The overall height of the building lowered by 600mm from AHD 27.980 to AHD 27.380.

1. By order dated 25 October 2011, the Tribunal directed the grant of a permit.
2. By letter dated 10 November 2011, Norton Rose Australia drew the Tribunal's attention to what they suggested was an error within the Tribunal's order, and submitted that the Order should be corrected.
3. Section 119 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 provides that the Tribunal may correct an order made by it if the order contains:
   • (a) a clerical mistake;
   • (b) an error arising from an accidental slip or omission;
   • (c) a material miscalculation of figures or a material mistake in the description of any person, thing or matter referred to in the order; or
   • (d) a defect of form.
4. I am satisfied that a clerical mistake has occurred here, comprising typographical errors in condition I(a) and find it appropriate to authorise a correction of the order.

Section 79 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Stonnington Planning Scheme; Residential 1 Zone; Neighbourhood Character; Interface issues; Landscape.

Davies Henderson Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2011] VCAT 2036

1. Under clause 64 in Schedule 1 of the VCAT Act 1998, permit application no 1048/10 is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
   • Plans prepared by Domain Partnership Pty Ltd
   • Project no 09097/C, drawings nos. TPO1-TP16 all revision A
   • Dated September 2010
   • Landscape drawing no. 2599/1B prepared by Carol Frank-Mas & Associates Pty Ltd, dated 1/09/11.
2. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. 1048/10 is set aside. A permit is granted and directed to be issued for land at 11 Copelen Street and a part of 97-99 Alexandra Avenue.
3. The permit allows:
   • Construction of more than one dwelling on a lot (a four storey building containing three dwellings over a basement) generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.
4. The permit must contain the conditions set out in Appendix A.

Mr Chris Canavan QC and Ms Nicola Collingwood, Barristers, instructed by Norton Rose Australia.

• Mr Stuart McGurn, Town Planner of ERM Pty Ltd;
• Ms Carol Frank-Mas, Landscape Architect of Carol Frank- Mas & Associates Pty Ltd; and
• Mr Aaron Walley, Traffic Engineer of Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd

Mr Daniel Bowden, Town Planner of danielbowdentownplanning Pty Ltd

Mr Chris Taylor, Town Planner of Planning & Property Partners Pty Ltd

The proposal, as amended, involves the construction of three large, single level two-bedroom apartments over basement car parking. Because of the size of the building and slope of the land, the rear part of the building becomes four storeys. Open space is provided by means of generous terraces. A common garden area to the rear is made possible by the re-alignments of the rear (northern boundary), incorporating part of 95-97 Alexandra Avenue.

Application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.01-4 (construction of two or more dwellings on a lot)

Clause 43.02 (design and development overlay schedules 3 & 6)

Clauses 11, 15.01, 15.02, 16, 16.01, 18, 21.01, 21.02, 22.02, 22.06, 22.12, 55 and 65.

The land is on the northern side of Copelen Street, comprising 11 Copelen Street and part 97-99 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra. The frontage to Copelen Street is 15.67 metres, the combined depth 55.12 metres resulting in a site area of around 798 m². There is a fall of 5.69 metres from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the allotment. The land is located in a residential cul-de-sac developed with a variety of houses and apartments of different forms and eras.

An unaccompanied inspection of the site and 9 Copelen Street was made by the Tribunal on 6 October 2011, 12 Copelen Street was inspected on 12 October 2011.

1. In December 2010, Davies Henderson lodged an application with Stonnington City Council for a planning permit to construct a four storey six dwelling development with basement car park. Council failed to grant the permit within the prescribed 60-day period and the Applicant seeks a review by the Tribunal. Following the lodgement of the application for review, amended plans were prepared.
2. Council advised the Tribunal that, based on the amended plans, it would not have supported the grant of a permit. It considers that there would be a detrimental impact on the neighbourhood character due to the views of the upper level from the street and that the proposal fails to maintain an open character to the rear setback. The size of the development generates unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbours. It also fails to respect the neighbourhood character.
3. Residents on both sides of the proposed development object to it. They endorse Council's grounds of refusal saying that the building is an inappropriate response to the site. Residents say it is too close to the side boundaries which results in adverse impacts on their properties, and that the design of the building has insufficient landscaping and is out of character with the neighbourhood.

1. From the submissions put before me I consider that the key issues in this matter are:
   • Does the proposal have policy support?
   • Is the proposal an acceptable response having regard to the neighbourhood character and immediate site context?
   • Is the visual bulk presented to neighbouring properties too great?
   • Will the proposal cause unreasonable amenity impacts due to overshadowing and overlooking?
2. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered the submissions put with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, I find that with some amendment, the proposal is acceptable. Accordingly, I will set aside the decision of the responsible authority and direct the issue of a permit. My reasons follow.

1. Parties at the hearing did not dispute that there is general strategic support for a medium density development on this site. State planning policy envisages more intense development and increased densities in and around activity centres[2] and in proximity to public transport.[3] Policy encourages development which adds to the variety of dwelling types[4] and makes efficient use of infrastructure. State policy is supported by the policy in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Housing objectives include:

to maintain housing diversity and encourage a range of dwelling types that can be adapted to meet community needs including for families, young people, elderly and the disabled.

1. Relevantly, the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is to implement policy and provide for a variety of dwellings at a range of densities. The objectors queried the provision of only three dwellings within such a large building. The Applicant's response to this is that the majority of housing being constructed in the neighbourhood, particularly between River Street and Chapel Street, is for compact one and two bedroom apartments and that these three generous apartments, coupled with those at 95-97 Alexandra Avenue for which a permit has been granted, would provide precisely the diversity that Council's policies seek. I accept that this is the case and also the evidence of Mr McGurn that Copelen Street, as a discrete pocket of development, lies within the "sphere of influence" of the activity centre.
2. However, both State and Local policies also require that new development is respectful of neighbourhood character.

Is the proposal an acceptable response having regard to the neighbourhood character and immediate site context?

1. Copelen Street is a cul-de-sac. After the large original allotments of the area were subdivided, two storey houses and traditional multi unit dwellings appeared. These are still evident on both the higher (southern) and lower (northern) side of the street. Allotments at both the east and west end of the street have since been redeveloped with three storey contemporary buildings of differing styles. Nonetheless, they sit well within the existing period streetscape.
2. Council submitted that dwellings in Copelen Street are "predominately two storey" and that the proposal failed to comply with Council's policy[5] which seeks developments of a "height and scale consistent with its particular setting and location and generally respect the two storey built form character of the city's residential areas". It would appear from the bold three storey central component of 12 Copelen Street, clearly visible right from the River Street intersection, that a three storey form such as this is not unacceptable in this particular neighbourhood. The Res' submission is that the proposed building would be "discordant rather than a positive contribution to the area's character." Council considers that a further setback of the top floor and a permeable front fence are both required to achieve an acceptable streetscape outcome. Mr McGurn expressed a preference for a "more permeable fencing arrangement in order to soften the appearance of the site and provide a more engaging interface with the public realm".
3. The proposed front setback of a little over three metres sits between that of the west arm of the 12 Copelen development and that of 9 Copelen Street (ignoring the garage which is set forward of the house). This is acceptable, as an inspection reveals that the perception of the setback is altered by the curve of the bowl of the cul-de-sac. However, having reviewed the proposed Copelen Street façade, it appears to me that it is the use of heavy masonry columns to define and enclose the terraces facing the street that give the building an 'out of character' prominence, rather than the actual setback of the building. This aspect of the design needs to be re-visited and a design treatment of more lightweight appearance be devised.
4. Although there are a mixture of solid and permeable fences in the street, both numbers 7 and 9 have low fences with respectively a hedge and metal pickets above them. Number 12's grand entrance statement consists of masonry columns and metal picket gates. The flats opposite have low masonry walls as the street edge treatment. I conclude that Council's request for more open fencing is justified in streetscape terms. There are other ways to address the privacy concerns of the inhabitants of the master bedroom of apartment G01 raised by Ms Frank-Mas. In any event, this ground floor terrace is set below street level behind a retaining wall and, when viewed from the street, its windows are masked by the balcony at level 1 above. An acceptable alternative fencing would be to include the picket treatment proposed for the gates as part of the fences.
5. The respondent objectors say that the proposal is not contextual by virtue of the amount of land it takes up on the block. It is the size of the development which is out of context with the immediate neighbourhood. Whilst acknowledging that there is significant built form in the surrounding area, Council's submission supported this view. It said that the proposal fails in its response to the openness and rear garden settings which characterise the adjoining single and multi unit dwellings. Council's urban designer had identified a 'predominant open space corridor' between the sites on the north of Copelen Street and those facing Alexandra Avenue in the area from River Street to 12 Copelen Street. Council considers that this is a characteristic of the neighbourhood which ought to be preserved. I observed on my site inspection that at the River Street end, the open space supports a large double garage and at 12 Copelen Street the corridor has been narrowed to around 9 metres due to the redevelopment of that property. This landscape corridor appears to have arisen along rear boundaries due to the steepness of the escarpment at that point. The proposal for the review site retains a corridor of around 14 metres at the closest point between its built form and that of the approved development at 95-97 Alexandra Avenue. I conclude that this aspect of what may be a remnant characteristic of the immediate area will be maintained.

Is the visual bulk presented to the neighbouring properties too great?

1. Council acknowledged that the surrounding area contains buildings of significant form. These are clearly visible in both directions when one stands on site or in the neighbouring properties at 9 and 12 Copelen Street. However, Council is concerned about the amount of built form on the site, particularly at the rear where it adjoins the Res' backyard, even with the amended northern boundary. It said that the amenity issues the building raised for its immediate neighbours were an indication that it was too big.
2. The submission for the Res described the building as "monolithic in form with strong horizontal lines emphasising its length with no vertical articulation in its side setbacks." No attempt had been made to take advantage of the fall across the site of around 5 metres, nor to follow the topography of the land by splitting the building. As a result, the Res' submit that the building would overwhelm and present an unreasonable and unacceptable level of visual bulk to the dwelling on 9 Copelen Street, its terrace and swimming pool area.
3. Mr McGurn's evidence was that the issue of visual bulk had been addressed in the amended plans by increasing both the setbacks from the northern boundary and reducing the height of the building. He said that the increased setbacks from the east and west boundaries now provide meaningful opportunities for landscaping. His evidence was that the extensive use of glazing, particularly within the west elevation, will give the building a more lightweight appearance.
4. Regardless of any improvements in design arising from changes made by the amending plans, there can be no doubt that the bulk of the building, particularly apparent to the west, will be considerable. The existing development on 12 Copelen Street is instructive. I accept that the section of the building in which the Zhergs reside has been set down lower on the block, but the upper more prominent section of that development is illustrative of a roughly comparable bulk. A building of this size is not unusual in a context such as this one, in an area of rapid intensification. Similarly, narrow gaps between buildings are also evident between the period style blocks of flats opposite the review site, the height of which is equivalent to 3 modern storeys.
5. From the rear of all of the properties on the north side of Copelen Street, the visual bulk of the Alexandra Avenue section of 12 Copelen Street and other buildings west of River Street is already present. They illustrate Mr McGurn's "sphere of influence" point. The Zhergs live in a development of which visual bulk is a characteristic. The Res occupy one of only three single houses left in Copelen Street and these, from my observation, are reaching the end of their useful life. They may themselves be candidates for redevelopment in the not so distant future.
6. In reviewing the application plans, I have considered the affect of stepping the building down the site or alternatively splitting the bulk of the development into smaller components. Both of these devices would reduce the apparent bulk of the building. My conclusion is however that neither would contribute to any meaningful reduction in the visual bulk apparent from either 9 or 12 Copelen Street. Having heard the evidence of Mr Walley on the ramp design, I consider that by deleting one car space in the basement (still leaving two spaces for each of the two bedroom apartment dwellings), the building could be lowered by a minimum of 600 mm without requiring any major redesign. This would not only relate the building somewhat better to its landscape surrounds but it would also effect other amenity improvements. I am persuaded by the Applicant's landscape evidence that the planting proposed, particularly to the east and west boundaries, will also serve to ameliorate the bulk of the built form. I am satisfied that with this amendment, the visual bulk of the proposal, notwithstanding its size, will not be unacceptable in the context of Copelen Street and its surrounds.

Will the proposal cause an unreasonable impact due to overshadowing and overlooking?

1. I accept Council's submission that the four storey building results from a fall in the land and that a consideration of the proposal under the provisions of clause 55 provides a useful guide in assessing the impact of overshadowing and overlooking on adjoining properties.
2. In regard to overshadowing, Council noted that the amended proposal is compliant with clause 55 requirements, should they apply to the building. In particular, there is no additional shadowing on the pool to the rear of 9 Copelen Street after around 11 am at the equinox, nor to the east-facing windows after around 10 am. This is acceptable.
3. The extent of shadowing to the open space to the west building of 12 Copelen Street is increased in the afternoon. Mr Taylor's submission was that as there are parts of the substantial trellis screening structure currently without vegetation, its impact should be ignored. I do not agree with this submission. Mr McGurn's evidence is that the increase would be marginal over that cast by the existing trellis. In view of the compliance with the requirements of clause 55, I agree with Council officers that the proposal will not unreasonably impact this property. I find the overshadowing caused by the proposal is acceptable.
4. In regard to visual bulk, the Zhergs' submission was that in order to achieve compliance with clause 55, the balustrade of the second floor apartment and the entire third floor would need to be set back considerably further to the west. In the case of the third floor, a complying setback would be near to the centre of the review site. I consider that a more helpful assessment (using the ResCode envelope as a guide), would be to take the level of the Zhergs' terrace rather than the lower level of natural ground on the review site, at the base of the existing retaining wall. This would reduce the heights (as they would relate to a theoretical ResCode envelope) by varying amounts of around 800mm at the southern-most part of Mr Zhergs' terrace to around 1.2m at the north. Coupled with the further reduction in height that I have required, it appears from the drawings that the 'envelope' would be achieved at the first floor level. The non-compliance at the second floor level would also be lessened.
5. I agree with the evidence of Mr McGurn and Ms Frank-Mas that with in-ground planting along the eastern boundary, close planting of Pyrus calleryana which are expected to reach a height of over 9 metres above the level of Mr Zhergs' terrace. In regard to the high trellis, I note that at its northern end, it is well vegetated by creepers, but these have been cut back further to the south. The living room of this large apartment is oriented to the east, and has adjacent open space. The west facing court primarily provides a service area, overlooked by two bedrooms and the kitchen. Further, I do not think it equitable to require a setback vastly different from the one along the western boundary of 12 Copelen Street. As noted previously, narrow spaces between built form are characteristic of other multi-unit dwellings in the street. I am satisfied that the amended setbacks and heights of the proposed building together with the additional reduction in height of 600mm, is acceptable along this eastern boundary.
6. I am unsure as to whether the screening proposed to the meals area and study of apartment G01 will be necessary once the perimeter planting is established, but adopting a cautionary approach, I will require it to stay as proposed. However, I consider that screening the ground floor bedroom 2, as proposed by Mr Taylor, is unnecessary due to the existing lattice and other trees planted in the setback to the apartment in the Zhergs' block, as well as the proposed planting on the review site.
7. In terms of possible overlooking from the east terrace of apartment 2.01, I consider that this terrace would be infrequently used and in any event the steep angle of the downward viewing is interrupted by the lattice attached to the 12 Copelen Street fence. I have considered the need for some screening to the ends of the northern terrace, as there is a possibility of overlooking of the Zhergs' wider north terrace from this position. I note that a similar possibility already exists from the south-facing windows of the northern building in 12 Copelen Street. In my view such overlooking is unlikely to occur. Nevertheless, I will require some additional screening of this area.
8. Of much greater concern is the overlooking into the Res' private open space, which includes a swimming pool and a terrace with a dining table and other chairs. It is the terrace area between the pool and the house which constitutes the once secluded private open space of the Res. After the next door development is complete, they will continue to enjoy lovely views to the river and the city but with a large building to their east I accept that they may perceive overlooking. I will therefore require additional screening along the western planter to apartment G01. The reason I do this is that the planter is located on the boundary, and the floor level of apartment G01 is only around 1.3 metres above the level of the terrace. I note that this particular screening could be achieved by what appears to be a minor addition to the boundary fence, which is shown as 1.5 metres. I note too that the living and dining room areas of G01 are proposed to be screened. I think that overlooking is unlikely from the western end of the northern terrace and conclude that the deep planter box proposed is an acceptable solution.
9. At first floor level, windows to the living and dining areas of apartment 1.01 are also screened. I am assuming that section 2 (A8 on TP11) is incorrect. The plans show that there is no western terrace at this level. I accept that the sill of one of the small upper storey windows in the east wall of the north section of the Res' house is at roughly eye level of a person in bed 3 - I will require this window to be screened. This would have the consequence of also preventing views into the larger windows in the setback (southern) part of the building. I consider that the likelihood of views into the ground floor bedroom which is adjacent to the east boundary behind the Res' garage is remote. As on the floor below, I consider that the planter box at the western end of the north terrace is an acceptable barrier to overlooking from it of the Res' terrace area.
10. On the second floor, the floor level of apartment of 2.01 is roughly 1.2 metres above the gutter line of the Res' house. I consider that overlooking from any of the windows along the west will be unlikely. However, I consider that the use of the western balcony, which will provide excellent views to the city beyond, would be tempting to residents and the possibility of views of the Res' outdoor areas is a credible one. As for the terrace to apartment G01, I will require further screening to the planter box edge to obscure such views.
11. Screening of fixed windows is to be effected by louvres or a product called 'Lemisty' which the Tribunal was advised can be manufactured to limit views in any specific direction. Ms Wilson expressed scepticism that the 21 windows requiring screening would be individually manufactured and raised the possibility that multi-directional views may not be considered at the time of manufacture. Mr McGurn asserted that this was a product in reasonably common usage. However, having inspected the product, where views were obscured as one passed by, but not from an oblique angle, it is my conclusion that in terms of habitable room windows it would be preferable to give more reassurance to the neighbours with fixed louvres to obscure downward views. However, I will leave this decision as to how screening is to be effected to Council.

1. Several other matters were raised in submissions. One of Council's reasons for refusal to grant a permit related to the removal of the 15 metre high Eucalyptus camaldulensis, a significant tree by any measure, to gain a development advantage. Ms Wilson's submission for the Res supported Council. However, Mr Canavan advised the Tribunal that at the time of purchase of the site by the Applicant, the site was without the tree. I note that Council had the opportunity to pursue any enforcement action at the time of the loss in or around May 2010. The Tribunal is required to consider the review site in the condition it is in at the time of the hearing. I conclude that this reason for refusal has no basis in this case.
2. The design of the front fence has already been discussed. Along the western boundary of the review site, a masonry wall exists to the north of the Res' garage for around 6 metres. It appears to have enclosed an original courtyard which is now largely occupied by a ground floor extension used as a bedroom. However, this wall is still integral to the house. It contains a remnant gateway and former fountain. The Applicant confirmed that it would be possible to retain the wall and I will require that this be done.
3. Ms Wilson submitted that the 4 metre high west wall of the ramp, which would be constructed on the boundary immediately behind the existing masonry wall to the former courtyard, would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the bedroom. The Applicant advised that it would be possible to lower this wall to 3 metres, which I will require.
4. In terms of the proposed landscaping, Council have no objection to the removal of the two remaining trees on the site, one of which had been causing concern to the owners of Number 9 Copelen Street. Council's arborist recommended that Pyrus assuriensis be replaced with Pyrus calleryana due to the latter's superior branch structure. I note that this change has been made in the amended landscape schedule.
5. Ms Wilson expressed concern at the "miniature nature" of the proposed replacement planting for the former Eucalyptus camaldulensis. However, I accept Ms Frank-Mas's evidence that the mass planting proposed for the northern garden, to be planted in full depth soil, would achieve an approximately mature height of 7 metres for the 4 eucalypts in it and 12 metres for the feature Acer rubrium. She advised the Tribunal that the trees have been selected for their robustness in conditions such as those on this site. I note that the planting has been designed in concert with that to the rear of 95-97 Alexandra Avenue, which I consider will enhance the visual impact of the planting. The Pyrus calleryana along the east and west boundaries will achieve a height of over 10 metres, providing both screening and a vegetated edge to the development. I conclude that the landscape as proposed is acceptable.
6. Council's traffic engineer had suggested that a visitor parking bay be provided on site. I accept the evidence of Mr Walley and my own observation that visitors will be able to park on street, and that in any event they are unlikely to negotiate parking in a basement with entry security.
7. The difficulty of achieving sight lines for the ramp which comply with the requirements of AS2890.1 - 2004 due to the solid fence proposed and the existing garage to Number 9 Copelen Street, which is built to the frontage, was raised at the hearing. I accept Mr Walley's evidence that the expected traffic generation of one vehicle movement per hour during peak hour, plus the fact that pedestrian access to 12 Copelen Street is from the southern footpath, means that the likelihood of vehicle/pedestrian conflict is small. I note also that the requirement for a permeable fence treatment and the fact that cars will exit the basement from the eastern side of the ramp will also assist in warning both pedestrians and drivers of any potential conflict.

1. Council's conditions, discussed at the completion of the hearing, have been modified to take into account the development shown on the amended plans. I have also included conditions discussed in these reasons relating to; front setback, fence design, further lowering of the building, screening and lowering of the west wall of the ramp to the basement. Other conditions are amended, taking into account matters discussed at the hearing.

1. The review site has attributes and a context that make it a candidate for redevelopment at a higher density. Stonnington City Council's planning scheme policies and the purposes of the zone support this redevelopment. For the reasons outlined above, I find that the proposal responds to the character of the neighbourhood in an acceptable way. Subject to the changes described in my reasons, I find that it will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
2. I will therefore set aside Council's decision. A permit is granted.

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans identified as:
   • Plans prepared by Domain Partnership Pty Ltd
   • Project no 09097/C, drawings nos. TPO1-TP16 all revision A
   • Dated September 2010
   • Landscape drawing no. 2599/1B prepared by Carol Frank-Mas & Associates Pty Ltd, dated 11/07/2011

(e) The overall height of the building lowered by 600m from AHD 27.980m to 27.580m.

(f) With the exception of sight lines from the exit ramp, the dimensions and layout of parking bays, access gradients, sightlines to the ramp entrance and exit, location of columns shown such that they are generally in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards, the Planning Scheme or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(g) No pedestrian doors within the basement car park to open into the car parking areas, parking aisles or circulation roadways.

(h) A minimum 2.2m headroom clearance at the basement ramp entry point with the door open.

(i) A longitudinal section from the southern edge of the footpath into the parking area that shows all proposed grades, all lengths of grades and all levels in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards or the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(j) A full schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(k) Screening to a height of 1.7 metres is to be provided to the following windows:

1. Apartment G.01 living/dining, study
2. Apartment 1.01 living/dining, study, bedroom 2, bedroom 3

The screening is to be provided by means of louvers or other devices or mechanisms to restrict overlooking into habitable room windows of 9 and 12 Copelen Street and the secluded open space of 12 Copelen Street, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(l) Screening to restrict overlooking is also to be provided to a height of 1.7 metres to the outer edge of the planter boxes:

1. Apartment G.01 west terrace and west end of north terrace;

2. Apartment 1.01 east end of north terrace; and

3. Apartment 2.01 west terrace from the southeast of the study to the north wall of the living room.

(m) The masonry column design of the front façade/balconies is to be replaced by a structure composed of slender elements which has a lightweight appearance.

(n) The west wall of the basement ramp is not to exceed 3 metres in height.

(o) A revised front fence design to incorporate a level of permeability to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. A bell must be provided on the pedestrian entry gate.

(p) Location and capacity of water tanks.

(q) All sections are to be corrected on the drawings to accord with the floor plans. The note regarding the demolition of the existing masonry wall north of the garage on 9 Copelen Street is to be deleted.

1. The development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.
2. Before the development starts, an amended landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan drawing no 2599/1B dated 1 September 2011 prepared by Carol Frank-MAS & Associates.
3. Before 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. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, the provision of an outfall drain through the rear property at No. 97 & 99 Alexandra Avenue must be installed through the creation of a 2m wide drainage easement to allow No. 11 Copelen Street to be connected to drainage in Alexandra Avenue. A new outfall easement drain must be constructed in the easement through 97-99 Alexandra Avenue at the cost of the owner to connect the property to the kerb and channel in Alexandra Avenue. A detailed design for the drain must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer and approved by Council. The drainage works must be completed to the satisfaction and under the supervision of Council;

The provision of water tanks to be connected to all toilets and available for irrigation, with at least 50% of the tank capacity to remain available for detention purposes.

1. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer's design.
2. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.
3. Prior to occupation of the building, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Air-conditioning and other plant and equipment installed on the subject buildings must be positioned and baffled so that no noise disturbance is caused to occupiers of adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.
6. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the Applicant and subject to the relevant authority's consent.
7. Privacy screens as required in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed prior to occupation of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter.
8. The walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.