1. There are a variety of dwelling styles found in the township ranging from modest fibro dwellings constructed in the 1960's through to newer, larger dwellings with a variety of roof forms. Most dwellings contain elevated decks or balconies orientated to capture the ocean views to the south and west.

1. The subject site is in a Township Zone ('TZ'). No permit is required to extend a dwelling on a lot greater than 300 square metres.
2. The site is also within a Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 ('SLO2') - Coastal Towns: Skenes Creek, Kennett River, Wye River and Separation Creek. The Statement of nature and key elements of landscape notes there are the number of different landscape elements intersecting in a dramatic manner, including low sea coast, topographic edge of the Otway Ranges sweeping down to the narrow coastal strip, edge of the forest, and the incised, vegetated creek valleys. The relationship of the buildings in the towns to the landscape, are of critical importance to the maintenance of the character of the Great Ocean Road region.
3. The landscape character objectives of the overlay seek to 'protect and enhance the valued characteristics of the nationally significant Great Ocean Road Region landscape' and to 'protect the clear, sweeping views to the ocean available from the precinct'. A permit is required to construct buildings and works in this overlay.
4. The site is also within Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 ('DDO4') - Coastal Towns: Skenes Creek, Kennett River, Wye River and Separation Creek. This overlay has a design objective to retain the distinct coastal character for the township and to accommodate adequate vegetation. No permit is required in this overlay.
5. The site is covered by a BMO1. As previously noted, a permit is not required given the floor area of the addition is less than 50% of the existing floor area.
6. The review site is also within a Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 1 ('NCO1') - Coastal Towns: Skenes Creek, Kennett River, Wye River and Separation Creek. The statement of neighbourhood character for these towns is described as follows:

The existing and preferred character of the townships is characterized by buildings nestled within the often steep topography and the indigenous and native vegetation. The buildings sit below the tree canopy height, and there is sufficient space around them to accommodate substantial vegetation, as well as clearances required for wildfire management. The buildings are of varying low scale designs but contain elements that respond to the coastal location including a predominance of non-masonry materials, metal roofing, balconies and transparent balustrades. Buildings typically have flat or single pitch roofs, and while often being two storey or split level, they do not dominate their surrounds. A lack of or transparent styles of fencing enables the vegetation to flow across boundaries and between the public and private domains, and roads with unmade edges add to the informal feel of the townships.

1. A permit is required to construct additions to the dwelling and the NCO1 modifies the requirements of several standards in Clause 54 including Standards A1, A9, A12, A13, A14 and A16. The decision guidelines require consideration of the factors including:
   • The effect of the building or works on the nationally significant Great Ocean Road Region landscape.
   • Whether the extension or modification to a building contributes to the township vision and preferred character of the area.
   • Whether the siting, bulk, form and appearance of any building or works will contribute to the township vision and preferred character of the township.
   • Whether the building is sited to provide large setbacks from front, side and rear boundaries.
   • Whether the building respects the predominantly low scale forms in the area.
   • Whether the building materials contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character.
2. The proposal meets the modified standards, except for Standard A4 (Building Height) and Standard A10 (Side and Rear Setbacks). These standards will be discussed further in my findings regarding amenity impacts and neighbourhood character.
3. The Municipal Planning Strategy ('MPS') contains policies relevant to my decision including:
   • Clause 02.03-1 (Settlement) notes that Skenes Creek is defined by:

their informal, open and spacious character, have a low growth capacity and exhibit a range of environmental constraints including land slip, bushfire threat, coastal inundation and erosion, storm water management, water supply and effluent disposal. There is a sense of openness to the towns created by the spacious siting of buildings and expansive views to the coast and hillsides.

1. This clause seeks to manage development of the township by retaining the distinct coastal character of the towns that are characterised by low scale buildings below the predominant tree canopy height.
2. There are a range of policies in the Planning Policy Framework ('PPF') that are relevant to my decision including:
   • Clauses 11.01-2S (Settlement) and 11.03-4S (Coastal settlement).
   • Clause 15.01-2S (Building design).
   • Clause 15.01- 5S (Neighbourhood character).
3. Local policies that are applicable include Clause 15.01-2L (Building design). This clause applies to small towns and small settlements and contains strategies including to maximise space between buildings and structures for vegetation, avoid dominant or multiple angular roof slopes and designs and support development that is consistent in height with the character of the surrounding area. The policy guidelines include:
   • Discouraging buildings that exceed 8 metres in height, unless special characteristics of the site justify a higher structure and no off-site detriment is caused.
   • Encouraging building and external material colours that are in muted tones and harmonise with the surrounding landscape.
   • Encouraging roofing materials that are non-reflective.
   • The visual character of the town and the likely impact of the development on that visual character.
   • The view of the site from the Great Ocean Road and viewing points in the Otway Ranges and the likely impact of the development on these views.
4. Council also referred me to the Skenes Creek, Wye River and Separation Creek Neighbourhood Character Study (Planisphere 2005) (the 'neighbourhood character study') which is a background document under Clause 72.08. The study seeks to ensure that residential development respects and enhances future preferred character.
5. The subject site is in Precinct 2 which is noted for having a sense of openness and spaciousness in the siting of buildings and expansive views to the coast and hillsides. The preferred character encourages the siting of buildings to have regard to a reasonable sharing of views. It also recommends that developments should be designed to fit the site contours.

DOES THE PROPOSAL RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO ITS POLICY CONTEXT?

1. Council submits the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the TZ which is to encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area. It also considers the proposal meets the landscape objectives and decision guidelines of the SLO2 as:
   • the addition will not have any significant impact on the GOR landscape as it is setback approximately 70 metres from the GOR. The site is also located within the existing cluster of buildings that will screen the addition from that road;
   • the creation of a double storey dwelling is consistent with other dwellings nearby, including the applicant's dwelling at 11 Surf Avenue;
   • the proposed colours and materials of the addition will not adversely impact the GOR landscape; and
   • no tree removal is required and existing canopy trees are to be retained in the frontage setback and rear yard.
2. The respondent agrees and says the addition is modest and is predominately within the footprint of the existing dwelling which will ensure that there is no detrimental visual impact to the GOR. He considers the retention of trees is consistent with objectives to encourage development that is framed by tree canopy.

1. I am satisfied the first floor addition is responsive to the neighbourhood character as it is in area that is characterised by double storey dwellings. This meets the purpose of the TZ.
2. I also find the design and materials will complement the variety of materials and designs found in this area. I consider the proposal will satisfy the landscape objectives of the SLO2 and the addition will be barely visible as the site is well set back from the GOR. Additionally, existing mature vegetation in the frontage setback and rear yard are to be retained and they will frame the addition and maintain the landscape character of the area.

DOES THE PROPOSAL RESPOND TO THE PREFERRED NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?

1. The applicant submits the proposal does not fit the Skenes Creek Neighbourhood Character as it is not in keeping with local smaller buildings on similar sized lots. He says the proposal will impact his quality of life due to its imposing nature and is not in keeping with the local bush and countryside feel of the township. He also says the roof is not graduated and increases in height to the rear.
2. Council submits the proposal will respect the existing neighbourhood character and the use of steel sheeting respects the beachside nature and materials found in the area. It also considers the use of stilts for the balcony is in keeping with other buildings nearby.
3. The respondent submits the proposal includes a simple roof form and modest footprint that is consistent with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. He says the first floor will be recessed back from the street and visual design is consistent with other dwellings along the coast.

1. My observations of this area are consistent with the precinct description in the neighbourhood character study. The area includes features such as varied building designs and materials including lightweight cladding, timber, render, brick and steel sheeting. I also note that most dwellings are two storey or are on stilts, which is a response to the slope and coastal interface.
2. I have considered the preferred character statement in the neighbourhood character study which states that diverse coastal dwellings set amongst established coastal gardens should be continued. It also seeks to maintain the sense of openness by setting the buildings apart, minimising intrusive front fencing, and encouraging building forms that respect views to the surrounding hills and coast. The neighbourhood character study states this can be achieved by ensuring buildings are sited to accommodate a spacious coastal garden, contain no front fencing, and are low scale to fit within the landscape.
3. I am not persuaded by the applicant's arguments regarding the imposing nature of the dwelling. I consider the single storey dwelling on the subject site is the outlier as two storey dwellings of a similar height to the addition, are common in this street, along the GOR, and further south of the subject site.
4. I fail to see how the addition will be obtrusive as it is located at the rear of the existing dwelling which is setback over 12 metres from the frontage. This setback complies with the modified Standard A3 that requires a minimum setback of 7 metres from the street. Therefore, I consider the stepping back of the building form from the frontage will reduce its scale in the streetscape to reflect the existing scale of buildings nearby.
5. I also find the cantilevered nature of the balcony in the south (rear) elevation acceptable. There are many examples of two storey dwellings, including those further west and on the south side of Surf Avenue, that have rear decks on stilts that protrude out from the walls of dwellings. This is an expected response to the slope and orientation of the coastline.
6. The roof is a skillion design that slopes towards the frontage (north). Whilst the pitch rises to the rear, I find this acceptable and consistent with the range of roof forms found in the area which include steep pitches, flat and curved roofing profiles.
7. I consider the use of Grey Colorbond cladding acceptable and consistent with other dwellings in this coastal setting. I also find the siting of the addition above the rear of the existing dwelling will maintain the sense of openness of this area. The side setbacks reflect the spacing of existing dwellings on the south side of Surf Avenue and allow for glimpses of the ocean between the dwellings from the street.

WILL THE ADDITION HAVE UNREASONABLE AMENITY IMPACTS ON THE APPLICANT'S DWELLING?

1. The applicant submits the building height is excessive and obtrusive and this will affect his amenity.
2. Council submits that given that only part of the roof exceeds the maximum height in the NCO1, it is acceptable as two storey buildings are found in this area.
3. The respondent argues that noncompliance with Standard A4 is due to the slope of the land, existing roof pitch, existing building with posts and stumps underfloor and the raising of the existing floor level.

1. The NCO1 has modified Standard A4 to require the maximum building height should not exceed 8 metres or two storeys, whichever is the lesser. The proposed roof will exceed the 8.0 metre height for approximately 3 metres depth (of estimated 6.5 metre long roof) across the width of the additions to the southern end of the new roof.
2. Taking into consideration the decision guidelines of this standard and the NCO1, I am satisfied that an overall height of between 7.47 metres to 8.5 metres is not excessive and generally consistent with other dwellings nearby, including applicant's dwelling. I agree with the respondent that factors such as the slope and existing dwelling floor levels contribute to the proposed overall height.
3. As previously noted, I am satisfied the addition will not be clearly visible from the GOR given its setback from this significant road. The built form will also be beneath the canopy of the existing trees to be retained on the site.
4. I note the east elevation of the addition will face the side elevation of the applicant's dwelling and is not opposite his secluded open space. I find the height acceptable as the wall is set back an adequate distance from the common boundary. I will discuss side setbacks separately below.

1. The application proposes to construct of external stairs in the eastern setback that will face the west (side) elevation of the applicant's dwelling, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Interface between review site and applicant's side elevation and windows[8]

1. The applicant argues the stairs are integral to the first floor of the dwelling and will cause amenity impacts. He also considers the metal stairs will be obtrusive and unsightly so close to his living area.
2. Council argues that the reduced setbacks would not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring properties to a degree that would warrant refusal of the application. It submits the variation to the standard is acceptable given that there are numerous two storey dwellings in this area that do not meet the side boundary setback requirement.
3. It also says the upper level will be angled and so the setback distance to the side boundary will be varied. It considers this angling helps reduce the appearance of the proposal when viewed from adjoining properties and will also maintain the established pattern by providing separation between dwellings.
4. The respondent submits the stairs are exempt from the side setback requirement in accordance with Clause 54.04-1 (Standard A10). It says the varied standard is a restrictive threshold for any first floor addition to meet the NCO1 modified standard. He says that as the lot is only 15 metres wide, meeting the standard only facilitates a 5 metre wide building at the second level.
5. He also says the proposed setbacks are complicated by the setbacks of the existing dwelling. It submits that by siting the addition above the southern end of the dwelling, the setbacks are increased in relation to the side boundary, due to a wider existing setback of 4.5 metres at the south-east corner of the dwelling.

1. The NCO1 has varied Standard A10 to require a new building should be set back from both side boundaries a minimum of 3 metres. It also has a requirement that a new building should be setback from the side or rear boundary a minimum of 3 or 5 metres, plus 0.3 metres for every metre of height over 3.6 metres up to 6.9 metres, plus 1 metre for every metre of height over 6.9 metres.
2. The east elevation proposes a wall height of 7.412-8.5 metres. In accordance with the varied standard, the building is required to be setback 5.5-6.53 metres from the east boundary. The addition fails to meet this standard as it is setback 2.7-4.4 metres.
3. The applicant argues the stairs should be considered as part of the noncompliance as the varied standard does not state that they are exempt. The respondent refutes this proposition and says the header clause at Clause 54.04-1 includes stairs as an exemption.
4. Clause 4.0 contains the table of modified Clause 54 and 55 standards for the NCO1. It states for side and rear setbacks:

Sunblinds, verandahs, balconies, porches, eaves, fascias, gutters, chimneys, flues, pipes, domestic fuel or water tanks, and heating or cooling equipment associated with a dwelling, may encroach into the setbacks of this standard.

1. I acknowledge the varied clause does not include stairs as an exemption. In any event, the east elevation, including the stairs, fails to meet the required setback in accordance with the standard. Therefore, consideration must be given to the decision guidelines and objectives of the NCO1 and the standard.
2. The east elevation wall is proposing to face the west elevation wall of the applicant's dwelling, as shown in Figure 6. Whilst the stairs will encroach into this setback, I find that it will not exacerbate visual bulk impacts on the applicant's dwelling as it is a permeable structure that is only 900mm wide.
3. I find the proposed side setbacks (including the stairwell) satisfactory as the first floor is to be constructed above the existing dwelling that is set back 2.775 metres to 4.5 metres from the common boundary. This setback provides some separation between the dwellings and reflects the spacing of other dwellings in the neighbourhood.
4. I acknowledge that the outlook from the applicant's first floor side windows will be substantially changed as both dwellings are setback the same distance from the frontage. However, I consider the addition will not fully enclose the applicant's dwelling as his living areas also contain windows in the south-east (rear) elevation that have an outlook over his deck and rear yard.

1. The applicant argues his privacy will be invaded as residents will be looking into his lounge and study windows. He considers the regular use of the stairs will affect his quality of life due to the foot traffic using this external staircase.
2. Council submits that it has included a condition on the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to screen the first floor walkway and external staircase to prevent overlooking into the applicant's deck and habitable room windows.
3. The respondent submits the staircase is a function, safety and amenity design element for the addition. He says the inclusion of a condition to screen the external staircase is unreasonable given that it will be infrequently used to access the upper level.

1. I acknowledge that there is a potential for residents using the staircase to view into the applicant's windows. However, I am not prepared to include a condition to screen this feature as it is not a habitable room, balcony or terrace where people tend to congregate.
2. However, I will require the south-east end of the walkway to include a screen as people may stand at this location and view into the applicant's decking and rear yard.
3. I also note that any additional screening of the stairs will further increase the bulk and scale of the addition facing the applicant's windows.

1. The applicant submits the addition will reduce light into his side windows due to the excessive height. He is also concerned that there will be reflective glare from the metal stairs.

1. The respondent has provided shadow diagrams for the 22 September (Equinox) that show the addition will not overshadow the applicant's habitable room windows at 3.00pm.
2. Given the applicant's dwelling is set back 2.55 metres from the common boundary and the addition is proposed to be setback a minimum of 2.7 metres, there is sufficient space to maintain adequate access to daylight into the applicant's windows.
3. Council submits that the respondent has agreed to paint the stairwell in a colour to reduce the potential for sun reflection. However, as there is no condition included in the draft conditions, I will include a new condition to nominate a paint colour for the stairwell on the permit.

1. The applicant is concerned that there will be excessive noise generated from residents using the staircase close to his living areas.

1. The consideration of this application is confined to the construction of the buildings and works for the addition. The residential use of the dwelling, at ground and first floor level, does not require a planning permit and is not a planning matter. I consider residential noise associated with a dwelling normal and reasonable in an urban setting. Any future issues of amenity, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.

DOES THE PROPOSAL MAINTAIN A REASONABLE SHARING OF VIEWS?

1. The applicant submits that views are part of the character of this area. He says the design is unreasonable as no consideration has been given to the sharing of views with his dwelling. He submits that he does not have ocean views from other windows to the south-east or east, and the loss of outlook will have a large impact on the amenity in his dwelling.
2. Council submits that the Planning Scheme does not ensure a right to a view. It notes the addition will not completely block views from the applicant's dwelling and that he should not expect that his views will be same over time.
3. The respondent acknowledges that views from the applicant's windows will be altered but these changes are expected within the context of the location of the site in the town, the potential for further development, and the direction of view in relation to the dwelling. He submits the changes to the existing views are reasonable as any second storey addition within the footprint of the existing dwelling are likely to impact views from the windows.
4. The respondent submits the applicant has not maximised the development potential of his property. He says that there is potential for the development of a larger dwelling and/or altered siting of buildings to obtain views. He states:

It is not reasonable to expect that views from these windows perpendicular to the orientation of the dwelling will be maintained, the planning scheme has no policy around protection of views, the development will allow some parts of the viewscape to be maintained, and the development potential of all 3 dwellings at 11, 13 & 15 Surf Avenue has not been maximised.[9]

1. The only reference to views found in the Planning Scheme is at SLO2 that contains an objective 'to protect the clear sweeping views to the ocean available from the precinct'. The neighbourhood character study[10] also refers to views where it states the preferred character can be achieved by encouraging the siting of buildings to have regard to the reasonable sharing of views. It also contains an objective to provide for the reasonable sharing of views to the coast and surrounding foothills and a guideline to avoid buildings that obscure views to the coast or the foothills.
2. The only other reference to views is in Clause 15.01-2L (Building design). This clause requires consideration of views of the site from the Great Ocean Road and viewing points in the Otway Ranges and the likely impact of the development on these views.
3. In terms of general amenity, the decision guidelines of Standard A10 (Side and Rear Setbacks) require consideration of the impact on the amenity of the habitable room windows.
4. I am cognisant of the general principles for assessing the reasonable sharing of views found in Healy v Surf Coast SC [2005] VCAT 990 ('Healy') which includes:

(a) there is no legal right to a view;

(b) views form part of the existing amenity of a property and their loss is a relevant consideration to take into account;

(c) the availability of views must be considered in the light of what constitutes a reasonable sharing of those views;

(d) in addressing the concept of "reasonableness", it is relevant to consider:

(i) the importance of the view to be lost within the overall panorama available; and

(ii) whether those objecting have taken all appropriate steps to optimise development of their own properties.

(e) added emphasis will be placed on principles (b) and (c) above if the issue of views is specifically addressed in the planning scheme.[11]

1. There is also a subsequent refinement of these principles in Wright v Greater Geelong CC [2013] VCAT 2092 that adds in consideration of the 'legitimate expectations of those whose view is being affected'.
2. Apart from the above principles, there has been other matters established through consideration of view sharing cases found previous Tribunal decisions including:
   • If a property is removed from the coast (i.e. second row), there is a lesser expectation of sharing of views as it is a view that is gained fortuitously over another property;[12]
   • It is difficult to legitimately expect a ground floor view to be retained as part of a development of a dwelling on adjoining property in the same residential zone and affected by the same overlays;[13] and
   • A reasonable sharing of views does not mean an equal sharing of views will result or existing views will be maintained.[14]
3. Even if I am prepared to consider the issue of view, this consideration should be based on the above principles.
4. I find that the applicant cannot have a legitimate expectation that existing views from his study and lounge room window will be retained. I have come to this conclusion for the following reasons.
5. Based on my site inspection, it is evident that the applicant's lounge room and study windows are perpendicular to the side boundary and have an outlook over the roof of the existing dwelling on the subject site. I agree with the respondent that it is less reasonable to expect retention of a side view, as compared to views from a front or rear window and balcony, as these views are generally within the field of view associated with the lot orientation.
6. I also note the applicant's existing views are over the roof of an existing single storey dwelling. It is evident that the respondent is seeking to maximise his access to this view with construction of the first floor addition. This is consistent with the scale of most other dwellings in the street and wider township that are designed to capture views of the ocean.
7. In terms of the impact on the windows in question, it is likely that views of the ocean from the study window will be removed but views to the north-west, towards the road and existing vegetation, will be maintained. The first floor addition will also impact the panoramic view of the ocean from the lounge room window. However, some ocean views will be maintained in a viewing corridor beyond the end of the addition.
8. I observed the lounge room and study is part of a larger living area that also contains the kitchen. The combined living area contains other windows, including in the south-east (rear) elevation, which is a full length glazed sliding door that provides access to a balcony. The applicant submitted photographs of southerly views from the balcony which show that ocean views are currently impeded by existing vegetation on the subject site and in the rear yards of 49 and 51 Great Ocean Road. However, I observed there were still glimpses of ocean through the tree canopy and between the 'front row' properties facing the GOR. I also observed the applicant has erected permanent and temporary screening on the side elevation of his balcony which restricts views to the west towards the ocean.
9. I find that the applicant will still maintain some views of the ocean from various windows in the south-east (rear) elevation, the deck, and the windows in question. I consider it unreasonable to expect that panoramic views from the lounge and study windows will be maintained, particularly given these views are from side windows that currently overlook the roof of the existing dwelling on the subject site that is setback the same distance from the frontage as the applicant's dwelling.
10. I also agree with the respondent that even if a first floor addition was constructed in full compliance with the height and setback requirements in the NCO1, views from the applicant's windows would be impacted.

1. The applicant is concerned the addition will be used as a second dwelling as a short term rental. He considers that the tenants will noisy using the stairs near his windows.

1. As the plans show, the addition is proposed to accommodate a living room, bedroom and bathroom which does not constitute a dwelling[15]. I note the upper level does not contain a kitchen and therefore is not considered to be a separate dwelling.
2. Council has included a draft condition 3 that states:

The first-floor extension hereby permitted must only be used for accommodation ancillary to the existing dwelling, in accordance with the provisions of the Colac Otway Planning Scheme and must not be used a separate unit of accommodation.

1. I find this condition unnecessary as I have determined the addition is not a separate unit of accommodation. I will delete this condition from the permit.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Buildings and works comprising a first floor extension to a dwelling in a Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2

Buildings and works comprising a first floor extension to a dwelling in a Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 1

1. Prior to the commencement of development, 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, which must be drawn to scale with dimensions, must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show:

(a) The walkway at first floor level screened to prevent overlooking to the deck and habitable room window at 11 Surf Avenue, and the deck at 15 Surf Avenue in accordance with the provisions of Clause 54.04-6 (Overlooking Objective) of the Colac Otway Planning Scheme.

(b) External paint colour for the stairwell in a suitably muted tone (non reflective).

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

1. Prior to the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, vehicular access from the roadway to the property boundary must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the initial occupation of the extension hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the driveway must be constructed to an all-weather standard and with a minimum width of 3m to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All stormwater runoff from the development, including overflow from water storage, must be taken to a legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, drainage plans including relevant calculations prepared by a suitably qualified person, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must:

(a) Show all drainage works associated with the development including any drainage works required beyond the boundaries of the land.

(b) Show the nominated Legal Point of Discharge.

(c) Show the detailed cross-section of the outflow control device.

(d) Provide the computation for water tanks if used for stormwater detention.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be made to the Responsible Authority to extend the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] The submissions and any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[7] Photograph taken by Tribunal on site inspection.

[10] Which is a background document in Clause 72.08.

[12] Taylor v Surf Coast SC [2021] VCAT 37 at paragraph 12 citing Senior Member Bennett in Elg v Surf Coast SC [2015] VCAT 498.

[15] In accordance with Clause 73.03, a dwelling is defined as a building used as a self-contained residence which must include a kitchen sink, food preparation facilities, a bath or shower and a toilet and wash basin.