Adele Khoo, Kelvin Khoo, Frank Falconer, Warren Walsh, Paul Callum and others

Khoo & Ors v Manningham CC [2012] VCAT 1353

1. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. PL11/02/021760 is varied.
2. A permit is granted in relation to land at 20-24 Hepburn Road and 1 Short Street Doncaster. The permit will allow:
   • The construction of a building;
   • To construct and carry out works

1. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A to these reasons.

Ms Adele Khoo, Mr Kelvin Khoo, Mr Frank Falconer, Mr Warren Walsh and Dr Paul Callum, all in person

Ms Louise Hicks, Barrister. She called the following expert witnesses:

• Mr Michael O' Brien, Traffic Engineer TTM Consulting Pty Ltd
• Mr Craig Czarny, Urban Designer, Hansen partnership Pty Ltd
• Mr Travis Reid. Town Planner, CPG Australia Pty Ltd

Construction of an apartment building to contain 188 dwellings. The building is 15 storeys in height. 286 car parking spaces are proposed, the majority of which will be in the form of car stackers.

Application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 and Development Contributions Overlay Schedule 1

Clause 37.08-5 - Construct a building and construct and carry out works

The subject site comprises of three separate allotments with a combined area of 3,114 square metres.

1. The character of Doncaster Hill is changing. Originally a quiet suburban area made up of single detached dwellings, it is quickly evolving into an area for high density living. This change did not happen by accident. Manningham City Council's Doncaster Hill Strategy, prepared in 2002, provided clear strategic directions for the redevelopment of the area. Council has implemented this plan over the last ten years. New taller buildings have been constructed around the Westfield Shopping Centre. Homes have been purchased to create a new park. Road strategies have been prepared and the land within Doncaster Hill has been rezoned to reflect the strategic intention for the land.
2. Ammache Architects applied to Council for a planning permit to construct an apartment building on the site. Council determined to grant a planning permit for the development. It is a decision that a number of objectors to the proposal have requested be reviewed by the Tribunal, including Mr and Mrs Khoo, Mr Frank Falconer, Mr Warren Walsh and Dr Paul Callum. The objectors are concerned with a number of aspects of the proposal, including the car parking arrangements and impact of the increased traffic in the surrounding network. They submit that the proposed design fails to respond adequately to the requirements of the planning scheme and it represents an overdevelopment of the site.
3. As this matter was part heard, the permit applicant requested, and was granted, an opportunity to circulated amended plans. Based on these plans, the proposal is now to construct a fifteen-storey apartment building containing 182 apartments. 286 car spaces are proposed to be provided for the development, 176 in a car stacker system.
4. The key questions for determination in this matter are:
   • Is the density of the proposed development consistent with vision for Doncaster Hill?
   • Is the design of the building acceptable?
   • Will the proposal result in an unreasonable increase in traffic?
   • Is the use of car stackers appropriate?
5. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Manningham Planning Scheme, I have decided to grant a permit. My reasons follow.

Is the density of the proposed development consistent with vision for Doncaster Hill?

1. State Planning Policy encourages higher density development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment centres and public transport.[2] This policy direction is echoed in the Local Planning Policy Framework, which identifies Doncaster Hill as the prime location within the municipality for higher density forms of housing.[3]
2. The subject site is located within the Doncaster Hill Activity Centre, which is reflected in its inclusion within an Activity Centre Zone. I find that this is a site which is supported by Planning Policy for the development of higher density housing.
3. During the hearing, Ms Khoo referred to a Council website which provided details on the expected number of dwellings within Doncaster Hill. The land at 20-24 Hepburn Road is forecast to contain 100 dwellings. As the proposed development significantly exceeds this figure, Ms Khoo submitted that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site.
4. The figures provided in the website are not reflected in the planning scheme, nor in the Doncaster Hill Strategy. I have therefore given the density requirements of the webpage little weight in my decision. Rather, as required by the planning scheme, I have considered what contribution the proposal makes towards the achievement of the population target set out in the Doncaster Hill Strategy.[4]
5. The strategy projects than Doncaster Hill will be home to an additional 8,300 people. The average household size for the precinct will be two persons per household. The strategy notes that there is likely to be a strong demand for apartment living, especially for the people aged between 20-44 and 55-79.[5] Based on the figures within the strategy, an additional 4150 dwellings will be required within the area.
6. I find that the proposed development will provide additional housing in a form that will contribute to meeting the future population needs of Manningham.

1. The schedule to the Activity Centre Zone contains a number of design requirements which seek to guide the form that development takes within Doncaster Hill.

1. The Schedule to the Activity Centre Zone divides Doncaster Hill into a number of precincts. The subject site is included within Precinct 2C. Each precinct has different built form requirements.
2. The building is consistent with the height requirements for the precinct, and is generally consistent with the setback requirements for the precinct. The development is setback 4.9 metres from Short Street, marginally less than the requirement of 5 metres from front street frontages, as this will be the side street, I consider that this is an acceptable response. I find that it is also acceptable to have a reduced setback at the rear, as there is a sufficient buffer between the neighbouring building to the north and the subject site.

1. Ms Khoo was critical that the design did not adopt the stepping down approach for the precinct, as illustrated within the Doncaster Hill Strategy. She submitted that because it does not adopt this approach, the built form would appear overly bulky within the streetscape.
2. Firstly, I note that the setback requirements specified for the precinct are inconsistent with those contained within the precinct. For example, the diagram shows a street setback of eight metres, whereas the schedule to the zone requires 5 metres. Another key difference is the stepping down approach of the strategy differs from the podium and tower built form created by the schedule.
3. The requirements of the planning scheme must take precedence over the requirements of the strategy, even when the strategy is a reference document in the scheme. I have therefore given the design outcomes sought by the schedule to the zone greater weight than those contained within the Doncaster Hill Strategy.
4. I note that the objectives of the schedule encourage the greatest area of higher density development along the Doncaster Hill ridgeline. This is reflected in the height controls for the precinct, which place the taller forms on the ridgeline. In essence the planning scheme, rather than seeking to moderate the height along the hill, is seeking to celebrate it.
5. As such policy is calling for a tall, proud and very prominent building on the subject site. In his evidence, Mr Czarny provided the Tribunal with his urban design assessment of the proposal. He submitted that whilst the proposal will appear bold in the streetscape in the short term, as Doncaster Hill evolves, it will appear less prominent.
6. Mr Czarny considered that the design could be improved though providing a greater distinction between the tower and podium elements of the building. Some of his recommendations for achieving this distinction have been picked up in the amended plans. Council's conditions on the Notice of Decision included a requirement for a warmer colour scheme for the building and to provide for a differentiation between the podium and tower forms. I agree that this would be of assistance.
7. The revised plan circulated by the permit applicant removed five apartments from level twelve. This reduced the level of shadow cast by the building, so that it will no longer cast shadows into the future parkland opposite the subject site.
8. It will have the added benefit of providing a greater level of recession the upper level of the building, and provide a stepped building form, similar to that encouraged by the Doncaster Hill Strategy.
9. I accept the evidence of Mr Czarny that the built form is an acceptable response to the future character of the area. The building will be very prominent in the streetscape and when viewed as people approach Doncaster Hill, however this is the effect sought by the policies of the planning scheme.

Will the proposal result in an unreasonable increase in traffic?

1. During the submissions Ms Khoo showed a video showing vehicles exiting Short Street onto Doncaster Road. This video highlighted that there is a delay for vehicles attempting to make this turn. Ms Khoo submitted that there has been a considerable increase in traffic in the area following an extension to Westfield Shopping Centre, opening of a community hub and the approval of a number of mixed use developments within the area.
2. Mr Montebello acknowledged that there is an increase in traffic movements within Doncaster Hill because of the recent developments. Given the level of growth encouraged by the Doncaster Hill Strategy, this is to be expected. Council have prepared a road network concept plan for the area, which shows the improvements required to the road system because of the new development.
3. Improvements in proximity to the site include extending Hepburn Street, restricting parking and the use of pedestrian signals.
4. Mr O'Brien gave traffic evidence for this application. His evidence was that Short Street generates around 700 vehicle movements per day.
5. Based on the traffic generation rates provided by Mr O'Brien the revised development will generate an additional 964 traffic movements per day, with 97 vehicle movements occurring during the peak hour.
6. There was some dispute about whether Short Street was a Category 1 or 2 access street under the provisions of the planning scheme.[6] Regardless of the categorisation of the road, I am satisfied that the traffic generated by the proposal will be able to be absorbed into the existing road network.
7. It was apparent that there are a number of vehicles queuing at peak periods to exit onto Doncaster Road. This is in part due to the limited number of exit points available to the Road. The proposed extension to Hepburn Road may improve this situation. Mr O'Brien gave evidence that there may be a need keep clear markings on Doncaster Road to enable vehicles to exit more easily onto Doncaster Road, however this is a matter for VicRoads.

1. Once a novel way of providing car parking, mechanical parking methods such as car stackers have become common throughout Metropolitan Melbourne as a means of providing parking, particularly within apartment buildings.
2. The new Clause 52.06 reflects the increasing use of these types of facilities as it now provides design guidelines for mechanical car parking spaces.
3. Whilst they are not as convenient as at grade spaces, they are suitable for the long term parking needs of the building's occupants.
4. I am satisfied that the large number of at grade spaces is sufficient to meet the visitor parking demand for the building as well as providing an alternative space for larger vehicles such as four wheel drives.

Do any other matters warrant rejection of the proposal?

1. Several other matters were raised in submissions and the objections originally lodged with the Council including waste collection and fire safety.
2. With respect to waste collection, the revised plans have altered the location for collection and identified the method used. A revised waste management plan was also prepared. Council had an opportunity to review the plan and indicated that there were some amendments required, including details of the method of accommodating recycle bins and the hours of collection. I am satisfied that these matters may be addressed via a condition on the permit.
3. Mr Khoo was concerned that the proposed building did not comply with the fire safety requirements of the Building Code of Australia. As discussed at the hearing, these requirements are considered at the building permit stage. Should amendments be required to the plans to meet the requirements, this will need to be considered as a separate process.

1. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal requested that Council circulate draft conditions that reflected discussions held during the hearing, the amended plans and the evidence. The Tribunal provided an opportunity to all parties to provide written comments on those conditions.
2. The parties raised a number of other matters about permit conditions. With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:
   • Emergency Management Plan. I agree with Council that the matters addressed in an emergency management plan will be addressed via a building surveyor through the building permit process and I have not included this condition.
   • Parking Management Plan. I agree with Council that this is not required for this development, given that it is for a purely residential building with clearly identified visitor spaces.
   • Conditions 1(d), 1(j)(ix) and 1(j)(x), I have amended these conditions as recommended by CPG Australia Pty Ltd

1. The proposed apartment building is generally consistent with the requirements of the Manningham Planning Scheme. The decision of the responsible authority will be varied.

• The construction of a building;
• To construct and carry out works

1. Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans 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 prepared by Ammache Architects, dated 30 June and 19 July 2012 but modified to show:
   • (a) Revised elevations that provide additional articulation by extruding, recessing and/or angling balconies. This shall include the creation of a horizontal plinth at levels 4-5 through the use of materials to create consistent banding at these levels;
   • (b) A revised detailed schedule of materials, colours and finishes of all external paving/stairs, external walls, fascias, window frames, canopies, fencing and louvres/screens (which must have a maximum 25% transparency). A dark coloured finish to the basement driveway and a decorative finish to the access ramp must be provided. The colour palette must be amended to have warm, rather than cool undertones. This schedule must also provide for a greater differentiation between the colours and finishes of the podium and the tower component lightened in tone with neutral tones and lightweight materials. All proposed materials, colours and finishes must be shown on all elevations and colours swatches/samples provided;
   • (c) A p1an notation that a clear sight distance of pedestrians for exiting vehicles as per Clause 3.2.4 of AS 2890.1 will be provided;
   • (d) A maximum gradient of 1:10 over the property boundary in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Manningham Planning Scheme
   • (e) The basement level intercom to be relocated to the western side of the vehicular ramp and a notation added that both intercoms will enable 24 hour access to their respective car parking levels;
   • (f) A plan notation confirming the height clearance at the vehicular entry to the basement parking level to be a minimum of 2.2 metres;
   • (g) The visibility of the disability access ramp improved and provided with a maximum gradient of 1:20;
   • (h) Details of external lighting to be installed to provide for safety of occupants of the building and surveillance of open space areas.
   • (i) Details of the footpath on the Hepburn Road and Short Street road reserve (including a section illustrating the extent of earthworks) to a minimum width of 1.35 metres as per Councils Street construction standards, with a plan notation that it will be constructed at the full cost of the permit holder;
   • (j) Modifications to the car park to allow for:
     • (i) The height clearance over the disabled persons/persons of limited mobility car space to be a minimum of 2.5 metres or as otherwise agreed with the Responsible Authority;
     • (ii) The disabled car space to comply with Australian Standard 2890.6 or as otherwise agreed with the Responsible Authority;
     • (iii) Ventilation details;
     • (iv) A painted centre line along each driveway;
     • (v) A dark coloured, mesh-type security grille at both entries;
     • (vi) Demonstration of an adequate vehicle turn around area for any visitors to enable safe exit in the event of occupancy of all visitor car parks;
     • (vii) The columns adjacent to the car spaces to be located in accordance with Clause 5.2 of Australian Standard 2890.1: 2004.
     • (viii) All relevant section drawings to show that all clearances are adequate relative to the use of the car stacking devices shown.
     • (ix) A minimum of one bicycle storage racks as per the requirements of Clause 52.34 of the scheme.
     • (x) A minimum floor to ceiling height of 4.05 metres in the lower basement parking area.
   • (k) The location of adequate storage points for recycling bins in the waste storage room, pursuant to condition 5 of this permit.
   • (l) An additional communal open space area on the rooftop;
   • (m) Clarification of the location of all areas to be allocated to plant and equipment;
   • (n) The height and depth of all earthworks and retaining walls (including locations, heights and materials);
   • (o) All external stairs, if proposed;
   • (p) A plan notation to indicate that all service cabinets will be integrated into the architectural design, so as not to present as visually dominating elements to Hepburn Road or Short Street;
   • (q) Details, including the location, of apartment identification signage;
   • (r) Implementation of relevant recommendations, including design changes, as specified by any of the Management Plans prepared under Condition 3-6 of this permit.

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

1. The layout of the site and the size of buildings and works shown on the approved plan must not be modified for any reason, without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, two copies of an amended Sustainability Management Plan may be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The Plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Ark Resources dated 4 March 2011 and received by Council on 10 March 2011, but amended to clarify any inconsistencies in respect of any other plan submitted, and to provide greater detail in respect of the following:
   • (a) Identifying how the development will achieve the sustainability objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement, Clause 21.21 Doncaster Hill Activity Centre:
   • (b) Identifying responsibilities and timings for achieving the above objectives;
   • (c) Identifying key performance indicators which give effect to the relevant policy and statutory obligations;
   • (d) Encouraging a beyond compliance approach to the construction of the building;
   • (e) Demonstrating that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the Sustainability Management Plan can be maintained over time.

The amended Sustainability Management Plan should also provide greater detail regarding all ESD requirements already discussed, must address ESD initiatives associated with Demolition and Construction and provide an appropriate Water Sensitive Urban Design initiative associated with on-site landscaping.

1. Before the development starts, two copies of a Construct ion Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The plan must address, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) Hours of demolition and construction;
   • (b) Methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within the site, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures;
   • (c) On site facilities for vehicle washing;
   • (d) The protect ion measures for site features to be retained (e.g. vegetation, retaining walls, buildings, other structures and pathways, etc);
   • (e) Delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
   • (f) A liaison officer for contact by residents and the responsible authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;
   • (g) The movement of construction vehicles to and from the site must be regulated to ensure that no traffic hazards are created in and around the site;
   • (h) Parking facilities for construction workers:
   • (i) Measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land;
   • (j) An outline of re quests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services;
   • (k) The processes to be adopted for the separation, re-use and recycling of demolition materials;
   • (l) The measures to minimise the amount of waste construction materials, the provision for the recycling of demolition and waste materials and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a program of reuse or recycling);
   • (m) The measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours;
   • (n) The provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all on-site contractors and sub contractors; and
   • (o) An agreed schedule of compliance inspections.

1. Before the development starts, two copies of an amended Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The Plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Leigh Design dated 16 July 2012, but amended to clarify any inconsistencies in respect of any other plan submitted, as well as amended to show:
   • (a) Details of when waste collection is to occur from the site which must be between the hours of 9am and 3pm Monday to Friday only; and
   • (b) The collection of waste to occur from within the bin storage location only as no bins are to be left on or collected from Hepburn Road, Short Street or the adjacent road reserve.

1. Before the development starts, a Disability Access Plan that implements the recommendations of a Disability Access Audit, prepared by a suitably qualified person that demonstrates compliance with the relevant Australian Standards for access, must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The plans must include but is not limited to:
   • (a) Vehicular and pedestrian access into and around the building;
   • (b) Access to the lifts;
   • (c) The provision of tactile indicators;
   • (d) The provision of Braille indicators for the lifts;
   • (e) The use of contrasting paving materials to assist the vision impaired;
   • (f) Emergency exits, particularly above the ground floor; and
   • (g) Car parking.
2. The Management Plans approved under Conditions 3-6 of this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, an amended landscaping plan must be prepared by a landscape architect or a person of approved competence showing species, locations, approximate height and spread of proposed planting, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be generally in accordance with the plan as submitted by Dare Designs, dated 30 March 2011 but must show:
   • (a) Increased density of planting along the length of the eastern and southern boundary which may consist of Ornamental pear trees or a suitable, alternative deciduous species; and
   • (b) Along the eastern boundary, a minimum planting width of 1.5 metres.
2. Before the release of the approved plan under Condition 1, a $10,000 cash bond or bank guarantee must be lodged with the Responsible Authority to ensure the completion and maintenance of landscaped areas and such bond or bank guarantee will only be refunded or discharged after a period of 13 weeks from the completion of all works, provided the landscaped areas are being maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. An in-ground, automatic watering system linked to the rainwater tanks in the basement must be installed to the main garden areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Before the occupation of the dwellings, landscaping works as shown on the approved plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the completion of the development, a Development Contribution as agreed by the Responsibility Authority in accordance with Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 - Doncaster Hill Development Contributions Plan must be paid to the Responsible Authority.

1. The owner must provide on site storm water detention storage or other suitable system (which may include but is not limited to the re-use of stormwater using rainwater tanks), to limit the Permissible Site Discharge (PS D) to that applicable to the site coverage of 35 percent of hard surface or the pre existing hard surface if it is greater than 35 percent. The PSD must meet the following requirements:
   • (a) Be designed for a 1 in 5 year storm; and
   • (b) Storage must be designed for 1 in 10 year storm.
2. Before the development starts, a construction plan for the system required by Condition No. 13 of this permit must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The system must be maintained by the Owner thereafter in accordance with the approved construction plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development is commenced, the owner must undertake outfall drainage works with the easements along the northern and western boundaries in accordance with an engineering construction plan approved by the Responsible Authority. Before the outfall drainage works start:
   • (a) A supervision fee equal to 2.5% of the cost of construction of the drainage works must be paid to the Responsible Authority;
   • (b) A plan-checking fee equal to 0.75% of the cost of construction of the drainage works must be paid to the Responsible Authority;
   • (c) A maintenance deposit equal to 5% of the cost of construction of the drainage works must be lodged with the Responsible Authority and retained thereafter for a minimum of three months; and
   • (d) a schedule of costs for the construction of drainage works must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
2. Stormwater must not be discharged from the subject land other than by means of drainage to "( legal point of discharge. The drainage system within the development must be designed and constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor. A connection to Council maintained assets must not be constructed unless a Miscellaneous Works Permit is first obtained from the Responsible Authority.
3. The whole of the land, including landscaped and paved areas must be graded and drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, to prevent ponding and to minimise overland flows onto adjoining properties.

1. All upper level service pipes (excluding stormwater downpipes) and any wall mounted spa-bath pump must be concealed and screened respectively to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All hot water units must be installed within the building, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Responsible Authority.
3. Any air-conditioning unit installed on balconies must be obscured from public view or the view from an adjoining residential property and no such units may be placed on walls, so as to be higher than any adjacent boundary fence and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Any air-conditioning units located on the roof must be grouped, located away from the outer edges and provided with an architecturally designed and durable sight screen to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. All plant and equipment that is not installed within the building must otherwise be installed in the area of plant and equipment on the roof of the building, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Responsible Authority.
6. A centralised TV antenna system must be installed and connections made to each dwelling to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. No individual dish antennas may be installed on balconies, terraces or walls to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. Communal lighting must be connected to reticulated mains electricity and be operated by a time switch, movement sensors or a daylight sensor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. All services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage and telephone, must be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. In the event of gas being supplied to the dwellings, the owner must liaise with the relevant service authority to determine an appropriately discrete location for the placement of gas meters to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All noise emanating from any mechanical plant must comply with the relevant State noise control legislation and in particular, any basement exhaust duct/unit must be positioned, so as to minimise noise impacts on residents of the subject building and adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The Owner shall pay the full costs of all new boundary fencing, roadworks, footpath works, service relocations, drainage, and other costs associated with the development.
2. Redundant crossovers must be removed and the kerb and channel reinstated along with top dressing/re-grassing of the affected nature strip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Buildings, paved areas, engineering works (including drainage), fences, landscaping and all external areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Privacy screens and obscure glazing as required in accordance with the approved plans must be installed prior to occupation of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Any clothes-drying rack or line system located on a balcony must be lower than the balustrade of the balcony and must not be visible from off the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Once the permitted development has commenced it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances apply:
   • (a) the development and use are not started within two (2) years of the date of the issue of this permit; and
   • (b) the development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

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

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

[4] Clause 8 of Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone

[5] Manningham City Council, Doncaster Hill Strategy (revised October 2004) pages 12-13