1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied.
2. The Tribunal directs that Permit No. YR-2012/278 must contain the conditions set out Appendix A
3. The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a modified permit in accordance with this order.

Mr Simon Merrigan, Millar Merrigan Land Development Consultants

Thirteen lot subdivision and associated vegetation removal.

Section 80 Planning and Environment Act 1987

cl. 35.05-3. Subdivide land in GWAZ (schedules 1 and 2)

cl. 52.17 Native Vegetation. Remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation.

cl.53 Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Region. Removal of native vegetation or non-native vegetation exceeding 5m height.

The elongated regular shaped site of 38.08ha fronts the east side of Liverpool Road (395.5m) to the west and Sheffield Road to the east (416.44m). Maximum depth is 1003.02m. The land falls about 25m from the north west to the south boundary, which is on relatively flat land. The site is used for grazing agriculture and for a wholesale tree nursery. It contains a 1940's single storey brick dwelling at an elevated site in the northwest portion of the site accessed via a 210m long gravelled driveway off Liverpool Road.

The plant nursery occupies the southeast portion of the site, fronting onto Liverpool Road. It is accessed by a second gravelled crossing and driveway off Liverpool Road at the southwest corner of the property. That driveway runs beside the southern boundary to access the farming land at the rear of the site.

Several sheds service both the dwelling and the nursery, including one housing the nursery office, and a separate garage/workshop/storage shed servicing the dwelling and associated farming operations.

There are various fenceline tree belts on internal and external boundaries. There is an area of retained native vegetation in the southeast corner of the property and scattered paddock trees across the grazing paddocks. There is a large dam in the in the centre of the property. Its overflow runs west to Liverpool Road within the catchment to Little Bungalook Creek. Boundary and internal fencing is traditional post and wire farm fencing and there is no identified restrictive covenant on the land.

1. The proposal is for a thirteen-lot subdivision and vegetation removal on the 38.08 ha review land. The land is Zoned Green Wedge A (Schedule 1) and Green Wedge A (Schedule 2) and is under the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1 (DDO1).
   • Lots 1 to 4 are proposed to front Sheffield Road to the east, to vary between 3.74 and 5.72 ha (average size of 4.65ha). They are within the GWAZ (Schedule 2) area. Building envelopes are set back at least 100m from the road frontage. Access is proposed off Sheffield Road while services would be achieved from Sheffield Road via common property. Two maintenance tracks are located towards the northern lot (lot 2) and the southern lot (lot 1) boundaries of the remnant patch of vegetation on those lots to provide suitable access to both those sites.
   • Lots 5 to 13 are in the western portion and vary between 1.15ha and 2.98 ha in size (average 2.03ha). They are within the GWAZ (Schedule 1). The existing dwelling is on proposed lot 6.
   • Within the above, lots 5 to 10 are towards the northern boundary with access proposed via an 11m wide by 210m long common property driveway containing a 3.5m wide accessway with a turning area at the eastern end and two short passing areas along its length. The driveway is also intended as the conduit for services to the lots. This would be based upon the current driveway to the existing dwelling on the review site, and would protect the existing linear driveway boundary plantings of Eucalyptus and Corymbia canopy trees that are not endemic to the area..
   • Lots 11-13 are toward the southern boundary to be accessed via a 270m long by 14m wide common property area through to lot 11, containing a 4m wide driveway. This section of the driveway is bordered by a row of mature Monterey Pines that would be retained along the southern boundary. The driveway would reduce to 11m along the side of lot 11 midway along the southern boundary of the review site, and then to a 6m wide north south common property area along the Zone boundary between the GWAZ1 and the GWAZ2. This common property area would provide services to lots 1 to 4 and to lots 11 to 13. The existing nursery occupies proposed lots 12 and 13, the latter of which fronts onto Liverpool Road.
2. The two existing gravelled vehicle crossovers are proposed for upgrading to 6m wide crossings that will access the two proposed common property driveways. The application includes native vegetation clearance in the road reserve for lots 3 and 4 at Sheffield Road. While no formal driveways are currently proposed for these lots, the future need for this is likely should dwellings be proposed in the future.
3. No septic envelopes are nominated but the Council considers the lots to be of adequate size to negate this as a consideration issue.
4. Three native trees are proposed for removal being a 10m Swamp Gum (E. ovata) which is described as hazardous, a 25m Swamp Gum (Poor to Fair condition) and an 8m Narrow Leaved Peppermint (E. radiata) (Poor condition). The loss of these trees would be countered by establishment of a 5m wide tree reserve inside the boundary of the review lot along Liverpool Road. The Council has proposed that the planting and ongoing maintenance of the tree reserve should be secured via a Section 173 Agreement registered on title. The Site Management Plan submitted with the proposal also provides for the retention of the 'bush block' on lot 1.

1. On 24 October 2012 the Yarra Ranges Shire Council determined to issue a planning permit for a thirteen lot subdivision on the land at 395 Liverpool Road, Kilsyth. However, a permit has not been issued as the Council received notice of an application for review on 7 December 2012. The applicant for review was received by the Tribunal on 27 December 2012.
2. Notice of the application had been issued under the Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 via letters to adjoining and opposite properties, and a sign was placed on the land. Relevant referral authorities were notified. The Council had sought further information under Section 54 of the Act, and one objection was received from the owner of the adjoining property to the south at 425 Liverpool Road. This related to sealing of the southern access road. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan was submitted with the application and this was approved by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. A mediation session at the Tribunal on 18 April 2013 failed to achieve an agreement.
3. The Council considered the proposal to satisfy the provisions of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. It considered there to be strong strategic justification.
4. The applicant for review now seeks to contest several conditions of the permit relating to the status and construction of roads, the requirement for a public open space contribution, and requirements for a waste management plan and a services easement. I deal with these in my discussion below

1. Surrounding land to the north, and south is also covered by the GWAZ and the DDO. The public land to the east is in the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) and the Public conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ). Those public lands are also covered by the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO), Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO15) and the Environment Significance Overlay (SLO). Land west of Liverpool Road is in the Maroondah Shire and is also in the GWAZ.
2. Overall, the land to the north south and west is occupied by rural residential type development on land that would have been grazing farmland in the past. The heavily vegetated Dandenong ranges National Park is to the east and the review land sits 'below' the Mount Dandenong telecommunication towers. The Yarra Ranges Council stated that the property forms a buffer between the National Park to the east and residential land to the west of Liverpool Road.

1. The following text identifies the most relevant planning context for the current conditions review.
2. The purposes of the GWAZ in part include the following:

To protect, conserve and enhance the biodiversity, natural resources, scenic landscapes and heritage values of the area.

To ensure that use and development promotes sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

To recognise and protect the amenity of existing rural living areas.

1. The GWAZ requires access via an all-weather road to all lots to be used for a dwelling. Further, the Zone decision guidelines require consideration of 'the location and design of existing and proposed roads and their impact on the landscape and whether the use or development will require traffic management programs'. In addition, the decision guidelines for subdivisions under the DDO in part require consideration of 'access and egress', and the design objectives of the overlay schedule seek 'to ensure that any subdivision ... is designed to protect the rural landscape and significant environmental features of the area, and minimise the impact of additional traffic generation on adjoining roads'.
2. Local policy at cl. 21.08 in the Planning Scheme provides that roadways should provide safe access to dwellings and enable waste collection. Then Objective 4 for Utilities at cl. 21.10 in the GWAZ that services including 'fully constructed roads' 'be made available to all buildings and works where required otherwise it be demonstrated that such utility services are either':
   • Able to be provided and that the installation of these services will not have an adverse impact on the environment or landscape of the area.
   • Not necessary to enable the proposed use to be conducted on the land without detriment to the environment or landscape of the area.
3. Under cl. 65.02 a responsible authority is required to consider in part the layout of roads in context of 'their function and relationship to existing roads' and 'the movement of pedestrians and vehicles throughout the subdivision and the ease of access to all lots'.

1. I agree with the Council that the primary issue here relates directly to the standard of access to be provided to the new lots. I find in favour of the Council's position on this matter.
2. While traffic generation and the number of vehicle access points are not identified issues for consideration here, the Council's permit condition 1(a) requires the status of the two proposed common driveways referred to as CP1 (the northern accessway) and CP2 (southern) to be changed to road reserves. It also requires the widening of the accessways to 13m with 5.5m wide carriageways to provide for vehicle passing, in place of the provision of passing bays. The applicant for review argued that widening of the existing driveway to lots 5 to 10 would require additional excavation into the high side of the cross slope, with adverse landscape implications, and is not warranted in context of anticipated trafficking.
3. At the end of the Hearing the Council tabled an engineering referral dated 28 May 2013 which included some proposed changes to Condition 1(a) to reflect the use of common property, should the Tribunal determine to retain the accessways as common property. These were:

1. The two common property roads with a minimum sealed width of 3.5m and crushed road shoulders to a total width of 7m. 2. The vehicle crossings connecting to the two common property roads with a minimum sealed width of 5 metres.

1. The two common property roads with approved names and the location of street blade signs on the existing road reserve.

1. Provision of turning areas at the end of each of the common properties suitable for the use of 22 tonne waste management vehicles.

The appellant advised the Tribunal in writing on 7 June 2013 that the requirements of the suggested conditions 1(b) and 1(c) are acceptable for CP2 but not for CP1, which has a cross fall and is not suited to having gravel shoulders in preference to the proposed concrete edges and passing bays. The appellant also accepted above condition 1(d) 'provided it is stipulated that the turning area can be via a t-head rather than a court bowl for reasons articulated at the hearing'.

1. I accept the Council's primary position for the accessways to become public roads, which is based on the primary advice from its engineering department. This in part stated that:

Due to the expected heavy vehicles using these access ways (including emergency vehicles and waste collection vehicles), this property should be Council roads and constructed with a sealed minimum width of 5.5m and 11m radius court bowls.

1. The proposed development is to be a permanent and spacious subdivision within any reasonable view of planning timeframes. Land is not limiting, in context of the use proposed, the quality of development can be expected to be high, and it is reasonable to expect that all lots will be developed within reasonable time. While the applicant has argued that the driveway to lots 5 to 10 will need to service only a small number of dwellings and that residents will understand and respect the limitations of the driveway, this does not account for the movement of service, trade, commercial, and potentially farming vehicles, or other 'stray' vehicles which will be additional to resident domestic vehicles. It also does not concede that from time to time inconvenience will occur, and potential disagreements may arise between parties, and that any such problem can simply be avoided through the arrangements itemised in the proposed permit conditions. I cannot identify any compelling planning reason including landscape impacts which I discuss later, to support the appellant's position regarding carriageway width. Widening of the access to lots 5 to 10 will ensure that potential for inconvenience and potential conflict into the future is minimised, and probably negated.
2. I have noted that opinion differs on what is a road and what is an accessway under Section 3 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and that the general legal consensus from material put to me is that common property access is not technically a road. I agree with Member Wilson in Smith and Anor v Yarra Ranges SC [2012] VCAT that the objectives of the planning scheme seek easy movement through neighbourhoods for all people and aim to provide an accessible and safe neighbourhood street network. I regard this as the overriding principle here that is not satisfied by the intentions of the applicant for review. I therefore find that width conditions proposed in condition 1(a) are to apply.
3. I finding on this matter I have considered that both the appellant and his son propose to reside on two separate lots on the subdivision, both serviced by the northern accessway. This was put in context of them wanting to retain a rural type environment and that no worthwhile planning purpose would be served by the provision of urban roads. I regard this as a 'point-in-time' argument that has little planning merit. Properties do change ownership within planning timeframes, and I am guided by the bigger picture planning logic rather than by current situations that may change with time. I am also not persuaded by the argument that retention of the accessways as common property is preferable to encourage lower speed. There is no particular logic to this position, and various speed control mechanisms could be invoked on a public road. I am also not influenced by the appellant's statement to the Tribunal that minimising the amount of road paving will result in a cheaper and more environmentally sensitive outcome. While I address the environmental/landscape matter below, the cost argument has no weight within this planning decision.

1. I find that exposure of a slightly higher roadside batter on the upper side of a widened northern accessway will not be a significant landscape impact within the wider area. The difference in cutting height will be minimal and there will be no off-site landscape impacts. The landscape factor does not outweigh the need for convenient and safe movement within the review site.

1. I accept the Council's position that it would be inappropriate for the accessways of the scale proposed here to be managed by a private body with future owners being burdened with the full cost of maintenance. It is a preferred achievable planning outcome for the roadways to transfer to public ownership, to be managed into the future within the Council's broader road network. In making this finding I note the Council's advice that its waste collection vehicles will not enter private property including common property. I also have no basis for questioning the advice of the Council's Engineering Department that Liverpool Road is not suitable for the collection of additional bins as it does not have a footpath or adequate verge for bins placement. I therefore accept that the accessways should not be common property.
2. I note that the appellant proposed that if the Council was not to provide an on-site garbage collection service he would accept permit conditions to require the Owners Corporation to provide the collection. This proposal does not influence my decision, which is largely based on wider considerations.
3. I accept the Council's preference for a circular turntable at the end of the accessways in preference to a turning facility to cater for a three-point turn. I consider that space is not limiting and that in the long term this will provide a preferred and more convenient outcome.

1. Under Section 18(1)(A) of the Subdivision Act 1988 the review proposal is subject to an open space contribution assessment. The Council has proposed the application of a 1% Public Open Space contribution. The appellant has proposed that this should be limited to 0.2%.
2. Under the above provision, the Council may only require an open space contribution if it considers that a proposed subdivision will create a need for more open space having regard to a range of considerations. These in part include the existing and proposed use of the land, the likelihood that existing open space will be more intensively used after than before the subdivision, the effect of the subdivision on the surrounding population, whether or not there are local 'existing places of public resort or recreation', and how much of the land in the subdivision is 'likely to be used for places of resort or recreation'. Any argument for a contribution from the current development against these criteria would be difficult to substantiate, given the very low density of the proposal, and there is no demonstrated need for the proposal to require the provision of additional public open space.
3. However, the final criterion for a contribution is 'any policies of Council concerning the provision of places of public resort and recreation'. Against this criterion the Council identified that its policies seek financial contributions except where the provision of land can contribute to open space linkages and pathways / recreational trails.
4. I accept that the Council has a rolling program of investment into open space and recreation reserves including shared use trails, and that future residents of the proposed subdivision here will have the opportunity, with all other residents, to use these facilities. The Council argued that its Recreation and Open Space Strategy that is to be considered by Council in July 2013 provides the framework for this, and requires continued investment from its Pubic Open Space Investment Fund. I accept the Strategy to be a seriously entertained planning document, and whether or not it is approved in full by the Council, it will provide a basis for ongoing investment and into new and upgraded facilities. The question is whether this justifies the requirement for a 1% contribution.
5. I take into account the proposed provision of a 5m wide tree reserve inside the Liverpool Road boundary, and the retention of the vegetation patch on Lot 1 through a management plan are reasonable environmental contributions, even though they are on private land. The 5m vegetation strip if well planned with appropriate species will add to biodiversity linkages in the shire. I have also considered the Council's position that it is seeking just a 1% contribution against 5% that could be applied under the Subdivision Act 1988. It is clear to me however, that a contribution in the order of 5% would be expected to apply to a much more intensive development than that considered here.
6. Overall, and for the reasons I have discussed, I consider appellants' case for a 0.2% contribution to be reasonable.

1. I have largely already addressed this matter. The purpose of a Waste Management Plan is to provide for the picking up and manoeuvrability of trucks within the subdivision in the context of the common property being changed to a public road. I have previously agreed that the latter should occur based on sound planning principles. I therefore accept the need for the Waste Management Plan.

1. I consider that the matter of whether services to lots are provided via common property or an easement is not a straight forward matter. On balance, I find in favour of service provider SP Ausnet which requires its services to be provided through common property and I note that this is the appellant's preference. In so finding, I am mindful of the Council's arguments against this relating to potential rear access to subdivision lots and potential complications with Owners Corporation management, and the common property will need to be the subject of a Management Plan to be approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. I accept Council's position regarding Condition 17. The condition which requires service agreements (for water, drainage, sewerage, electricity, gas and telecommunications) with relevant authorities is a standard condition that if included in the permit, will avoid the potential for issues to arise at a later date. I see no reason to remove this condition.

1. The proposal before me will result in a spacious development that can be expected to accommodate high quality developments. I find in favour of the Council, largely on matters regarding the status and design of roads within the proposed subdivision and rubbish collection. However, I have determined to vary a number of conditions. The decision of the Council is therefore varied, and a permit is to be issued subject to the conditions in Appendix A.

Thirteen lot subdivision and associated vegetation removal.

1. Prior to the commencement of works (including the removal of any trees or other vegetation) and prior to the plan of subdivision being certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, an amended plan of subdivision (2 copies) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved these plans will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

1. The two common accessways as road reserve with a minimum width of 13m, with 5.5m pavements, or similar to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, corresponding verges, street names, and 11m radius court bowls and water quality features. 2. The 6m wide section of common property for the sole purpose of provision of services.

1. Tree Protection Zone of 3.2m from Tree 1 (as shown in Area 4 in arborist report by Abortrim dated 30 September 2011).

1. Building envelopes replaced by building exclusion zones in Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the same front (eastern) setbacks to Sheffield Road as currently shown for the envelopes. 2. Amended Site Management Plan nominating either Owners or Body Corporate to undertake planting and ongoing maintenance of the tree reserve adjacent to Liverpool Road frontage.
2. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works (including the removal of any trees or other vegetation) and prior to the plan of subdivision being certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, a Land Management Plan for the management and operation of proposed Lot 1 must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved these plans will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The Land Management Plan must be reviewed and submitted to the authority/ authorities in years 2, 5 and 10. The works must at all times be conducted in accordance with the endorsed plan. The Land Management Plan must include:
   1. A description of the property including a scale plan/map, location of the remnant vegetation noted as 'Conservation Area', the property generally broken up into zones (eg: domestic, farming, conservation zone).
   2. A schedule of the works, detailing
      • The management actions to be performed (eg: fencing, weed control, pest control, revegetation)
      • The person(s) responsible for implementing the specified management actions
      • The timeline for the implementation of the management actions
      • The method by which the management action will be undertaken.
      • The standard to which the management actions will occur.
3. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works (including the removal of any trees or other vegetation) and prior to the plan of subdivision being certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, a Land Management Plan for the management and operation of the proposed common property reserve proposed for the provision of services to 11, 1, 2, 3 and 4 must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This plan must identify an ongoing management framework and responsibilities for implementation of the plan, and a staged basis for management review by the Responsible Authority. It must also provide default management provisions in the event of management being deemed by the Responsible Authority, not to the standard proposed in the management plan.
4. The layout and site dimensions of the proposed subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified unless agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.
5. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances apply:
   1. the Plan of Subdivision is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit, as evidenced by the Plan of Subdivision being certified by the Council within that timeframe; or
   2. the registration of the subdivision is not completed 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.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance an Agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must be entered into between the owner of the site and the Responsible Authority requiring:

1. Implementation of the Site Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 2. Implementation of the Land Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Implementation of the Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. That no building must be constructed within the building exclusion zones on each lot, unless further written consent is obtained from the Responsible Authority. 2. That no building or works (including trenching for services) are to occur within the tree protection zone (as shown in Area 4 in arborist report by Abortrim dated 30 September 2011.

This agreement is to be prepared by the Responsible Authority at the owner's expense and will be recorded on the folio of the register relating to this site. The owners agree to pay on demand all costs and expenses of, and incidental to the preparation execution and recording of the Agreement.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, a payment equivalent of 0.2% of the value of the land as determined by the Responsible Authority must be made to the Responsible Authority being payment of cash-in-lieu of the Public Open Space requirement.
2. This permit authorises trees as shown on the endorsed plan to be removed.
3. Prior to Certifying the Plan of Subdivision, drainage easements of appropriate widths must be shown on the plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the two roads must be constructed with a sealed surface of 5.5m wide, including appropriate drainage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, a concrete vehicle crossing must be constructed for each lot to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, piped council outfall drainage from the subdivision must be constructed to a point agreed in the drainage strategy must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, piped drainage must be constructed to drain all lots to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, an inspection/surveillance fee to the value of 2.5% of the estimated cost of road and/or drainage works must be paid to the Responsible Authority.
9. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, a maintenance bond to the value of 5% of the estimated cost of road and/or drainage works or $5000.00 whichever is greater must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
10. Prior to the approval of road and drainage construction plans for the permitted subdivision, a drainage strategy must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Drainage Strategy must show how all drainage runoff is to be controlled and treated by Gross Pollutant Trap(s) and/or other water sensitive urban design elements and must include catchments within an external to the subdivision where these catchments are deemed to be affected by, or have effect on, the subdivision.
11. Prior to the approval of the engineering construction plans for the approved subdivision a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority that documents how waste is to be collected.
12. The owner of the land must enter intro agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas, and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority's requirements and relevant legislation at the time.
13. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or proposed 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.
14. 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. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the Owner shall enter into and comply with an agreement with Melbourne Water Corporation for the acceptance of surface and stormwater from the subject land directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drainage systems and waterways, and the provision of drainage works and other matters in accordance with the statutory powers of the Melbourne Water Corporation.
2. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses
3. Prior to certification, the Plan of subdivision must be referred to Melbourne Water, in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner must enter into and comply with an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of water supply.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner must enter into and comply with an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of sewerage.

1. The Plan of Subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to Telstra in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

1. The Plan of Subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to Multinet Gas in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

1. Prior to the Statement of Compliance, the owner must enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for the extension, upgrading, or rearrangement of the electricity supply to lots on the plan of subdivision. A payment to cover the cost of such work will be required.
2. Prior to the Statement of Compliance the owner must provide easements internal and external to the subdivision in favour of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd to service lots on the plan of subdivision and/or abutting lands as required by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd. The provision of reserves for substations may also be required.

_____________________ End of Conditions ___________________