The order of the Tribunal is that the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.

A permit is granted for the construction of a building and the carrying out of works, the use of land for the purpose of dwellings and a reduction in the provision of car parking at 40 - 58 Poath Road, Hughesdale, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:-

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 three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Amnon Weber Pty Ltd dated 26 August 2004 but modified to show:

a) realignment of the proposed crossover to provide for the retention of the existing street tree;

b) the location and design of any proposed electricity meter boxes.

d) details of types and colours of all external building materials including paving;

e) elevation details of type of fencing proposed along boundary and street frontages;

f) details of screening for any service equipment including mechanical ventilation located above the building;

g) the existing crossover adjacent to the right of way along the eastern boundary of the site to be removed and the naturestrip reinstated;

h) design of the car park and access thereto generally in conformity with the evidence of GTA Consultants presented to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and incorporating the following amendments;

i) Relocation of the automatic door to the southern side of the columns to improve access to car spaces 3 and 32

ii) The width of car parking spaces 33, 44 and 45 increased to 2.7 metres.

iii) The incorporation of building splays to provide sight distances to pedestrians for vehicles exiting the site in accordance with AS/NZ 2890.1:2004.

iv) Tandem parking spaces 32 and 33 allocated as parking spaces for shops 1 and 2.

v) The introduction of kerb stops between spaces 32 to 33 and 35 to 36

i) the proposed vehicle crossing must not interfere with any services in the naturestrip or, if such services are to be relocated, this must be at the cost of the applicant

j) a 'Keep Clear' sign in Paget Street, in the vicinity of the vehicle crossover; and

k) The removal of the pedestrian access ramps to the shops in Poath road.

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

3 Prior to the commencement of the development, a report shall be provided by a qualified arborist detailing the design, location and type of construction required for the new crossover in Paget Street in order to provide for the long term viability of the existing street tree in Paget Street. In addition, the report shall provide details of the supervision required during construction to ensure retention of the existing street tree.

4 The existing street trees in both Poath Road and Paget Street must not be removed or damaged during construction. The following measures must be undertaken to ensure this:

a) an above ground barrier must be erected around the base of all street trees adjacent to the site or the trees wrapped with padding; and

b) any excavation that may be required near the root system of the street tree in Paget Street for the proposed vehicle crossover must be supervised and undertaken by a professional arborist as detailed in the report required in condition 2.

5 Upon completion of the development, a report shall be provided by a qualified arborist detailing the level of supervision and compliance with the protection works required under conditions 3 and 4.

6 The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through the:

a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, products, grit or oil; or

7 No goods must be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare.

8 No bin or receptacle or any form of rubbish or refuse shall be allowed to remain in view of the public and no odour shall be emitted from any receptacle so as to cause offence to persons outside the land.

9 The construction works associated with the development hereby permitted must only be carried out during the following hours, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority

* Monday to Friday (inclusive) - 7.00 am to 6.00 pm;

* Saturday - 1.00pm to 5.00pm (only activities associated with the erection of buildings. This does not include excavation or the use of heavy machinery).

10 A landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or a suitable qualified or experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be generally in accordance with the plan tabled at the hearing of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (prepared by Faulkner and Chapman, dated 08/09/04, titled Landscape Plan Proposed Mixed Use Development 40 Poath Road Hughesdale, plan no. 40 PoathLP) ) and must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including:

a) details of any planter boxes including growing medium and drainage;

b) 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 extent of any cut, fill, embankements or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site; and

e) 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.

11 Before occupation of the development starts, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12 No equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind, including telecommunication facilities and television antennas, other than those shown on the endorsed plans, shall be permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

13 The electrical supply meter boxes must be located within the building or behind the setback alignment of the building or in compliance with Council's "Guide to Electricity Supply Meter Boxes in Monash".

14 Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent adverse effect on adjoining land.

15 A sign to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be located and maintained to the satisfaction or the Responsible Authority. The sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres.

16 All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties (including the road reserve).

17 A trench grate (175mm minimum width) or Council approved equivalent is required to prevent discharge from the driveway and internal pathways onto the footpaths.

18 Before the development starts, a site layout plan drawn to scale and dimensioned must be approved by a building Practitioner registered under the Building Act 1993 submitted to the Responsible Authority.

The plans must show a drainage scheme providing for the collection of stormwater within the site and for the conveying of the stormwater to the nominated point of discharge. The nominated point of discharge is to the south-west corner of the property where it must be collected and piped to the 375mm Council drain in the nature strip via a 900x300mm junction pit to be constructed to Council standards.

19 The redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated with appropriate kerbing and channelling and then sown with grass to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20 A site management plan for all buildings and works on the land is to be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to any buildings or works commencing on the land. The plan must provide for the following:

a) prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering the Council's underground drainage system or road network;

b) on site parking of vehicles during construction;

c) wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction activities; and

d) maintenance of safe movement of vehicles to and from the site during the construction phase.

21 Adequate provision must be made for waste and recyclable material to be collected by contractors from the site.

22 Before the occupation of the development, all buildings and works specified in the 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.

23 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.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Mr Pitt called Mr G Tucker, traffic engineer of GTA Consultants and Mr L Trickey, town planner of Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Mr Montebello called Mr J Holdsworth, architect and urban designer

M Craig, C Steigler, S Whitelaw, A Carney, C Edwards, K Dyer.

1 This is an application to review the decision of the Responsible Authority to refuse permission for the construction of a building and the carrying out of works, the use of land for the purpose of dwellings and a reduction in the provision of car parking at 40 - 58 Poath Road, Hughesdale. The Responsible Authority issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is out of character with the existing development in the area, in particular having regard to excessive mass, bulk, scale and lack of an appropriate level of articulation.

2. No architectural style used for the building is 'box-like' in character with a result that the built form is unsympathetic to the character of the surrounding area.

3. The proposed development does not provide sufficient landscaped setback, particularly to Paget Street to integrate the development into the streetscape.

4. The proposed development as submitted is considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

5. The proposed development does not provide for an adequate number of on site car parking spaces.

6. The proposed development does not provide for easily accessible on site visitor car parking.

2 The Applicant's grounds of review refute each of the Responsible Authority's grounds of refusal.

3 At the commencement of the hearing and pursuant to Clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, Mr Pitt requested the Tribunal to amend the application for permit by substituting revised plans for those which had originally accompanied the application.

4 Copies of the revised plans had been forwarded to all parties under the cover of a letter dated 30 August, 2004 detailing the changes and outlining the permit applicant's intention to seek approval for their substitution. The changes included:

* Driveway on the western side of the Paget Street frontage (closed to the intersection with Poath Road) has been removed, and the entry gate has been replaced by a 1.8 metre high horizontal timber slat fence setback 2.5 metres from the title boundary to provide opportunity for landscaping.

* The total number of car parking spaces has increased by 1 to a total of 49.

* Bin refuse area (for shops) has been relocated, and is now adjacent to car space 25 inside the car park.

* Bin enclosure area (for residents) has been relocated, and is now adjacent to the vehicular accessway.

* The area of shop 1 has been altered and is 51.25 square metres.

* The setback of the northern boundary has increased to 3 metres.

* Internal layout of apartments 4 and 6 has been altered to accommodate the setback described above.

* The balconies on the eastern boundary have been extended into the setback.

* The internal layouts to apartments 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 have been altered.

* The balconies on the eastern boundary have been extended into the setback.

* Balconies adjacent to master bedrooms of apartments 32 and 33 have been deleted.

* East facing balcony to apartment 29 has been deleted.

* Balcony on northern elevation of apartment 30 has been deleted.

* Number of apartments has increased by 1 (total 33).

The elevations have been revised to accord with the internal floor plans of the building.

The western elevation has been altered to provide a more horizontal form.

Timber screens have been provided to the balconies at first floor level.

The section have been revised to accord with the amendment.

5 There was no objection to the substitution of these plans, and being of the opinion that such substitution was appropriate, I made the amendment in the manner requested.

6 The proposal involves demolishing an existing industrial/warehouse building and constructing five ground floor shops with 33 dwellings on three levels above. The shops range in area from 39.5 m2 to 50.68m2. The mix of proposed dwellings comprises;

7 Fourteen apartments are provided on each of the first and second floors and five apartments on the third floor. A total of 49 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided at ground floor level, accessed via the side street, Paget Street.

8 The review site is located on the south east corner of Poath Road and Paget Street, Hughesdale. Poath Road is a secondary arterial providing a north/south connection between the Princes Highway and North Road, while Paget Street is a local residential street. A three metre wide right of way abuts the rear, eastern boundary of the site.

9 The review site has an area of 1754m2 with a frontage to Poath Road of 51.78 metres and to Paget Street of 30.48 metres.

10 An industrial building currently occupies the site. The building is of a single storey, industrial scale and height. The building is setback three metres from both Poath Road and Paget Street, but otherwise occupies the whole site.

11 The site forms the northern end of the Hughesdale shopping centre. The shopping centre comprises one and two storey brick shops and would appear to perform a relatively localised function. The Hughesdale railway station is located approximately 200 metres to the south and a bus service which runs between Box Hill Shopping Centre and Southland Shopping Centre operates on Poath Road. A public car park is located to the south of the site, behind the Poath Road shops.

12 To the north and east of the review the land use is residential. The built form scale is predominantly single storey detached dwellings, with some medium density housing evident. Abutting the right of way to the east of the site are two single storey dwellings, one of which faces Paget Street with the other dwelling located to the rear and accessed off the right of way.

13 The review site is zoned Business 1 under the Monash Planning Scheme. The purpose of the zone is;

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complementary commercial, entertainment and community uses.

14 A shop is a section 1 permit not required use in the zone. A dwelling is also a section 1 permit not required use in the zone but this is conditional upon any frontage at ground floor level not exceeding 2 metres. This condition is not met in this proposal but the suitability of the land for the purpose of dwellings was not contested.

15 A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Decision guidelines require consideration of;

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

The movement of pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicles providing for supplies, waste removal, emergency services and public transport.

The interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas.

The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and the landscaping of land adjoining a road.

The storage of rubbish and materials for recycling.

Defining the responsibility for the maintenance of buildings, landscaping and paved areas.

The design of buildings to provide for solar access.

The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54 and Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of four or more storeys, excluding a basement.

16 Clause 52.06 contains the provisions relating to car parking. The table at Clause 52.06-5 requires car parking to be provided at a rate of 2 spaces per dwelling and 8 spaces per 100 m2 for the retail use. A permit maybe granted to reduce or waive the required number of spaces. Decision guidelines under that Clause require consideration of;

The availability of public transport in the locality.

Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces.

Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land.

Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement.

17 With respect to the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Clauses 14 and 16 are relevant. These clauses encourage the consolidation of urban development within existing urban areas and the encouragement of higher residential densities in locations with access to physical and community infrastructure. Medium density developments within established areas are also required to be respectful of the character of those areas. The provision of a diversity of housing styles is also encouraged through the development of well designed medium density housing which is intended to improve housing choice, make better use of existing infrastructure and improve energy efficiency of housing.

18 The principles of the SPPF have been reinforced by the Metropolitan Policy Melbourne 2030 - Planning for Sustainable Growth which emphasises the need for a more compact city to accommodate forecast housing needs while optimising existing infrastructure and protecting metropolitan green wedges. The importance of strategic redevelopment sites abutting public transport routes and close to or within activity centres is also emphasised in terms of their contribution to the achievement of sustainable growth objectives.

19 With respect to the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), I will return to an assessment of this proposal against the outcomes sought to be achieved by the LPPF, subsequently in this decision. In broad terms however, the planning scheme encourages the provision of a variety of housing types to accommodate changing needs and preferences but seeks to achieve this in a manner which preserves and enhances the city's garden city character. This is to be achieved by limiting higher density residential development in established residential areas, and by encouraging this form of development in activity centres and in nominated investigation areas.

20 It is important to recognise that the review site, being located within a Business 1 zone and forming part of the Hughesdale Shopping Centre, is not part of an established residential area. The site is however, located within an activity centre where this form of development is specifically encouraged by both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks.

21 The parties and the witnesses at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. I inspected the subject site and its locality following the hearing and unaccompanied by the parties.

22 The zone provisions and the applicable policy framework provide very strong support for the intended development of this site. Neither the Council nor the objectors disputed the suitability of the site for a combination of retail and residential use. Notwithstanding this, I did receive submissions to the effect that the proposal ought not be approved because in its proposed form, it does not integrate well with or respect the character of the residential area beyond the Hughesdale Shopping Centre. Indeed it was the Council's submission that the proposal fails to respond appropriately to neighbourhood character, including the character of the shopping centre.

23 These submissions indicate to me a reluctance to acknowledge that the relevant and applicable provisions of the planning scheme seek to encourage a built form and land use outcome on this site which does not draw its primary influences from existing development patterns.

24 The Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at clause 21.01 provides a discussion of the demographic characteristics of the municipality and changes which are forecast to occur, with emphasis on declining household size, population growth and an ageing population. At Clause 21.04 the implications of demographic change for the provision of housing and the impact on the character of established residential areas is explored. A concept of Garden City underpins the Council's residential polices. The Council's urban character study divides the municipality's residential areas into precincts based on residential character type, and in broad terms, there is a strong emphasis on minimising change within these areas. Notwithstanding this, there is a commitment expressed in the Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.03 to;

To encourage the provision of a variety of housing types to accommodate the changing housing needs and preferences of residents that will also complement and enhance the Garden City Character of Monash.

25 This of course raises the question of where and how the Council is intending to provide for the diversity of housing its own planning scheme explicitly states is needed. It is clear from any reading of the LPPF that the Council is seeking to achieve the balance between the provision of a variety of housing types and the protection of existing character of residential areas, by limiting higher density residential development in established areas and by encouraging this form of development in activity centres and in nominated "investigation areas" where substantial change maybe expected.

26 The review site forms part of the Hughesdale Shopping Centre and does not form part of any of the Residential Character Type precincts in the Council's urban character study. The urban character study and related policies including the policy at Clause 22.01 Residential Development and Character Policy, are primarily concerned with the enhancement of existing residential character and with ensuring new development is in keeping with and contributes to the "Garden City" Character of the municipality. The exclusion of this activity centre from the urban character study and from the associated policies is of course very relevant because it confirms that the outcomes sought to be achieved by those polices for the municipality's residential areas are not sought for this activity centre.

27 The exclusion of the activity centre from the planning scheme's urban character and residential policies is of course entirely consistent with the purposes of the Business 1 zone and the policies which are relevant to the consideration of appropriate development forms in this activity centre which I discuss below. It would be anomalous if the urban character and residential policies did apply to the activity centre.

28 It is true that the Council's concept of Garden City as formulated under Clause 21.03 is not exclusively concerned with development in residential areas, but also covers all land use types including industrial and commercial. In the context of the Hughesdale Shopping Centre however, where development is typified by hard edge, boundary to boundary construction, its application is limited and I do not think it is a policy which can realistically be relied upon to constrain the form and scale of a development which is otherwise supported by the policy framework.

29 Similarly the policy at clause 22.03 Industry and Business Development and Character Policy, does not provide any direction as to the future of the Hughesdale Shopping Centre because the policy does not apply to land in a Business 1 zone.

30 The applicable policy provisions for this activity centre are contained in Clause 21.06. Hughesdale is classified as one of the municipality's Local Activity Centres. These centres are recognised as being important in providing accessible and convenient services and as a community focus. The retention of these centres is strongly encouraged and it is recognised that they need to attract local business to remain viable. The strategic directions for these centres involves promoting the attractiveness of the centre for local needs, broadening the community activities base within the centres and providing adequate car parking. Relevant strategies which apply to all activity centres include encouraging the development of higher density housing projects within existing activity centers, facilitating land assembly where needed to achieve strategic directions, consolidation of retail and expansion of entertainment and office functions with residential uses above ground level, and the encouragement of mixed use developments.

31 Clause 21.05 Economic Development is also of some relevance because this policy seeks to provide impetus for business investment in the municipality to facilitate sustainable employment opportunities and by creating attractive, convenient and vibrant industry, business and activity centres.

32 The outcomes encouraged by the SPPF and LPPF are directly relevant to a consideration of an appropriate built form and scale of development on this site. The outcomes sought by the planning scheme are unlikely to be achieved by a development whose built form derives from or reflects the single storey, detached dwelling character of the nearby residential area.

33 It was submitted that the scale of the proposed development is excessive in terms of its response to the local role played by the Hughesdale Shopping Centre in the hierarchy of retail centres in the City of Monash. It was submitted that this development would be better suited to a higher order shopping centre or a major activity centre. While I acknowledge that the policy at clause 21.06 emphasises the retention of the existing hierarchy of activity centres by encouraging development and expansion of retail and related facilities appropriate to the centre's role, I do not think that this policy is offended by this proposal. The proposal does not extend the boundaries of the activity centre but rather involves the development of a disused site located within the activity centre for a combination of uses which, except for a minor non compliance with a condition relating to entrance widths, are permitted as of right in this zone. I think it is also significant that the proposed building is in part one storey and in part two storeys higher than the predominant scale of the balance of the Hughesdale Shopping Centre. Having regard to the policy framework and the impetus given to the establishment of higher density residential development in activity centres, I do not regard this scale of development as excessive.

34 Mr Montebello was critical of the design of the building and submitted that it is deficient in terms of internal amenity, height, articulation, and interfaces with neighbouring properties and abutting streets. Mr Montebelo relied on the evidence of Mr Holdsworth in support of his submission. Mr Holdsworth acknowledged the "inherent advantages" of the site as a development site but it was his evidence that the proposal does not enhance the character and function of the Hughesdale centre and does not respect the residential scale and nature of Paget Street. Mr Holdsworth said;

The built form ...... is one of a cuboid structure with varying setbacks creating an articulated stepped composition with recessed balconies and flat roofs. The character of the building is one of a large mass which, despite the stepping, balcony indents and proposed range of external materials, is out of scale and character with both the retail premises to the south and the residential area to the north and east.

35 The interface treatment with the residential property to the east was also criticised on the basis that the large number of balconies, some of which are not screened, will compromise the privacy of that property. Concerns were also raised about the southern interface to Paget Street, and the use of ramps to provide access to the ground level shops

36 Mr Holdsworth was also critical of the internal amenity of the proposed development and in particular the reliance on light courts for daylight and ventilation for bedrooms in 15 of the apartments and studies in five of the apartments.

37 I have dealt previously with the issue of the appropriate scale for a development of this site and the degree to which a development ought to derive its influences from the residential area and the existing character of the Hughesdale Shopping Centre. For the reasons I have detailed above, I disagree with Mr Holdsworth that a development of this site at a scale which reflects the character of Paget Street and the two storey scale of the shopping centre is supported by the planning scheme.

38 I think it is also significant that Mr Holdsworth acknowledged that the design of the building incorporates recessing of the upper level, varied setbacks, varied external materials and an articulated stepped composition. In my view, these design elements are important in containing the visual perception of the building's mass to an acceptable level. I agree with Mr Pitt's submission that this building does not present as a monolithic structure but rather as a modulated and well articulated building.

39 The building's interface with the dwellings to the east is in my view acceptable, having regard to the Business 1 zoning of the site, the applicable policy framework which I have discussed above, the location of the private open space on those properties, and the separation provided by the laneway. I have imposed conditions however, requiring the screening of those balconies which are not shown as being screened on the substituted plans. While some of these balconies are greater than 9 metres distant from the neighbouring properties I am of the view that they do present unacceptable overlooking opportunities, but that these can be contained to acceptable levels through the use of screening and this can be achieved without compromising the internal amenity of the affected apartments.

40 I am also satisfied that the internal amenity of the proposed apartments is satisfactory. Each of the apartments which have rooms reliant on light wells for daylight, also have living and main bedrooms which have windows to external walls. The light wells provide daylight and ventilation to some second bedrooms and studies only, and while residents of those apartments which do not rely on light wells at all will enjoy a higher standard of amenity than the residents of those which do, I do not think that the level of internal amenity for the development taken as a whole, is unacceptable. I do not share Mr Holdsworth's concerns about windows to different apartments facing each other across the light wells because where this does occur, they are located so that they are offset from each other.

41 I do not share the Council's concerns about the presentation of the development to Paget Street. At the ground level this presentation comprises a solid rendered wall which Mr Montebello disparagingly described as a "graffiti opportunity" but which is in fact a strong architectural feature for this corner location, semi transparent timber slats set behind a 2.5 - 3.0 metre landscape treatment, a stone face feature to the residential entrance and the entrance to the car park. Two levels of dwellings are proposed above the ground floor, with the third level recessed a distance of 24.5 metres from Paget Street. I regard this treatment as appropriate to its context.

42 I do agree with the Council's submission that the use of ramps to provide pedestrian access to the shops in Poath Road is unnecessary and undesirable. I have imposed a condition requiring these to be removed.

43 I accept Mr Tucker's evidence with respect to the adequacy of the number of car parking spaces provided and the functionality of the car park layout.

44 With respect to permit conditions, I received submissions from all parties concerning and these submissions have assisted me in formulating the conditions included in the Order. It is not necessary for me to detail those submissions other than to note that they are consistent with my findings as outlined above.

45 The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside and it is directed that a permit issue in accordance with the attached Order.