Dekas One Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2012] VCAT 1755

1. Under clause 64 in schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by:
   • (a) Substituting plans by Peter L Brown Architects Pty Ltd identified drawings No.s TP00 dated August 2012 (Rev 4), TP01 to TP14 dated 15 October 2012 (Rev 4) and landscape plan by Habitat, Issue C, dated October 2012, as the permit application plans.
2. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. WH/2012/227 is set aside.
3. A permit is granted and directed to be issued in relation to land at 77-83 Whitehorse Road Blackburn. The permit will allow:
   • Construction of more than one dwelling on a lot (construction of a four storey building over basement containing not more than 61 apartment style dwellings);
   • Reduction in parking required under Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, and
   • Create a new access onto a road in a Road Zone - Category One (Whitehorse Road)

1. The permit is subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.

Mr J Holdsworth, Architect and Urban Design Consultant

A report from Mr R Fairlie, Traffic Engineer, Ratio Consultants was filed. With the agreement of the parties Mr Fairlie's evidence was accepted and he was not called to give evidence.

For Alison Vickers, Keith Creasy, Des Ktenas, Elizabeth Nanayakkara, Paul Wolfram, Anne Bachelard, Donna Goldsmith, Stephen Kalenderian, Glenice McCurdie and Andrew Faska

Construction of a four storey building containing 61 apartment style dwellings over basement car parking

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.01-4: Construction of more than one dwelling on a lot.

Clause 52.06-1: Reduce the amount of car parking required:

Clause 52.29: Create access onto a road in a Road Zone - category one.

Clauses 11, 15.01, 16.01, 21.06, 22.03, 22.06, 52.06, 52.29, 52.34, 52.36, 55 and 65

The subject land comprises three adjoining residential lots each of which is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling, one of which is used for a massage therapy centre. Combined, these three properties create a development site with a frontage of about 63 metres, depth of about 45 metres and overall area of 2709 square metres. Adjoining properties to the north and west are occupied by single storey dwellings while a three-storey building to be used for office and apartments is under construction on land to the east. Contextually the land is located on the edge of an established residential area adjacent to the Blackburn Activity Centre.

(oral reasons given at the hearing with minor revisions)

1. Dekas One Pty Ltd lodged a permit application with the Whitehorse City Council seeking permission for the construction of a five-storey apartment building containing 73 apartment style dwellings over basement car parking on land comprising the properties at 77-83 Whitehorse Road Blackburn.
2. The Council decided to refuse the permit application on seven grounds, four of which relate to matters of concern to the Council, with the other three required by VicRoads who also opposed the grant of the permit. In summary, the Council's grounds of refusal assert that the proposal is inconsistent with polices set out in the planning scheme, particularly those relating to neighbourhood character; it is an overdevelopment of the land; there would be unacceptable on -site and off-site amenity impacts and the removal of a lemon scented gum is not supported. VicRoads' grounds assert that the development is incompatible with the operation of Whitehorse Road, the number of access points has not been minimised and the traffic impact is unclear.
3. Dekas One has lodged this application with the Tribunal requesting that the Council's decision be set aside and a permit granted. In doing so, Dekas One relies on amended plans which show changes to the proposal. While the proposal still involves an apartment building, the height is reduced to four storeys, the number of dwellings decreases to 61 and access into and out of the basement is from one centrally located point along the land's Whitehorse Road frontage. The overall bulk and architectural expression of the building has also been changed.
4. In light of these changes, a number of the matters originally in dispute have been resolved.
5. Subject to plans being amended to show some further detail with respect to the access point onto Whitehorse Road as required in draft permit conditions[2], Vicroads no longer opposes the grant of a permit. Dekas One accepts the draft permit conditions presented by VicRoads.
6. The amended plans also resolve some of the issues of concern to the Council and the respondent objectors. The Council advises that it is satisfied that the amended proposal will not cause detriment due to overlooking and overshadowing. The amended plans also resolve its concerns about internal amenity. The respondent objectors also advise that following negotiations with Dekas One, they only have one outstanding matter of concern, that is, the height of the building and the visual bulk that its presents.
7. Accordingly, the key issues in this case are:
   • Is there policy support for the proposed development?
   • Is the building acceptable having regard to neighbourhood character considerations?
   • Will the proposed development result in unreasonable impacts on amenity?
8. We must decide if a permit is to be issued and if so, on what conditions. After having considered the submission and evidence, the details of the proposal, the relevant matters under the planning scheme and legislation, we have come to the conclusion that a permit should issue for the proposed development. We find that the subject land is suited to being redeveloped for a relatively intensive residential development given its attributes as well as its context, both physical and strategic. We also find that the proposal responds appropriately to the neighbourhood character for reasons that we set out later. We are also satisfied that the proposal has been designed so that there are no unreasonable off-site impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The reasons for our decision follow

1. The subject land comprises three adjoining residential lots each of which is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling[3]. When combined, these three properties create a development site with a frontage of about 63 metres, depth of about 45 metres and overall area of 2709 square metres. The land is relatively flat with a moderate fall of about 1.85 metres from the southeast to northeast. The most significant stand of vegetation on the land comprises a group of Lilly Pilly trees running around the northwest corner of the land and the northern boundary.
2. The land has a direct abuttal with a number of properties. These include properties occupied by single storey dwellings to the west on Whitehorse Road and north in O'Hara Street, while the property to the east is currently being redeveloped with a three-storey building to be used for commercial purposes at ground level and apartments in the levels above. Whitehorse Road is a primary arterial that provides for three lanes of traffic in each direction with opposing carriageways separated by a landscaped median.
3. Contextually, the land is located adjacent to the western edge of the Blackburn Neighbourhood Activity Centre [NAC], as identified in the Council's Urban Design Framework [UDF] for this area. The NAC stretches along Whitehorse Road then southward to the Blackburn railway station. The area to the east along Whitehorse Road is of strategic importance, known as the 'megamile precinct', an identified Major Activity Centre [MAC] under Melbourne 2030. This precinct, together with the Blackburn NAC is identified as an area for more redevelopment as set out in the Council's UDF. Through Amendment C143 to the planning Scheme, Council seeks to implement the UDF and associated Design and Development Overlay provisions [DDO] which set out standards for building heights and setbacks. The amendment has been exhibited, submissions have been received, but it has not yet been the subject to independent review by a panel.

1. The proposal involves a four-storey apartment building. The building is to contain 61 apartment style dwellings, with either one or two bedrooms and open plan living areas. The building has a contemporary architectural styling, however unlike its prior submission, which projected a more cuboid/commercial looking form, the current design is clearly more residential in feel due to its form, sculptured shape and use of materials. The building is designed to present an articulated quasi three-storey podium to Whitehorse Road, with a recessed upper level. The presentation to the residential interfaces to the west and north takes on a layered appearance with upper levels stepped back as the building height rises.
2. A central entry along Whitehorse Road is proposed for most apartments while some of the ground floor apartments have direct access to Whitehorse Road. A single centrally located car park access is proposed leading to 70 on site car parking spaces, some of which are in mechanical stackers. On site bicycle parking and storage areas are also provided. The development is to be landscaped in accordance with Mr Thomsons's plan.

1. Under the planning scheme, the subject land is zoned Residential 1. It is not affected by overlay controls. Whitehorse Road is within the Road Zone Category One. A permit is required under the zone control for the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot. Because the building is four storeys high, the proposed development must be assessed against the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Developement. The provisions of clause 55 are relevant to the extent that in some cases, the guidelines refer to the requirements of this clause.
2. Permission is also required under the planning scheme to:
   • Reduce the number of car parking spaces required to be provided under Clause 52.06, and
   • Under Clause 52.29, to create new access from the subject land onto Whitehorse Road which is in the Road Zone Category One
3. General decision guidelines are in Clause 65. Amongst other things, these require consideration to be given to a range of matters including planning policy, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and amenity.

Is there policy support for the proposed development?

1. The starting point with proposals like this is to assess the attributes of the subject land in terms of its suitability for an apartment style development. On this point we note:
   • The land is relatively large, with an area exceeding 2700 square metres;
   • The land also has good proportions, with a wide frontage and regular shape;
   • The land is not encumbered by important buildings that should not be demolished;
   • There are a number of trees on the land, some of which are conveniently located adjacent to the side and rear boundaries (Lilly Pillies) while others (Palm) have the potential to be transplanted or re-used. Other than the Lilly Pillies, none of the other trees to be removed are identified by any of the parties as being significant;
   • There are no awkward of difficult easements to contend with, and
   • All services are available to the land
2. In terms of the physical context we note:
   • The land fronts onto one of Melbourne's busiest arterial roads;
   • The land is on the edge of a commercial area, that is the Blackburn Neighbourhood Activity Centre and within relatively close proximity to the 'Megamile' MAC;
   • It is also within easy walking distance of a range of services and facilities within the NAC and arguably, the MAC, and
   • Excellent public transport is available, with Blackburn railway station a short 400 metre walk to the south, the Smart Bus which is also part of the Principal Public Transport Network [PPTN] running along Whitehorse Road, with other bus services also located nearby.
3. All these attributes clearly point to a site that is, in principle, capable of supporting a substantial form of development.
4. The Council and the respondent objectors agree with this proposition. In their submissions they do not oppose the concept of the land being redeveloped for an apartment building. Indeed, they express the view that a three storey building, with a recessed upper level, would in principle be appropriate for this site.
5. The question, as it usually is in cases like this, is whether the proposed development, at four storeys as proposed by Dekas One, is appropriate rather than the three-storey proposition advanced by the Council and the neighbours.
6. While discretion exists to approve this proposal under the statutory controls, guidance as to what is an appropriate outcome is given by the policies within both the state and local sections of the planning scheme.
7. It is not disputed that the policies in the State Planning Policy Framework [SPPF], particularly at Clauses 11.01-2 and 16.01 provide support for the provision of housing at higher densities on land that is either within or around activity centres, particularly those which are well served by public transport and at other strategic sites. The policies at Clause 16.01-3 go on to identify the attributes of strategic redevelopment sites which include:
   • In or beside Neighbourhood Activity Centres;
   • Served by public transport
   • Able to provide 10 or more dwelling units close to activity centres well served by public transport.
8. There is no doubt that the subject land is a strategic redevelopment site given its attributes and context.
9. Importantly, the objective of Clause 16.01-3 is:

To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential developments in Metropolitan Melbourne.

1. Our conclusion is that State policy provides unequivocal support for the redevelopment of this site in an intensive way for residential purposes.
2. Housing policies and strategies within the Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS][4] build on this strategic approach by calling for the provision of a wide range of housing types to meet the changing needs of the population and, to ensure higher density housing is directed to specific areas including activity centres with excellent access to public transport.
3. It could be said that the expectations as to the intensity at which the land can be redeveloped are tempered by the policies set out in the Local Planning Policy Framework [LPPF]. Specifically, under Clause 21.06 of the MSS, the land is located within area identified for 'Natural Change' where a 'modest' level of change is anticipated.
4. However, the difficulty here is that the notion of what constitutes 'modest change' is not defined. Essentially, what constitutes modest change needs must be based on the attributes of the physical and strategic context. For example, although two different properties may both be located in an area designated for 'Natural Change", we see a difference between the type of change that can be absorbed on a site that is large, on a main road, adjacent to a three-storey building and adjacent to an activity centre, like the site in this case, compared to a property located within a quiet street of detached housing in the residential hinterland. The difference between the two contexts is obvious enough, but both are within the same 'change area'. It follows that a more intensive response can be anticipated on a site like the land in this case, compared to a site in a remote hinterland location.
5. Accordingly, the issue here is whether the level of change can be described as modest having regard to the context.
6. In principle, we see no policy impediment to a four- storey building on this site. We understand that the Council is seeking to introduce DDO height controls over the Activity Centre and that preferred heights[5] of 2-3 storeys and 8-11 metres are envisaged for the area to the east. The 12.3 metre height of the proposed building exceeds this. However, we do not consider the proposed height being too dissimilar from the preferred height under the UDF to be fatal to this proposal nor justifies a substantial reduction in height. This is because:
   • The UDF is untested, has not been subject to independent scrutiny by a panel.
   • It is unclear whether the UDF should include this site. We would think that the UDF should cover a site of this size, adjacent to the Activity Centre.
   • It is unclear why the Blackburn NAC and Megamile MAC are treated as separate activity centres given that they are adjoining and important resources such as shops, railway services, modal interchange between rail and bus services are contained within the NAC.
   • It is unclear why the UDF sets out height limits which seek 1-2 storey development on properties directly adjacent to the MAC. This would seem inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 55, which have the flexibility to allow up to 9 metres and three-storeys in residential hinterland areas, as well as state policy which envisages higher densities in and around activity centres.
7. We expect that the panel appointed to report on Amendment C143 will review these aspects of the UDF carefully to ensure that it is consistent with State Policy.

Is the building acceptable having regard to neighbourhood character considerations

1. There is no doubt that the proposal is for a large building, which is a departure from the traditional single storey detached post war housing in this neighbourhood.
2. However, a three-storey apartment building as advocated for by the Council and supported by the neighbours as being appropriate, would also be different from the norm in this context.
3. The notion of respecting the neighbourhood character does not necessarily mean that new proposals must replicate the urban form that exists. If this were the case, then new forms of development that provide housing consistent with community need, such as smaller apartment style dwellings, could not occur. The notion of respecting neighbourhood character must embrace change as envisaged by planning policy. It is part of the process of balancing policies within the scheme.
4. The question here is whether the response to the neighbourhood character is satisfactory.
5. The neighbourhood character study provisions are of limited assistance in this case. Character Area 11, within which the site lies, is a large area. However, typical of character studies if this type, the generalised description of the area fails to embrace the inevitable diversity that exists within an area. It also fails to identify how new development should be embraced within a context, like this one, which is on a main road and at the interface with an activity centre.
6. As noted by Mr Holdsworth, the subject land has a number of different interface conditions.
7. From a streetscape viewpoint, the notion of a three-storey building with recessed fourth level is comfortably absorbed within a main road context like Whitehorse Road, particularly given the existence of a new three-storey building on the neighbouring property. The proposed building is designed to step up in height, providing a sense of transition between the single storey residential neighbour to the west and the higher, more intense forms of development that are foreshadowed in the NAC and MAC to the east.
8. The entry point to the main lobby to the apartments is legible, while some direct access to the street is provided at ground level with some apartments having their own entry directly off Whitehorse Road. Adjacent to this front entry is a single access point to a basement car park. Appropriate landscaping is provided within this front setback area, as well as to all other sides to this proposal. The external architectural styling is contemporary, but subdued and has not drawn criticism from either the Council or the neighbours.
9. The interface to the west is handled is a sensitive way. The property to the west has its entire side boundary adjacent to the subject land. The development responds to this condition by starting at a height of two- storeys adjacent to the common boundary, then progressively stepping back to provide setbacks between 13.2 and 15.7 at the upper level. Landscaping surrounding the proposal, is comprised of both existing and proposed planting.
10. The land has a direct interface with a number of backyards to the north. There is no doubt that 'change' will be perceived from the backyards of these properties. Clearly, the proposed building will be seen, and it will constitute change, but so would a three-storey proposal for this site.
11. We find that the proposal has responded appropriately to this context. The rear elevation of the proposal is well articulated. The setbacks increase as building height rises. The rear elevation is broken by a substantial central break in its form that provides for a central courtyard. The entire facade is well modulated.
12. The one area of concern in this proposal relates to the landscaping. We appreciate Mr Thomson's desire to create a new landscape that aimed at providing an appropriate medium to long term outcome. However, we have not been persuaded that the line of Lilly Pilly trees along the northern boundary should be removed. As noted by Mr Thomson, these trees can be retained, pruned and shaped. They have a reasonable life span. These existing trees exist at present, providing a thick evergreen foliage screen, much like that envisaged in Mr Thomson's plan by using new plants that will take some years to grow and mature. On balance, we consider that the existing Lilly Pillies should be retained and embraced within the landscaping. While not hiding the proposed building, they will work to soften the outlook from the backyards of houses to the north.
13. In our view, the proposal has responded in an acceptable way to neighbourhood character considerations. The response embraces and balances neighbourhood character and other policy outcomes envisaged by the planning scheme with respect to the utilisation of strategic redevelopment sites.

Will the proposed development result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity?

1. By and large, most matters that give rise to amenity concerns have been resolved through the amended plans with respect to matters of overlooking, overshadowing, car parking and traffic.
2. The concerns largely lie with the presentation of visual bulk to neighbouring backyards.
3. For the most part, the reasons why we find the proposal acceptable from a neighbourhood character viewpoint also reflect our view with respect to the impact of this proposal on the amenity to the surrounding environment.
4. The reality is that the immediately neighbouring properties are located adjacent to an activity centre and this large site is situated on a main road frontage. Expectations as to what may happen to this site must be influenced by this context.
5. For the most part, the setback requirements of Standard B17 of Clause 55 are met and generally exceeded which is favourable to the grant of the permit. There is one element of this building point where there is a minor transgression[6], where the second bedroom projects beyond Standard B17[7]. On a large site like this, we do not see why this is necessary. Although the standard is not mandatory, we consider it provides a reasonable "bottom line". The proposal can be amended to comply, either by deleting one bedroom or modifying the internal layout in some other way. It is a change that can be implemented by condition.
6. We also have regard to the screening effect of the landscaping. While the building will be seen, the retention of larger mature trees will bring an immediate impact in terms of softening, the appearance of the development albeit that it does not totally eliminate all views towards it from backyards of residential properties to the immediate north.
7. No concerns are raised about internal amenity, a matter that we are also required to have regard to. We are satisfied that the proposed apartment development will provide a good standard of amenity for future occupants.

1. We will therefore set aside the Council's decision. A permit is granted.
2. The permit will contain conditions, generally as agreed by the parties and or requiring changes we have discussed with respect to the landscaping and setbacks.
3. We will also modify other conditions. We do not see the need for all plans to be submitted before the development starts. However, we see no reason why the condition relating to ESD requirements or the green travel plan should be removed. Other than the change to the lillypilles on the north boundary, we do not propose to amend other aspects of Mr Thomson's landscape plan. However, details of with respect to trees to be retained and identification of Tree Protection Zones, should be shown on the endorsed plan to ensure consistency with the Arborist's Report.

• Construction of more than one dwelling on a lot (construction of a four storey building over basement containing not more than 61 apartment style dwellings);
• Reduction in parking required under Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, and
• Create a new access onto a road in a Road Zone category one (Whitehorse Road)

1. Before the development starts, or vegetation is removed, amended plans (three copies) 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 be generally in accordance with the plans No.s TP00 dated August 2012 (Rev 4), TP01 to TP14 dated 15 October 2012 (Rev 4) and landscape plan by Habitat, Issue C, dated October 2012, but modified to show:
   • (a) Measures to demonstrate that the screening to the north and west of the development has been designed to prevent overlooking into the rear yards and windows of dwellings on the abutting properties to the north and west.
   • (b) A screen to prevent overlooking to the rear of the properties at 34 and 36 O'Hara Street provided to the east side of the balcony to Dwelling 3.11.
   • (c) The northern wall to Bedroom 2 to Unit 3.10 setback to comply with the requirements of Standard B17 at Clause 55 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.
   • (d) The locations of all existing trees on the site and surrounding properties clearly identified on both site and landscape plans, and trees to be numbered in accordance with the Arborist Report required by condition 16. Trees to be removed are to be shown with a dotted outline, and trees to be retained are to be shown with a solid outline.
   • (e) The locations of Tree Protection Zones described in the Arborist Report required by condition 16, and a summary of the tree protection requirements described in this report to be annotated on the development and landscape plans.
   • (f) Recommendations set out in section 5.4 of the report of Mr R Fairlie of Ratio Consultants dated October 2012.
   • (g) The development plans to reflect all sustainability features indicated in the ESD Management Plan and Green Travel Plan required by conditions 3 and 4. Where features cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (ie. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures, etc).
   • (h) The development plans to reflect all building features required by the Waste Management Plan to be submitted in accordance with condition 5.
   • (i) The development and landscape plans to reflect all building features/alterations required by the Arborist Report to be submitted in accordance with condition 16.
   • (j) The development plans and site layout to reflect any additional requirements of Vic Roads.
   • (k) Details of all window screens to be shown on the elevations.
   • (l) The crossover to be relocated to at least 3.3 metres from the trunk of Tree 2, or a root investigation by a qualified arborist and crossover construction by an engineer in accordance with the requirements of Council's Engineering and Environmental Services Department must be provided demonstrating that the crossover can encroach closer to Tree 2 without requiring the severing of any roots with a diameter of at least 50mm or otherwise detrimentally impacting on the health of this tree.
   • (m) Each car space within the car stackers must be independently accessible.
   • (n) Car stackers must provide 1.8 metres of clear headroom at ground level.
   • (o) Pits for the car stackers must provide a minimum internal clear length of 5.4 metres to accommodate the B99 design vehicle specified in the Australian Standard AS 2890.1.
   • (p) Provision of swept path diagrams for a B85 design vehicle into and out of car stacker spaces to demonstrate compliance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1.
   • (q) All disabled parking spaces to be designed in accordance with AS 2890.6.
   • (r) All blind vehicle aisles to be designed in accordance with Section 2.4.2 of AS 2890.1.
   • (s) The locations of columns within the car park are to be in accordance with Clause 52.06-8 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.
   • (t) The circulation roadway ramp to comply with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 Section 2.5 and Figure 2.8.
   • (u) Provision of a longitudinal section of the proposed inner radius of the vehicle ramps from the centre line of the road to the parking area to demonstrate that vehicle ramp grades comply with Clause 52.06-08 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and/or Section 2.5 and 3.3 of AS 2890.1.
   • (v) Provision of a longitudinal section of the car park demonstrating that the vertical headroom at the entry point and throughout the car park is a minimum of 2.2 metres throughout the parking area.
   • (w) The available sight distance at access driveways is to be in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.
   • (x) Plans to show the allocation of car spaces to each dwelling and visitors.
   • (y) If the basement car park vehicle entrance is to be gated, plans to include details of access requirements (such as an intercom and remote activation system) for visitors driving into and exiting the car park.
   • (z) Documents required for endorsement in accordance with condition 16.

All of the above requirements must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Once approved these plans and documents become the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of any demolition, buildings or works on the land, an ESD Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The ESD Management Plan must address the following environmental issues:
   • (a) Indoor environment quality
   • (b) Energy efficiency
   • (c) Water resources
   • (d) Stormwater management
   • (e) Building materials
   • (f) Transport
   • (g) Waste Management
   • (h) Urban Ecology
   • (i) Innovation
   • (j) On-going site management

Once submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the ESD Management Plan will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.

The requirements of the ESD Management Plan must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement, and the requirements of this plan must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site when constructing and fitting out the residential building, and for the duration of the building's operation in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, providing details of the design initiatives and sustainable management practices to reduce car usage and improve sustainable transport options (including walking, cycling, public transport and car pooling) available to residents and visitors. The Green Travel Plan must include, but not be limited to the following:
   • (a) Designation of parking spaces to the individual dwellings,
   • (b) Education and awareness initiatives and incentives for residents and visitors to encourage more sustainable modes of travel to/from the site,
   • (c) Management practices identifying sustainable transport alternatives,
   • (d) Any other relevant matters.

Once submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Green Travel Plan will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.

Where appropriate, the requirements of the Green Travel Plan must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement, and the requirements of this plan must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site for the duration of the building's operation in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, a Waste Management Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must provide details in relation to:
   • (a) Private collection of all wastes generated on the site,
   • (b) On-site waste storage capacity: including justification based on similar uses and developments operating elsewhere that the on-site waste storage capacity will be sufficient for the likely residents, and options to increase capacity if required,
   • (c) Bin storage areas: their location, accessibility and number, size and capacity of bins that can be accommodated,
   • (d) An on-going commitment to recycling,
   • (e) The separation of garbage from recyclables and other wastes (such as green waste): including ease of separation by residents, and separate collections by waste contractors, to ensure that separation of recyclables is facilitated and not hindered by the site layout,
   • (f) Delivery of bins to waste collection points and retrieval of bins to nominated storage areas within the building: including access to secure basement areas and management of potential conflicts between vehicles accessing the site and waste collection arrangements,
   • (g) Waste collection arrangements: including collection frequency, collection location, collection vehicle access arrangements, including clearance and turning movements, appropriate collection standards including collection cleanliness and spill management, hours of access, noise impacts and other amenity related issues, and any signage required to facilitate these arrangements, and
   • (h) Litter and green waste management.

The requirements of the Waste Management Plan must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement.

Once submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, the Waste Management Plan must form part of the documents endorsed as part of this planning permit.

The requirements of the Waste Management Plan must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site for the duration of the building's operation in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any demolition, buildings or works on the land, a Construction Management Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, detailing how the owner will manage the environmental and construction issues associated with the development.

The Construction Management Plan must address: any demolition, bulk excavation, management of the construction site, land disturbance, hours of construction, noise, control of dust, public safety, traffic management, construction vehicle road routes, soiling and cleaning of roadways, discharge of any polluted water, security fencing, disposal of site waste and any potentially contaminated materials, location of site offices, redirection of any above or underground services, and site lighting during any night works.

The Construction Management Plan must be prepared in consultation with Council's Transport Team- Engineering and Environmental Services, Engineering Asset Team- Engineering and Environmental Services Building Department and Community Laws Department.

Once submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority the Construction Management Plan will form part of the documents endorsed as part of this planning permit.

The Construction Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and a contact name and phone numbers for the site manager must be provided to the Responsible Authority.

1. No equipment, services and architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plan shall be permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.
2. The plant and equipment proposed on the roof of the building must be screened in a manner to complement the appearance of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The car parking areas and accessways as shown on the endorsed plans shall be formed to such levels so that they may be used in accordance with the plan, and shall be properly constructed, surfaced and drained. The car park and driveways shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. The parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

1. Before plans being endorsed by the Responsible Authority and the development starting, the permit holder must submit to VicRoads and the Responsible Authority for approval, an amended design for the proposed access facility, that is generally in accordance with the Drawing TP05 Revision no 4, dated 15 October 2012, but takes into consideration the feasibility of relocating the crossover due to any limitations imposed by the crossover's proximity to street trees and utility service pits.
2. The level of the footpaths must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.
3. Unless otherwise agreed by VicRoads, prior to the occupation of the building hereby approved, the permit holder must arrange with Council to erect 'no stopping' signs on Whitehorse Road road reserve to remove on-street parking for 15 metres west of the crossover accessing the development.
4. Any security boom, barrier, gate or similar device controlling vehicle access to the premises must be located a minimum of 6 metres inside the property to allow vehicles to store clear of the Whitehorse Road pavement and footpath.
5. All disused and redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the area reinstated to nature strip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to VicRoads and Council prior to the occupation of the building hereby approved.

1. Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, a written Arborist Report by a qualified experienced Arborist examining all of the trees to be retained on the subject site and on adjoining land within 4 metres of the common boundary and the nature strip, must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This report must include the following details for all trees:
   • (a) Genus and species.
   • (b) Tree health and structure
   • (c) The safe useful life expectancy of the trees
   • (d) The trunk Diameter at Breast Height (DBH 1.4 metres above natural ground level)
   • (e) Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
   • (f) Structural Root Zone (SRZ)
   • (g) The percentage encroachment into all Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) by the development
   • (h) The impact the proposal will have on the health and structural integrity of retained trees.
   • (i) Show how retained trees will remain viable under the proposed plans.
   • (j) Show where the loss of TPZ (if any) will be made up in a location that is contiguous with the TPZ.
   • (k) Recommendations to amend plans and minimise adverse impacts on protected trees during demolition and construction, if required, including basement excavation techniques and trenching for site services.
   • (l) A site map that clearly identifies the location of each tree numbered in the report.

The requirements of the Arborist Report must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement.

Once submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, the Arborist Report must form part of the documents endorsed as part of this planning permit.

The requirements of the Arborist Report must be implemented by the owner and site manager for the duration of the demolition, construction and landscaping of the site in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This includes the erection and maintenance of tree protection fencing and implementation of Tree Protection Zone requirements must be erected on the subject site.

1. No building or works shall be commenced (and no trees or vegetation shall be removed) until a landscape plan, generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Habitat, Issue C dated October 2012, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. This plan when endorsed shall form part of this permit. This plan shall show -
   • (a) Retention of the existing row of Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) trees along the north boundary of No. 77 Whitehorse Road and their incorporation into the landscape for the development including details with respect to pruning, shaping and management to ensure ongoing health and to provide an evergreen screen along the northern boundary.
   • (b) A survey of all existing vegetation, abutting street trees, natural features and vegetation.
   • (c) Buildings, outbuildings and trees in neighbouring lots that would affect the landscape design.
   • (d) Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:
     • (i) providing a complete garden scheme,
     • (ii) softening the building bulk,
     • (iii) providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective,
   • (e) A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of condition No. 1.
   • (f) The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.
   • (g) A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) which includes, botanical names, common names, pot size, mature size and total quantities of each plant.

Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule shall be completed before the building is occupied.

Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan and schedule shall only be used as gardens and shall be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed it may be required to be replaced by a tree or shrub of similar size and variety.
2. The existing street trees must not be removed or damaged.

1. Discharge of stormwater from the land will be required by means of an underground pipe drainage system designed on the basis of a 10 year average storm recurrence interval and discharging into an approved outlet in a street or an underground pipe drain to the requirements of the Responsible Authority. In this regard no water shall be discharged from any pipe or paved area onto the surface of any adjacent land.
2. All stormwater drains shall be connected to a legal point of discharge as determined by Council's Drainage Management Engineer.

Prior to the commencement of any works on the subject land a site development layout plan together with detailed design plans and specifications for outfall drainage external to the site shall be submitted for approval by the Responsible Authority. All outfall drainage works must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of buildings.

1. No building or works shall be constructed over any easement without the written consent of the relevant Authorities.
2. The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development. The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible to obtain an "Asset Protection Permit" from Council at least 7 days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) The development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit.
   • (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years from 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] We have considered all submissions presented by the parties although we do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] These conditions were tabled by Mr Freeman on behalf of VicRoads. The conditions require the access point to be designed to take into account the street trees and utility service pits.

[3] One dwelling appears to be also used for massage therapy centre.

[4] Clause 21 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme