Mr Peter O'Farrell of Counsel, instructed by Robinson Gill lawyers. Mr O'Farrell called the following expert evidence - landscaping evidence from Mr John Patrick, planning evidence from Mr Tepsdorf, heritage evidence from Mr Raworth and Ms Riddett, and traffic evidence from Mr William De Waard.

Ms Mimi Marcus of Maddocks lawyers. Ms Marcus called expert heritage evidence from Ms Annabel Neylon.

Mr Richard Blakeman, Ms Stocca and Mr Brian Chase all appeared in person on the first hearing day. Mr Chase also appeared at the Directions Hearing.

Altered access to a Road Zone Category 1 and the construction of a double storey apartment building comprising ten dwellings plus basement car parking. Also the demolition of an existing dwelling, grotto and associated period garden items on land affected by a Heritage Overlay.

Section 79 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (failure appeal).

Clause 32.01-4 of the Planning Scheme. The contraction of two or more dwellings on a lot.

Clause 43.01 - proposed demolition on land affected by a Heritage Overlay.

Clause 52.29 - altered access to a Road Zone Category 1.

The subject land is located on the north side of Toorak Road in Camberwell, with a site area of approximately 1,026 sqm. There is a modest fall across the subject land from the front to the rear. The land currently accommodates a period two storey weatherboard dwelling constructed circa 1917. There is also certain other remnant fabric associated with the existing dwelling, notably a grotto. This is an established residential area within a middle suburbs location.

The Tribunal carried out a semi-accompanied inspection of the appeal site and adjoining properties to the east, west and north after the hearing.

1. The subject land at 1311 Toorak Road in Camberwell features a period style double storey dwelling constructed circa 1917, located on a fairly generous size site at 1026 sqm. It is common ground that the existing dwelling going back in time was associated with the use of the subject land and some of the surrounding area for poultry farming, and that this poultry farm is understood to be the largest such farm in Victoria during the inter-war period. However the reality is that this is now very much an established middle suburb residential area in Camberwell.
2. Toorak Road is a major arterial road and the subject land is located on the north side of same. The other built form along Toorak Road typically involves fairly imposing multi-storey buildings, and traffic levels are often high, particularly at peak period. At the time of the hearing of this proceeding on 25 and 26 August 2011, there was various remnant period fabric in the garden area, including a grotto and certain plumbing works associated with the use of that area by the original owner for an elaborate garden/private zoo facility.
3. It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and associated period fabric and instead construct a double storey residential building providing for 10 new dwellings, including a basement carpark. The revised access arrangements for the new basement carpark in turn trigger the need for permit approval for alter access to Road Zone Category 1, as Toorak Road is controlled by VicRoads.
4. Various objections to the proposal have been put forward by the relevant neighbours. The proposal has been referred to the Tribunal for resolution on a "failure to decide" basis, and the hearing of this matter came before me on 25 and 26 August 2011. At the time of the hearing, the parties prepared on the basis that a heritage permit trigger existed. Essentially Council's sole grounds for opposing the proposal was its heritage concerns.
5. At the beginning of the hearing, by consent, the revised plans referred to in my Order 1 were substituted as the new application plans for the purposes of this proceeding.
6. Over the balance of the hearing I heard submissions from the persons listed above, plus I received expert evidence from the experts shown above.
7. There was considerable uncertainty/confusion over the course of the hearing regarding heritage status of the subject land. As I will deal with this in more detail further below, suffice to say that all parties agreed by the end of the hearing that due to an apparent administrative error with the intended interim heritage listing of this property, in fact the relevant Heritage Overlay map does not show the subject land as being affected by any individual or precinct based local heritage control. Hence it was accepted by all parties at the end of the hearing that there is in fact no heritage trigger and no heritage issue for the Tribunal to resolve.
8. However due to some further developments discussed below, the practical upshot by the date of this decision is that:
   • the requirements of the Heritage Overlay do apply to the subject land; but
   • the Tribunal's inspection of the subject land after the main hearing has confirmed that since the main hearing the grotto in the garden has been demolished and the some key period features of the dwelling on the subject land have been removed/broken;
   • this was discussed at a further Directions hearing on 19 September 2011. Having given Council the chance to make any follow up written comments, Council itself has conceded by letter dated 26 September 2011 that the surviving heritage fabric "...has been compromised such that it no longer warrants protection on a site specific basis".
9. In all the circumstances, I agree that there is no longer any practical point in the Tribunal carrying out any analysis of the merits of retaining the surviving heritage fabric, since (even following Council's own logic) the case for retaining the period fabric on the appeal site effectively collapsed upon the demolition of the grotto after the main hearing and the commencement of the dismantling of the subject building. Whilst I make no finding either way regarding the lawfulness or otherwise of this demolition after the main hearing, the practical upshot is that the site as at the date of this decision is subject to a Heritage Overlay, but only in a nominal way for my purposes.
10. In this context, the key issues which the Tribunal does need to deal with in this proceeding are:
    • strategic planning policy issues;
    • neighbourhood character/overdevelopment issues;
    • external and internal amenity issues; and
    • traffic and parking issues.
11. The Tribunal's overall finding is that (subject to a design modification at the rear) the proposal is reasonable and a good planning outcome when assessed against these various key criteria, and hence I made orders that a permit should issue.

1. We know that pursuant to Amendment C114, an Interim Heritage Control was prima facie imposed on the subject land on 14 February 2011.
2. However as alluded to above, there was some uncertainty during the hearing regarding whether or not there is in fact any heritage trigger under the Heritage Overlay in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
3. The case law on point is fairly straight forward, with the leading decision being Alphington Grammar School v Yarra CC [2008] VCAT 995. This case also involved confusion about whether or not there was any heritage trigger involved. In particular, the question which the Tribunal needed to deal with in that case (which also applies here) is how to deal with the situation where there is a discrepancy between what is shown on the Heritage Overlay zoning map compared to the information shown in written form in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.
4. The clear guidance coming out of this Alphington Grammar decision is that where such a discrepancy arises, the Tribunal is bound by what is shown in the Heritage Overlay map or zoning map. The thinking here is that it would create a volatile/quite inappropriate situation if the general public was unable to rely on the relevant zoning map as being completely accurate. In other words, similar to the Torrens Title system which operates for land ownership in Australia, there needs to be a "bottom line position" in terms of the information being put forward, and the Alphington Grammar decision is authority that (like the Titles Office in the Torrens Title system) what is shown on the zoning map is the bottom line position.
5. In the situation here, what emerged in the course of the main hearing was that although the words shown in the relevant table to the Heritage Overlay correctly identify the subject land, in fact (as at the time of the main hearing) there was an apparent administrative error in what is shown on the Heritage Overlay zoning map. In other words, the zoning map did not show the subject land as being affected by a site-specific local heritage control, but rather a different property located four or five properties further west has been affected.
6. I note that on the second day of the hearing I was provided with an undated letter from the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development, which alludes to this discrepancy. The key paragraphs near the end of this letter read as follows:

Please note that the Department is aware of the mapping error and as such intends to correct the mistake by a further planning scheme amendment.

I understand that once this amendment is gazetted that Boroondara City Council will notify the Tribunal and all parties to the appeal of the correction.

1. In this regard, it is important for all parties to understand that the Tribunal needs to apply the relevant law and the relevant Planning Scheme provisions as at the date of is decision when the Tribunal writes up its decisions in planning proceedings - the authority for this is Ungar v City of Malvern [1979] VicRp 25; [1979] V.R. 259.
2. As part of arranging my site inspection after the hearing, one of the neighbours raised with my secretary a query whether some of the period fabric had been demolished/removed by the landowner since the day of the hearing. I then asked the Permit Applicant to confirm the situation in this regard. I then received a letter dated 7 September 2011 from the Permit Applicant's lawyers Robinson Gill, the key paragraphs of which read as follows:

We are instructed that there have been changes to the site since the hearing which the Tribunal will observe upon its inspection. These changes took place following receipt of the Council's advice dated 29 August 2011 that a planning permit is not required for demolition. We enclose herewith Council's advice dated 29 August 2011 for your information. This is consistent with the position expressed at the VCAT hearing in relation to the Tribunal's decision in Alphington Grammar School v Yarra CC [2008] VCAT 995.

On the basis of the Council's advice the Tribunal should proceed on the basis that changes may be made to the site pending the Tribunal's decision. We note that a building permit has also been issued.

1. In relation to the last part of the quote above, the letter dated 7 September 2011 also attached a "Consent to proposed demolition form" provided by Boroondara City Council and dated 29 August 2011.
2. During my site inspection on 9 September 2011 it became clear that since the main hearing the grotto in the subject garden had been demolished and the house was in the initial stages of being dismantled.
3. However the Tribunal then received yet another follow up letter from DPCD, indicating that the above mentioned mapping anomaly was being resolved. This was actioned by way of a gazettal on 8 September 2011 of Amendment C159[1]. Hence it is clear that from 8 September 2011 onwards, there is a Interim Heritage Overlay HO507 affecting the subject land.
4. The Tribunal then arranged a further Directions hearing on 19 September 2011, at which time the parties provided update comments to the Tribunal. The Tribunal made further verbal directions allowing both Council and the Applicant to make follow up written submissions to the Tribunal. I made my clear views known to the parties regarding the complications that had arisen with how events had unfolded since the main hearing.
5. I then received Council's follow up letter from Maddocks lawyers dated 26 September 2011. This letter includes the statement that "...Ms Neylon is of the view that the heritage fabric sought to be protected by the Interim Heritage Overlay (HO) has been compromised such that it no longer warrants protection on a site specific basis...", and that:

In these circumstances, Council considers that it can no longer pursue its opposition to the demolition of the remainder of the heritage fabric on the subject land.

1. As at the date of this decision, I have not received any follow up written comment from the Applicant. However this seems unsurprising, given that one would expect there to be little the Applicant could add to the position set out in the Maddocks letter of 26 September 2011.
2. In the situation set out above, the Tribunal's understanding of the heritage situation in summary is that:
   • as a matter of precaution, the Tribunal did receive heritage evidence from three heritage experts in the course of the hearing over 25 and 26 August 2011;
   • as at the end of the hearing, it was accepted by all parties that no heritage trigger arose under the Boroondara Planning Scheme, because of the mapping glitch which has been described above;
   • the Tribunal is unclear what (if any) other approvals were needed under any other statutory regimes for the demolition of the grotto/period dwelling after the main hearing and on what date same occurred/commenced;
   • from 8 September 2011 onwards the fixing of the mapping discrepancy was gazetted/ resolved and hence there was a heritage permit trigger. However by the Tribunal's inspection first thing on the morning of 9 September 2011, it was clear that the grotto had been demolished and the process of dismantling the period house had been significantly commenced in relation to its period features;
   • the Tribunal is not required to and makes no finding either way regarding the lawfulness or otherwise of the events described above;
   • it is clear that there is no longer any meaningful role for the Tribunal to analyse whether the remnant heritage fabric is worth protecting pursuant to the Interim Heritage Overlay. Hence although the Heritage Overlay formally applies to the land as at the date of this decision such that demolition permission is nominally required, Council is no longer opposing the grant of such permission (and in all the circumstances the Tribunal agrees with this position).

1. I shall now address the other key issues identified above in more detail.

1. On the one hand I accept that the proposal is not located in an activity centre or close to a railway station. On this basis, it is true that this is not one of those types of planning appeals where there is a very strong strategic policy push for higher densities on the subject land.
2. On the other hand, it also needs to be said that this is a main road location and a fairly generous size lot for this area at just over 1000 sqm. It is also clear that the common pattern of other built form along this section of Toorak Road is quite prominent buildings typically of two or three storeys.
3. In this situation, the Tribunal accepts that there is some degree of strategic planning policy support for the greater utilisation of this type of well located and generous size site, so as to achieve greater residential density. In other words, the ability to use this type of well located and larger site to accommodate a greater number of dwellings/occupants will aid the cause of urban consolidation, and in turn reduce Melbourne's sprawl at its peripheral areas.

1. A key part of the concerns raised by the neighbours was their view that the proposal is too large and unsympathetic to what they regard as the relevant "neighbourhood character". I note that because Council's main basis of objection to the proposal was on heritage grounds, it was conceded by Ms Marcus at the hearing that Council had no problem with any other particular aspects of the proposal, including "neighbourhood character / overdevelopment" issues.
2. I see the key issue here as being the fact that this is a relatively large site located on Toorak Road, with the proposed new residential building to take its entry off Toorak Road. On this basis, it needs to be understood that even if the rear part of the subject land interfaces with the two neighbouring properties to the north and the side neighbour to the east, this is essentially a "Toorak Road property", as opposed to being one of the properties located in the more low-key residential hinterland area further to the north.
3. Putting this another way, I accept that the other dwellings found further to the north involves side streets and typically more fine grain buildings, and that the type of large, two storey building proposed here may well be more difficult to justify in this more low-key streetscape setting.
4. However what needs to be understood is that what we are talking about here is a Toorak Road property, in a situation where Toorak Road is a busy arterial road which already has a somewhat hard edge streetscape character involving fairly prominent and typically two-three storey buildings (not all of which have aged well). There is also an on-going process of change - my site inspection confirmed that on the same side of Toorak Road there are two properties a short walk further west that each are undergoing a two or three storey redevelopment.
5. It follows that this type of more prominent existing Toorak Road streetscape and evolving character allows a greater degree of flexibility in terms of the ability of the site to reasonably accommodate the type of more prominent new building proposed here. Indeed, there seems a real argument that the site could well have (with the right design) accommodated some degree of third level, but that is not what is proposed here.
6. In summary then, with one proviso, I am satisfied that the proposal will constitute a reasonable neighbourhood character outcome and will not constitute an overdevelopment of the site. In reaching this conclusion, I rely on the planning evidence of Mr Tepsdorf, which was helpful and credible.
7. The proviso is as follows. In terms of what constitutes a reasonable "rear neighbourhood character" outcome, I am conscious that the new building extends quite close to the rear boundary. At present, the proposed rear setback of the new building would be 2.1 metres at its closest, although more like 2.75 metres at certain points because the ground level rear wall of the new building is "moving in and out" along this rear elevation. The proposed rear setback of the rear-facing upper wall will be 2.8 metres.
8. I consider these proposed setbacks to be inadequate and I am concerned that from a "rear neighbourhood character" perspective, there will be excessive built form crammed into the very rear section of the appeal site such as to constitute an over-development. I see a more reasonable "rear neighbourhood character" outcome here to be that:
   • there is a minimum ground level rear setback of 3 metres; and
   • the upper rear setback is increased to a minimum of 3.5 metres.

1. With respect to internal amenity issues, I am satisfied that (incorporating the modification outlined above) the proposal is quite acceptable and will offer a good level of internal amenity for the future occupants. In particular, the new dwellings will be of a good size and will offer both upper level and ground level terrace areas. The extra rear setback should facilitate some additional north-facing outside open space, thereby taking advantage of the excellent solar orientation at the rear. Whilst it is true that the solar orientation of the new dwelling is not perfect in terms of the layout of the new dwellings, this is largely a product of the subject land having a north-south orientation, which inherently poses some limitations to the ability to direct sunlight into all areas of the new built form. I consider the design response here to be reasonable in all the circumstances.
2. Turning now to external amenity impact issues, taking into account the greater rear setback requirements which I have referred to above, I am satisfied that there will be no unreasonable visual bulk impacts in terms of the interface between the rear part of the new building and the neighbouring properties to the west, north and east of the subject land. In particular, I am satisfied that:
   • there is a quite benevolent interface to the west with the existing tennis court;
   • the neighbouring property to the east and to the north-west of the subject land both have landscape screening which will provide a substantial level of privacy and minimise the visual bulk impacts. The neighbouring property to the north-west also features two intervening garden sheds which will indirectly have a buffer role;
   • whilst the neighbouring property to the north-east does have courtyard area just over this section of the rear fence, this needs to be seen in the context that this property also having a much larger backyard area (ie beyond the paved courtyard area) which it can also utilise. The larger backyard area is well screened by a hedge and has an intervening shed which in itself has a buffering function;
   • the new rear perimeter landscaping proposed as per the proposed landscape plan of Mr Patrick (a very experienced and well regarded landscaper) will further soften the views of the new building when looking from these neighbouring properties.
3. With respect to overshadowing issues, the neighbouring properties to the north have the advantage that they lie to the north of the subject land, not the other way around. Again we have a benevolent face with the tennis court to the west. In relation to the neighbouring property to the east, I am satisfied that any overshadowing impacts are measured and within reasonable perimeters.
4. With respect to privacy issues, I accept that the combination of the greater rear setbacks I have required, the proposed screening treatment of the upper windows and the landscape screening on the relevant neighbouring properties results in an overall reasonable privacy outcome. Whilst it may be that the new building will cause some degree of additional noise, there is a consistent line of previous Tribunal decisions to the effect that some degree of noise from one's neighbours is part and parcel of living in an established residential area, and I consider the outcome here to be acceptable.

1. I rely on the expert evidence of Mr William De Waard in finding that there will be a reasonable traffic and parking outcome.
2. With respect to the concerns raised by the neighbours, again I note that these concerns were not shared by Council. Whilst at a personal level I can understand that the relevant neighbours might be frustrated that some degree of traffic inconvenience currently already exists in terms of vehicles turning in and out of the nearby side street running north of this section of Toorak Road, it needs to be said that:
   • these are existing conditions which in my view will not be particularly affected by the proposal;
   • common sense indicates that most traffic movements in and out of the new building will involve the relevant occupants utilising Toorak Road and not needing to drive into the side-streets to the north.
3. With respect to on-site car parking, the reality is that the proposal is compliant in terms of the level of parking being provided for each new dwelling. Whilst it is true that dispensation is required for the two visitor car parking spaces which would otherwise be required by Rescode to be provided on-site, I agree with the expert traffic evidence that the indications are that the local street network should readily be able to accommodate this. Whilst I acknowledge that not everyone will feel comfortable parking on Toorak Road even after hours, I agree that the two necessary visitor car parking spaces should be adequately dealt with in terms of spare on-street parking in the local street network.

1. To the extent that the objectors raised other issues beyond those addressed above, with two exceptions, I regard these other issues as so peripheral as to not require further consideration by the Tribunal.
2. The two exceptions are as follows. Where criticisms were made of the design of the building, I rely on the fact that it has a very high level of compliance with the Clause 55 ResCode Standards, and I accept that the ResCode Objectives have been met. I am satisfied that the use of contemporary architecture (eg the flat roof) is appropriate in the circumstances. In relation to the large golden elm tree in the front yard area:
   • as discussed at the hearing, this tree is not subject to the Interim Heritage Overlay;
   • my finding is that (when assessed on a neighbourhood character basis) I see insufficient grounds to justify altering the proposal so as to retain this tree. From my site inspection and with reliance upon the relevant landscaping/arborist information, I accept that this tree (while attractive) has some issues in terms of its likely longer term health/prospects. I also accept Mr O'Farrell's point that it would be quite problematic to re-design the closest corner of the new building around this existing tree.
3. For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal will be an acceptable planning outcome and hence I have made orders approving it.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed they will then form part of the Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Sugar & Company Pty Ltd dated July 2011 but modified to show:
   • (a) the provision of suitable bike racks to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (b) the exact height clearance under the stairs in the basement;
   • (c) a clear sight triangle (measuring 2.5m along the accessway by 2.0m along the property line) provided on the eastern side of the accessway with no vegetation greater than 900m in height within the sight triangle;
   • (d) a stop-go light system provided on the access ramp to control traffic movements;
   • (e) a Tree Management Plan in accordance with Condition 4 of this permit;
   • (f) a updated Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 5 of this permit;
   • (g) an appropriate sized water tank connected up to a watering system for the new landscaping forming part of the development approved by this permit, having regard to the water harvesting capacity of the roof of the new building and the watering needs of that new landscaping;
   • (h) suitable screening for any new roof-top air conditioning compressors or like roof plant;
   • (i) the rear-facing ground level external wall to have a minimum setback of 3 metres and the rear-facing equivalent upper wall to have a minimum setback of 3.5 metres.

1. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Line marking must be provided from the property boundary, for the first five metres within the property boundary, to separate entering and exiting vehicles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts including any demolition or levelling of the site, a Tree Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Tree Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. Three (3) copies of the Tree Management Plan must be provided. The Tree Management Plan must address:
   • (a) the management and maintenance of the existing Lilly Pilly (shown as Tree 9 in the Peter Harrison report dated 20/12/09) in the north-east corner of the site and the existing street tree adjacent to the proposed altered crossover, and specifically address the following matters ensuring that the tree remains healthy and viable on site:
     • (i) establishing appropriate foundations within the trees' Tree Protection Zone relevant measurements. The foundation type and method will need to be specified by the arborist in conjunction with engineering specifications;
     • (ii) the mapping of the foundation excavation points on a site plan;
     • (iii) reporting on the presence of any exposed roots over 50 mm diameter and management of these roots e.g. how they were pruned, fertilisation, watering regime etc;
     • (iv) when supervision of an arborist will be required on-site and timeframes specified for supervision;
     • (v) the establishment of fixed Tree Protection Zones and where they will be located in relation to the trees and proposed development. The Tree Protection Zones should be clearly identified on a site plan and have specific recommendations stipulated on these plans referenced from the Tree Management Plan;
     • (vi) any remedial pruning works required to be performed on the trees before, during and post development of the site. The pruning comments must reference Australian Standards 4373:2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees and a detailed photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur.

1. Before the development starts including demolition, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan dated August 2011 prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd, except that the plan must show:
   • (a) a schedule of all existing trees to be retained and/or removed;
   • (b) that if any vegetation within the 1.83m wide drainage and sewerage easement located adjacent to the northern boundary is planted, such vegetation must not affect the functionality of the easement;
   • (c) Tree Protection Zones as outlined in the Tree Management Plan required by Condition 4;
   • (d) the largest new tree on the western boundary of the land to be an alternative species (eg a crepe myrtle) rather than a Jacaranda;
   • (e) modifications to the new pedestrian entry off Toorak Road, to make it narrower for at least two metres in from the front boundary, so as to provide for more landscaping in this location.

1. Before the occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All buildings and works within the Tree Protection Zones and Critical Root Zones as specified in the approved Tree Management Plan required by Condition 4 must be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All trees specified in the approved Tree Management Plan required by Condition 4 are to be protected and maintained in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations set in the Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The owner, builder or project manager of the site must ensure that, prior to the commencement of buildings and works, all contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are advised of the status of trees to be retained as set out in the Landscape Plan required by Condition 5 of this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Regulation of activities in the Tree Protection Zone

1. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone as detailed in the approved Landscape Plan without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

1. Before the development starts including demolition, a Waste Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified expert to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Waste Management Plan will then form part of this permit. The Waste Management Plan must address at a minimum the following:
   • (a) the location of waste storage areas;
   • (b) the size of bins and waste containers to accommodate waste generated;
   • (c) location of all waste collection points including recycling for the commercial and residential uses;
   • (d) details of collection and recycling services and whether the collection of waste will be undertaken by a private contractor or otherwise by Council;
   • (e) frequency of collection; and
   • (f) location of collection points and details of collection.
2. The collection and management of waste must be in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses during and after development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the demolition starts, three (3) copies of a photographic heritage record of the building and grounds to be demolished must be submitted to the Responsible Authority as a record of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The photographic record must be to a high standard and taken with appropriate photographic equipment and/or film using a recognised brand of reflex 35mm camera film or 10 mega pixel minimum resolution digital camera. Typically, two diagonally opposed views of each internal space and one view of each elevation or part elevation is the minimum level of documentation required.

Digital images must be presented on an archival compact disc (CDR) and the CDR should be of archival quality with phthalocyanine dye all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any new vehicle crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to installation, the design and operation of the stop-go light system must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts including demolition, a Construction Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of the Permit. The approved Construction Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must provide details of the following:
   • (a) Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit;
   • (b) Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
   • (c) The location and design of a vehicle washdown bay for construction vehicles on the site;
   • (d) The location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows. Any basement carpark on the land must be made available for use by sub-constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay;
   • (e) Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan;
   • (f) Contact details of key construction site staff;
   • (g) The location of any site sheds and the like; and
   • (h) Any other relevant matters.

1. All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated with the approved development may only take place during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:

1. This Permit will expire if:
   • (a) The development does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this Permit; or
   • (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the Permit expires or within the three (3) months afterwards.

[1] Although it was mislaid by the Tribunal Registry and hence I only received it some time later, a Maddocks letter of 8 September 2011 to the Tribunal confirmed this "just gazetted" situation.