1. I have come to the conclusion that a permit should be issued for the amended 14 apartment development proposal for which permission is now sought. The site clearly has attributes that makes it suited to being redeveloped for medium density housing. While the proposal involves a level of development that is clearly more intense than what exists on other adjacent sites along Dandenong Road and Maroo Street, such development is supported by the strong direction given by state policy which provides clear support for such increases in locations that are in close proximity to larger activity centres like Chadstone. When consideration is given to the policy, site context and details of the design, the proposal represents a reasonable response to neighbourhood character. I also conclude that while the proposed development will be seen and will be clearly evident to neighbours, it will not result in unreasonable impacts on amenity. I am also satisfied that the dwellings would provide residents with satisfactory amenity.

1. The site is located on the southwest side of Dandenong Road, north of Maroo Street. It comprises an irregular lot which has a frontage of 46.94 metres to Dandenong Road and extends through to have a second frontage of about 20.12 metres to the north side of Maroo Street. The site has a depth of about 61 metres along its west boundary and an overall area of about 1269 square metres. The site appears to be relatively flat, but has a fall of about 1 metre from its northeast corner down to its Maroo Street frontage. The site is occupied by a single storey dwelling which is in a dilapidated state and a garage. The site is devoid of any significant vegetation.
2. The site abuts a number of properties to either side. The site abuts two properties to the west; one occupied by a single storey building used as a medical centre that fronts Dandenong Road; the other by a single storey dwelling fronting onto Maroo Street which is occupied by Mr Young. Mr Young's dwelling has a substantial front setback of about 11 metres to Maroo Street and has a bay window to a front room facing the front garden. Mr Young's backyard is also located adjacent to most of the site's west side boundary. To the east exists a property occupied by a single storey building that has been used by a medical centre.
3. Maroo Street is a residential street, mainly comprising properties occupied by single storey dwellings. Some dwellings are from the interwar period; however there are a number from later decades. Like many residential streets, there is also a sprinkling of units, both older and more contemporary, as well as double storey development. However, it would be fair to say that Maroo Street largely retains a single storey dwelling character which is enhanced by the attractive line of street trees.
4. In contrast to the quiet and tree lined character of Maroo Street, Dandenong Road is a multi-lane arterial that carries substantial traffic from central Melbourne to the south-eastern suburbs. There is a service road immediately adjacent to the site's frontage. Although buildings are single and double storey like Maroo Street, Dandenong Road has a more robust character given the busy and wide nature of the road, much less vegetation and the proximity to Chadstone, a principal activity centre in Melbourne's activity centres hierarchy. There is also the presence of non residential uses in the form of medical centres.

1. The proposal, as amended, involves the development of a three storey building over a basement level of car parking. A contemporary design style is to be employed.
2. The layout provides for six apartments at both ground and first floor level with two apartments at the uppermost level. A mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments is proposed. The layout allows for most apartments to face either Dandenong Road or Maroo Street. Entry to most apartments will be from Dandenong Road with access to the two ground floor apartments from Maroo Street.
3. Car parking for up to 18 vehicles as well as areas for storage and bicycle parking are to be provided in the basement level. Car access to the basement is to be from the Dandenong Road service road. Access to the basement from the apartments is via a lift.
4. Open space is to be provided in the form of courtyards for ground level apartments with balconies for the upper level units. It is proposed that the development be landscaped in accordance with the plan produced by Ms Dowey.

1. Under the planning scheme the site is zoned Residential 1. There are no overlays.
2. The provisions for the zone are at clause 32.01. Under the zone provisions, a permit is required to construct more than 1 dwelling on a lot.
3. An application must be considered against the objectives and standards set out at clause 55. All the objectives must be met. The standards should be met; however, a design that departs from the standard may be approved if it is found that the outcome meets the objective. It is relevant to note that in the Monash Scheme, the schedule to the Residential 1 zone sets out variations to the standards at clause 55 with respect to street setbacks, open space and front fence height. While the standards have been varied, the same approach with respect to compliance with objectives and standards as set out above applies.
4. Decision guidelines are at clause 65. These require consideration to be given to a range of matters including planning policy, purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.
5. This is a raft of policies that are relevant to the consideration of this proposal. A list of the policies that are in some way relevant has been set out earlier in this document. I do not propose to recite all the policy details in these reasons; however, I have noted those details, as set out in the council's submission, and Mr Negri's report. I will discuss the relevant policies in more detail later in these reasons.

1. After having considered the submissions and evidence presented, the details of the proposal and the relevant matters under the planning scheme and legislation, it seems clear to me that the key issues in dispute relate to, firstly, whether the proposed development is acceptable having regard to neighbourhood character and streetscape considerations; secondly, whether there will be unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the immediately neighbouring residential properties; and thirdly, whether the proposed apartments will provide satisfactory amenity for future residents.
2. However, before turning to these matters, it is relevant to provide some context for the decision that needs to be made in this case with respect to a number of other matters that are relevant to the overall consideration of the merits of this proposal.
3. Firstly, this site has been the subject of an earlier proposal involving a 4 dwelling development that was ultimately refused by the tribunal [Member Naylor's decision][3]. It is important to understand the relevance of my colleague's decision with respect to this matter. Member Naylor came to conclusions about some matters that would apply to the consideration of this proposal. The site's suitability for some form of medium density housing is one such conclusion[4]. That matter relates to a matter of principle that applies to this site and is relevant to this case.
4. However, it does not follow that because Member Naylor found the previous scheme to be inappropriate that this would also apply to a new scheme. As noted by Mr Cicero, the proposal before me in this case is totally different to that previously proposed. This is not a case where the applicant has sought to remedy the problems of an earlier scheme by modifying it. Rather, the current proposal is, as Mr Cicero submitted, totally different. As such, while the criticisms of the earlier proposal are relevant, the current proposal needs to be considered in the light that it is a totally different concept compared to what was first proposed.
5. Secondly, like Member Naylor, I conclude that this site is clearly suited to being redeveloped for medium density housing given its size, two street frontages; the absence of difficult constraints and, importantly, its strategic context where it is located within an established urban area, fronting a main road and proximity to Chadstone, a principal activity centre. It is therefore not surprise that those opposing the proposal did not seek to argue that this site should not be redeveloped for some form of medium density housing.
6. However, in my view, the mere conclusion that the site is suited to being redeveloped for medium density housing somewhat under states the situation. This is not just a suitable site; it is a very good site. It is a site where, in my view, policy would encourage and support a proposal that seeks to optimise its development potential.
7. The site's physical attributes are an important factor; however, the policy and physical context and policies that apply are just as important. It is true that this site has a frontage and abuttal to what is a residential street. However, it also has a significant frontage to one of Melbourne's most significant arterial roads. The site's peripheral location is also relevant. This is not a case where the site is located midblock within a quiet street in a residential hinterland area. Rather, this site is located toward the edge of the residential area and abuts, at least in part, non residential properties occupied by medical centres. Further, this site is clearly within the sphere of influence of one of Melbourne most significant activity centres; Chadstone. Accordingly, the difference in context between this site and one located well into the residential hinterland can be readily observed.
8. The policy context is also important, particularly given the site's proximity to Chadstone which is identified as a Principal Activity Centre. The direction given by the policies at clause 12 of the scheme are clear in terms of encouraging the provision of more housing at increased densities in locations like this. More so than in locations that are more remote from the facilities and services provided within an activity centre. Further, it is relevant to also consider policy outcomes sought under the council's MSS which include providing a variety of housing types to meet the changing needs of the community which include a movement towards smaller and more varied household types. The provision of apartments in a location like this is clearly consistent with the thrust of both state and local policy and this is not something to be dismissed lightly.
9. Thirdly, during the course of the hearing I was advised that a short time before the permit application was lodged all the vegetation on the site was removed. I was presented with photographs showing the site as it existed when Member Naylor made her earlier decision. The photographs show lush vegetation along the site's Dandenong Road frontage and within the site. The removal of the vegetation seemed to be based on the owner's will to want to have it removed. I was not advised that it was necessary for any particular reason, such as the trees being in poor health or that they posed a danger. I should also say that I was also not presented with any particular analysis of what had been removed, with respect to age, value and condition.
10. It would have been preferable for the trees to have been retained and for there to have been some analysis as to whether the design was "site responsive" in terms of seeking to keep the trees in better condition. Indeed, in her decision Member Naylor noted that any new design for the site should include a review of the vegetation with some of it to be incorporated into the new design[5]. The opportunity to do this is now lost. The approach taken in this case leaves a lot to be desired as I believe that the process encouraged by the planning scheme would support an examination of the vegetation with a view to at least some of it being incorporated into the proposed development. This is the approach Member Naylor supported.
11. Nonetheless, it should also be acknowledged that the removal of the trees was not unlawful. Further it seems that the planning scheme contemplates that there will be cases when vegetation removal occurs a short time before an application is lodged. In this regard of Standard B13 at clause 55 deal with this issue by specifying that "development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made". Determining whether the applicant has provided satisfactory replacement has proven to be difficult because aside from the photographs, there has not been any analysis of what was removed. In these circumstances, I think that all I can assess is whether the landscape outcome represents a reasonable response to the context.
12. It is having regard to this background that I now turn to the consideration of the key issues in dispute.
13. The first issue is whether the proposal represents an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character. On this issue, Ms Moser, Mr Hooper and the objectors raised concerns about several aspects of the proposed development. These included the three storey height of the building; the front setback to Maroo Street; the adequacy of landscaping opportunities and the contemporary nature of the design. It would be fair to say that in overall terms, it was submitted on behalf of the council and the objectors that too much development is being proposed and this leads to an outcome that would be overly imposing on the character and amenity of Maroo Street and therefore not be respectful of the neighbourhood character. It was also asserted that the outcome would not be consistent with the desired future character for the area as set out in the policy at clause 22.01.
14. Under the policy at clause 22.01, the site is within character area A. The desired future character statement for this area states that "the neighbourhood character of this area will retain evidence of its origins in the middle of last century and of other eras of development by protecting buildings of and precincts of identified heritage significance along with associated streetscape elements....."
15. It goes on to say that "the built form will be unified by consistency in building setback. New dwellings will address the street and compliment the scale and form of adjacent buildings. Development that is inappropriate and out of scale with adjoining dwellings will not be supported. ... ...... ............... Sympathetically designed architecture is encouraged in preference to imitation of historic styles....."
16. In relation to the above, it is worth noting the following. Firstly, this proposal does not involve the removal of heritage buildings. While there are dwellings in the area that are from the inter war period, the buildings on the site are not of heritage value. Further, the site is not within a heritage area.
17. Secondly, the notion of consistency in street setback does not mean that the front setback neighbouring dwelling to the west sets the benchmark to be met. The notion of consistency suggests that regard needs to be given to context and the relationship with neighbouring buildings and how the building fits the site given its position. Put simply, there is a difference between what may be regarded as appropriate on a mid block site compared to one that is located toward the end of a street that has a relationship with buildings on properties fronting different streets as is the case here. In this regard I note that in principle, Member Naylor was not concerned about the "staggered front setback" across the width of the site[6].
18. Thirdly, I note that the character statement does not support design that seeks to imitate historic styles. Sympathetic design is sought. This can include contemporary design.
19. While thus far I have dealt with matters of design detail which are the basis of the local neighbourhood character policy, it is important that decisions in cases like this also have regard to the broader metropolitan policy imperatives that encourage increased densities in locations like this. As noted by my colleague Member Hewet in Vacation Properties v Monash CC[7]:

24 In undertaking an assessment of the proposal's response to the character of the neighbourhood, a balance must be struck between those aspects of the planning scheme including the zone purposes and the policy framework which encourage increased densities in residential areas, and those provisions which emphasise the protection of neighbourhood character. It is not a matter of preferring one outcome over another.

25 In the context of this site I think there is scope for introducing a built form which contrasts with that of some its immediate neighbours, to a greater degree than might exist in a different site context. The site's main road frontage, its proximity to Chadstone, the fact that it abuts a prominent medium density housing development on one boundary, and the fact that the character of this neighbourhood is already very mixed and does not exhibit a high degree of consistency or uniformity, a fact which is recognised in the Council's Character Study, all contribute to my findings on this point[8].

1. I have referred to the Vacation Properties decision because the site in that case was in close proximity to this site and in the same character area. Like Member Hewet, I find that there is scope to introduce on this site a built form which contrasts from that of its immediate neighbours. Factors that have brought me to this conclusion include the policy context as well as the mixed nature of the neighbourhood, the site's main road frontage, proximity to Chadstone and abuttal to properties used for medical centres. Further, given this context, I think it is probable that other properties, particularly along Dandenong Road, will be redeveloped more intensely over time as envisaged by planning policy. The development in Vacation Properties is an example of such redevelopment as is the redevelopment of another nearby site on Dandenong Road for a three storey apartment building; a development which according to Ms Moser was approved by the council.
2. Given the policy and the physical context, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal has struck an appropriate balance between competing policies which on the one hand support more intense development on good sites in close proximity to activity centres and development that responds to neighbourhood character.
3. Given this context I have no difficulty with the notion of a three storey building fronting a major arterial like Dandenong Road. The position advanced on behalf of the council, that is, that development on Dandenong Road should be limited two storeys because of the height of nearby development cannot be sustained simply as a matter of principle given the policy context. I acknowledge that the overall height of the building at 9.75 metres exceeds the 9 metre height specified in Standard B7; however, I agree with Mr Negri that the extent to which it does is minor and not unacceptable given the context.
4. While the building also has an interface with Maroo Street, it is important to understand that the uppermost level is well setback from this street at about 15.5 metres. With the two lower levels coming closer to the street, with setbacks ranging from about 6 to 8.5 metres, the uppermost level will read as a recessive element. In this regard, the footprint of the uppermost level is far less than the levels below, accommodating two apartments only.
5. Technically, the front setback required of 7.6 metres to Maroo Street under Standard B6 is not met; however, the staggered approach, which results in part of the front setback being less and part being greater, is acceptable on a site like this. The presentation of a two storey built form with a recessive upper level is a respectful response to the streetscape character of Maroo Street.
6. Like Member Naylor, I have no difficulty with the staggered front setback proposed in this case. The front setback represents a response that mediates between the medical centre building to the east and the dwelling to the west. Importantly, I am satisfied that the front setback provides satisfactory opportunity for landscaping that will make a positive contribution to the garden character of the streetscape. The front setback to Dandenong Road also provides good opportunity for landscaping. It is trite to ay that the new landscaping will not result in a visual outcome that is the same as that presented by this site before the vegetation was removed. However, it is unfair to assess the landscaping at the time the development is completed. Over time the landscaping will mature and will make a positive contribution to both streetscapes.
7. A 1.5 metre high front fence is proposed which is about 300 mm higher than contemplated by the standard. The amount of extra height is minor and not unacceptable, particularly when consideration is given to the height of the existing paling fence that this site has presented to Maroo Street.
8. The recessive nature of the upper level, the much smaller footprint compared to the levels below, the staggered front setback, the space for landscaping and planting proposed in Ms Dowey's plan; the contemporary styling of the building; the absence of vehicle access to the basement from Maroo Street will all work toward a built form that will not be unacceptable in streetscape and neighbourhood context.
9. In his sub mission, Mr Boast expressed concerns about the degree to which the proposed development would be seen. In coming to the conclusion that the building would be acceptable, I am not saying that this building will not be seen or noticed. Very few developments that involve an increase in density of the type that can be supported given the physical and policy context of this site manage to achieve this. However, this is not the test. As noted by the tribunal in Rowcliffe v Stonnington CC[9]:

If mere visibility becomes the test across metropolitan Melbourne, then it will be virtually impossible to construct buildings above the prevailing scale. This, in turn, would render it impossible to achieve the clearly stated urban consolidation objectives expressed in the Planning Scheme, objectives which Clause 11 requires us "to give effect to". The Tribunal rejects the notion that, because some of the buildings would be visible above the existing built form, they are therefore unacceptable. Rather, the test is whether the proposal is complementary to the surrounding area, and of a scale that can be assimilated without unreasonably disturbing the surrounding built environment.

1. For the reasons that I have given, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal achieves satisfactory outcome from a neighbourhood character viewpoint when consideration is given to the nature and context of this site.
2. The second key issue is whether the proposed development would have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the area generally. Matters of concern raised by the council and objectors include the impacts of visual bulk; overshadowing, loss of outlook from windows, increased traffic and pressure on parking.
3. In relation to visual bulk, I have already concluded that the impact of the proposed building when viewed from the streetscape is acceptable. In relation to neighbouring properties, I do not have any concerns about the impact on neighbouring medical centres.
4. Clearly the most sensitive property is to the west, occupied by Mr Young. While the double storey component of the proposed building extends along much of the length of Mr Young's property including the backyard, I note that the side setback meets the requirements of Standard B17 and opportunity is provided for landscaping. A recessed area is also provided about half way along the length of the west facade. I agree with Mr Negri that this recessed area will break up the continuity of the building.
5. It is also important to take into account that the uppermost level is to be well setback off the west boundary. With setbacks ranging from about 4.9 metres and 6.3 metres to the west, the distance is substantial and complies with Standard B17.
6. Additional shadows will be cast over the residential property to the west. I have reviewed the shadow diagrams and conclude that the extent of additional shadows easily falls within what is allowable under Standard B21.
7. Mr Young also expressed concerns about the loss of outlook from the windows of his home. There will be a noticeable change in the outlook from the widow that directly faces the site; however, this change will be largely brought about by the ground and first floor level, not the uppermost level. An expectation that there would be single storey development to maintain some outlook from a side facing window is unrealistic given the context. In relation to the front bay window, the primary outlook is toward the south, across the front garden, not over the subject site. The impact is not significant.
8. I also accept Mr Negri's evidence that the potential for overlooking toward the residential property to the west has been managed through the appropriate positioning of windows and use of screening devices.
9. The proposed use of the development will result in an increase in traffic. Most of this traffic will be accommodated by the service road as this is where access to the basement car park is provided. I expect that there will be some additional traffic in Maroo Street, but not a significant amount given the parking restrictions that apply. I agree with Ms Donald that the extra traffic can be easily accommodated.
10. It was contended that the provision of 18 car parking spaces is inadequate. I do not agree. As noted by Ms Donald, the provision of 18 car spaces accordance with Standard B16 at clause 55 and includes provision for visitors. The council has a local guideline which requires more parking; however, I do not accept that this requirement should be preferred over what is required by the planning scheme.
11. There are some issues with the car parking layout. I accept that some ramp grades do not conform to the Australian Standard; however I agree with Ms Donald that the extent to which this is so is not so significant as to warrant changing the design of the building. Safe access onto the service road and appropriate transitions in grades are provided. Other matters such as the allocation of appropriate spaces for visitors and the provision of a security grill and intercom can be implemented by permit conditions. In other respects the car park layout is satisfactory.
12. I do not accept that the proposal would result in unreasonable noise due to the operation of plant equipment like air conditioners or the activities of the residents themselves. Plant equipment will need to comply with relevant EPA noise standards. Noise generated by residents will be of a residential nature, something which should be reasonably expected in a suburban environment.
13. I have no concerns about the impacts on the other abutting properties as they are not used for residential purposes.
14. Overall I am satisfied that the proposal would not have unreasonable impacts on amenity.
15. The third key issue is whether the proposed dwellings will provide future residents with a good standard of amenity. In this regard concerns were raised about the amount of open space provided for some apartments; solar access to the open space and impact of traffic noise, internal shadows and overlooking.
16. The modified requirement for Standard B28 as set out in the schedule to the Residential 1 zone is for dwellings to be provided with either 75 square metres of open space at ground level, with 35 square metres to be secluded with a minimum width of 5 metres; or a balcony of 8 square metres at the upper levels or a roof top garden measuring 10 square metres.
17. While these are the requirements of the standard, it must be remembered that the outcome to be achieved is that set out in the objective at clause 55.05-4 is to provide open space that accommodates the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.
18. I accept that there are ground level apartments with open space that does not meet the requirements of the standard in some way. However, what must also be remembered is that the requirements of the standards apply to all dwellings forming part of a medium density development, whether a 40 square townhouse or a small bedsit apartment. It would be nonsense to suggest that the reasonable recreation needs of the residents of such different dwellings would be the same.
19. Accordingly, in assessing whether it is reasonable to apply the standard, it is appropriate to take into account the type and size of dwellings proposed. In this case the proposal involves relatively modest dwellings forming part of an apartment complex.
20. I do not accept that the provision of open space as proposed in the front setback to Dandenong Road is inappropriate for apartments 1, 2 and 3. This is particularly so given that relatively large, well proportioned spaces ranging in size from 40 to 71 square metres are proposed. The spaces will be secluded as it is not unreasonable to provide a 1.8 metre high fence as proposed to Dandenong Road. Further the open space is north facing and accessible from a living room area. The open space is generous for these two bedroom apartments.
21. I acknowledge that in the previous decision Member Naylor was critical of the open space in the front setback to Dandenong Road. However, that proposal involved large townhouses a form of dwelling that is quite different to the smaller apartments in this application in terms of the way open space is provided. For example, the standard contemplates that a balcony measuring 8 square metres would suffice for an apartment at first floor level, even if such balcony faces Dandenong Road. The balconies to apartments 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 comply with this standard, despite them having a direct interface with Dandenong Road. Ironically, Ms Moser was not critical of them in her submission. Accordingly, it is difficult for me to conclude that much larger spaces setback behind a tall fence, a reasonable proposition on a main road, would not provide for the reasonable recreation needs of future residents.
22. I also accept that in some cases the open space appurtenant to some apartments would not receive for a considerable part of the day and would be subject to shadowing. These apartments are relatively few. For the most part, the design seeks to provide open spaces that are of a reasonable size for the type of dwellings proposed, well proportioned, accessible from living areas and with access to sunlight, albeit to varying degrees. In a complex like this it is inevitable that the open space to some apartments will have better access to sunlight than others. But overall I am satisfied that the open space provided is reasonable for the type of dwellings proposed in this case.
23. I have also considered other internal amenity issues. I do not accept that the layout facilitates unacceptable potential for internal overlooking from upper level balconies down into the open space of ground floor units. Some potential for overlooking exists, but the degree is not so significant that it warrants rejection of the proposal or changes. Noise from Dandenong Road is a fact of life for any form of residential development in this location.
24. In other respects I note that the units have functional layouts; habitable room windows have access to daylight in accordance with the daylight standard at clause 55; there is to be a proper entry and sense of address to most apartments from Dandenong Road while the two south facing ground floor apartments G5 and G6 have an appropriate connection and interface with Maroo Street; undercover car parking and storage are provided within a safe and secure basement level which can be easily accessed by the proposed lift.
25. Overall. I conclude that the proposed apartments are of a satisfactory standard.

1. For the above reasons I conclude that a permit should be granted. It is overly simplistic to assess proposals based on a numbers game. In this regard I note Ms Moser's submission that this scheme should be rejected because it involved a far greater number of dwellings compared to the earlier scheme. I accept that there are more dwellings; however I do not accept that the number of dwellings in itself is determinative. A well designed development supporting a greater number of dwellings should not be refused simply because an earlier scheme with fewer dwellings was rejected. It is necessary in each case to consider the merits of the proposal against the site features and context.
2. The proposal has struck a reasonable balance between the competing policy objectives of facilitating urban consolidation and while providing a reasonable response to the neighbourhood character. There is no doubt that this proposal represents noticeable change; however, it is the type of change that can be sustained given the location, the policy context that applies and the design approach taken. I am satisfied that there will not be unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and that the proposed apartments will provide satisfactory amenity for future residents.

1. Before the development starts, three copies of an amended plan drawn to scale and dimensioned, 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 generally in accordance with the plans identified as drawing numbers 03 Rev A, 04 Rev B and 05 - 08 all Rev A , but modified to show:
   • (a) Car spaces 17 and 18 assigned to residents with two visitor car spaces designated elsewhere in the basement.
   • (b) The provision of a security grill and intercom system at the entry to the basement car park.
   • (c) Service meters provided in such a way that they are discretely located on-site.
   • (d) The relocation of the light indicator directing traffic movements in the basement to be relocated opposite car space 17.
   • (e) Any redundant vehicle crossovers to be re-instated with kerb, channel and footpath as appropriate and new crossovers to be located 1 metre clear of services in the nature strip.
   • (f) The new crossover to have a minimum 1 metre clearance from any services in the footpath and nature strip.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Before occupation all buildings and works specified in this permit must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority must be advised in writing when all construction and works are completed to enable the site to be inspected.
5. A landscape plan, generally in accordance with the plan by John Patrick Pty Ltd dated May 2009, prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including:
   • (a) Provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located throughout the site including the rear open space areas of the development.
   • (b) Planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways and other paved areas.
   • (c) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, which will include the size of all plants (at planting and at maturity), their location, botanical names and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn, mulch or other surface material;
   • (d) The location and details of all fencing;
   • (e) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site.
   • (f) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

1. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Existing redundant crossovers to Dandenong Road service road and/or Maroo Street must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority, where the driveway crosses the footpath, the driveway grade shall be 1 in 40 (2.5%0 or less across the footpath aver a lateral distance of 1 metre.
4. Garbage collection from the site is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (a private contractor may be required).
5. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

• The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

• 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] Gardner Group v Monash CC [2005] VCAT 1407

[2] There being no objection form the other parties, the applicant was given leave to amend the permit application by substituting plans for a 14 apartment development.

[3] Gardner Group v Monash CC [2005] VCAT 1407

[4] See paragraph 19 of Member Naylor's reasons.

[5] See paragraph 23 of Member Naylor's decision

[6] See paragraph 24 of Member Naylor's reasons.