1. It is proposed to demolish the existing non-contributory dwelling, and to construct two double-storey dwellings and a front fence. Associated subdivision of the land into two lots is also proposed.
2. Dwelling 1 at the front of the site would contain three bedrooms, a study and two bathrooms, with living areas at ground floor and first-floor levels, and a detached single garage fronting towards Scott Street. The dwelling would be setback by 8.14 m from Scott Street with the garage setback 10.64 m from the street. The first floor would be setback 6.18 m from the front building line of the dwelling, or 14.32 m from the street. Private open space is proposed at the rear of the dwelling.
3. Dwelling 2 at the rear of the property would also contain three bedrooms, a study and two bathrooms, with living areas at ground floor and first-floor levels. An attached double garage is proposed at the rear to be accessed from the rear laneway. Private open space is to be located at the side of the dwelling. A 1.6 m wide pedestrian access to Scott Street (opening to 1.8 m near the street) is proposed for the dwelling.
4. Each dwelling would have rendered cladding on the ground floor walls and weatherboard cladding on the first floors, with colorbond roofing. A 1.5 m high timber picket fence is proposed at Scott Street, with a gate to the pedestrian accessway to Dwelling 2.
5. The proposed subdivision would create a lot for each dwelling, with no common property.

What is the history of the planning application, and the appeal grounds?

1. The permit application was lodged on 5 May 2011 and notice was given to eight adjoining and nearby property owners and occupiers. Two (2) signs were placed on the street frontage, and 13 objections were received. The main grounds of objection included the removal of vegetation, overlooking and overshadowing, traffic impact, and inconsistency with local heritage character.
2. The application was referred to Council's engineering unit and to its heritage advisor. The engineering unit provided standard conditions for drainage and access for the development and subdivision. The heritage advisor proposed that there are no heritage impacts associated with the removal of the non-contributory dwelling. The heritage advisor also proposed that the setback of dwelling one should be extended from 7.5 to 7.9 m as the setback should be taken from the main wall pain not the front veranda. This is particularly because the neighbouring dwelling at 23 Scott Street has a front setback of 10.5 m to the wall pane.
3. The heritage advisor considered that while Scott Street is identified mainly by single storey dwellings there are substantially recessive two-storey additions nearby at 21 Scott Street (with a setback of approximately 17 m from the front boundary). The advisor identified that while the policy for Belmont Heights Heritage Area encourages single-storey building heights it also states that buildings, works in fences should comply with the city's heritage and design guidelines 1997. These guidelines indicate that 'two-storey components are possible but that the elevated components need to be substantially setback from the front (at least 5 m from the main front wall plane), set in from the sides of the building footprint, be subservient in proportion to the main ground floor component (when viewed from the front) and have similar roof forms, design articulation and construction as the ground floor component'.

1. The R3Z provides for a range of residential densities and varieties that respects neighbourhood characters. It provides for a range of densities and a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. It also seeks to ensure appropriate heights (to 9 m) and respect for neighbourhood character. The R3Z also provides for other non-recreational uses (eg: educational, recreational, religious and community facilities) to serve local community needs. While both the R3Z and the R1Z (which is immediately on the eastern side of the rear access laneway) both provide for incremental growth, increases the private open space area requirement to 60 m2 with one part being to the side or rear with convenient access from a living room.
2. The state and local policy sections of the planning scheme broadly seek to provide for a diverse range of housing and housing types, and housing affordability, to meet changing community needs, particularly in middle and outer suburbs and to encourage the development of well designed medium-density housing that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure, and improves the energy efficiency of housing. These themes are developed through State policy clauses 11, 15 and 16, which also broadly seek for development to contribute positively to local urban character and sense of place, cultural identity, and minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. Cl. 15.03-1 Heritage Conservation in part seeks to retain elements that contribute to the importance of heritage places and to encourage appropriate development that creates a worthy legacy for future generations.
3. Consistent with State policy, the local Municipal Strategic Statement seeks to achieve orderly planning in Geelong though a range of development densities and improved accessibility to urban services. It seeks to accommodate medium and high density housing in key development areas as identified in the Geelong City document titled 'Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas' of July 2009 that is incorporated into the planning scheme. The MSS seeks to maximise housing opportunities in identified increased housing diversity areas by accommodating medium-density housing in residential areas, with more intensive development being located closest to the core of activity centres. It promotes incremental change in R3Z areas.
4. Neighbourhood character is an important element in all planning schemes. In the Geelong scheme, cl. 21.06-4 Neighbourhood Character also seeks for new development to respond to existing neighbourhood character and protect areas with significant garden character. This clause also supports medium density housing in the R3Z and recognises that neighbourhood character in increased housing diversity areas will adapt and evolve, and intensify over time, particularly in and on the edges of activity centres. Importantly, cl. 21.06-5 encourages the design of new development in heritage areas to provide a 'contemporary interpretation' that relates to the location and bulk form and materials of existing development including significant neighbouring buildings. This is to ensure positive contribution to local built form and amenity.
5. The Heritage Overlay in the Victoria Planning Provisions broadly seeks to conserve and protect heritage places in part by ensuring appropriate surrounding development. In the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Schedule 1904 to the overlay (HO1904 Belmont Heights Estate Heritage Area) is at cl. 22.40. The Schedule seeks to retain and enhance streetscape qualities including nature strips, rear and side lanes, and garden settings. It also seeks to retain the small-scale and medium-scale residential buildings feel within the heritage area as identified in the report titled Belmont Heritage Areas: Inventory of Places Volume 2 (2007). More specifically it seeks to:
   • Retain the uniformity of scale throughout the heritage area including single-storey height, regular front and side setbacks and side or rear driveways, building separation and subdivision pattern.
   • Encourage innovative contemporary interpretation of traditional building design which may include detached buildings, hipped and/or gable roof forms (with the pitch between 20 and 35°); front or side verandas, and minimal timber detailing.
   • Encourage use of traditional construction materials including horizontal timber weatherboards, face brick wall construction, timber framed windows, and non-zincalume corrugated sheet metal roofing or roof tiles.

It also seeks to retain appropriate front fence styles to a maximum height of 1.3m, and to encourage appropriate form and scale of garages and carports located at the rear of existing or infill buildings. The policy section of the clause seeks to secure the above features in new developments. It also seeks in part to:

• Encourage the retention of existing allotment configuration, including the side and rear lanes.
• Encourage front setbacks that are equivalent to the setback of neighbouring buildings, or if these are different, the setback may be between the setbacks of neighbouring buildings.
• Encourage side setbacks that are equivalent to neighbouring buildings within the heritage area and have a rear or side driveway or rear access.
• Encourage building heights to be single storey and comply with the following:

It further seeks to link features including roof heights and roof form and massing to 'the highest adjacent significant building visually connected to it'.

1. I accept from the information put to me, the appellant's proposal that there are three main issues in dispute here:
   • How are competing policies and controls balanced and assessed across neighbourhood and heritage character, and local identity, versus urban consolidation and diversity?
   • Is the proposed development respectful of existing and preferred neighbourhood character?
   • Is the development consistent with the purposes of the Heritage Overlay and the R3Z?

While there are overlapping elements across these questions particularly relating to neighbourhood and heritage character, I use the questions as the basis for my discussion but in reverse order.

1. I first make the point however, that the Tribunal has regularly held that respect for heritage and neighbourhood character does not imply mimicking existing features. Rather, it infers the use of design and construction elements such that new development sit comfortably within the context, based on whatever measures might be locally appropriate. Secondly, neighbourhood characters evolve continuously, and it is clear state and local policy that living densities will increase and that the diversity of housing styles and configurations will also increase in response to the evolution of our society. Thirdly, I emphasise that interpretation of 'character' is not a science and it elements of both objectivity and subjectivity must emerge in character assessments of proposals.
2. I note that the above identified matters identified by Mr King are at the broader strategic level and do not focus on amenity impacts on the property at 27 Scott Street.

Is the development consistent with the purposes of the R3Z?

1. I find that the proposal is consistent with the broad-based purposes of the R3Z in that it does present variety and incrementally increased residential density. I consider that proposals for a two-dwelling development, either single-storey or double-storey, on a large residential lot as is the case here, can be consistent with incremental change in either the R3Z or the R1Z. Two-storey developments are commonplace and anticipated in both zones, and there is nothing in my opinion, including inclusion of the site in the Heritage Overlay that should preclude the conditional introduction of two-storey developments into the area. This is consistent with my previous reference from Geelong's heritage and design guidelines of 1997 that in part, two-storey components are possible provided the elevated components are substantially setback from the front. The appropriate focus here is therefore rightly placed on specific details of the proposal within its local context, rather than its compliance with the broader purposes of the R3Z.

Is the proposed development respectful of heritage and existing and preferred neighbourhood character?

1. I find that the proposal is adequately respectful of neighbourhood and heritage character. While the local area is a heritage neighbourhood, it is relatively extensive and diverse in appearance. It does not have the same heritage 'intensity' of old inner city areas for example, and I find that this opens the area to a more liberal interpretation, than would apply for more defined heritage areas. Further, it must be anticipated that further proposals for two-storey medium-density dwellings will evolve in this area, and it would be unfortunate if a negative focus evolved regarding two-storey developments, rather than on whether or not two-storey developments proposals 'have got it right'. In short, I do not find the heritage values in this area to be of such strength as to isolate the area from future evolution involving two-storey developments.
2. Ms Katz evidence was contrary to the position put by the Council on several matters. She and Mr King representing Mr and Mrs Burke, and Mr Tim Boyd of the Belmont Residents Group all presented that the proposal does not provide an appropriate balance between the competing interests of change, and the need to respect, conserve and enhance local heritage values. Ms Katz's main submissions in summary proposed the following:
   • The proposal will dominate the streetscape and neighbours, and is inconsistent with the existing settlement patters and uniformity of the heritage area. Inconsistencies with local character include building claddings and height, the changed position of the new crossover, site coverage, and the addition of a pedestrian access to the rear Dwelling 2 from Scott Street. In short, it was stated that these changes will adversely alter the 'rhythm of the street' which has 'a high number' of contributory dwellings.
   • The 'lack of sense of place' for Dwelling 2 is not ideal, with its main access being via a narrow walkway from Scott Street.

• The configuration and design, in part including the use of contemporary materials and loss of spaciousness, does not contribute positively to the local urban character.
• The design and location of the second storey of the units will cause a 'significant' detrimental impact particularly on the neighbouring property at 27 Scott Street, in part relating to the proposed 1m setback of the upper storey of Dwelling 1 from the side ground floor walls, and related 'unacceptable' overshadowing.
• The cultural identity and neighbourhood character are not protected by the building height (being 1.3 to 1.7m higher than the immediately adjoining properties, location, and second-storey elements of the design.
• The proposed zero setback of the rear garage for Dwelling 2 at the rear 4.6 m wide laneway is inconsistent with the standard 1 m to 1.5 m setbacks that has been required in the past, and will not provide for adequate turning space for access into and egress from the garage. Rectification of this matter, associated with retention of the proposed minimum 6 m length of the garage will require the ground floor width of Dwelling 2 by at least 1 m.

Vehicle access off Scott Street and pedestrian access to Dwelling 2.

1. I find there is no basis to the assertions that the changing the position of the vehicle crossover to the opposite side (north side) of the lot, and the creation of a pedestrian access to the rear of the land with an associated gateway at the front of the site will break the rhythm of the streetscape and be inconsistent with local character. There would remain a single vehicle crossover, and I consider that whether it is on the north or south side of the lot is inconsequential in the overall scheme of things. Similarly, I find that pedestrian gates separated from vehicle crossover points and side paths from the front to the rear of single dwellings are common in residential areas, and that in this case it will not be evident to general passers-by that the single gate at the front is providing access to a rear dwelling. I am also unable to see the relevance of this matter to this decision.
2. I find nothing in policy information before me to suggest that a residence at the rear of a lot must have a 'sense of place' to the front streetscape. In fact, it is commonly put to the Tribunal that the presence of rear dwellings should be diminished in part for retention of existing streetscape form. It can also be argued that this aspect of the proposal adds diversity which is sought by state and local policy in residential areas. I further accept that the presence of the rear laneway has facilitated the potential to the minimise presence of Dwelling 2 from Scott Street, and I consider this to be appropriate. It may suit some residents to have no street presence, and in the absence of opposing policy I cannot find against the proposal on this matter.
3. It was put to me by Mr Boyd of the Belmont Residents Group that the unsealed laneway was not intended for the scale of vehicle use that would be generated from Dwelling 2 at the rear of the site. I cannot not accept this assertion as current garages accessed from the laneway, are clearly well used and they access single dwellings as would be the case here.

1. On the matter of design and configuration I find that the appearance of the proposed development through Dwelling 1 at the front of the site to be acceptable. The roof lines are similar and the hipped roof form on the lower level is consistent with roof forms common in the street. I am satisfied that this together with the setback of the second floor by 5581 mm and 6670 mm from the front face of the ground level of the dwelling provides a suitably recessive outcome for the upper floor. Consistent with this I am satisfied that in the open context of the Scott Street area the additional 1.3 m to 1.8 m recessive height of Dwelling 1 above those of the neighbouring dwellings, will not present as an overburdening influence on the streetscape in this area. In the current case there is a 'visually connected' double-storey dwelling at 29 Scott Street, and the height of the dwellings proposed here will be compatible with the height of that dwelling. Some amount of increased height will inevitably occur on two-storey developments proposals.
2. I am satisfied that the design generally provides adequate consideration of impact on the neighbouring property at 27 Scott Street. The proposed setback of the upper floor from the front of the dwelling reduces shadow cast into that adjoining property, relative to that which would occur if the second storey was proposed to be set further forward. The Council proposed that the need for a minimum 1 m setbacks from the side ground floor wall planes for the two-storey components, and a minimum 2 m perimeter wall heights for the two-storey components with interior ceilings being coved to create the additional necessary floor to ceiling height. Council also proposed reduction in the second storey eave overhangs to reflect its intended more subservient proportion. I agree with these positions.
3. Ms Katz proposed that the front dwelling should be reduced to single-storey, clad with materials that are more typical of the local area. She proposed that alternatively, the development could be 'flipped' to retain the driveway in the existing position and the two-storey element to the northern side of the lot to impact less on the property at 27 Scott Street. I do not consider these proposals to be necessary.
4. The September solstice shadow diagrams show that the remaining open courtyard along the north side of the dwelling at 27 Scott Street which has an area of area of about 6.5 m by about 2.5 m will experience shading through the middle of the day, potentially for about 2 hours. This needs to be balanced with the shade currently cast by the high paling fence that is about 2m high.
5. I consider that the proposed external cladding materials provide an acceptable contemporary interpretation for the area. As I have previously identified it is not a requirement for design and materials to mimic existing design and materials.

1. During the hearing it was suggested that the zero setback of the Dwelling 2 garage at the rear 4.6m wide laneway, would not provide for appropriate vehicle access into and egress from the garage. As Mr Elliott and the Council representative indicated that there was no advice on this matter including from Council's engineering department I requested the permit applicant to provide a swept path analysis for movement in and out of the garage. This and following comment from the other parties was subsequently received by the required dates. In the meantime I inspected the site, and as the laneway is unsealed I was clearly able to observe turning patterns into various garages along the laneway. I was satisfied from my inspection that the proposal before me with zero setback to the garage is not adequate. This was confirmed in advice from Council in correspondence of 14 February 2013. This in part stated the following:

Upon review of the plans dated 30 January 2012, Council's Engineering Unit has commented that the garage should comply with the relevant Australian Standard (attached). This would result in the requirement for a 5.6 metre apron width to access each car space.

Considering the current accessway width is shown as 4.6 metres, the garage should be set back one metre from the east side boundary. It is considered that this can easily be accommodated with minimal redesign of the development. Council respectfully submits that the Tribunal consider this requirement to be included as part of the recommended condition 1, should it direct a permit to be issued.

1. I accept Council's above revised position on this matter, which was accompanied by a diagram, and I deal with it accordingly in the permit conditions.

Does the proposal provide a reasonable balance across policies and controls for neighbourhood and heritage character, versus urban consolidation and diversity?

1. On balance in considering all of the above matters, I find that proposal does satisfy the broader state and local policy provisions of the planning scheme. I therefore find that the merits of the application relate to specific aspects of local neighbourhood character, and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties, which in part requires consideration against ResCode at cl. 55 in the planning scheme.

Amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties particularly at 27 Scott Street

1. I note that the side and rear setbacks of the proposed development accord with ResCode Standard B-17, and the Council has assessed that daylight to habitable room windows at the adjoining properties will accord with relevant ResCode standards, and overshadowing will not occur into the primary private open space areas of the adjoining properties. While compliance does not in itself guarantee approval, it is clearly important and I make the following observations.
2. I consider that the proposal provides a reasonable regard to the amenity at neighbouring properties particularly at 27 Scott Street to the south. I have previously identified that the dwelling on that lot is not orientated towards the north, and that there is a high paling fence of at least 2 m on the common boundary with the review site. The carport/children's play area is heavily shaded, with there being just a narrow gap between the top of the fence and the roofline at the boundary. Also the height of the fence will cast significant shadow onto the open area. I therefore consider that the proposed siting of the second storey at Dwelling 1 on the review site will have little amenity impact into the play area and the open area. There will also be some middle-of-the-day shadowing at the September solstice onto windows along the northern face of the extension to the dwelling. This would likely have some impact on several windows that look towards the boundary fence (and are likely to be shaded by it). Overall, I consider that the proposed development will cause little if any light to be lost from the rooms.
3. No matters have been raised with me regarding amenity impact on the neighbouring property to the north at 23 Scott Street.
4. I therefore find that while some impact will occur at 27 Scott Street, the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its amenity impact on neighbouring properties.

1. I am satisfied with Council's assessment of the proposal against ResCode. My following comments relate to matters which I have not already covered. While standard B6 requires the Street setback of 9 m I accept the proposed setback of 8.14 m with the garage setback 10.64 m from the Street will generally satisfy the objective and provide a graduation between the neighbouring properties with setbacks of 10.54 m and 7.5 m respectively.
2. The following features also satisfy ResCode requirements: building height (7.5 m), proposed site coverage (47%), permeability (40%), private open space (over 60 m² of total private open space for each dwelling), and external storage. The high side boundary fences will prevent overlooking at the ground floor, and the first floor windows will have a minimum sill height of 1.7 m where overlooking could occur, and thus comply with the ResCode standard.

1. I regard the proposal to subdivide the review lot into two lots as ancillary to the proposal for the development of two dwellings. An argument was put to me that while there are local subdivided lots in the R3Z these are outside of the heritage overlay area. I have previously stated in that it would be unfortunate if two-dwelling proposals were to be rejected as a matter of course rather than being considered on their merits. In this case I have considered the proposed two-dwelling proposal to be appropriate in this setting, and on this basis I also accept the associated subdivision proposal.

1. The proposed front fence at the development should be reduced to 1.3 m to conform with local policy.

1. The Tribunal can be satisfied with the absence of a detailed landscape plan at the application stage, if it is otherwise satisfied that the site provides a suitable capacity for landscaping. I accept in this case that the front setback of Dwelling 1 from Scott Street provides adequate scope for a suitable landscape response. I note that it is not common for dwellings in this area to have wide side setbacks that provide for a substantial landscape treatment. I am satisfied here for a condition to be applied requiring a detailed landscape plan to be approved by the Responsible Authority as part of the permit.

1. As the existing dwelling has no identified heritage value its retention is not required.

1. I support the proposal on broad state and local policy directions, and on consideration of local heritage matters. I have further found that its only real potential impacts are on the immediate neighbours at 27 Scott Street. On this basis it cannot be argued that there is a net dis-benefit to the wider community.

1. All policy statements require periodic review and the current local precinct policy statements were prepared around the turn-of-the-century. Since this time state policy has moved towards increased densities and diversity in housing. At some stage it will be necessary to determine if local policy adjustments are needed in context of contemporary state policy state policy.

1. On consideration of all information before me, I conclude that it is appropriate to approve a permit for the development proposed at 25 Scott Street, Belmont, including the proposed subdivision of the lot, conditional upon amendment to the plans to inset the garage of Dwelling 2 by one metre from boundary of the review lot with the rear laneway, and other requirements identified in Condition 1 for the permit.

The permit allows: Demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings, construction of two (2) double storey dwellings and front fence, and subdivision of the land into two (2) lots.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the amended plans issued on 7 December 2011 but modified to show:

1. Minimum 1 m setbacks from the side ground floor wall planes for the two-storey component of 'Town House 1'. 2. Maximum 2m perimeter wall heights for the two-storey components of 'Town House 1', with the interior ceiling being coved to create the additional necessary floor to ceiling heights.

1. Minimum 1m setback of the garage to 'Town House 2' from the boundary of the lot at the rear laneway.

1. Reduction in the eaves overhangs of the two-storey component of 'Town House 1'. 2. Front fence to be a maximum height of 1300mm, to scale and annotated on the site plan and elevations. 3. Screening or fencing to a height of 1800m m to the north boundary fence, in order to comply with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. 4. Sill heights of the north-facing first floor windows of 'Town House 1' to be a maximum of 1.7m above floor level, in order to comply with standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, the developer must construct:
   1. the site stormwater system including connections for each unit into the kerb and channel in Scott Street, or other nominated point/s as approved by the Responsible Authority, and no stormwater shall drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties. The stormwater connection must be in accordance with the city of Greater Geelong Standard Drawings.
   2. concrete vehicular crossings in accordance with the requirements and standards of the city of Greater Geelong. A Vehicle Crossing Permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of works. Any redundant vehicle crossings must be removed, kerb and channel reinstated, and the footpath/nature strip area reinstated to match existing construction in the street;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of development, three (3) copies of a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified or experienced person, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan(s) must be drawn to scale and show:

1. a survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed; 2. details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;

1. a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All external walls on or facing property boundaries must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The external fabric, including the roofing, must be in muted zonings of non-reflective material so as to blend with the environment and preserve the aesthetic amenity of the area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The colour of the proposed concrete crossover must match the existing concrete paths, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The layout and site dimensions of the proposed subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan (s) must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. There are no requirements to alter or modify the endorsed plan if a plan is certified under the provisions of the Subdivision Act 1988 that is generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, storage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunications services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authorities requirements and relevant legislation at the time.
2. 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.
3. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

1. The Plan of Subdivision submitted for certification must include a section 12 (2) implied easement statement.

1. Prior to the certification of the Plan of Subdivision all easements deemed necessary to protect existing or future drainage lines within the subject site, and any easements required between the subject site and the nominated legal point of discharge must be created to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the statement of compliance for the subdivision, the developer must construct:
   1. the site stormwater system including connections for each unit into the kerb and channel in Scott Street, or other nominated point/s as approved by the Responsible Authority and no stormwater shall drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties. The stormwater connection must be in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Standard Drawings.
   2. Vehicular crossing laybacks in the curb and channel in accordance with the requirements and standards of the City of Greater Geelong. A vehicle crossing permit must be obtained prior to commencement of works. Any redundant vehicle crossing must be removed, kerb and channel reinstated and the footpath/nature strip area reinstated to match existing construction in the Street;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the issue of the statement of compliance:
   1. the development approved by planning permit for 485/2011 must be substantially completed (eg: lock-up stage as a minimum) in accordance with the endorsed plans forming part of that planning permit (or any amendment to that permit) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Evidence must be submitted which demonstrates that the development is substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

1. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which provides for all development to be in accordance with the endorsed plans forming part of the planning permit 485/2011 (or any amendment to that permit) or any subsequent Planning Permit.

The owner must pay the costs of preparation, review, execution, registration of the agreement and the agreement must be registered on the newly created title/s. The Section 173 Agreement may be ended by the Responsible Authority at the written request of the owner and at no cost to Council.

17 This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

1. The development of the building (s) hereby approved has not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
2. The Plan of Subdivision has not been certified within two (2) years of the date of this permit.

1. The development of the building (s) hereby approved is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

1. A statement of compliance is not issued within five (5) years of the date of certification.

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

__________________ End of Conditions ________________