1 The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.

2 In permit application PL07/018974 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 222 - 224 Serpells Road, Templestowe on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

• Use and development of land known as 222 - 224 Serpells Road, Templestowe for the purpose of a 60 bed nursing home and the removal of one native tree in accordance with the endorsed plans

Mr R Fairlie, Traffic Engineer, Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd

1. The De Nova Group is seeking a review of the decision of the Responsible Authority refusing to grant a permit for a 60 bed nursing home to be contained in a two storey building with basement car parking and the removal of native vegetation at 222-224 Serpells Road, Templestowe.
2. The grounds of refusal are:
   1. The proposed use and development is inconsistent with the objectives of clause 21.3 of the Manningham Planning Scheme - Areas of low density development and areas of landscape or environmental significance as it is not compatible with the character of the area.
   2. The proposal is contrary to Clause 22.04 of the Manningham Planning Scheme - Accommodation Premises Policy as the location is subject to high volumes of traffic flows which are extremely congested due to the presence of two adjoining schools.
   3. The proposed use and development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Low Density Residential Zone because of its scale and the level of activity generated.
   4. The increase in activity levels associated with the staff traffic movements and service vehicles will be detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining and nearby properties.

1. The subject site has a total area of 4,000m² (depth of 90.50m and width of 47.59m). The site was part of a larger parcel of land owned by the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne which has been subdivided into three lots. To the south of the site the land has been developed for the St Charles Borromeo Primary School. To the east the land is to be developed for a child care centre[1] approved by the Tribunal on 27 May 2008.
2. The site slopes gradually from south to north with a fall of approximately 2m. The site is vacant but for a number of canopy trees, including a row of Monterey Pines along the frontage of the site.
3. Opposite the site is the Holy Cross Passionists Monastery, setback approximately 35m from the street frontage. Lawn and large canopy trees feature within its frontage.
4. Large homes on large lots are found along this section of Serpells Road which is generally known as the 'Golden Mile' of Templestowe. Immediately to the west of the site is Mr Sciessere's single storey dwelling which is setback 35m from Serpells Road and approximately 2.8m from the common boundary with the site.
5. The other respondent/objectors live in close proximity to and generally to the west of the site at 216-218, 212-214, 197, 176 and 170-174 Serpells Road, apart from the school which is located immediately to the rear.

1. The site is affected by a Section 173 agreement which is lodged on the relevant Certificate of Title. The agreement restricts buildings and works to within a building envelope as well as the removal of any vegetation outside the building envelope unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority. The agreement also requires the planting of a minimum of nine indigenous trees prior to the occupation of any building constructed on the lot.
2. A similar agreement also applied to lot 2 on which the child care centre has been approved. As during that hearing the respondent objectors raised issues regarding the ability to deal with the proposal when the land was affected by the section 173 agreement.
3. The permit application included a request to the Responsible Authority to allow for part of the development and some works to be located outside the building envelope. These included part of the circular driveway and service yard; the front side and rear fences and any associated gates, landscaping works including pathways and rock retaining walls and the eaves of the portico and building generally. As well as the removal of a wattle tree along the site's southern boundary.
4. There is nothing, including the section 173 agreement that bars the Tribunal from considering the application. Should approval be given to a development that sits outside the building envelope or approval for the removal of vegetation that is located outside the building envelope then the Responsible Authority can within the terms of the agreement give its written consent. If it chooses to refuse such consent then an application for review can be lodged with the Tribunal.
5. Whilst the agreement is a restriction placed on the land it is not, as referred to in section 61(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a 'restrictive covenant'[2]. The agreement imposes restriction on the owner of the land but such restrictions can within the terms of the agreement be varied with the consent of the only other party to the agreement, the Responsible Authority. If there is no consent, an application can be made to the Tribunal pursuant to section 149 PE Act to review the refusal to consent.

1. It is proposed to construct a two storey building with a basement. The maximum building height is 10.6m with a site coverage of 46%.
2. The basement is to contain 32 car spaces, storage facilities and water harvesting storage tanks; kitchen facilities, laundry facilities and staff facilities.
3. The building is to comprise of two wings. At ground level the building is to comprise 26 bedsits, two communal lounge/dinning rooms, a multi purpose room, an office and administration area, a portico entry with a reception foyer. At the first level the building is to comprise 34 bedsits, two communal balconies to the north and south, a communal lounge/dinning area, sitting area, theatre/chapel and library.
4. The building is to have a varied setback from 14.95m to 29m from the frontage of the site, with access via a widened crossover located to the west. To the west the building is setback from the side boundary 5m widening to 23m and then decreasing to 11.63m, to the east 5.1m and 5m to the rear.
5. Staff will be managed over three shifts per 24 hour period. This will generally involve:
   • - 7am to 3pm - 14 staff and contractors (nursing, administration, catering, cleaning and laundry)
   • - 3pm to 11pm - 4 nursing staff, 1 kitchen
   • - 11pm to 7am - 3 nursing staff

1. The site is located within the Low Density Residential Zone under the Manningham Planning Scheme. The use of the land for a nursing home (aged care facility) is a section 2 use and requires a planning permit. Under the zone provisions a permit is also required to construct or carry out buildings and works associated with the use.
2. There are no overlays that apply to the site. In relation to the application the particular provisions at clauses 52.06 - car parking and 52.17 - native vegetation apply.
3. The following clauses within the Manningham Planning Scheme are considered to be of relevance they are:

Clauses 12- Metropolitan Development; 14.01 - Settlement; 18.02 - Car parking and Transport Access to Development; 18.06 - Health facilities and 19.03 - Design and Built Form;

Clauses 21.02 - Municipal Profile; 21.03 - Key Influences; 21.04 - vision - Strategic Framework - 21.05 - Urban Design; 21.06 - Streetscapes; 21.07 - Energy Efficiency; 21.12 - Establishes Urban Areas; 21.13 - Areas of Low Density Development and Areas of Landscape and Environmental Significance; 21.16 - Residential and non Urban Commercial Activity; 21.17 - Community and Social Equity;

Clauses 22.01 - Design and Development Policy; 22.02 - Indigenous flora and Fauna; 22.04 - Accommodation Premises Policy; 22.09 - access for Disabled People;

1. As our population increases in age so do the demands increase for a variety of housing needs, this includes appropriate facilities for aged care which are generally accommodated within a purpose built residential building. Such a residential use within a residential area is not unreasonable provided any such development has regard to the amenity and character of the neighbourhood in which it is to be located.
2. The Manningham Residential Strategy, February 2002 indicates there is a high demand for a variety of dwellings for people aged 60 plus, given the demographic of Manningham's population[3]. This document also recognises the lack of land available to provide for larger scale residential development such as nursing homes and retirement villages.
3. The Responsible Authority's Accommodation Premises Policy at clause 22.04 highlights that residential buildings 'should be located, designed and operated with consideration to user characteristics by providing safe and pleasant environments while maintaining the amenity of the neighbourhood'.
4. The size of this site, 4000m², within a residential area lends itself to being able to accommodate a residential building of sufficient size for an aged care facility. In the immediate vicinity of the site there are three land uses that are not residential in nature these are the Monastery opposite, although some residential use occurs on that site , the school to the rear and the child care centre to the east. This is therefore not a pristine residential area, partly due to the large land holding of the Church that has been subdivided, resulting in a pocket of non-residential uses that are not necessarily out of keeping in a residential area. Such uses serve the community.
5. The Low Density Residential Zone is characterised by low density development. What exactly does this mean? When looking at this particular area it is characterised by substantial residential dwellings on large lots. Generally these dwellings, due to their location on the large lots are well separated from one another. Landscaping on each lot also assists in this sense of separation. The dwellings are well setback from the road and often behind large fences cutting them off and separating them even further from the streetscape.
6. The proposed building seeks to retain the common built form of the area by remaining generally within the building envelope. This allows for opportunities to not only retain existing vegetation on the site particularly at the front and sides of the site but also allows for additional landscaping that will contribute to the separation of the built form from the adjoining properties.
7. Whilst it was submitted that this was an isolated location that was not suitable for such a facility, I do not agree that this type of use on this site would be inappropriately located. Within the policies of the planning scheme there are a number of references to the siting of Group accommodation and Residential buildings[4]
   • where there is convenient access to public transport, community and retail facilities and services.
   • Close to or adjoining existing community activities, to provide a focal point for community services and to create opportunities for interaction.
   • On sites and in neighbourhoods which are physically suited to the capacity of aged persons.
   • On sites which reduce pressure for development in more sensitive areas.
   • Where extensive earthworms to create uniform site and floor levels are not required.
   • Where they are readily and safely accessible by road and by pedestrians.
8. It was submitted the site is not convenient to community facilities, public transport is spasmodic, reasonable earthworks are required to allow for the basement car park and whilst the site is accessible by road, pedestrian access is partially restricted with no formed footpath near the site in Serpells Road.
9. Policies are a guide, each proposal must be looked at and assessed in relation to its individual facts and circumstances. The basement allows for all car parking to be located on the site, such car parking will not be visible within the residential streetscape and will reduce any need for parking on the street. The unformed footpath is part of the character of Serpells Road, some of the residents of the aged care facility may not be able to use this footpath, this is no different to any person whether aged or not that may live in the area and have difficulty using this type of footpath due to mobility issues. Serpells Road is considered a safe road, although there may have been some minor incidents over an extensive period of time. It does not present as being any different to any other local road that is used as a connector road in the urban areas of Melbourne.
10. It is considered that in terms of the policies within the Manningham Planning Scheme that there is nothing that indicates that this proposal for a residential use for an aged care facility is inappropriate within this residential area.

1. It is often difficult to find a site that is large enough to accommodate the built form which an aged care facility requires. In this respect this large site located within a residential area is ideal for such a use. The proposed building on the site sits comfortably within the building envelope that applies to the site, but for a few minor incursions.
2. The resident objectors indicated their expectation on this site was that it would be used for residential dwellings. It appeared that their expectations were that one residential dwelling would have been constructed on the site. Given the size of the site and the requirements in the planning scheme for urban consolidation within residential areas, I expect that if residential dwellings were contemplated on the site there would have been at least three or four clustered together to fit within the building envelope that applies to the land. The building is to be two storey which is certainly not unusual within this residential area, although the buildings on the adjoining lots are all single storey.
3. The resident objectors described the proposed building as lacking in articulation, bulky and conflicting with the prevailing character of the area. It was their view that the design is not site responsive and represents an overdevelopment. With regard to overdevelopment, I took it that this meant that the building generally filled the building envelope.
4. The character of the area can best be described as a mix of building forms and styles that are generally large and imposing, despite being set within large lots. Mr Jewell described the area near the site as containing a distinctive style of low density residential development. Large houses are generally set amongst extensive gardens. A rustic atmosphere is contributed to by the relatively unformed road reserve edges. A number of the dwellings are surrounded by well landscaped gardens that along with high fences, contribute to concealing these larger built forms, some have relatively low landscaping and open areas containing tennis courts which allows for the built form on such lots to visually dominate the streetscape.
5. The proposed building will be large but in my view will be no more visually dominant than a number of the existing dwellings within Serpells Road. The building is of a contemporary design that incorporates many of the features found in nearby dwellings such as tiled hipped roof with gabled ends, face brick work, feature rock and rendered cladding. The use of these materials and the design allows the building to present within the streetscape as a residential building and it is only being aware of its use that it could be seen as institutional in nature.
6. Whilst the proposed building is said to be institutional in appearance, it is considered that the design takes account of the use to which the building is to be put. The width of the site at its frontage to Serpells Road is 47.59m. The building extends 36m across the frontage of the site and sits 5m off either side boundary. This is not dissimilar to a number of other dwellings along Serpells Road that generally extend across most of the frontage of these large lots, but still also maintain separation from their side boundaries.
7. The building has a varied setback from Serpells Road which ranges from 14.95m at its eastern end to approximately 29m at its western end. Mr Sciessere's dwelling to the west is setback 35m. This graduation of built form towards Mr Sciessere's dwelling will sit comfortably within the streetscape. The existing trees along the frontage of the site are to be retained which will contribute as does other landscaping on nearby properties to the screening of the building resulting in a reduction in the visual domination of the built form within Serpells Road.
8. Additional landscaping proposed in front of and around the site will also result in a visual softening of the building and will contribute to the streetscape.
9. The building presentation to Serpells Road has some articulation which is also broken up by the portico at the entrance. There is some articulation along the eastern elevation of the building which has an interface with the child care centre on the adjoining lot. The 5m setback to this boundary allows for the planting of several canopy trees as well as medium shrubs that will also assist in breaking up the visual form of the building.
10. Of importance regarding the built form of the building is its appearance from Mr Sciessere's property to the west. In this respect the building sits 5m off the common boundary opposite Mr Sciessere's dwelling for a length of 20m. The building then steps in 23m away from the common boundary for a length of 21m and where it comes forward again towards the common boundary it is setback 11.64m compared to the 5m towards the front of the site.
11. Mr Sciessere's dwelling has rooms along its eastern elevation with outlooks particularly to the extensive Japanese garden that he has created, as well as to the site. The view of the built form generally from these windows will be to a building that sits some 23m away and will be softened by landscaping. The rear section of the building that comes within 11.64m of the common boundary is generally opposite Mr Sciessere's rear private open space. I do not consider that the two storey built form of the building, which will extend for a length of 14m, at a distance of 11.64m, will result in an unreasonable visual intrusion when viewed from Mr Sciessere's rear garden. Existing vegetation is located along the south western corner of the site and along with the proposed landscaping will result in an outlook towards vegetation rather than immediate built form.
12. The building has an overall height of 9.57m but extends to a height of 10.6m at the top of the roof line at the north east corner. The overall height is not significantly higher than the large two storey dwellings located nearby. It is not an unreasonable expectation that any built form on this site would be two storey. The 5m setback at its closes point to the common boundary with Mr Sciessere's dwelling provides an adequate separation from the two storey built form. The building is also setback 5m from its rear boundary which abuts the extensive car park of the Primary School this separation, plus the car park on the adjoining land, provides an ample area of separation between these adjoining uses.

1. Loss of amenity to adjoining and nearby residents particularly as a result of traffic was raised as an issue.
2. Mr Sciessere's property immediately to the west is the only residential property that it is said will be impacted upon by the proposed aged care facility. In this respect Mr Sciessere submitted that he will be impacted upon by the likely increase in traffic to the facility particularly outside normal business hours. He acknowledged that there is an impact regarding traffic to and from the school, which is located towards the rear of his property, but this is generally confined to the day time, even the proposed child care facility, which is likely to increase traffic within the area, does not operate into the evening. His concern was that vehicles would be coming and going from the aged care facility during the evening and at night with the changes of shifts for the staff. He equated the proposal to being similar to a full on hospital.
3. Mr Downing and Mr Walsh also highlighted concerns regarding the likely traffic that would be generated by the proposed use. Mr Downing expected that people visiting the site would park in Serpells Road, which in his view is not formed to accommodate on street parking. He considered the basement car park was not a sufficient size to accommodate the number of vehicles that would come to the site particularly at times when there was a staff change over and there was no opportunity to expand the basement. He also envisaged there could be a high attendance of ambulances to the site, with the noise of their sirens likely to have an impact on the amenity of the area.
4. Mr Walsh likewise submitted there would be a dramatic increase in traffic, he described the large volume of traffic that occurred at school pick up times and along with the child care centre the traffic generated by the proposed use would result in higher volumes of vehicles in the area.
5. Weekday traffic along Serpells Road has been measured by the Responsible Authority as 2,580 vehicles per day. Surveys conducted indicate there is a large volume of traffic generated by the school between 8.15am to 9.15am and 3.00pm to 4.00pm. The increase in traffic along Serpells Road at these times is also contributed to by the Serpell Primary School to the east. I expect drop off and pick up times for the child care facility will be a little different to that of the school.
6. Mr Fairlie expected based on surveys conducted in relation to aged care facilities that the facility could generate 120 trips per day generally by staff, doctors and contractors as residents typically don't own or drive a vehicle and visitor demands have been found to be relatively low. He expected that this could equate to 18 vehicles per hour to and from the site. He however expected this peak volume to occur outside the typical commuter period and school and child care pick up and drop off times.
7. Clause 22.04 requires that 1 car space per three beds including at least 2 disabled spaces, 1 space for delivery vehicles and 1 for an ambulance is provided for an aged care facility. For the proposed development this equates to 20 spaces plus two disabled spaces plus one delivery and ambulance space. Under the RTA Guidelines the facility would require 16 car spaces. The Advisory Committee Report into the Review of Parking Provisions indicates a parking rate for aged care facilities of 0.3 spaces per lodging room. The provision of 31 car spaces exceeds all these requirements.
8. 31 spaces are to be located within the basement including 1 disabled space. Mr Fairlie recommended that one of the standard spaces should be replaced with a second disabled space measuring 3.2m in width. He also recommended some changes to the length of the tandem spaces as well as the ramp. A service yard is provided in the north-eastern corner of the site to accommodate delivery and service vehicles. Mr Fairlie considered this was acceptable, even if large service vehicles are required to reverse into the service yard from the main aisle, given the low number of on site vehicles and pedestrian movements. Mr Fairlie also recommended 9 bicycle spaces are provided in the basement as well as a bicycle rail at ground level to the east of the portico to comply with the requirements of clause 52.34 of the Manningham Planning Scheme.
9. Whilst Mr Fairlie observed some vehicles parking in Serpells Road during school pick up times, he did not expect that the facility would generate vehicles parking on the street. The school provides a large area for parking. I am also aware that 22 car spaces are provided on site for the child care centre. Although culvert drains are located within the road reserve and there is no formal kerb and channel there is no restriction on vehicles parking on the street.
10. A lot was made of the access to public transport and the bus routes that provide an occasional service along Serpells Road. Whilst it is often appropriate to locate accommodation for the elderly in close proximity to public transport I do not expect the residents of this type of facility will necessarily be in a position to be able to use such facilities and it is expected that staff will either drive to the facility or be capable of walking to and from more regular public transport. It is also not unusual for such facilities to provide their own transport for residents to go to nearby shopping centres and on other outings. The additional parking spaces to be provided on the site over and above what is recommended under the planning scheme will accommodate such vehicle use.
11. I am unable to conclude that the traffic generated as a result of the proposed use will have any impact on the amenity of the area. The number of vehicles going to and from the site is likely to be imperceptible in Serpells Road and whilst Mr Sciessere may initially be aware of vehicles coming and going from the site it is unlikely that the likely volume of vehicles will result in an impact on his amenity. Vehicle movements to and from the site will generally occur during daylight hours. There will be some vehicle movement during the evening and night time period with the change of shift, this could equate to up to 8 vehicle movements. This is not considered to be of significance to indicate a likely impact on Mr Sciessere during the night time period. If one considered that the size of the site could potentially accommodate several dwellings and if this was to occur it would be expected that a number of residential dwellings could generate a not dissimilar number of vehicle movements for each dwelling.
12. Apart from vehicle movements to and from the site it is not expected that any noise will emanate from the site. The residents of such facilities are extremely quite, more so than what one would find with a residential dwelling next door. Ambulances usually use their sirens in areas to warn other road users, I do not expect that even in an emergency situation an ambulance attending the facility would find it necessary to use its siren and if it did, this would be a very infrequent sound, which could occur in any residential area, if the need arose.
13. Mr Sciessere also raised an issue of overshadowing to his property. The shadow diagrams indicate the shadows cast by the building will be generally contained within the site. There will be some shadowing to a part of the eastern elevation of Mr Sciessere's dwelling at 9am on 22 September but will have moved off his property well before midday. I do not consider there will be any unreasonable impact from overshadowing from the proposed building.
14. Two balconies are proposed at the first floor level on the northern and southern elevations to the portion of the building that is stepped in. Mr Sciessere expressed some concern regarding the potential for overlooking from these balconies to his property. I accept that there is the potential for some overlooking and screening to a height of 1.7m should be incorporated into the western ends of the balconies to reduce the views. I do not consider that further screening is required along these balconies given the distance from Mr Sciessere's dwelling.
15. Mr Sciessere expressed concern regarding the intention to plant trees in close proximity to the common boundary with his property. In this respect he was concerned that some trees might have an impact on the foundations of this dwelling. Mr Burge expressed a view that given the separation distance there was unlikely to be any impact as a result on the proposed planting along the common boundary. I accept the comments of Mr Burge that there is unlikely to be any impact on Mr Sciessere's dwelling as a result of the proposed planting along the common western boundary.

1. Having considered all the submissions and evidence I consider the proposal is one that warrants the granting of a permit. There is nothing within the relevant policies within the Manningham Planning Scheme that leads me to conclude that this large site within a low density residential area is inappropriate for an aged care facility. The built form is not dissimilar to surrounding built form and is well setback from the side and rear boundaries particularly the western boundary which is adjacent to the only nearby dwelling, all other uses adjoining and opposite the site being of a non-residential nature.
2. I consider there will be minimal amenity impacts to the adjoining dwelling or to the surrounding neighbourhood as a result of traffic, noise, overlooking and overshadowing.
3. The building is well setback in the context of the streetscape, retains existing vegetation along the frontage of the site, as well as vegetation outside the building envelope that applies to the land apart from the removal of one tree which is not inappropriate. Landscaping proposed for the site will provide an adequate softening of the built form when viewed from adjoining properties and will also contribute to the streetscape.
4. The Responsible Authority provided a set of draft conditions which were discussed during the course of the hearing. I have considered the submissions made in relation to appropriate conditions and have included some additional conditions and deleted one condition in relation to requiring a landscape bond. In the context of this type of development I do not consider there is a need for such a requirement.

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 two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (Ref. No.07- 012 / date 20 November 2007) but modified to show:

(a) A schedule of materials, colours and finishes of all external walls, roofs, fascias, window frames, and paving (including car parking surfacing) specifying the use of muted tones.

(b) The width of the vehicle crossing increased to 6 metres.

(c) The reduction in the width of car space no. 1 to 3.2 metres.

(d) The increase in the width of car space no. 2 to 3.2 metres and marking of this car space for disabled parking.

(e) The increase in the length of the front tandem car parking bays to 5.4 metres by setting the 4 sets of tandem parking scapes a distance of 0.5 metres back into the aisle.

(f) A bicycle parking rail east of the portico.

(g) Location for parking 9 bicycles within the basement.

(h) The shape and alignment of the front median island supporting the portico to accommodate the swept path requirements of service vehicles and larger delivery vehicles accessing the service yard as shown in Appendix B of the traffic report prepared by Ratio Consultants dated July 2008.

(i) The internal radius on the ramp that changes direction to be a minimum of 4 metres and the external radius on the right angle bend to be a minimum of 12.3 metres.

(j) A clear sight distance of pedestrians for exiting vehicles as per Clause 3.2.4 of AS 2890.1.

(k) All car parking spaces, aisle widths and internal access roads to comply with AS 2890.1.

(l) A circulation area within the site to enable vehicles to exit in a forward direction.

(m) Screening to a height of 1.7m to be located on the western elevation of the first floor balconies

2 All external plant and equipment must be screened and acoustically treated or placed in sound proof housing to reduce noise to a level satisfactory to the responsible authority.

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

1. Before the development starts, an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will then be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan (Project No. 0071704 dated July 2008) prepared by ERM but modified to show:
   • (n) The pathway in the southern garden located hard against the building.
   • (o) The stone clad retaining wall in the southern garden located closer to the building to ensure minimum disturbance to the root zone of the existing Marri tree.
   • (p) The retaining wall in the eastern garden located along the eastern boundary.
   • (q) The eastern boundary fence located on top of the retaining wall.
   • (r) The removal of the Gossamer Wattle tree located immediately south of the Yellow Box on the western boundary.
2. No vegetation, apart from that shown on the endorsed landscape plan as vegetation to be removed, may be felled, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. All contractors/ tradespersons who install services or work near the vegetation to be retained must be made aware of the need to preserve the vegetation and to minimise impacts through appropriate work practices.
4. Before the use starts, an in-ground drip-feed watering system must be installed in the main landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Before the use starts, landscaped areas must be fully planted and mulched or grassed generally in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Before the development starts, three copies of a Construction Management Plan 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 address, but not be limited to the following:
   • - Hours of construction.
   • - Methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within the site, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures.
   • - The protection measures for trees to be retained.
   • - A liaison officer for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced.
   • - The regulation of the movement of construction vehicles to and from the site to ensure that no traffic hazards are created in and around the site.
   • - Measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land.
   • - An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services.
   • - The measures for prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials and other pollutants on or off the site, whether by air, water or other means.
   • - The measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours.
7. The Construction Management Plan must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.
8. Before the development starts, a Waste Management Plan 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 include, but not limited to the following:
   • - Calculations showing that sufficient space for the proposed number of garbage and recycling bins.
   • - The size and location for the storage of general waste and recyclables on the ground/basement floor and details of screening from view.
   • - The consideration of the ease of taking the fully laden bins to the collection point(s).
   • - Private contractor options, if applicable, detailing the methods of collection with regard to site and road network constraints and the potential requirement to manoeuvre garbage trucks, including a collection plan approved by the proposed collection agencies that meets Council's Waste Management Plan.
   • - Confirmation of the hours and frequency of pick-up for general and recyclable waste, with regard to potential noise impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood.
9. The Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.
10. On site storm water detention storage to limit the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to that applicable to the site coverage of 35 percent of hard surface or the pre existing hard surface if it is greater than 35 percent must be provided. The PSD must meet the following requirements:
    • - Be designed for a 1 in 5 year storm; and
    • - Storage must be designed for 1 in 10 year storm.
11. Before the development starts, construction plans for the on site storm water detention storage system must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The detention system must be maintained thereafter in accordance with construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12. Stormwater must not be discharged from the subject land other than by means of drainage to the legal point of discharge. The drainage system within the development must be designed and constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor. A connection to Council maintained assets must not be constructed unless a Miscellaneous Works Permit is first obtained from the Responsible Authority.
13. The whole of the land, including landscaped and paved areas, must be graded and drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent ponding and to minimise overland flows onto adjoining properties.
14. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15. A sign/signs to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be provided directing drivers to the area(s) set aside for car parking and must be located and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The area of each sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres.
16. Access to the basement car park must be provided to all visitors at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17. The operator of the approved use must ensure that staff vehicles are parked in designated car spaces to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
19. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances apply:
    • - The development and use are not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit; or
    • - The development is not completed within four (4) 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 (3) months afterwards.

[1] BAMFA Properties v Manningham CC [2008] VCAT 925

[2] Ur v Wellington SC [2001] VCAT 2453;Van der Heydon v Mansfield SC [2003] VCAT 102 (22 January 2003); Plentie Pty Ltd v Banyule CC [2003] VCAT 750

[3] 2006 Census information for Manningham identifies that as of 2006, 16.6 per cent of the population was over 65, compared with 11.00 per cent of the total persons in Australia.

[4] Clause 22.04 Accommodation Premises Policy, Manningham Planning Scheme