of the amendment and is not incorporated into the planning scheme. The Explanatory Report therefore has no legal status in considering whether the development plan proposed by the applicant should be approved or not.
2. Nor does the Minister's letter to the council have any status in determining this issue. A reading of the Explanatory Report and Minister's letter could in some circumstances be of assistance in trying to determine what a word within an amendment meant or the meaning of a requirement in an amendment, but in this case the Development Plan Overlay, that has been incorporated into the planning scheme, appears to be clear and unambiguous, even if it does not contain either what was expected by the Minister, there is no expiry as an interim control, or the Responsible Authority as there is no schedule that contains the requirements sought to be included on the plan.
3. From the Tribunal's point of view it is required to consider whether the development plan should be approved taking into account only the requirements of the Development Plan Overlay. There is nothing ambiguous in the Overlay which would necessitate the Tribunal going to the other documents relied upon by the Responsible Authority.
4. One of the purposes of the Development Plan Overlay at clause 43.04 is 'to identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on a development plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land'. In this case a permit for subdivision cannot be granted until a 'development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority'.
5. Clause 43.04-3 indicates that a development plan may consist of plans or other documents and may, with the agreement of the responsible authority, be prepared and implemented in stages'. A development plan that provides for residential subdivision in the Mixed Use zone must meet the requirements of clause 56. The development plan must describe the land to which the plan applies, the proposed use and development of each part of the land and any other requirements specified for the plan in a schedule to the overlay. As there is no schedule in this case it is the preceding two matters that the development plan must describe.
6. The Responsible Authority submitted approval of the development plan without knowing what is the proposed use for the Gaol is premature. It submitted that as there was no approval required for buildings and works within the walled area, the development plan should have a role in guiding future buildings and works in that area.
7. It must be remembered that this site is somewhat unusual in that the whole of the site is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and whilst it is contained within a Heritage Overlay under the Indigo Planning Scheme, because it is on the Victorian Heritage Register, no permit is required to be obtained from the Responsible Authority under the Heritage Overlay to develop the heritage place, rather that responsibility is given over to Heritage Victoria. This means that to a certain extent the heritage issues relating to the site need not be considered.
8. Whilst the Responsible Authority may consider that it would be appropriate to know now what is to occur on the Gaol site, it appears that it is pursuing this argument in an attempt to regain some heritage control.
9. The Stage 1 Development Plan No. 74034.1 V2 DP-01 C (21 October 2008) indicates within stage 1 areas of public open space, a no build zone, a residential block for residential housing and an existing building, being the old governors residence, to be renovated as a residential building . Stage 2 is marked and outlines the existing gaol and workshop but does not indicate any future use for these areas. It has been indicated in earlier draft development plans that the Gaol may be used as an hotel or some form of accommodation with the workshop used for the parking of vehicles.
10. Why do we need to know what use the Gaol and workshop are going to be put to? The Responsible Authority submits this will assist us in considering how the surrounding 23 lots will be developed. We are not sure this is so. The Gaol is contained wholly within a walled area which in a physical sense separates it entirely from what is to occur on the surrounding land. The wall which incorporates watch towers is large and imposing. We are of the view that the heritage aspect of the wall and towers should certainly be taken into account in our deliberation of how the 23 dwellings, to be approved under the subdivision application, will sit in relation to this heritage structure but what use the area inside the walls is to be put to we do not consider bears greatly on our assessment of the siting of the 23 dwellings externally to the walled area. Under the planning scheme the Responsible Authority has no power to either approve or disapprove of a use within the walled area, nor does it have any power to approve or disapprove of any building works that may occur within this walled area. So from this perspective, what is to be gained by the applicant showing on a development plan a use that this Gaol area may be put to, as this could change at any time and possibly well after either the Responsible Authority, or in this case the Tribunal, has made its assessment. There is provision for the development plan to be amended in the future to show the uses to which Stage 2 is to be put.
11. It has been said that a development plan needs to record what it is sought to achieve and how it is sought to be achieved this it is said is to anticipate problems in achieving it and to work out intended means of overcoming these problems[4].
12. What is sought to be achieved in this case is a residential subdivision of the area outside the walled Gaol and workshop. Consideration is required as to how the proposed residential subdivision is to be achieved and to ensure that the nearby heritage buildings are not impacted upon by this subdivision.
13. Whilst consideration of use is often relevant in a development application and 'it may not be in the public interest to grant a permit if the granting of the particular application has the capacity to materially impact upon the satisfactory implementation of a plan of broader strategic significance'[5] not knowing what use will occur within the Gaol and workshop area does not render this development plan premature.
14. We are of the view that it is appropriate, in the context of this site, that there be a staged development. It is also appropriate the development plan indicate what is to occur in stage 1 and that this is carefully managed by way of permit conditions, but in a staged subdivision, particularly in relation to this staged subdivision, we do not considered it is critical to approval of a development plan, to specify likely uses to occur in stage 2.

1. The Responsible Authority indicated it had not considered the application for subdivision as it considered the adaptive reuse of the Gaol should be known prior to any approval for subdivision.
2. We agree with the applicant's submission that it is reasonable to develop the land in stages, and in such a way that does not prejudice the prospects for the future reuse of the heritage asset. The heritage considerations it submits rest with Heritage Victoria and the issue of a permit by Heritage Victoria should be an end to the matter.
3. Whilst the matters raised under the Heritage Overlay are not of relevance we consider that the matters raised in clauses 15.11, 21.04-1 and 22.03-9 of the Indigo Planning Scheme in relation to the conservation and enhancement of heritage buildings and places and the sensitive design and siting of new buildings within the historic township of Beechworth are of relevance.
4. We do not consider that not knowing the future reuse of the former Gaol impacts on our consideration of whether the land surrounding the walled Gaol should be subdivided to allow for residential development. Consideration as to whether such a proposal complies with clause 56 is essential.
5. The subject site has frontages to three streets, Sydney Road (north/west), Williams Street (south/west) and High Street (south/east) and abuts on its north/east Queen Victoria Park. The walled former Gaol sits at the south western end of the site with a forecourt entry from Williams Street as well as vehicle access from High Street. Located to the east of the walled Gaol is the former Governor's residence. A multi purpose hall that has a frontage to High Street sits behind the Governor's residence. This building is to be demolished. On the subject land to the north/east and extending partly into Queen Victoria Park is a former quarry. A workshop has been built on the subject land over part of the quarry. To the west of the quarry the site is vacant.
6. Stage 1 which contains the subdivision proposal proposes two vehicular access points from High Street, as well as Watch Tower Rise towards the eastern end of the site and Quarry Hatch Lane to the east of the former Governor's residence. Watch Tower Rise is to provide access to 16 lots. Lots 1-7 are in the north/western part of the site with five of these lots extending to Sydney Road. Lot 8 is located at the end of Watch Tower Rise and abuts the workshop to its east. Lots 9 - 13 abut Queen Victoria Park with lots 14-16 located opposite. Quarry Hatch Lane provides access to lots 17-20 on its eastern side and lots 21-23 which cover the former Governor's residence to be retained.
7. The lots range in size from 308m² up to 736m². Each lot contains a building envelope with lots 3-12 and 15-19 with the potential for double storey development. A 'no building zone' is shown in two locations, extending along the Sydney Road frontage of lots 2-7 and between the north/eastern wall of the former Gaol and lots 1 and 2, as well as a 728m² area on High Street to the side of lot 21 and the former Governor's residence
8. A permit for subdivision is required under the Mixed Use Zone. The purpose of the zone includes 'encouraging residential development that respects the neighbourhood character'[6]. Subdivision applications must meet the objectives of clause 56, except clauses 56.03-1 to 56.03-3, 56.03-2, 56.06-1 and should meet the standards of the relevant clauses.
9. Views to the former Gaol and the impact the subdivision and potential residential development could have on such views was raised as a concern by the Responsible Authority
10. Mr Wilson, who described himself as an historian, provided us with interesting comments and views regarding the social value of the former Gaol and its surrounds and how he considered the subdivision may impact on the character of the area. His knowledge of the history and heritage of Beechworth reflected his wide research on the area.
11. We agree with Mr Wilson that the heritage buildings in Beechworth add to the character and charm of the town centre. It was his view that from an historical viewpoint the views of the Gaol walls remain from the northern approach to Beechworth along Sydney Road, Ford Street and Williams Street. He considered that existing views should be retained after any development and that new buildings should not be visible from vantage points along Ford Street such as the Anglican Church, in order that the historical appearance of the complex is retained. He also submitted double storey development outside the walls should only be permitted if views are not obscured.
12. Having inspected the area from the various locations referred to we do not consider the proposed subdivision will have a marked impact upon the views of the walled Gaol when approaching the site along Sydney Road, Ford Street and Williams Street. The surrounds of the walled Gaol will no doubt change with the subdivision, but we believe the views from the various vantage points will remain and in some cases be opened up as a result of the location of building envelopes, as well as the imposition of conditions regarding setbacks and height of buildings.
13. Mr Raworth submitted the proposal has been '... carefully planned in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan to minimise the impact that future subdivision and development will have upon the significance of the heritage buildings on the site'. The Conservation Management Plan[7] prepared for Heritage Victoria recommends protection of a 'view cone' along the Sydney Road frontage. Whilst Mr Raworth submitted the buffer of open space immediately to the north of the walled Gaol, with the rear yards of lots 2-7 extending all the way to the Sydney Road frontage was in keeping with the 'view cone' concept, we consider that the 'view cone' as more precisely defined in the Conservation Management Plan should be adopted. This includes a line from the north/west corner of the site to the midpoint of the triangular courtyard and would result in a slight reduction in the single storey building envelopes for lots 2 and 3.
14. The Conservation Management Plan also recognises the importance of the quarry walls and indicates that what remains of the quarry should be preserved in order that historians can better understand Beechworth's development. This area is not to be changed as part of the stage 1 development.
15. Ms Hansen on behalf of the Responsible Authority considered the site is well located to offer some diversity in dwelling types particularly as the site is in close proximity to the Beechworth Town Centre. She however expressed the view that the 'staged subdivision' would be detrimental to, and fails to take adequate account of, the neighbourhood character and amenity of the area, particularly the amenity impacts on Queen Victoria Park, the Sydney Road, public realm and the overall character and appearance of the site which includes several buildings and features of State heritage significance.
16. Ms Hansen considered lots 9-13 should form a medium density housing opportunity rather than 5 single dwellings, particularly as this portion of the site, in her view, is the least sensitive in terms of visual impacts on the heritage buildings. She considered that such a development would with landscaping complement the park interface and create a view corridor to the watch tower at the north/east corner of the walled former Gaol. She was critical of the current building envelopes for these lots which show zero or minimal side set backs that in her view would most likely result in a 'wall' of development adjacent to Queen Victoria Park.
17. We agree with Ms Hansen's view that lots 9-13 represent a lost opportunity for medium density development of both greater bulk and setbacks as this has the potential to create another view corridor from Queen Victoria Park/ High street and would help soften the interface with the park.
18. Ms Hansen also considered that lots 6, 7 and 8 at the end of Watch Tower Rise could be amalgamated into one lot for medium density development, maximising each units north orientation, offer more dwellings with an outlook to the park and reduce the amount of roadway hard surface. Whilst we do not disagree with this view we consider that the layout as proposed is acceptable.
19. We agree with Ms Hansen's view in relation to lot 13 and consider a setback of 4.5m instead of the 1.5m/2m setback from High Street more in keeping with the neighbourhood character of the area. Ms Hansen considered the 2m setback from High Street of the building envelope was not in keeping with typical setbacks in residential areas of Beechworth. We also agree with Ms Hansen that as this lot is located on a corner a double storey development could be accommodated. If lots 9-13 were developed into a medium density development then we consider that a 4.5m setback would be appropriate from Watch Tower Rise, the High Street frontage and also the north eastern common boundary with the workshop.
20. Lot 16 which is located in close proximity to the watch tower on the north east corner of the former Gaol in our view should be single rather than double storey to increase the views to this watch tower.
21. The retained Governor's residence is to be subdivided into three lots. Lot 21 the south eastern part of the building is to incorporate a large area of 'no building zone'. Ms Hansen was of the view that the rear open north facing spaces to lots 21, 22 and 23 that make up the former Governor's residence should be realigned to offer more equitable open space, or allow a single storey rear addition, as a new envelope for the portion of the existing building in lot 21. We agree with Ms Hansen that an addition, if sensitively designed, is not unusual for a Victorian single storey dwelling and the realignment of the rear open space to lots 22 and 23 could be reorganized.
22. Fencing along the Sydney Road, Queen Victoria Park and to a certain extent High Street perimeters should in our view be of a sympathetic design and generally transparent. Ms Hansen recommended the use of black chain mesh, whereas Mr Raworth considered, certainly on the Sydney Road frontage that a steel frame similar to the timber paling/picket fence on the opposite side of the road could be adopted with the potential for climbing foliage to soften the interface with the street. We consider that a more permeable fencing treatment should be adopted along the boundary with Queen Victoria Park and consider the suggestions by Mr Raworth along the Sydney Road frontage not inappropriate. .
23. 'Residential Design Guidelines' were proposed by the applicant. Ms Hansen was critical of the proposed guidelines, indicating that in her view they were inadequate as they did not apply to the whole of the site and the Responsible Authority and Heritage Victoria are excluded from decision making once stage 1 is subdivided. Mr Canavan withdrew any reliance the applicant made on the guidelines.
24. We do not consider that traffic or parking will unreasonably impact on the proposal or have an on going impact on future use of the former Gaol. We accept Mr Hunt's evidence that the 23 lots are expected to generate up to 230 vehicle movements per day to High Street which has sufficient capacity, as does the surrounding road network to absorb this additional traffic. The design for Watch Tower Rise is similar to a level 1 access street and is therefore expected to accommodate any future traffic generated from the Workshop building which could be used for car parking in conjunction with a future use of the Gaol.
25. Mr Hunt also considered the possible future use of the former Gaol, possibly as tourist accommodation, and concluded that at least 75 car spaces can be provided within the existing front car park, as well as the basement of the Workshop building and along the William Street frontage. He concluded that sufficient parking could be provided for a future use without any impact or need to park in the residential streets within the subdivision.
26. Mr Patrick in his report made recommendations regarding the protection of trees, fencing and landscaping. Mr Patrick was not called as a witness as the parties were in agreement regarding his recommendations. It is considered that these recommendations should be incorporated into any permit conditions to apply to the subdivision.

1. We consider the proposed development plan satisfies the requirements of Clause 43.04-3 Development Plan Overlay in the Indigo Planning Scheme. We do not consider that in the context of this site and having regard to the proposed staged subdivision of the land that it is necessary to require a use to be shown for the walled former Gaol and workshop.
2. A 23 lot subdivision of the area shown as Stage 1 on the Development Plan accords with the purpose of the mixed use zone. The subdivision proposal complies with the provisions of Clause 56 and subject to permit conditions, discussed with the parties, will provide for a diversity of dwelling types, well located in close proximity to the Beechworth Town Centre without compromising the character of the area, or the historic precinct in which they are to be located.

Three copies of an amended plan of subdivision must be submitted to the Responsible Authority, and when approved by the Responsible Authority shall be the endorsed plan and form part of this permit. The plan must be generally in accordance with the amended plan submitted with the application, but must be amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to show:

(a) all buildings on proposed lot 16 at single storey height only;

(b) building envelope for lot 13 to be double story and set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from Watchtower Rise and High Street road frontages; or a medium density double storey building envelope for lots 9-13 with a minimum 4.5m setback to all boundaries;

(c) the 'view cone' (no buildings within the zone) in front of lots 2 - 7 looking south towards the northern Gaol wall to be increased in accordance with the 'view cone' depicted in the Conservation Management Plan dated November 2005;

(d) boundary fences on Lots 1-7 facing towards Sydney Road with a fence of maximum height of 1.2 metres, transparent and in the style of the surrounding fences;

(e) dwellings on Lots 2-7 to face Sydney Road, and dwellings on Lots 8-13 to face Queen Victoria Park;

(f) each lot abutting Queen Victoria Park to have direct pedestrian access to Queen Victoria Park by means of a gate;

(g) each lot facing towards Sydney Road to have direct pedestrian access to Sydney Road by means of a gate;

(h) fences abutting Queen Victoria Park, and fences on Lots 1 and 2 facing the northern Gaol wall must be no higher than 1.2 metres, transparent and in the style of the surrounding fences;

(i) no part of building envelopes within 10 metres of any part of the existing Sequoias in the vicinity of Sydney Road;

(j) open space equivalent to a minimum of 5% of the site area and located:-

• (1) Adjacent to the eastern wall of the gaol from Watchtower Rise to the south eastern corner of that wall - 6 metre width;

• (2) From the south eastern corner of the wall to High Street;

• (3) Along the northern wall of the gaol from lot 16 to Sydney Road - approximately 10 metre width; and

• (4) From Watchtower Rise along the south eastern boundary of lot 8 to Queen Victoria Park; and

(k) Details of fencing to all external boundaries of the site; and

(l) interpretive signage adjacent to the quarry wall

1. SUBDIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENDORSED PLANS

The subdivision as shown on the plan of subdivision as amended pursuant to Condition 1 must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

The staging of the works must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT

Prior to the certification of the subdivision hereby approved an Agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must be entered into between the owner or owners of the land and the Responsible Authority in a form satisfactory to the Responsible Authority including:

(a) A requirement that the owner pay the costs of the Responsible Authority in relation to the Agreement;

(b) A requirement that the owner provide at no cost to Council a whole of site Drainage Strategy that is capable of accommodating all drainage from the site resulting from future development on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(c) A requirement that the owners of all lots share the sole cost of the maintenance of all landscaping and infrastructure in areas set aside for public open space reserve including walkways along the northern and eastern walls of the Gaol and connecting through to High Street and walkway from Watchtower Rise to Queen Victoria Park, as well as the landscaping along the western wall of the gaol to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(d) A requirement that the owners of Lots 9-23 and the owner of the balance/super lot maintain at their sole cost, the low wall along the High Street frontage;

(e) A requirement that all lighting in public areas be provided in the form of bollards and must be maintained by the owners of all lots to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(f) A requirement that the construction of dwellings and all out buildings be within the building envelopes specified on the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(g) A requirement to provide for no development within 'no buildings within this zone' areas indicated on the approved plans to the 'front' setback areas of lots 1 - 7, and for landscaping to be maintained within this area in accordance with the detailed landscaping plans to be approved pursuant to Condition 14 of this permit and the External Design Guidelines;

(h) A requirement for a designated common waste bin hardstand area on the road reserve in the vicinity of Lot 5 for the benefit of Lots 5, 6 and 7;

(i) A requirement that before a building permit can be issued the owner must demonstrate Compliance with condition 10 of Heritage Victoria Permit P10999;

(j) A requirement that all development and use of all lots and parts of the site accord with Exterior Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(k) A requirement that within 10 metres of the Eucalypt in Queen Victoria Park in the vicinity of Lot 8, the footings of any building on Lot 8 must be constructed using an appropriate footing system designed by an Engineer registered as a Building Practitioner to minimise potential adverse affects to the tree. Any excavation within 10 metres of the tree must be done by hand and in the presence of a qualified Arborist. Any roots encountered must be cut and treated in accordance with the Arborist's instruction; and

(l) A requirement that no future development within the old gaol walls protrude above the height level of the existing buildings, that is elements of primary significance identified in the Conservation Management Plan related to the gaol walls, main entrance, watchtowers, yards and main buildings.

Once entered into the owner shall have the Agreement registered on each title and provide evidence of the same to the Responsible Authority.

Prior to the commencement of any works, a construction management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The construction management plan must address, but is not limited to:

(a) Hours of construction, control of noise and airborne matter, deliveries, vehicle access, worker car parking, damage to public assets, and contact numbers for complaints;

(b) Provision of a truck wheel-wash so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways;

(c) The covering and maintenance of all roads/storage areas/external stockpiles/or vacant areas to avoid dust nuisance to any residential and commercial premises;

(d) Minimisation of stormwater runoff beyond the development.

All works must accord with the approved construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6.1 Before the development starts, engineering plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Indigo Shire Council Assets Manager. The plans must show:

• (a) Construction of roads, drainage, car parking and footpaths as detailed in 6.2 and 11 below;
• (b) All roads accessing lots 1 - 23 (inclusive) of the subdivision to vest in Council;
• (c) Provision for vehicular access to each property;
• (d) A stormwater drainage system, to the satisfaction of the Indigo Shire Council Assets Manager;
• (e) Location of street lighting to be provided. The type of street lighting, bollards and lights are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit;

6.2 Prior to the issuing of the Statement of Compliance the applicant must construct proposed roadways to standards as set out in the Indigo Shire Road Hierarchy Management Plan and to the approval of the Indigo Shire Council Assets Manager, all in accordance with approved plans and as follows:-

• (a) Watchtower Rise - High Street to Gaol access adjacent to Lot 1

The applicant must construct the proposed roadway within the development to a modified U2 standard as set out in the Indigo Shire Road Hierarchy Management Plan and to the approval of the Indigo Shire Council Assets Manager, and generally as follows:-

• 6.6m carriageway width, K & C invert to K& C invert;
• 6m asphalt pavement width;
• On street parking or indented parking bays required are in addition to these dimensions. A minimum of one parking space per allotment is to be provided.
• 250mm depth (minimum) pavement subject to subgrade CBR;
• Drainage culverts and headwalls to a 1 in 10 ARI;
• Barrier Kerb & Channel;
• 1.5m concrete footpath to both sides of the roadway, with tactile ground surface indicators at intersections;
• Traffic calming, such as a pedestrian refuge, for the proposed pedestrian crossing between Lots 1 and 16;
• To prevent commercial or retail-related traffic entering the residential area associated with Lots 1 to 8 the applicant must provide a turning point, such as a roundabout, in the vicinity of the former gaol access adjacent to Lot 1. Design must take into account the need for a tandem axle recycling/waste collection vehicle up to 9.6m in length to access the residential area associated with Lots 1 to 8, and otherwise for service vehicles to 8.8m in length to negotiate the roundabout; and
• Bollard public street lighting to the relevant Australian Standard AS1158, 2007.

The applicant must construct the proposed roadway within the development to U4 standard as set out in the Indigo Shire Road Hierarchy Management Plan and to the approval of the Indigo Shire Council Assets Manager, and generally as follows:-

• 5.5m carriageway width, K&C invert to K&C invert;
• 4.9m asphalt pavement width;
• 200mm depth (minimum) pavement subject to subgrade CBR;
• Drainage culverts and headwalls to a 1 in 10 ARI;
• Driveable layback Kerb & Channel;
• Parking restricted to one side of road only, unless indented parking bays provided
• A 1.5m concrete footpath servicing these dwellings must be provided, with tactile ground surface indicators provided at intersections. The footpath location is subject to Council approval
• At the end of the constructed road the applicant must provide a turning point. Provision for a three-point turn is acceptable. Turning paths must be consistent with Ausroads standards for a tandem axle vehicle up to 9.6m in length; and
• Bollard public street lighting to the relevant Australian Standard AS1158, 2007.

(c) Quarry Hatch Lane - dead end road from Lot 17 to 23

The applicant must construct the proposed roadway, including its intersection with High Street, to U4 standard as set out in the Indigo Shire Road Hierarchy Management Plan and to the approval of the Indigo Shire Council Assets Manager, and generally as follows:-

• 5.5m carriageway width, K&C invert to K&C invert;
• 4.9m asphalt pavement width;
• 200mm depth (minimum) pavement subject to subgrade CBR;
• Drainage culverts and headwalls to a 1 in 10 ARI;
• Driveable layback Kerb & Channel;
• Parking restricted to one side of road only, unless indented parking bays provided
• A 1.5m concrete footpath servicing these dwellings must be provided, with tactile ground surface indicators provided at intersections. The footpath location is subject to Council approval
• At the end of the constructed road the applicant must provide a turning point. Provision for a three-point turn is acceptable. Turning paths must be consistent with Ausroads standards for a tandem axle vehicle up to 9.6m in length; and
• Bollard public street lighting to the relevant Australian Standard AS1158, 2007.

Prior to the issuing of the Statement of Compliance the applicant must make road improvements to Williams Street by way the sealing of indented parking bays to the development side only, generally as follows:-

• 200mm depth (minimum) crushed rock pavement subject to subgrade CBR; and
• 14 / 7 river gravel seal, using a crushed river gravel aggregate, as supplied by Ovens & Kiewa Concrete.

Prior to the issuing of the Statement of Compliance the applicant must construct pathways providing safe access from the development to points of integration into the existing footpath network at the corners of High Street and Williams St, and Sydney Road and Williams Street, in accordance with the Indigo Road Hierarchy Management Plan, and as follows:

From Williams Street to the common boundary between the development and Queen Victoria Park.

From Williams Street to the common boundary between the development and Queen Victoria Park.

Generally footpaths are to be constructed to the following Indigo Shire standard:

• 2.0m width;
• 80mm depth reinforced concrete;
• 150mm reinforced concrete where there is a designated vehicle crossing;
• 50mm compacted Cl2 20mm fine crushed rock.
• Tactile ground surface indicators to be provided at intersections.

All works must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The point of access to each lot shall be a point that gives practical access to the building location to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Prior to the issuing of the Statement of Compliance:

(a) The applicant must construct the vehicle crossings to lots 1 to 23 in accordance with relevant standards. A crossing permit must be obtained from the Responsible Authority and levels fixed;

(b) Any required existing vehicle crossings not complying with current standards must be constructed at full cost to the applicant/owner, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. A crossing permit must be obtained from the Responsible Authority and levels fixed; and

(c) Any existing crossings not utilized by the proposed development are redundant, and as such must be removed, and the area made good.

Prior to the commencement of any on-site works, plans for the management of sediment pollution must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Plans and subsequent works must be prepared and undertaken in accordance with EPA Publication 275 "Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control" .

11.1 The applicant/owner must adopt the "major/minor" approach to the design of drainage systems associated with this development.

11.2 Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision and prior to commencement of any works on site all design plans relating to proposed and existing stormwater must be submitted to and approved by the Indigo Shire Council Assets Manager. Such design plans must:

• Include a drainage catchment plan showing the total area and sub-areas that are the basis of the design;

• Demonstrate that all stormwater emanating from the development will be collected and conveyed by underground pipe to an approved discharge point;

• Provide a stormwater drainage discharge point to each allotment including the construction of stormwater reticulation drains to a 1 in 10 Year ARI. The design must take into account any flows from upstream properties.

• Model the 1 in 100 year ARI storm based upon a whole of catchment design and ensure that the design takes into consideration the need to convey this storm to the approved outfall with no property damage.

• Satisfy the principles of Water Sensitive Urban Design and the requirements of the Indigo Shire Council Stormwater Management Plan and the CSIRO publication Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Guidelines.

• Include existing drains and all necessary upgrades to ensure that all existing stormwater drainage infrastructure including property connection drains complies with current Council standards.

11.3 The owner must ensure that all proposed and existing reticulation and outfall drains are contained within easements accessible by Council.

11.4 The two stormwater discharges to kerb and channel at the Williams Street vehicular access to the gaol site must be intercepted and piped to the approved point of discharge.

11.5 The discharge of concentrated stormwater drainage into existing or proposed kerb and channel will not be permitted.

11.6 Prior to the issuing of the Statement of Compliance all works must be constructed and completed in accordance with approved plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The owner shall contribute public open space at the rate of a minimum of 5% of the site area. Such open space shall include those parts of the site:

(a) Adjacent to the eastern wall of the gaol from Watchtower Rise to the south eastern corner of that wall - approximately 6 metre width;

(b) From the south eastern corner of the wall to High Street;

(c) Along the northern wall of the gaol from lot 16 to Sydney Road - approximately 10 metre width; and

(d) From Redwood Close along the south eastern boundary of lot 8 to Queen Victoria Park.

Maintenance of open space reserves shall be the shared responsibility of owners of all lots included in the subdivision.

14.1 Before the development hereby permitted starts, three (3) copies of a Landscape Plan must be submitted for approval by the Responsible Authority. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including High Street road reserve (side adjacent to the site), proposed new road reserves and proposed open space reserves and include supporting information to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In particular, the plan should be to a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 and show:

• (a) Accurate location of boundaries, existing and proposed built elements, neighbouring buildings and/or vegetation that may affect or be affected by the proposed development and landscaping;
• (b) Accurate location and identification (botanical name) of existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;
• (c) Retention of the three sequoias located to the north west of the site;
• (d) Tree Protection Zones as required by the Responsible Authority;
• (e) Pathways:
  • (1) Adjacent to the eastern wall of the gaol from Watchtower Rise to the south eastern corner of that wall - minimum 2 metres width;
  • (2) From the south eastern corner of the wall to High Street;
  • (3) Along the northern wall of the gaol from lot 16 to Sydney Road - minimum 1.5 metres width; and
  • (4) From Redwood Close along the south eastern boundary of lot 8 to Queen Victoria Park - minimum 1.5 metres width;
• (f) Clear identification of the following elements:
  • (1) Areas proposed to be lawn, pathways, pavement, garden beds, other landscape features;
  • (2) Treatment of all landscape surfaces;
  • (3) Proposed tree locations, shrub and ground cover groupings, climber locations;
  • (4) Coded identification for these groupings and the numbers proposed; and
  • (5) A Plant Schedule, which consists of an itemised list of all proposed species. The schedule must include the following headings:
    • Plant code; (refers to codified botanical names used on plan, for example, Bm)
    • Botanical and Common name;
    • Height and Width at maturity;
    • Installation height (for trees only);
    • Container size (for all other plant groups); and
    • Total quantities for each species.
• (g) Supporting notes on the plan that elaborate on specific requirements for the proposed landscaping (eg. site preparation, protection during construction of existing vegetation, use of a suitable mulching material and proposed depth etc.);
• (h) A legend that explains any graphic symbols used on the plan;
• (i) Trees within road reserves of a species listed in Council's Street Tree Plan and in accordance with Council's Street Tree Planting Policy
• (j) Trees in the vicinity of the northern wall of the former gaol not exceeding two metres when fully matured;
• (k) In-ground watering systems for areas not within individual residential lots; and
• (l) Maintenance specifications for all landscaping including maximum heights of all planted trees and shrubs within zones marked "no buildings within this zone" on the plan of subdivision approved pursuant to Condition 1.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

14.2 Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance all landscaping woks as shown on the endorsed plan will be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14.3 The applicant must maintain the landscaping works for a period of 12 months from the date of issue of the Statement of Compliance. Any trees that die or are deemed by Council to need replacement due to lack of maintenance and watering during dry climatic conditions must be replaced at the developers cost and maintained for an additional 12 month period.

No existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans must be removed, destroyed, pruned or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority, all tree pruning must be carried out by a qualified Arborist to AS 4373, Pruning of Amenity Trees.

16.1 Fence

• (a) Prior to the commencement of any development or demolition works a Tree Protection Zone Fence of cyclone wire or similar construction must be erected to a height of at least 1.8 metres at a minimum distance (metres) in radius from the centre of the following tree(s):

(b) Barrier fences must stop access by persons, vehicles or machinery to the area it encloses and be maintained throughout the entire construction period and must have a sign attached stating 'tree protection zone fence' (Access may be permitted only with the consent of the Site Manager or the Consultant Arborist).

(c) There is to be no excavation in the area enclosed by this fence and a layer of organic mulch (woodchips) to a depth of not less than 100mm, must be laid and receive at least 1 litre of water for every 10mm of trunk diameter on a weekly basis to assist moisture retention and reduce the impact of soil compaction.

(d) No materials, chemicals, paints etc, equipment, temporary building or otherwise, must not be dumped, stored or erected within this fence.

16.2 Outside Fence

• (a) There is to be no excavation or change to the existing soil level within the following distances from each of the tree protection zone fences:

(b) A qualified Arborist must be on site during any excavation or trenching works on or adjacent to the minimum limit from the Tree Protection Zone fence (as stated above - Point 2) to inspect, document and advise on possible damage to the root system.

16.3 General

• (a) The installation of utility services must be bored under the root systems of the trees to be retained;

• (b) Supplementary watering must be provided to all trees during dry periods, during and after the construction process. This must consist of a deep soaking at least twice a week during summer and daily in extreme heat conditions;

• (c) Nothing whatsoever shall be attached to any tree including temporary services, wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device;

• (d) All root zones shall be bridged using timber planks, to assist in reducing soil compaction and consequent root damage;

• (e) A Qualified Arborist must attend the site during site cut and excavation to ensure that all affected tree roots are managed correctly and to ensure any damaged or exposed tree roots are pruned cleanly and the cut ends sprayed with a root hormone solution before covering with soil;

• (f) Any backfill material must be a mixture of quality topsoil and organic composted material and the trees must be monitored on a regular basis during and after construction, by the Consultant Arborist; and

• (g) Open trenching must be avoided - bore under the root system as an alternative.

16.4 Crossings

Crossings shall be constructed in a manner that will not damage the root systems of any mature street trees. A Qualified Arborist must be engaged prior to the design and construction to plan and oversee construction methods, which will ensure no damage to the trees (above and below ground). no work shall be carried out without approval of the responsible authority.

The road layout as submitted on the Building Envelope Plan 74034.1 V2 SP-05D prevents garbage collection from Lots 6 & 7. For this layout to be acceptable to Council, a common waste bin hardstand area will be required in the vicinity of Lot 5. The applicant must ensure that all future owners of Lots 5, 6 and 7 are made aware of this requirement by a Section 173 agreement.

Prior to the issuing of the Statement of Compliance all fencing works shown of the endorsed plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such works shall include provision of:

(a) Transparent wire mesh fencing of 1.2 metres height for:-

• (1) lots 1 and 2 where the lots adjoin the public open space reserve;

• (2) lots 3 to 7 along the Sydney Road boundary;

• (3) lots 7 to 13 along the Queen Victoria Park boundary;

• (4) lots 13, 14, 20 and 21 along the High Street boundary; and

(b) Timber paling fence of 1.8 metres height for rear boundaries of lots 21 to 23.

19.1 All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

19.2 The requirements of all relevant service authorities and carriers and telecommunications cables and electricity wires, must be completed, and all services must be below ground, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

19.3 Prior to the approval of engineering plans required to be submitted pursuant to this permit, lot boundaries must be marked on the ground by suitable pegs to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The pegs must be maintained during the course of works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to allow proper supervision of the works.

19.4 Footpath construction must be deferred until a substantial number of the dwellings are complete and subject to the approval of the Responsible Authority.

19.5 The owner must provide all necessary service conduits to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19.6 Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance, the owner must remove all excess soil and rubbish from the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19.7 Quality control assurance testing of materials and pavement compaction is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The owner is required to meet the reasonable costs of such testing, and to provide the results of such testing, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19.8 Except where expressly stated, the owner must be responsible for the maintenance of all works required to be undertaken by it pursuant to this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for a period 3 months after those works or parts of those works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Prior to the issuing of the Statement of Compliance the applicant must provide road signage and Intersection line-marking in accordance with approved plans and specifications.

21.1 Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner must pay to the Council a fee equivalent to 0.75% of the cost of the actual works for checking the engineering drawings associated with the road construction, pathways construction and access connection and drainage construction required to be undertaken pursuant to this permit.

21.2 The works required to be undertaken by the owner pursuant to this permit shall be carried out under the supervision of a person appointed by the Council. The owner shall pay to the Council a fee equivalent to 2.5% of the final actual construction costs for such works for such supervision (GST inclusive).

22.1 Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works associated with the development hereby approved except remediation works (approved in writing by the Responsible Authority) necessary to obtain a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit and prior to any certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 for the development hereby permitted, either:

• (a) A Certificate of Environmental Audit for the land must be issued in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or

• (b) An Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environmental Protection Act 1970 must make a Statement in accordance with Section 53Z of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use and development that are the subject of this permit;

22.2 Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, the use and development, buildings and works that are the subject of this permit must strictly comply with all directions and conditions contained within the Statement.

22.3 Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, prior to the commencement of the use, the certification or issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, or the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy under the Building Act 1993, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the Statement have been satisfied, or where the conditions require any maintenance or monitoring of an ongoing nature, such conditions are addressed within a Section 173 Agreement pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

22.4 Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land the Responsible Authority may in its absolute discretion require that the land owner enter into a Section 173 Agreement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authority. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required, the Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of the permitted use, and prior to the certification or issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988. All expenses involved in the drafting and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority, are to be met by the land owner.

22.5 A copy of the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit, including the complete Environmental Audit Report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority in accordance with Section 53ZB of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

22.6 A copy of the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit, but not the complete Environmental Audit Report, issued for the land must be provided to all prospective land owners prior to the signing of a contract of sale. Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued, the copy provided to each party shall include a covering letter which alerts the land owner to any directions or conditions contained with the Statement.

Prior to the Statement of Compliance being issued, as built documents of roads pathways and drainage works must be submitted to Council to GDA94 and the Australian Height Datum in the following format:-

• Plans:- Electronic:- .dwg format - 1:1 scale Hard Copy:- A1 Paper
• Schedule & Specification: Electronic: - MS Word Hard Copy:- A4 Paper

Prior to the Statement of Compliance being issued, the owner shall submit Exterior Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for approval by the Responsible Authority. Such Exterior Design Guidelines shall provide for elements of exterior design of all future development within the site and are intended to result in a consistent and coherent development that defers to the significant visual qualities of the historic building fabric and its environs. The Exterior Design Guidelines shall include elements of:

• building envelopes;
• building height;
• roof form;
• roof cladding;
• window frames;
• walls;
• glazing;
• car accommodation;
• external lighting;
• landscaping within lots;
• maintenance of landscaping within lots including the 'no buildings within this zone' area of lots 1 - 7 and lot 21 and all lots with direct interface to Queen Victoria Park;
• fencing; and
• boundaries where no fencing is permitted.

25.1 Direct access from the subject land to the Beechworth-Wodonga Road will not be permitted. Access shall be via the local road network (High Street and Williams Street).

25.2 Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivisions, the applicant shall enter into a Section 173 Agreement, under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the Indigo Shire Council. The Agreement shall provide for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) by the owner(s)/future owner(s) of the lot containing the existing Gaol Building or their nominated agent. The preparation of the TIAR shall be triggered by any redevelopment of the existing Gaol building that requires a planning permit application to be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The TIAR shall identify any mitigating works required as part of any redevelopment of the Gaol building including traffic impacts from previous stage/s of the development as detailed in planning application PP07-072. The TIAR shall include in its calculations, traffic generated from previous stage/s of the development as detailed in the planning application PP07-072 when determining the mitigating works. The mitigating works shall be undertaken prior to the coming into use of the redeveloped Gaol building by its owner(s)/future owner(s) at no cost to both VicRoads and the Indigo Shire. The Agreement shall be registered on the title of the lot, shall be binding on all future owners and shall remain in force until the agreed improvement works identified in the TIAR on the arterial road network have been completed to the VicRoads satisfaction.

25.3 The discharge of concentrated drainage to the arterial road reserve will not be permitted. The drainage shall discharge at a legal point of discharge as determined by the Responsible Authority (Indigo Shire Council).

Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of CFA must be submitted for approval by CFA and the Responsible Authority. 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 must demonstrate Compliance with the following conditions.

26.2 Hydrants:

• (a) Operable hydrants, above or below ground must be provided to the satisfaction of CFA.

• (b) The maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all buildings enveloped (or in the absence of building enveloped, the rear of all lots) must be 120m and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart. These distances must be measured around lot boundaries.

• (c) Hydrants must be identified as specified in "Identification of Street Hydrants for Firefighting purposes" available under publications on the Country Fire Authority web site (www.cfa.vic.gov.au).

26.3 Access:

• (a) Roads shall be constructed to provide emergency vehicle access to all lots. These roads shall be designed, constructed and maintained for vehicles of at least 15 tonnes and be of all weather construction.
• (b) The vertical and horizontal alignment of the roads shall be designed to accommodate the design vehicle equivalent to the Ausroads Design service vehicle - 12.5cm radius.
• (c) Provision shall be made at the end of all dead-end streets greater than 60m in length (whether or not created by staged construction) for turning this design vehicle to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. (A three point turn is acceptable)
• (d) Evidence of Compliance with conditions to the previous three conditions shall be provided to the CFA prior to Certification of the Subdivision.
• (e) Bridges must be signed in accordance with the Australian Bridge Design Standards AS 5100-2004 to carry a rigid truck of at least 15 tonne.
• (f) The average grade of roads must be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%)(11.3 degrees) for no more that 50 metres.

27.1 The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

27.2 The applicant must -

• (a) Enter in an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for supply of electricity to each lot on the endorsed plan.
• (b) Enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for the rearrangement of the existing electricity supply system.
• (c) Enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for rearrangement of the points of supply to any existing installations affected by any private electric power line which would cross a boundary created by the subdivision, or by such means as may be agreed by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd.
• (d) Provide easements satisfactory to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for the purpose of "Power Line" in the favour of "SPI Electricity Pty Ltd" pursuant to Section 88 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, where easements have not been otherwise been provided, for all existing SPI Electricity Pty Ltd electric power lines and for any new power lines required to service the lots on the endorsed plan and/or abutting land.
• (e) Obtain for the use of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd any other easement required to service the lots.
• (f) Adjust the position of any existing SPI Electricity Pty Ltd easement to accord with the position of the electricity line(s) as determined by survey.
• (g) Set aside on the plan of subdivision Reserves for the use of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for electric substations.
• (h) Provide survey plans for any electric substations required by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd and for associated power lines and cables and executes leases for a period of 30 years, at a nominal rental with a rights to extend the lease for a further 30 years. SPI Electricity Pty Ltd requires that such leases are to be noted on the title by way of a caveat or a notification under Section 88 (2) of the Transfer of Land Act prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision.
• (i) Provide to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd a copy of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification that shows any amendments that have been required.
• (j) Agree to provide alternative electricity supply to lot owners and/or each lot until such time as permanent supply is available to the development by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd. Individual generators must be provided at each supply point. The generator for temporary supply must be installed in such a manner as to comply with the Electricity Safety Act 1998.
• (k) Ensure that all necessary auditing is completed to the satisfaction of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd to allow the new network assets to be safety connected to the distribution network.

28.1 That the plan of subdivision submitted for certification be referred to Telstra in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

28.2 Telstra will not consent to the issue of a Statement of Compliance until such time as the applicant provided satisfactory evidence of Compliance with the above condition.

29.1 Each lot must be independently serviced with water supply and metered to the satisfaction of North East Region Water Authority at the applicant's cost.

29.2 The subdivision must be serviced with sewerage to the satisfaction of North East Region Water Authority at the applicant's cost.

29.3 Water supply and sewerage system headworks charges must be paid as determined by North East Water's policy for development charges.

29.4 Easements must be provided over sewers to the satisfaction of North East Region Water Authority.

29.5 The plan of subdivision for certification must be referred to the Authority in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

29.6 Ensure that any private water services do not traverse external property boundaries and are supplied independently from an approved point of supply.

29.7 Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 consent must be obtained from North East Region Water Authority.

This permit expires if the subdivision is not commenced within 2 years from the date of issue and completed within 3 years of the date of commencement unless either of these dates are extended by the Responsible Authority in writing. An application for extension of time must be lodged in writing before the permit expires or within 3 months after the expiry

[1] Victorian Heritage Register (H1549), National Estate (Place ID: 4546, National Trust (Victoria) (file no. B624)

[2] Beaver v Indigo SC [2008] VCAT (23 July 2008)

[4] McLaughlin v Hume CC & Australian Pacific Airports Pty Ltd [2008] VCAT 1766

[5] Burns Bridge Services Pty Ltd v Greater Bendigo CC & Others [2005] VSC 422 [42]

[7] Lovell Chen, Architects & Heritage Consultants & John Patrick Pty Ltd, November 2005