1. Pursuant to s.60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1988, Mr Markus Leufgens is joined as a party to this proceeding.
2. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
3. In permit application 736/2013/P a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 114 Gould Street, Frankston, in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
   • (a) Development of two additional dwellings on a lot and modifications to an existing dwelling in the General Residential Zone - Schedule 1 (GRZ1);
   • (b) Buildings and works in a Design and Development Overlay (DDO6);

Ms Virginia Jackson, town planner of Harlock Jackson.

Ms Adrianne Kellock, town planner Kellock Town Planning.

Construction of two dwellings additional to an existing dwelling on the land. All of the dwellings would be attached.

Each of the proposed dwellings would contain two bedrooms and a single garage. Unlike Unit 3, Unit 2 has a reverse living arrangement with main living areas at first floor level and a 14sq.m deck on its north side. Its garage is to be accessed from Mary Street while vehicle access is proposed to Unit 3 from Gould Street. A 9sq.m balcony for Unit 3 facing Gould Street would supplement a 19sq.m courtyard on the south side.

No substantial modifications are proposed to the existing dwelling (which is shown as having at least 4 bedrooms on the plans) other than those required to facilitate the construction of the two new dwellings. This includes a new fire-rated wall on the east side and the removal of some windows on this side and removal of one of two external stair cases. A large 38sq.m deck on the west side and undercroft carpark for at least 2 cars would remain.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - to review a decision to refuse a permit.

• General Residential Zone - Schedule 1 "General Residential Areas" (GRZ1).
• Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 6 "Frankston-Seaford Coastal Strip" (DDO6).

• Clause 32.08-4 - Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (GRZ).
• Clause 43.02-2 - Buildings and works (DDO6).

• Clauses 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21.03, 21.04, 21.05, 21.07, 21.10, 22.08, 55 and 65.

This 547sq.m relatively flat site located on the south-west corner of Mary & Gould Streets, Frankston, has frontages of 30.48 and 18.16m respectively. The land is developed with a 3-storey timber dwelling with a pitched metal roof and large undercroft carport and utility area.

The dwelling is sited on the western half of the land and to its east are two outbuildings. Vegetation is scattered throughout, comprising mostly weed species.

Surrounding development is residential, comprising a mix of one and two-storey dwellings.

Mary Street is a short, dead-end street which allows pedestrian access to the foreshore.

I undertook an inspection of the site and surrounds on the morning of 25 June 2015.

Lebedev v Frankston CC [2013] VCAT 1953

Sprut Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1675.

Benc v City of Doncaster & Templestowe 1996/38819 unreported.

K & B Reichert v City of Banyule & Ors (1996) VICCAT 44.

Reid v Nillumbik SC (No.3) [2011] VCAT 925.

Brentwood Homes v Mornington Peninsula SC & Ors [2012] VCAT 39.

Amoco Australia Limited v City of Berwick 1983 1PABR.

1. This is a repeat appeal involving the construction of two additional dwellings on a 547sq.m corner lot in Frankston in the area between the foreshore and Kananook Creek known as Long Island.
2. This proceeding has been prompted by the Council's decision to refuse a permit despite its officers recommending the grant of a permit. The Council contends that the proposal is not respectful of the existing and preferred character, does not appropriately respond to the DDO6, is an overdevelopment and has an inadequate front setback.
3. The Applicant contends that the proposal is acceptable and has satisfactorily responded to the shortcomings identified by Member Glynn in the previous case of Lebedev v Frankston CC.
4. In that case, also for 2 additional dwellings but larger in scale at 3-storeys and which proposed more substantial internal and external modifications to the existing dwelling, Member Glynn affirmed the Council's decision to refuse a permit. The development's excessive scale, bulk, intensity and inadequate street setbacks were primary reasons for refusal.
5. Mr Leufgens, one of three objectors to the permit application, accepts that this proposal is an improvement on the previous one but like the Council believes that it does not go far enough in responding to the shortcomings found by Member Glynn to warrant a refusal.
6. The key issues for consideration in this case are whether the current proposal has responded satisfactorily to the problems identified with the earlier 3-storey proposal and whether it is now acceptable in its own right[1] - particularly in relation to its height, bulk setbacks, landscaping and off-site amenity impacts.
7. My task now is to decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Assisted by my inspection and having considered all submissions and evidence including the relevant provisions of the Frankston planning scheme and the statement of grounds lodged by Anthony and Belinda Smith, I have decided to grant a permit. My reasons follow.

WHAT PRINCIPLES APPLY WHEN CONSIDERING REPEAT APPEALS?

1. It has been long held that an applicant can make repeated applications for a permit and seek to have them reviewed.[2] In doing so, there a number of accepted principles that are relevant to the consideration of what is commonly termed "repeat appeals". A comprehensive discussion of these can be found in Sprut.
2. These principles, which I adopt, are that:
   • Earlier decisions should be taken into account and given great weight.[3]
   • Earlier decisions should not be reversed unless a change in circumstances warrant a different view.[4]
   • Circumstances that might justify a departure from an earlier decision are:
     • significant changes in the application itself;
     • changes in the circumstances of the land and its surrounds;
     • changes in planning policy; and/or
     • changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.[5]
   • "Classic" repeat appeals can be distinguished from "correcting" repeat appeals the latter which genuinely seek to mend deficiencies found by the Tribunal to exist with an earlier proposal.[6]
   • Identical proposals ("classic" appeals) that do not satisfactorily address substantive shortcomings identified in an earlier decision, but which might be regarded as an attempt at 'forum shopping' or at wearing down opposing parties are frowned upon.[7]
   • While any "correcting" proposal must be considered on its merits, as a whole and afresh, that is 'de novo', equity and fairness demands that if a permit applicant is found to have satisfactorily addressed the matters raised in the previous Tribunal decision then there is a reasonable expectation that a permit will issue.[8]
3. This latest proposal falls within the category of a "correcting" proposal.

1. It was common ground that the physical circumstances of the review site and its immediate surrounds are essentially unchanged insofar as this proceeding is concerned. Therefore, I rely on the description set out in the previous decision in reaching my findings in this case.
2. Since the previous decision, there have been some changes to planning scheme provisions as relevant to this proceeding. With the introduction of statewide reforms to residential zones, the land has been rezoned from Residential 1 to the default General Residential (GRZ) and Schedule 1 applies. The DDO6 continues to apply.
3. Despite the zone change, the permissions required under the provisions of the Frankston Planning Scheme remain essentially the same. That is, a permit is required under the zone provisions for multi-dwellings. The requirements of Clauses 55 must also be met and like its predecessor, no variations to the standards of Clause 55 are made in Schedule 1.
4. A permit is required under DDO6 for buildings and works because the development, at 7.2m, marginally exceeds the 7m permit trigger point.
5. Some changes to the zone purposes have occurred which now include reference to the implementation of neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines. The zone purposes also refer to the provision of diverse housing types "and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport".
6. Schedule 6 to the DDO has also been slightly modified under Amendment C78,[9] to implement the recommendations of the Sweetwater Creek Planning Controls Investigation, 2011.
7. There have also been a number of changes to planning scheme policies since the previous decision. Notably, Plan Melbourne, the most recent metropolitan strategy has been introduced and supersedes Melbourne 2030.
8. Insofar as this proposal is concerned, none of those changes have any material bearing on my assessment of the current proposal.
9. In terms of local policies, these remain largely the same, including the site's location in Frankston Precinct 10 (F10) under Council's Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.08.
10. Amendment C95 which seeks to include the land in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone has not progressed to an extent that enables it to be given any influential weight.
11. Otherwise, there have been no changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.
12. Lastly, the final matter concerns changes made to the proposal itself.
13. Key matters that distinguish this proposal from the earlier one include:
    • The deletion of the third level of each of the two new proposed dwellings resulting in a reduction in their height from a maximum of 9m to 7.2m;
    • Modifications and upgrade of the existing dwelling is no longer proposed (other than changes required to facilitate the two new proposed dwellings);
    • Reduction in first floor footprint to both new dwellings including increased setbacks from the south boundary;
    • Reduction in the number of bedrooms in each proposed new dwelling from 3 to 2;
    • Unit 2's garage reduced from a double to single configuration;
    • Increased ground level setbacks of Unit 2 to Mary Street, varying from 2.5m to 3.9m, compared with the previous 2m to 2.23m setbacks; and
    • Reduction in the height, scale and form of framing/fin elements.

WHAT WERE THE TRIBUNAL'S KEY FINDINGS IN THE PREVIOUS DECISION?

1. It is convenient to summarise the Tribunal's previous findings by reference to the strategic context, physical context and the design response.

1. The Tribunal noted that while the site is within walking distance of the Frankston city centre where more intensive housing is encouraged by Statewide policy, under local policy the area is one of possible future coastal inundation and coastal acid sulphate soils. Thus, caution should be undertaken in intensifying development in this location. It is also not an area identified for higher density housing.
2. In balancing competing needs, the Tribunal concluded that this is not a site where "broader state directive to increase housing density close to activity centres overrides, or significantly diminishes, the locally specific directions of environmental protection and neighbourhood character".[10]

1. Gould Street is not one that has a dominance of front garden street setting. Rather, it is "dominated by garages, higher fences and often small front setbacks" particularly further south along Gould Street. On the east side of Gould Street, front setbacks are often 2 to 3 metres.
2. On the west side of Gould Street, fronts setbacks are generally more generous and have more of a garden type appearance but are often characterised by high fences and garages rather than a traditional garden setting. Dwellings range in height but appear to generally sit at or below 7m.[11]
3. Mary Street is a small side street providing pedestrian access to the beach and in contrast to Gould Street has a vegetated feel both in the road reserve and in the four properties that face the street. The other three dwellings are single storey or have a low profile two storey form. The existing dwelling on the review site is significantly higher and more dominant due to the height of the roof pitch. The three storey section is well setback from both the Gould and Mary Street frontages. Coastal vegetation, native and exotic surrounds the existing dwelling. Member Glynn concluded that:
   1. ... Overall I find the Mary Street setting to be more intimate and a low key garden setting, even with the existing dominant dwelling on the subject site. In Mary Street the preferred character attributes of an informal and coastal garden setting are more identifiable.

1. Key findings in relation to the previous design response are as follows:
   • The height and bulk of the two additional dwellings and proposed existing dwelling alterations that lead to extensive two and three storey built form are the pressing concerns in this case. (Paragraph 13)
   • The proposal would be inconsistent with the preferred neighbourhood character and in turn the objectives of the DDO6. (Paragraph 13)
   • The extent of building form over 7m, dominance of the "vertical fin walls close to street setbacks", the two storey facades to both streets and site coverage were of particular concern. (Paragraph 13)
   • Development elements over 7m should only be accommodated under DDO6 if they address a specific architectural feature or assist in achieving preferred neighbourhood character objectives. The proposal does neither of these two things. (Paragraphs19 to 23)
   • The Mary Street interface involves enclosing the existing undercroft carport and the creation of a new 2 to 3 storey façade that will sit approximately 2m from this street for a distance of over 22m. This extent and scale of built form, and the new, large different sized garage door to the existing dwelling, would be too dominant given the policy context and DDO6. A lower profile form is preferred. (Paragraphs 18 to 24)
   • Even at two storeys and with some landscaping, the dominance of the Mary Street built form would not be sufficiently respectful of the more low key and landscaped nature of this street. (Paragraph 25)
   • The Gould Street interface at two levels is less problematic than Mary Street, apart from the fin wall elements close to the street which add to the vertical dominance of the form. Notwithstanding compliance or otherwise with the relevant standard of Clause 55.03, the overall scale and form of the building so close to Gould Street was problematic. (Paragraph 26)
   • The proposal should be amended to better meet Standard B20 of ResCode in relation to the retention of daylight to the neighbouring dwelling to the south at No. 116 Gould Street (Paragraph 29).
   • Loss of light into an upper bedroom window facing the street of the neighbouring dwelling to the south would not be unduly impacted upon. (Paragraph 30)
   • In meeting the parking rates under the planning scheme and with the location of the new Mary Street cross-over where no standing restrictions apply, the proposal would not have unreasonable parking or traffic impacts. (Paragraphs 31 to 33)
2. In relation to the last two of these findings, the current proposal would not lead me to reach a different conclusion for either. Thus, my assessment focuses on the remaining deficiencies identified and this current proposal's response to them.

HAS THIS PROPOSAL RESPONDED ACCEPTABLY TO THE PREVIOUS DEFICIENCIES?

1. Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable and has responded appropriately to the shortcomings identified in relation to the previous proposal, particularly the primary concerns of building bulk and height.
2. Council's urban designer commented[12] that this proposal represents "A good solution to a corner site and provides good street address to both streets and a contemporary finish in an area of tired and aged housing and unremarkable design". This officer went on to say that the "bulk or mass is not an issue", observing that it "seems quite a bit lower than the previous application," and that it is "an appropriate fit with the area".
3. I agree with these sentiments. It is apparent that this latest proposal has been scaled back with the deletion of the third level and adopts a more restrained design approach in respect of its streetscape presentation.
4. The maximum building height is now approximately 7.2m down from 9m, which marginally exceeds the 7m that triggers a permission under the DDO6. This highest element accommodates highlight windows and the parapet roof form of both dwellings. I find this to be acceptable. This element is only marginally above the 7m threshold, is setback behind the main façade so as to be recessive in appearance, has a lightness of appearance and contributes to the architectural quality of the development. I find that it achieves the neighbourhood character design objective for this precinct of using "lighter looking building materials and finishes that complements the coastal vegetation and setting."

1. At the interface with Mary Street, the proposed two-storey elements now present as more recessive elements in the streetscape. This is due to a combination of the following factors:
   • substantial retention of the existing dwelling in its present form such that an oversized garage door and first floor projection is no longer proposed;
   • provision of a single car garage in lieu of a double garage to Unit 2 which has a greater setback and enhances landscaping opportunities;
   • the reduced footprint and varied ground level setbacks of the balance of Unit 2 along Mary Street with such setbacks now ranging from 2.43m to 4.06m compared with the approximate 2m setback previously proposed;
   • the setting back of the first floor walls to at least 3.84m beyond the deck, compared with the previous 2m minimum setback on this side;
   • the reduced height of the leading two-storey façade, which is now 6.2m to the parapet compared with the previous 7.1m to 7.4m height of these façade elements;
   • reduction in the scale and form of the vertical fin element which now presents in the nature of a balcony framing element that is more in keeping with the scale of surrounding development.

1. While the ground level footprint has setbacks that are not dissimilar to the previous proposal, the proposal when viewed from Gould Street would have a lesser degree of building bulk than its predecessor. Specifically, I note that:
   • the main façade of Unit 3 has been pulled back to at least 5.5m compared with the previous minimum of 3.6m;
   • the first floor has been further setback from the south boundary to approximately 3.49m compared with the previous minimum of 1.56m;
   • like Mary Street, the parapet framing element, unlike the previous vertical fin wall, has a more subdued scale and appearance.
2. With these modifications to the building's envelope, I am satisfied that the ground level setbacks to Gould Street are now acceptable and better respect the prevailing scale and pattern of surrounding development and the preferred character.

Interface with light court at No. 116 Gould Street

1. I am satisfied that the proposal has been designed with appropriate setbacks to the south boundary so as limit any unreasonable loss of daylight in respect of the neighbouring light court at No. 116 Gould Street.

IS THE PROPOSAL OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE IN ITS OWN RIGHT?

1. It is self-evident that this proposal will bring about some change to this part of Gould and Mary Streets. I consider however that this degree of change is consistent with the siting of surrounding development and newly emerging housing styles in Gould Street .
2. In short, I find that the proposed development will enhance the built form character of this area and achieve an acceptable fit.
3. I find that Mr Schutt's landscape proposals, which involve removal of environmental weeds from the site (Mirror Bush) and their replacement with a co-ordinated coastal planting theme that incorporates native and indigenous species will provide a suitable landscape setting for the development. In doing so, it will make a positive contribution to and strengthen the area's landscape character, consistent with the preferred character and design guidelines for this precinct.
4. An issue that I raised at the hearing concerns the use of the existing dwelling and impacts on matters such as open space provision arising from the proposed addition of two new dwellings.
5. In terms of private open space, this would be provided in the form of decking that would remain on the north and west sides. Ms Jackson suggested that the undercroft area might also partially fulfil this role. I am satisfied that the space available for this purpose in these areas would be acceptable.
6. At the hearing, I also raised the issue of overlooking from the rear portion of the deck and existing windows into neighbouring properties. Having viewed the outlook from these elements during my site visit, I am satisfied that no unreasonable overlooking would arise in relation to neighbouring sites. In saying this I note that a feature of development in this neighbourhood is that some viewing between properties is common.
7. Other matters concern the site's susceptibility to inundation from coastal waters and acid sulphate soils. In relation to the former, I am satisfied that the site is located at a level that limits this impact. On the question of acid sulphate soils, I consider that this is a question of management rather than a prohibition on development which can be dealt with through permit conditions.
8. A final issue that became apparent from my inspection is the dilapidated condition of the existing dwelling including its external stairs, deck and balustrades. While this is a matter that would be covered by relevant building legislation, I observe in passing that these elements appear to require some remedial works to facilitate their safe use.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.
2. A number of other matters about permit conditions were raised by the parties. With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:

1. The description of what the permit allows has been amended to more properly reflect the permissions required; 2. Plan notations are required showing that all works and surface materials on the road reserve associated with vehicle access are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

1. The provision of an alternative permeable surface treatment in lieu of the reinforced turf system to the driveway of Unit 2 given its partial overhang by the balcony is required;

1. The provision of an additional garden bed with suitable plants on the east side of the wall of Unit 2's ground level bedroom is to be included; 2. Reference to the landscape plan relied upon by Mr Schutt which allows for some native plants and a predominantly indigenous planting theme rather than 100% indigenous planting is acceptable; 3. Plan notations are to be included requiring all environmental weeds to be removed from the site, including the area around the existing dwelling and their replacement with suitable native and indigenous species.

1. I conclude that for the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
2. A permit is to issue subject to conditions.

• Development of two additional dwellings on a lot and modifications to an existing dwelling in the General Residential Zone - Schedule 1 (GRZ1);
• Buildings and works in a Design and Development Overlay (DDO6);

1. Before the development starts, 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 three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application prepared by Burton & Carter Pty Ltd, Reference 10016, TP01, TP02, TP04 to TP12, inclusive, Revision A, February 2014 but modified to show:
   • (a) Front picket fence to follow the alignment of a 3 metre x 3 metre splay on the corner of Mary and Gould Streets;
   • (b) Existing traffic parking signs to be notated on the plans;
   • (c) All trees growing on the site and on the adjoining properties within 3m of the boundaries must be clearly illustrated on all relevant plans to demonstrate canopy width, trunk location and clearly labelled in accordance with the Arborist Report prepared by Greenwood Consulting P/L dated 27th June 2012 and state whether the tree is to be retained or removed;
   • (d) Tree protection zones for all trees to be retained and the tree protection fence locations must be illustrated in accordance with Condition 7;
   • (e) The notation "the proposed crossover to dwelling 2 to be constructed above the existing soil level";
   • (f) All works and surface materials on the road reserve associated with vehicle access are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (g) A Construction and Environment Management Plan in accordance with Condition 10; and
   • (h) Landscaping plan in accordance with Condition 3.

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

1. Before the commencement of buildings and works, a landscape plan generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Hansen dated 24/04/2015 but modified to show the requirements of Condition 1 of this permit, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
   • (a) Notations requiring all existing environmental weeds to be removed from the site, including the area around the existing dwelling and their replacement with suitable species;
   • (b) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, size at maturity and quantities of each plant;
   • (c) The provision of an alternative permeable surface treatment in lieu of the reinforced turf system to the driveway of Unit 2 given its partial overhang by the balcony;
   • (d) The provision of an additional garden bed with suitable plants on the east side of the wall of Unit 2's ground level bedroom; and
   • (e) A predominantly indigenous planting theme.

1. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works allowed under this permit, a soil test is to be undertaken by a qualified geotechnical engineer to test for the presence of coastal acid sulphate soils, with the results to be forwarded to the Responsible Authority. The site must be assessed in accordance with EPA Publication 655 - Acid Sulphate Soil and Rock. If acid sulphate soils are found to be present, an Environmental Management Plan must:
   • (a) Be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulphate Soils) and forwarded to the Responsible Authority; and
   • (b) All works on the site must be in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan.

1. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the occupation of the development and/or commencement of the use or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.
2. Tree protection must be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development (including vegetation removal), a Tree Protection Fence defined by a 1.8 metre high (minimum) temporary fence constructed using steel or timber posts fixed in the ground or to a concrete pad, with the fence's panels to be constructed of cyclone mesh wire or similar strong metal mesh or netting with a high visibility plastic hazard tape, must be installed at the tree protection zones of the street trees numbered 3, 5, 6, 7, 12,13, 14 at a radial distance of 2m, street tree no. 4 at a radial distance of 4.8m and street tree no. 10 at a radial distance of 3m. The fence can be relocated for tree no. 7 to the edge of the proposed crossover. A tree protection fence must also be installed around any existing tree to be retained on site as recommended in the arborist report prepared by Greenwood Consulting P/L dated 27th June 2012. All fences are to be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. A fixed sign is to be provided on all visible sides of the Tree Preservation Fencing, stating "Tree Preservation Zone - No entry without permission from Frankston City Council".
4. The requirements below must be observed within this area -
   • (a) Coarse mulch laid to a depth of 50-100 mm.
   • (b) No vehicular or pedestrian access.
   • (c) The existing soil level must not be altered either by fill or excavation.
   • (d) The soil must not be compacted or the soil's drainage changed.
   • (e) No fuels, oils, chemicals, poisons, rubbish or other materials harmful to trees are to be disposed of or stored.
   • (f) No storage of equipment, machinery or material is to occur.
   • (g) Open trenching to lay underground services e.g.: drainage, water, gas, etc. must not be used unless approved by the Responsible Authority to tunnel beneath;
   • (h) Nothing whatsoever including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device is to be attached to any tree.
   • (i) No building or any other structure is to be erected.
   • (j) Tree roots must not be severed or injured.
   • (k) Machinery must not be used to remove any existing concrete, bricks or other materials.
5. All tree pruning is to be carried out by a qualified and experienced Arborist who has a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruning must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees. If pruning works are to be undertaken then these works should be carried out prior to any construction works beginning on site. Any pruning of trees located on a neighbouring property should be undertaken in consultation with the property owner

1. Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, a Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit. Any plans submitted must be consistent with all other documents approved as part of this permit. The information must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies must be provided. The Plan is to include details of the following:
   • (a) Contact Numbers of responsible owner/contractor including emergency/24 hour mobile contact details.
   • (b) Identification of possible environmental risks associated with development works.
   • (c) Response measures and monitoring systems to minimise identified environmental risks, including but not limited to acid sulphate soils, vegetation protection, fauna protection, runoff, erosion, dust, litter, noise and light.
   • (d) Location and specifications of sediment control devices on/off site.
   • (e) Location and specifications of surface water drainage controls.
   • (f) Location and specifications of fencing for the protection of trees and/or vegetation as required by the permit.
   • (g) Proposed drainage lines and flow control measures.
   • (h) Location of all stockpiles and storage of building materials.
   • (i) Location of parking for site workers and any temporary buildings or facilities.
   • (j) Details to demonstrate compliance with relevant EPA guidelines.
   • (k) Hours during which construction activity will take place.

1. Provision of a Stormwater Detention System with a volume capable of retarding the 10 year ARI flow from the development site back to a 5 year ARI pre-development value to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to commencement of development construction detailed design plans and drainage computations of the internal stormwater drainage system including the method of connection to the existing Council drainage infrastructure are to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Water Sensitive Urban Design principles (WSUD) are to be incorporated into the drainage design, which may include but not be limited to the following components or a combination thereof:
   • (a) On-site stormwater detention and rainwater tanks.
   • (b) Soil percolation
   • (c) Stormwater harvesting and Re-use of stormwater for garden watering, toilet flushing, etc
   • (d) On-site 'bio-treatment' to reduce dissolved contaminants and suspended solids.
4. Vehicle crossings must be constructed to Frankston City Council's standards and specifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted by this permit starts, areas set aside for parking vehicles, loading bays, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be :-
   • (a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
   • (c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat; and
   • (d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

1. Where the development involves work on or access to Council controlled land including roads, reserves and right of way, the owner, operator and their agents under this permit must at all times take adequate precautions to maintain works to the highest public safety standards, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Precautions must include, appropriate signage to AS 1743 Road Works Signing Code of Practice, the provision of adequate barricading of works, including trenches of Service Authorities and any other road openings, sufficient to ensure public safety.

All relevant permits must be obtained from Council for works within the existing road reserves, in addition to the planning permit.

1. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Mailboxes shall be provided to the proposed dwellings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Australia Post.
3. All plumbing work, sewer pipes etc. (except for spouting and stormwater pipes) associated with the new dwelling shall be concealed from general view.
4. Outdoor lighting must be provided, designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land.

1. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if:
   • (a) The development has not commenced within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
   • (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] For a discussion of this principle, see Sprut Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1675, a decision of Deputy President Dwyer.

[2] Amoco Australia Limited v City of Berwick 1983 1PABR

[4] See Amoco Australia Limited v City of Berwick 1983 1PABR 166 at 169 and Watkins v MMBW (1997) 9VPA 184 at 187.

[5] K & B Reichert v City of Banyule & Ors (1996) VICCAT 44.

[6] Reid v Nillumbik SC (No. 3) [2011] VCAT 925.

[7] See Amoco Australia Limited v City of Berwick 1983 1PABR 166 at 169.

[8] See Benc v City of Doncaster & Templestowe 1996/38819 unreported.

[12] See Planning Officer's report to Council meeting of 29 September 2014.