1. Amendment C234whse was gazetted into the Whitehorse Planning Scheme on 1 March 2024, prior to the council determining the planning application.
2. The amendment implemented the outcomes of the Whitehorse Residential Corridors Built Form Study, 2019, providing the basis for built form controls to better manage the development outcomes in the Residential Growth Zone ('RGZ').
3. The amendment introduced and applied the DDO11 to land within the RGZ along the corridors excluding land affected by structure plans and/or urban design frameworks such as Box Hill.

1. Amendment C234whse was gazetted into the Whitehorse Planning Scheme on 21 November 2024 after the council determined the planning application.
2. The amendment replaced the Local Planning Policy Framework ('LPFF') of the Scheme with a new Municipal Planning Strategy ('MPS'), local policies within the Planning Policy Framework ('PPF') at clauses 11 to 19 and selected local schedules consistent with changes to the Victorian Planning Provisions ('VPPs') introduced by Amendment VC148 and the Ministerial Direction Form and Content of Planning Schemes.
3. The changes that are of relevance to this proposal are policy neutral.

1. The review site is in an established residential area along Whitehorse Road, in an area where the planning scheme directs higher density development, subject to reasonable built form outcomes that protects the amenity and responds to preferred character. The review site is located 600 metres from Box Hill Activity Centre and has excellent access to fixed rail public transport, daily shopping facilities, community services, and local parks and playgrounds. The review site is also adjacent to a tram stop that serves tram route 109 (Box Hill to Port Melbourne). This is an area where change is anticipated to occur.
2. The review site is within the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2 ('RGZ2'), as shown in figure 2. The land to the rear of the review site is zoned General Residential ('GRZ') and the land opposite is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone ('NRZ5').

Figure 6 - Extract from planning property report, with the review site marked red.

1. The purpose of the RGZ as it relates to this review includes:

To implement the MPS and the PPF.

To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings.

To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activity centres and town centres.

To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential areas.

To ensure residential development achieves design objectives specified in a schedule to this zone.

1. The decision guidelines at clause 32.07-14 as it relates to this application, must consider the MPS and PPF, purpose of the zone, the objectives set out in the schedule, and the objectives, standards and decision guidelines at clause 58.
2. The RGZ Schedule 2 relates to Substantial Change B where there are no design objectives or maximum building height requirements. The decision guidelines in the schedule as it relates to this application include:
   • Whether the development provides for an appropriate built form transition to residential properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and General Residential Zone.
   • Whether the vegetation in the street setback will contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character and the public realm.
   • The potential impact on the amenity of existing adjoining residential dwellings in the Residential Growth Zone.
   • How the proposal responds to the requirements of any relevant adopted Structure Plan or Urban Design Framework.
   • Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 11 (DDO11)

1. The review site is also in Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 11 (Residential Growth Corridors) ('DDO11') at clause 43.02. The design objectives:
   • encourage mid-rise development in residential growth corridors to accommodate housing at increased densities and diversity in housing;
   • encourage development which contributes to the public realm in relation to human scale by providing a pedestrian-friendly urban environment;
   • seek to ensure the height and built form of new buildings provide an acceptable built form interface, and transition to adjoining neighbouring lower scale residential areas in GRZ;
   • seek to maintain visual prominence of landscaping and ensure space for trees;
   • seek to encourage lot consolidation to achieve maximum building heights; and
   • seek to provide for sufficient building setbacks to deliver high levels of internal amenity.
2. A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works greater than three storeys. Under schedule 2 of DDO11 a building should not exceed a height of 19 metres and six storeys (excluding rooftop services that cannot be seen from any adjoining public space or architecturally designed features).
3. The front setback of a building should be set back a minimum of 5 metres with an additional minimum of 3 metres to levels above four storeys (8 metres). The side setbacks of a building should be a minimum of 4.5 metres with an additional minimum of 4.5 metres to levels above four storeys to adjoining land in GRZ. The rear setback should be a minimum of 9 metres to adjoining land in GRZ.
4. Buildings at ground floor should present an attractive, pedestrian orientated frontage, minimising blank walls, car parking areas and wide car park entrances. Services such as utility requirements and fire hydrants should be integrated within the landscape front setback. Front windows are encouraged and high front fences are discouraged.
5. In addition to the decision guidelines at clause 43.02, and elsewhere in the scheme, the decision guidelines within DDO11 state (as appropriate to this application):
   • Whether development provides an appropriate transition from the residential growth corridor to lower scale residential areas in the GRZ and NRZ.
   • Whether development achieves a mid-rise scale to accommodate housing at increased densities and a diversity of housing type that enhances the sense of openness and maintains access to expansive sky views along the corridor.
   • Whether development allows for deep soil planting and landscaping within the front, side and rear setbacks.

1. A planning permit is required to remove, destroy or lop a tree in Significant Landscape Overlay ('SLO9'). The purpose of the clause 42.03 is to implement the MPS and PPF, conserve and enhance the character of the significant landscape.
2. SLO9 Neighbourhood Character Areas, provides a 'statement of nature and key elements of landscape', 'landscape character objectives to be achieved', permit requirements, and decision guidelines. Decision guidelines are contained in clause 5.0 of SLO9 which I do not recite.

1. Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) and clause 58 (Apartment Developments) are also relevant considerations. An apartment development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement, must meet the requirements of clause 58.
2. Given parties agreed the matters in dispute are confined to side and rear setbacks as outlined in the DDO and matters relating to the traffic safety and parking, I have not recited the MPS and PPF. I discuss in my findings below.

DOES THE DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVE A SATISFACTORY LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILT FORM OUTCOMES OF DDO11?

1. I agree with council that subject to a suitable design response, the site is identified for a significantly increased housing density than currently exists. I find there is strong strategic support for increased housing densities in this area given the review site is in RGZ2 and allows for increased housing densities whilst encouraging a transition between areas of more intensive housing and increased built form. This is also echoed at clauses 11.03-1S (Supply of Urban Land), 16.01-1S (Housing Supply - Metropolitan Melbourne), and 16.01-1L (Housing Supply).
2. The proposed building has a street frontage to Whitehorse Road, and the rear elevations face the northern boundary, adjoining the shared boundary with the applicant's property. The council referred to Table 1 to Schedule 11 (Building height and setbacks) at clause 2.0 of schedule DDO11 which nominates preferred building heights and setbacks. These are outlined as discretionary heights and setbacks, which the applicant acknowledged.
3. With respect to matters of detailed design, the applicant says that the proposed development fails to provide an acceptable transition to the adjoining residential property to the north, where they reside, which is in a General Residential Zone, Schedule 4 - Garden Suburban Precinct 8. They are concerned the height and setbacks do not provide a transition in built form from their property and should meet the setback requirements in DDO11.
4. The applicant is concerned that the preferred building setbacks expressed in DDO11 are not met for the side and rear, particularly the rear setback which adjoins their property.
5. The proposed building has been designed to have a frontage to Whitehorse Road, with a staggered setback from the front of the site of 5.3 metres up to level 3 and 6.5 metres at level 4. The basement is set back 4.5 metres.
6. The setback to Hotham Street is varied given the access to the basement is located along the north-western boundary, with the building at this point set back 17 metres from the site frontage. For the rest of the building the setbacks vary between 3 metres to 4.5 metres.
7. The setback from the rear boundary, which is the main contention by the applicant, is set back 4.5 metres at ground level, with projecting balconies at level one set back 3.84 metres, 5.5 metres at level two, 7.5 metres to 8.7 metres at level three and 9.1 metres at level four. The section plan below demonstrates a staggered setback at the upper levels.

Figure 6 - section plan.[7]

1. The applicant contends the proposed rear setback of 4.5 metres falls well short of the discretionary 9 metre minimum setback identified in DDO11 where the site adjoins land in the GRZ or NRZ. They are concerned the shortfall, including the setback to the eastern boundary represents a clear shortfall in expected design response. They argue the rear setback of the adjacent property at 781 Whitehorse Road, (Kingsley Apartments) has a setback of approximately 8.4 metres which contributes to the local character and provides amenity through openness, privacy, and reduced overshadowing.

1. Whilst I acknowledge the proposed development does not meet the side and rear setback requirements in DDO11 (as outlined above), these are discretionary requirements. I agree with council that the objectives and design response of DDO11 are met. I say this for the following reasons:
2. The review site abuts 775-781 Whitehorse Road, which is an unusual, shaped large allotment, comprising two storey townhouses abutting the review site, extending up to five storeys facing Whitehorse Road. To the rear the development comprises two storey townhouses. Access to the complex is via Nangnak Lane, off Whitehorse Road, with further access to the townhouses from Hotham Street. The setbacks vary. The proposal cannot be consistent with these setbacks as the size and shape of the allotments are significantly different.[8]
3. The review site is a rectangular shaped allotment, located on a corner site. In this instance, this provides for further opportunity for higher built form given its locational attributes, as outlined above. Given it is located on Whitehorse Road, a Transport 2 Zone, access is somewhat compromised given it is an arterial road accommodating two lanes of tram tracks and two lanes of traffic. I agree with council, that any vehicle access is generally preferred from the secondary road, being Hotham Street.
4. The proposal complies with the preferred height (in DDO11) of 19 metres and six storeys, with the proposed height being 16.2 metres and five storeys. The maximum height in the RGZ should not exceed 13.5 metres.
5. I am satisfied the proposed height provides a transition in built form from the adjoining properties to the north that are located in GRZ. This is because the setback of the adjoining double storey dwellings (facing Hotham Street) is set back approximately 5.2 metres. The proposed building is set back from the front of Hotham Street between 3 metres to 17.2 metres at ground level with the upper levels varying between 3 metres to 4.5 metres. A landscape buffer along the entire length of the northern boundary with the applicant's property provides satisfactory screening, in addition to the access to the basement car park which extends the building to 17.2 metres at this interface.
6. DDO11 provides a relatively blunt preferred 9 metre rear setback requirement, which if adopted, could result in a sheer faced and bulky building at that interface. I do not agree that the adoption of such a blanket setback across all levels would represent an appropriate transition to the abutting GRZ land.
7. I am also satisfied the rear setback responds appropriately to its site context and allows for a built form that is responsive to the adjoining properties. It does this by locating the vehicle access along the northern boundary and including a landscape buffer, and by providing car parking at basement level. The upper floor setbacks are a minimum of 3.8 metres at first floor, 5.5 metres at second level, 7.3 metres at third level and 9.1 metres at the top floor. The setbacks are to the balcony spaces, with the building setback further allowing for varied built form and an appropriate transition as required by the built form outcomes in the DDO.
8. The balconies from second level incorporate planter boxes and landscaping features that enhance the buildings' visual articulation when viewed from the neighbouring and nearby properties.
9. The design integrates horizontal dark coloured cladding and 'monument' colorbond metal balustrade along the upper levels, contrasted with vertical light coloured brick columns. This combination of colour and material creates a clearly defined and well articulated building form.
10. The street elevation facing Whitehorse Road presents with a strong four storey form with a central vertical glass element and a fifth floor recessed out of view. This design is an appropriate form for a main road location and achieves the design objectives sought by DDO11. It will have a strong appearance given its corner location and will appear taller than the adjoining two storey townhouses. Some lower scale built form remains in the immediate area, along the main road, however policy supports higher density apartment style development along main roads in RGZ. This change is to be expected, and I am satisfied the proposal achieves the design objectives sought by DDO11.
11. I agree that contextually, other development in the immediate context (which also benefit from the DDO11 provision) often have a more varied approach to rear setbacks. In my view, the varied setbacks to the rear, where it interfaces with the GRZ land is appropriate. Although reduces from that preferred, the setbacks still provide for adequate sunlight to the abutting properties, will not affect resident privacy or outlook from habitable room windows and will not visually dominate or compromise the character of the adjacent development.

WILL THE PROPOSAL CAUSE UNREASONABLE AMENITY IMPACTS TO THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES?

1. The council has assessed the application against clause 58 and is satisfied the proposal meets the objective and standards.
2. I note that the applicant raises overlooking concerns in their statement of grounds but did not pursue these matters in their written submission. The council is satisfied the proposed development has been designed to limit overlooking of the adjoining residential properties by the staggered setbacks of habitable windows and balcony areas, and/or screening of these spaces.
3. I am generally satisfied the proposed development does not cause unreasonable overlooking to the adjoining residential properties except for the dwellings to the north-west corner adjacent to the applicant's property at first, second and third level where the balcony is set back 7 metres from the shared boundary and would not meet Standard D14 (Apartment Development) of clause 58.
4. The respondent and council both conceded that there may be overlooking into the applicant's secluded private open space from these balconies, but that the main section of overlooking being upon the garage roof.
5. I am not satisfied that the balconies at these levels will directly overlook the applicant's secluded private open space, but have included a condition to mitigate any indirect overlooking.
6. I am not persuaded by the applicant that the proposed development will give rise to noise disturbance. Noise disturbance from dwellings is incidental to the activities associated with living in an urban environment.

DOES THE CREATION OF THE CROSSOVER IN HOTHAM STREET RAISE TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS?

1. The applicant is concerned that the proposed crossover, given its location near their property, will create traffic congestion and traffic safety issues. They say that given the number of apartments proposed, this will cause unreasonable traffic impact and safety issues due to the number of vehicles entering and exiting the proposed development, impacting the flow of traffic along Hotham Street.
2. The applicant prefers the proposed crossover to be in the same position as the existing crossover, central to the driveway and common property. As I explained at the hearing, it is not my role as the decision maker to direct modifications to the proposed development if I conclude the proposal as lodged is acceptable.
3. In any event, I do not share the applicant's view on this matter.
4. The applicant has not submitted any traffic expert evidence in this proceeding. They reply upon their experience and observations relating to the increase in traffic generation along Hotham Street. I can only be guided by the traffic report submitted with the planning application and advice received from council's traffic engineers.
5. I appreciate the applicant's concerns about traffic generation, however, the review site is in an area where there is strong strategic support for more intensive housing. This will mean more vehicles using the street network such as Hotham Street. However, given its corner location, on a major road, with extensive public transport options (train, tram and bus all near the review site) and use of existing infrastructure such as roads, I am not persuaded that the proposal is unacceptable.
6. The applicant is critical that the traffic report submitted with the planning application (dated 27 April 2022) is out of date. I am not persuaded that a further traffic report is required to further assess traffic generation because of the proposed development. I do not find there would be utility in a traffic report for a development of this scale and type in this location, notwithstanding the proximity of the review site to the intersection with Whitehorse Road and the loss of the one crossover on the review site.
7. The application has been assessed by the council's traffic engineers and they are satisfied with the proposed development. There is nothing evidently inherently unsafe about the proposed layout. All car parking is contained within the proposed basement, and vehicles enter and exit the review site in a forward direction, safely to and from Hotham Street. The proposed permit conditions relating to garage door heights and basement clearance are appropriate to address on-site waste collection by waste trucks. I also raise no issue with permit conditions addressing waste management and car parking management plans.
8. Clause 52.06 of the Scheme sets out the parking requirements for new dwellings. For dwellings of three or more bedrooms, two car spaces are required on-site. For a two bedroom dwelling, one car space is required on-site. A visitor parking space is not required, because the review site is located within the Principal Public Transport Network ('PPTN') Area. The proposed 49 car spaces provided for the 29 apartments is above the Scheme requirements and is therefore met.
9. As I explained to the applicant during the hearing, the car parking requirement is complied with, hence there is no basis upon which I can direct more parking be provided. Likewise, I cannot also direct a reduction for the three spaces provided beyond the Scheme requirements, as there are no parking overlays that restrict the maximum number of spaces.
10. I find the proposed development satisfies the concerns raised by the applicant regarding traffic safety, traffic generation and parking.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing. I have generally adopted the conditions contained in council's notice of decision to grant a permit, with the new permit condition addressing overlooking as discussed above.

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

Construct a building and construct and carry out works within 4 metres of a protected tree.

1. Before the development starts, or vegetation is removed, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in a digital format. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale, with dimensions, and be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a) The garage door height clearance to be annotated on plan as having a minimum 2.2m height clearance.

(b) A 2.7m height clearance area for the waste truck collection area to be shown on the Basement Level 1 floor plan.

(c) Double glazing of Unit 7 and 8 north-facing, habitable room windows situated above the driveway access ramp.

(d) The locations of Tree Protection Zones described in Condition 8, with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on both ground floor plan and landscape plan, and the requirements of Conditions 8 and 9 to be annotated on the development and landscape plans.

(e) A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 2, including the following:

1. The two 'Type B' trees, as shown on the development plans in the front setback, to be capable of growing in excess of 8 metres.
2. All new trees must be planted at a minimum height of 1.5 metres.

(f) A Landscape Maintenance Plan in accordance with Condition 4.

(g) A Car Park Management Plan in accordance with Condition 12.

(h) A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 17 of this permit.

(i) Development plans to reflect all sustainability features that are required as part of a submitted and approved Sustainability Management Plan (SMP), together with any requirement outlined in Condition 22. The plans are to be generally in accordance with the plans submitted but indicating:

1. A comment that the development must be constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained within the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan.
2. Solar photovoltaic panels with capacity maximised for the available roof area as per Clause 15.01 (Encourage On-site renewable energy generation and storage technology).
3. Any changes required to comply with the Sustainability Design Assessment under Condition 22.

(j) Screening of the first, second and third floor balcony (Units 16, 22 and 27) of northern elevation and opposite the private open space of the adjoining property in accordance with Standard D14 of Apartment Developments of Clause 58.

All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. No building or works must commence (and no trees or vegetation are to be removed) until a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. This plan when endorsed shall form part of this permit. This plan shall show:

(a) A survey of all existing vegetation, abutting street trees, natural features and vegetation.

(b) Buildings, outbuildings and trees in neighbouring lots that would affect the landscape design.

(c) Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:

1. providing a complete garden scheme,
2. softening the building bulk,
3. providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective.

(d) A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of Condition 1.

(e) Type B replacement tree species to be selected from the list provided by the Responsible Authority or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(f) The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.

(g) A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) which includes, botanical names, common names, pot size, mature size and total quantities of each plant.

(h) Details of containerised planting including container size, growing medium, anchoring systems and infrastructure (ie: irrigation and drainage) to support ongoing plant growth and health.

Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule must be completed before the development is occupied.

Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan must only be used as gardens and must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed it may be required to be replaced by a tree or shrub of similar size and variety.
2. Before the commencement of buildings and works, a Landscaping Maintenance Plan, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Landscaping Maintenance Plan must include, but is not limited to:

(a) Irrigation system/program for all common property landscaping and containerised plantings, including details of frequency and water delivery method.

1. Once submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, the Landscaping Maintenance Plan will form part of the documents endorsed as part of this planning permit.

The requirements of the Landscaping Maintenance Plan must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site for the life of the building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

1. Any excavation within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 4 must be conducted under the supervision of a minimum AQF Level 5 (or higher) qualified arborist.
2. Any pruning works that might be required to provide a construction clearance for street trees must be undertaken by a minimum AQF Level 3 (or higher) qualified arborist and only with the written consent of Whitehorse City Council's Parks and Natural Environment department.
3. Prior to commencement of any building or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be established on the subject site (and nature strip if required) and maintained during, and until completion of, all buildings and works including landscaping, around the following trees in accordance with the distances and measures specified below, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) Tree Protection Zone distances:

1. Tree 1 (Quercus robur 'Fastigiata') - 3.7 metre radius from the centre of the tree base
2. Tree 2 (Quercus robur 'Fastigiata') - 3.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base
3. Tree 3 (Melaleuca styphelioides) - 8.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base
4. Tree 4 (Melaleuca styphelioides) - 9.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

(b) Tree Protection Zone measures are to be established in accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 and are to include the following:

1. Erection of solid chain mesh or similar type fencing at a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height held in place with concrete feet.
2. Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter the fencing identifying the area as a TPZ. The signage should be visible from within the development, with the lettering complying with AS 1319.
3. Mulch across the surface of the TPZ to a depth of 100mm and undertake supplementary provide watering/irrigation within the TPZ, prior and during any works performed.
4. No excavation, constructions works or activities, grade changes, surface treatments or storage of materials of any kind are permitted within the TPZ unless otherwise approved within this permit or further approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
5. All supports and bracing should be outside the TPZ and any excavation for supports or bracing should avoid damaging roots where possible.
6. No trenching is allowed within the TPZ for the installation of utility services unless tree sensitive installation methods such as boring have been approved by the Responsible Authority.
7. Where construction is approved within the TPZ, fencing and mulching should be placed at the outer point of the construction area.
8. Where there are approved works within the TPZ, it may only be reduced to the required amount by an authorized person only during approved construction within the TPZ, and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.

1. During construction of any buildings, or during other works, the following tree protection requirements are to be adhered to, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) must be submitted to and approved and endorsed by Council prior to the commencement of all buildings and works. It must be written in accordance with the requirements set out on Page 21, under Section 5.2 Tree Protection Plan in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. It must include Tree Protection Zone Fencing Measures. It must detail how Tree 16, 17, 18 and 19 will be protected Pre-Construction, Construction Stage and Post Construction, and must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (RA).

(b) The Tree Protection Plan (TPP) must detail how any excavation works within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 16, 17, 18 and 19 will (and any other trees shown to be retained on the plans) will be undertaken and how tree roots will be managed, so that the health and stability of trees are not adversely impacted now or into the future.

(c) The Tree Protection Plan (TPP) must detail where services will be located and how they will be installed within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 16, 17, 18 and 19 will to be located outside of the Tree Protection Zone, bored under the tree protection zone, or installed using hydro excavation under the supervision of the project arborist.

(d) Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and excavation, the Responsible Authority (RA) must be provided with evidence that a project arborist has been engaged as part of the ongoing consultant team to oversee all buildings and works, and to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact on the ongoing health and stability of the trees to be retained. The project arborist must have a qualification in arboriculture and hold a minimum Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture) to be the project arborist.

1. A Development Infrastructure Levy in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan which applies to the land must be paid to Whitehorse City Council as the Collecting Agency not more than 21 days prior to, the grant of a building permit under the Building Act 1993 or the commencement of development of any buildings and works associated with the permitted development, whichever occurs first; or the Owner must enter into an agreement with Whitehorse City Council as the Collecting Agency to pay the Development Infrastructure Levy within a time specified in the agreement.
2. A Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Whitehorse City Council as the Collecting Agency in accordance with the approved Development Contribution Plan which applies to the land prior to the issue of a building permit under the Building Act 1993; or the Owner must enter into an agreement with Whitehorse City Council as the Collecting Agency to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy within a time specified in the agreement.
3. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Car Park Management Plan (CPMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the CPMP will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The CPMP must address, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) Consistency with Condition 1 requirements.

(b) Allocation of car spaces to individual dwellings.

(c) The collection of waste and garbage, including the separate collection of organic waste and recyclables, which must be in accordance with the Waste Management Plan required by Condition 15.

(d) Details of access controls to the basement parking area.

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Car Park Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Residential reticulated gas condition (Condition 13 only)

1. Any new dwelling allowed by this permit must not be connected to a reticulated gas service (within the meaning of Clause 53.03 of the relevant planning scheme). This condition continues to have force and effect after the development authorised by this permit has been completed.

1. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to basement car park. Lighting must be located, directed and shielded and of limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site.
2. All treatments to prevent overlooking must not include 'Translucent film' on windows and must be in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.
3. Specular light reflectance must be less than 15 per cent for all external building glazing and cladding materials and finishes when measured at an angle of 90 degrees to the surface of the material (normal incidence), except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to endorsement of plans, an amended Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Waste Management Plan (WMP) will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended WMP must be generally in accordance with the WMP prepared by Impact Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd, dated 28 April 2022, but modified to include, but not limited to:

(a) Consistent with the Condition 1 requirements.

Once submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, the WMP must form part of the documents endorsed as part of this planning permit.

1. The requirements of the WMP must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site for the duration of the building's operation in accordance with the endorsed WMP. Any revision of the WMP or changes to the approved waste system of the development requires Council approval
2. Waste collections for this development are to be completed internally by Private waste collection contractor.
3. Council issued bins will not be required for this development.
4. Waste collection vehicles are to enter and leave the developed site in a forward direction.

1. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or demolition works, an updated Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The updated SMP must be generally in accordance with the submitted SMP, but include:

(a) Consistency with the requirements of Condition 1.

(b) A commitment that the development achieves an average minimum NatHERS 7 star energy efficiency rating reflecting best practice energy efficiency and thermal comfort as per NCC 2022 requirements.

(c) Council strongly encourages an all-electric design that is net-zero ready in line with the Green Building Council's 'practical guide to electrification: for new buildings'

(d) Solar photovoltaic panels with capacity maximised for the available roof area as per Clause 15.01 (Encourage On-site renewable energy generation and storage technology). In addition, comment and recommendations on options and feasibility of energy storage is to be provided.

(e) Hot water systems noted as energy efficient electric solar / heat pump hot water heating system. Electric systems are net zero emissions ready in line with Whitehorse planning Clause 22.10 (To reduce total operating greenhouse gas emissions).

(f) Address Electric Vehicle (EV) charging:

1. Capacity and Load Management: Dedicated EV distribution board(s) in each carpark storey that is capable of: Supplying a minimum 7 kW (32 Amp single phase) dedicated circuit to all residential car parking spaces.
2. A strategy for load sharing and managing the maximum demand load of the development so that it does not exceed the site capacity. Alternatively, confirm the site electrical capacity will cater for the EV charging load in maximum demand calculations as per AS/NZS 3000.
3. Dedicated space for cable trays to support the future installation of EV cabling from the distribution board to the edge of each applicable car parking space.
4. Additional EV infrastructure, as required, which may include power use metering and communication systems, increased electrical capacity, and conduit installations.

Prior to the occupation of the development, the development must be constructed in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition or bulk excavation if applicable, a detailed Construction Management Plan(s) (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the CMP will be endorsed and will form part of this permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This CMP must be prepared by a suitably qualified person, and be in accordance with the City of Whitehorse Construction Management Plan Guidelines.

When approved, the CMP will be endorsed and will form part of this permit and must be complied with, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, to the extent that this is in the control of the owner of the land. The owner of the land is to be responsible for all costs associated with the works to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the approved CMP.

1. All stormwater drains and on-site detention systems are to be connected to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building/s. The requirement for on- site detention will be noted on your stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.
2. Detailed stormwater drainage and/or civil design for the proposed development are to be prepared by a suitably qualified civil engineer and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval prior to occupation of the development. Plans and calculations are to be submitted with the application with all levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD). All documentation is to be signed by the qualified civil engineer.
3. Stormwater that could adversely affect any adjacent land shall not be discharged from the subject site onto the surface of the adjacent land. Civil plans must make sure that the low corner of the site (North -East side) is adequately drained.
4. Prior to works commencing the Applicant/Owner is to submit design plans for all proposed engineering works external to the site. The plans are to be submitted as separate engineering drawings for assessment by the Responsible Authority.
5. The Applicant/Owner is responsible to pay for all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets as a result of the development. The Applicant/Owner is responsible to obtain all relevant permits and consents from Council at least 7 days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and is to obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets. Adequate protection is to be provided to Council's infrastructure prior to works commencing and during the construction process.
6. The qualified civil engineer when undertaking civil design must ensure that the landscape plan/s and drainage plan/s are compatible. The stormwater drainage and on site detention system must be located outside the tree protection zone (TPZ) of any trees to be retained.
7. Bluestone kerb and channelling must be retained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any reconstruction should be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. All building plant and equipment on the roofs, balcony areas, common areas, and public thoroughfares is to be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Noise emitting plant equipment such as air conditioners, must be shielded with acoustic screening to prevent the transmission of noise having detrimental amenity impacts. The construction of any additional plant, machinery or other equipment, including but not limited to all service structures, down pipes, aerials, satellite dishes, air-conditioners, equipment, ducts, flues, all exhausts including car parking and communication equipment must include appropriate screening measures to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. All mechanical exhaust systems for the car park hereby approved must be located and sound attenuated to prevent noise and general nuisance to the occupants of the surrounding properties, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

(a) the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit;

(b) the development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing pursuant to the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

[1] The submissions of the parties, 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.

[2] Review site shown with orange arrow, Nearmap March 2025.