1. The north-eastern side of the site contains a double storey dwelling and the south-western half is vacant land.
2. Abutting to the south-west is a single storey brick dwelling that is setback 8.5 metres from the frontage and approximately 2.6 metres from the common boundary. To the north-east is a double storey dwelling that is setback 11.6 metres from the frontage and approximately 3.5 metres -7.2 metres from the common boundary.
3. The surrounding area was developed in the 1980's-90's and contains larger lots in the order of 750-1000 square metres. There is a mix of single and double storey detached houses, most of which have open front gardens and setbacks from both side boundaries. Dwellings are generally constructed in brick with tiled pitched roofing. Whilst there has been some infill development, the area maintains some of its 1980's character with original dwellings. However, there is a visible presence of replacement infill double storey detached houses and a scattering of multi-dwelling developments, including 16 double and single storey dwellings at 6-14 Verona Street.
4. Mr Thomson has described the landscape character of the area as eclectic, with large canopy trees generally absent from street front gardens. I agree with this description.
5. The review site is approximately 2.5 kilometres from Vermont South Shopping Centre and 3.9 kilometres from Mitcham railway station. Bus services operate along Morack Road that connect bus and tram services along Burwood Highway.

1. The review site is in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone - Schedule 5 ('NRZ5') - Traditional Garden Suburban Areas. This zone contains purposes including:
   • To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.
   • To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics
2. Schedule 5 includes variations to Clause 55 standards relating to front setback, site coverage, permeability, landscaping, side and rear setbacks, walls on boundaries, private open space and front fence height.
3. The proposal fully complies with all applicable Res Code variations.[6]
4. The site is within a Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9 ('SLO9'). The purpose of the SLO, apart from implementing policy, is to identify significant landscapes and to conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes. Schedule 9 of the SLO relates to the municipalities' Neighbourhood Character areas and locates the site within the Garden Suburban Neighbourhood Character Area. This area contains formalised streetscapes comprising grassed nature strips, concrete footpaths, kerbs and channels, and buildings are generally visible along streets behind low front fences and open garden settings.
5. Under the SLO9, the following landscape character objectives are to be achieved:

To retain and enhance the canopy tree cover of the Garden and Bush Suburban Neighbourhood Character Areas.

To encourage the retention of established and mature trees.

To provide for the planting of new and replacement canopy trees.

To ensure that development is compatible with the landscape character of the area.

1. A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works if the buildings or works are within four metres from any tree protected under the provisions of the schedule. The current permit has approved works near significant trees under this overlay. However, the amended proposal includes buildings and works within four (4) metres of Trees 1 and 2 (i.e. proposed crossover re-construction works).
2. The site is also within a Development Contributions Plan Overlay - Schedule 1 ('DCPO1'). Council has recommended the insertion of two additional conditions on the permit which require payment of a Development Infrastructure Levy in accordance with this overlay.
3. The Municipal Planning Strategy ('MPS') contains policies relevant to my decision including:
   • Clause 02.04 (Strategic Framework Plan) identifies the review site is within a Limited Change Area ('LCA').
   • Clause 02.03-6 (Housing) states the LCA has a vision to enable specific characteristics of the neighbourhood, environment or landscape to be protected through greater control over new housing development. These areas represent the lowest degree of intended residential growth in Whitehorse.
   • Clause 02.03-5 (Built Environment and heritage) contains directions for neighbourhood character which is to encourage high-quality development that is responsive to site constraints and opportunities and contributes to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area.
4. There are a range of policies in the Planning Policy Framework ('PPF') that are relevant to my decision and include:
   • Clause 11.01-1R (Settlement - Metropolitan Melbourne) encourages a more consolidated, sustainable city. The Melbourne Settlement Framework Plan does not nominate the review site is within a Growth Area.
   • Clause 11.02-1S (Development Capacity) is to ensure that sufficient development opportunities are available to meet the needs of current and future Victorians.
   • Clause 12.05-2S (Landscapes) contains an objective to protect and enhance significant landscapes and open spaces that contribute to the character of the area.
   • Clause 12.05-1S (Urban Forests) has an objective to protect and enhance tree canopy in urban areas.
   • Clause 13.01-3S (Urban Heat) seeks to reduce urban heat and minimise its impact on human health and wellbeing.
   • Clause 15.01-2S (Building Design) encourages development that contributes positively to its local context and minimising the detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
   • Clause 15.01-5L-01 (Tree Conservation) contains regeneration strategies and policy guidelines to ensure trees have sufficient space and separation from buildings, paving and other trees.
   • Clause 16.01-1S (Housing supply) contains housing targets to deliver sufficient realisable development capacity. It contains a strategy to increase the proportion of housing in urban areas with good access to opportunities and services (including under-utilised urban land). Table 2 specifies a housing target and established target of 76,500 dwellings.
   • Clause 16.01-1L (Housing Change) contains an objective to limit dwelling densities in LCA's.
5. Clause 15.01-5L (Preferred Neighbourhood Character) is applicable in a NRZ and has objectives to ensure development is consistent with the LCA, contributes to the preferred neighbourhood character and provides adequate space for vegetation and gardens.
6. The review site is in Garden Suburban Precinct 7 ('GS7') and the clause contains preferred neighbourhood character strategies. These include ensuring the siting of development on lots with spacious gardens and established trees. Other strategies include set back developments from side boundaries to provide for landscaping and to maintain a sense of spacing and provide lot and obtrusive fencing.

DOES THE PROPOSAL RESPOND TO ITS POLICY CONTEXT?

1. Council argues the proposal fails to respond to the considerations of the PPF at Clauses 15.01, 16.01 and Clause 55.02 that asks residential development to respect the existing character or contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character. It says that whilst the development complies with prescriptive and codified standards of Clause 55, it does not deliver an appropriate planning outcome to the non-codified objectives.
2. The applicant identifies that Clause 16.01-1S (Development Capacity), as amended by VC283, expects Whitehorse to provide an additional 76,500 homes by 2051. It submits that Council must align itself with the new strategic direction which is to provide housing in locations where people want to live.
3. The applicant submits that the lot is of a size that would be expected to accommodate multiple dwellings (i.e. over 1000 square metres). It also says that to construct a second dwelling on a lot is consistent with a limited level of change in an established urban environment.

1. Amendment VC283 strengthens the existing objectives and strategies in the PPF to give effect to Plan for Victoria which includes increasing housing in existing established areas by providing housing targets to be met.
2. I agree with the applicant that character considerations assigned to change areas should be viewed in light of the changed statutory and strategic planning context which seeks to deliver more housing in established areas.
3. I find the proposal is consistent with the thrust of the PPF as it will increase the number of dwellings in an area that is well serviced by public transport, schools and parks.
4. I consider objectives and policies in Clause 16.01-1L for LCA's are met as the proposal is a detached house of a scale, form and character that is consistent with the surrounding area. My findings on how it responds to the preferred neighbourhood character are outlined below.

IS THE PROPOSAL AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THE PREFERRED NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?

1. One of the purposes of the NRZ is to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character. Clause 55.02-1 also contains objectives to ensure that development responds to the features of the site and surrounding area.
2. The Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study - Preferred Character Statements & Guidelines (Planisphere, 2014) (the 'study') is a policy document at Clause 15.01-5L. The review site is in GS7 which is described as an area that contains architecture from the 1980's to the present, with some reproduction styles visible in the area. The study notes building materials are predominantly brick with tiled roofs and dwellings are mainly two storeys in height, with some single storey detached infill dwellings. Front setbacks generally range between 4- 8 metres, with 1-2 metre side setbacks from at least one side boundary. Garages are mixed and are usually located behind the front facade, along one side boundary with a single crossover or incorporated into the dwelling.
3. The precinct brochure also notes the area contains some semi-detached infill (units and townhouses).
4. Whilst Council submits the overriding theme of this area is the homogenous residential suburban character and consistency of built form, I observed the growing presence of larger, prominent double storey infill detached houses with sheer walls and limited landscaping in the frontage evident nearby. I acknowledge the original 1980's single and double storey dwellings are still present, but the character is changing from what is described in the study in 2014.
5. The applicant argues the proposal is a suitable response to its context and the surrounding built form and landscape character. It submits that it performs when assessed against the strategies for the GS7.
6. Council refutes this proposition and argues the built form response fails to respect the intact character of the site and surrounds.
7. The following findings will address Council's neighbourhood character grounds of refusal relating to scale, mass and siting and landscaping.

1. The guidelines in the GS7 for building height and built form are to ensure that buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.
2. Council submits the ground floor footprint of the dwellings provides minimal side setbacks and relief to provide an open garden setting around and between the dwellings. It acknowledges there is some separation between the dwellings at first floor level, but the form is boxy and visually significant. It says this is due to the limited physical recession between the dwellings.
3. Council considers the scale is an intense and dominant form in this low-scale streetscape as the site rises from the front boundary. It says the slope, in combination with orientation of the footprint, limits view-lines through the site. It submits this is inconsistent with rhythm of other buildings in the street.
4. The applicant argues existing character is undergoing change in the form of multi-dwelling development being constructed nearby. It says the dwelling is appropriately sited and will sit comfortably with an eclectic group of dwellings which are of varying styles, forms and sitings. It submits the staggered frontage setbacks of each dwelling, and recessed garages, reduces the impact of the parking facilities and the impression of bulk and mass in the street.

1. As previously noted, I disagree with Council that this is a low-scale streetscape given the more recent redevelopment of larger, single dwellings and other two storey multi-dwelling development in the neighbourhood. I am satisfied the proposal appropriately responds to the preferred built form character of this LCA for the following reasons:
   • The ground floor of the new dwelling is set back 11.6 metres to 12.24 metres from the frontage. These setbacks step the built form away from the frontage and are greater than the existing dwelling. This setback is also greater than the adjoining dwelling to the south-west (8 Katupna Court).
   • The garage of the new dwelling is set back from the sitting room by 640mm. This recesses the garage back from the façade.
   • The first floor north-east (front) elevation of the new dwelling is set back 12.05 metres and is stepped away from the frontage. This measure provides articulation of the built form in the street.
   • The first floor footprint of the new dwelling is smaller than the ground floor footprint and is partially recessed in from the side and rear elevations. This provides visual interest in all elevations (Refer Figure 2).
   • The new dwelling proposes an overall height of 7.6 metres. This height is consistent with the existing dwelling on the site and other two storey dwellings in the street.
   • Both dwellings are detached and there are no walls on boundaries. This reflects the existing layout of dwellings in the street and will maintain the rhythm and spacing in the neighbourhood.
   • There is potential for views between the dwellings as there is a gap of 2.7 metres to 5.4 metre at ground floor level. This gap, coupled with the lower ground levels of the new dwelling, differentiate the dwellings across the site. (Refer to Figure 3).
   • There is adequate separation between the upper levels of the dwellings. Due to the configuration of the site, there is a 3.5 metre to 10 metre gap between the dwellings.
   • Views of the new dwelling in the street will be partially screened by the two existing street trees (Melaleuca - 7.5 metres high and Flowering Gum - 7 metres high).
   • The landscape plan includes the planting of two Kanookas (8 metres at maturity), Dwarf Lemon Scented Gum (12 metres), Lilly Pilly (10 metres) and Elaeocarpus (7 metres) in the frontage. This vegetation will filter views of the new dwelling in the street.
   • The new dwelling includes a hipped roof with eaves which assists in reducing the overall scale.
   • The use of face brickwork at ground floor level, render and timber at first floor level creates visual interest in the frontage.

1. One of the objectives of Clause 55.03-8 (Landscaping) is to encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood. This objective is reiterated in the preferred neighbourhood character strategies at Clause 15.01-5L which is to encourage contemporary designed developments on larger lots with spacious established gardens that contain substantial vegetation.
2. GS7 has an objective to maintain and strengthen the garden setting of dwellings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood. This is to be achieved by retaining established trees and provide for the planting of new canopy trees and substantial vegetation.
3. Clause 15.01-5L-01 (Tree Conservation) is also an integral part of the neighbourhood character assessment. This policy requires minimum areas and separation of canopy trees from buildings and impervious surfaces.
4. Council argues that the lack of space for an open garden setting within the frontage, sideages and rear fails to allow substantial space around the site for planting. It says this limits the ability to soften the built form using canopy trees. It submits the landscaping needs to 'carry a heavy load' to integrate the buildings with the neighbourhood and to compensate for the harsh presentation of the proposal.
5. It says that the lack of open space areas, as guided by Clause 15.01-5L-01 (Tree Conservation) policy guidelines, raises concerns whether adequate space is provided for deep soil tree planting and mature tree growth. It says this results in an inability for meaningful canopy tree planting and other vegetation with an appropriate area to grow to maturity.
6. Council submits the extent of hard surfaces, retaining walls and front fence structures for the existing dwelling limits open space for a garden setting in the frontage.
7. It also says the new dwelling has a narrow frontage with limited garden areas to provide relief for the extensive built form and paving. It also considers the landscaping is overly constrained in the rear yard of the new dwelling given canopy trees are to be planted less than 3 metres of the walls and within proximity to the 2.44 metre drainage and sewerage easement on the site.
8. The applicant submits the proposal responds to the preferred and existing character by bolstering the landscaping associated with the existing dwelling which includes the planting of additional canopy trees and medium sized shrubs.
9. He says the landscape plan proposes canopy trees and understorey vegetation in the significant spaces within the frontage setback of the new dwelling. He says this will integrate the proposal with the preferred neighbourhood character.
10. The applicant relies on the evidence and landscape plan prepared by Mr Thomson. He says his landscape plan exceeds the requirements of varied Standard B13 with the provision of 12 canopy trees over seven metres in height at maturity. He says this plan includes nine trees over eight metres high, 17 smaller trees up to six metres high and over 100 mixed species and groundcovers. He considers the development, with the associated landscaping, meets character objectives that requires a garden setting with the provision canopy trees and other vegetation throughout the site.
11. He considers the minimum open space dimensions and setbacks to buildings specified in the Tree Conservation Policy as:

unhelpful prescriptive guidelines (that) ignore the evidence provided by thousands of existing mature trees growing in urban areas in close proximity to buildings, hard surfaces and other trees. A strict application of the minimum dimensions included in clause 15.01-5L.01 ultimately would have an unfortunate effect of unnecessarily reducing the number of canopy trees planted in urban areas.[7]

1. Mr Thomson says the development provides sufficient space for the planting and long term growth of new canopy trees and other vegetation. He recommended that all planting areas be provided with non-contaminated natural soil to a minimum depth of 200mm over a minimum of 400mm of uncompacted natural sub-soil for plant growth.

1. My observations of the landscape character of this neighbourhood are that the front gardens are visible in the street and contain a mix of mature shrubs and the occasional canopy tree. I find the street trees, including mature Melaleucas and Eucalypts, contribute to the canopied tree character of the neighbourhood.
2. I do not share Council's concerns regarding the landscape response to the site. I find the site layout and design of the dwellings, and the landscape plan prepared by Mr Thomson, an appropriate response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character for the following reasons:
   • The existing dwelling has a 1.2 metre high front fence and no fencing is proposed for the new dwelling. This will enable clear views of the front gardens of both dwellings in the streetscape.
   • The site contains 54.8% impermeable surfaces. This figure indicates there is sufficient area throughout the site suitable for landscaping.
   • A total of 12 canopy trees are to be planted throughout the site, including four trees between the dwellings. This is consistent with other dwellings in the street that have vegetation along the side boundaries.
   • The quantum and height of canopy trees to be planted meets the minimum requirements of varied Standard B13 (Landscaping).
   • The new dwelling is set back a minimum of 11.4 metres from the frontage and the landscape plan includes the planting of four canopy trees that are over 7 metres high at maturity. This will enhance the garden character of the streetscape.
   • The garden beds in the frontage of the existing dwelling provide adequate space for canopy tree planting to soften the extent of hard paving in the frontage. This includes the planting of a Lilly Pilly and Elaeocarpus.
   • The existing street trees (Melaleuca and Flowering Gum) are to be retained and will provide consistency in the streetscape presentation.
   • The soft landscaping either side of the driveway for the existing dwelling will soften the expanse of paving visible in the street.
3. I accept Mr Thomson's evidence that the size of the garden beds provided in the frontage and side setbacks of both dwellings are suitable for the growth of canopy trees and other plantings in the long term.
4. I find the landscaping in the rear yard of the new dwelling acceptable as it includes the planting of five canopy trees that are outside the drainage and sewerage easement. This will filter views of the new dwelling for the adjoining properties and maintain the 'green spine' at the rear of properties in this neighbourhood.

1. Council submits the proposal fails Clause 55.03-9 (Standard B14 - Access) which has an objective to ensure the number and design of crossovers respects the neighbourhood character. It also says this is referenced in Clause 52.06-8 which states the responsible authority must consider whether provision has been made for landscaping and shade of parking areas.
2. Council has concerns that the vehicle access and parking arrangements for the dwellings provide inadequate space for vegetation to soften the extent of vehicle access/paving. It says the two crossovers on an irregular curved frontage will result in a dominance of hard surfaces in the street.

1. I note the curved frontage of the site has a width of approximately 16.51 metres. Therefore, the allowable crossover width in Standard B14 is 6.64 metres, being 40% of the street frontage.
2. The development proposes two, three metre wide crossovers and meets the numerical requirements of the standard.
3. Given my above findings on landscaping, I am satisfied the extent of paving in the frontage is satisfactory and it will be adequately softened by the proposed landscaping either side of the driveways.

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 set aside. An amended permit is granted subject to conditions.

APPENDIX A - AMENDED PERMIT DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

Construct a dwelling if there is at least one existing dwelling on a lot.

Remove, destroy or lop any vegetation in Schedule 9.

Construct a building or construct or carry out works in Schedule 9.

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) An amended Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 4.

(b) The locations of Tree Protection Zones described in Condition 5, with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on the development plan and landscape plan, and the requirements of conditions 5 and 6 to be annotated on the development and landscape plans.

(c) A Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) Report in accordance with Condition 6.

(d) The site plans must show the SRZ radius in red and with the TPZ radius in blue of all protected trees.

(e) The site plans need to clearly show the proposed driveway is to be constructed above current grade; and be constructed on foundations that maintain appropriate permeability for the tree where within the TPZ radius of Tree 1.

(f) Development and Landscape plans to reflect the development's approach towards stormwater management to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, supporting the Responsible Authority's requirements pursuant to Clauses 34 and 44 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) and to include:

(g) An annotation that the rainwater tank size of 6000 litres for each dwelling is allocated for reuse/retention purposes and excludes any volume allocated for detention.

(h) An annotation that rainwater tanks are connected to all toilet flushing, laundry systems and irrigation areas.

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

1. 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.
2. The garden areas shown on the endorsed plans 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.
3. No building or works must be commenced (and no trees or vegetation are to be removed) until an amended landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced landscape architect has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. This plan when endorsed must form part of this permit. This plan must show:

(a) Any changes as required in accordance with Condition 1.

(b) All new trees must be planted at a minimum height of 1.5 metres.

(c) A notation stating all planting areas are to be provided with uncontaminated and friable (not compacted) natural soil profiles where possible or with imported/improved soil minimum depth 200mm over uncompacted, uncontaminated natural subsoil or imported structural subsoil minimum 400mm depth. Backfill to retaining walls is to be of structural soil suitable for plant growth. All retaining walls are to be designed with consideration given to proposed adjacent trees and backfilling with soil rather than crushed rock.

(d) The provision of mulch to a depth of 75-100mm (annotated) and spread approximately 200mm beyond the diameter beyond the planting hole, clear of the trunk.

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. Prior to commencement of any building or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be established, therefore a Tree Protection Plan (TPP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be provided detailing the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) areas. The TPZ must include and protect any Notional Root Zones (NRZ) along with any compensatory NRZ loss areas which are to be contiguous with the NRZ.

Each Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) area must be established prior to the commencement of any building and or demolition works on the land 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:

(a) Notional Root Zone distances:

1. Tree 1 (Melaleuca linariifolia) - 8.8 metre radius from centre base of tree.
2. Tree 2 (Corymbia ficifolia) - 2.9 metre radius from centre base of tree.

(b) Tree Protection Zone measures are to be established in accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2025 and including the following:

1. Erection of solid chain mesh or similar type fencing at a minimum height of 1.8 metres held in place with concrete feet.
2. Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter 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 watering in summer months as required.
4. No excavation, heavy machinery, 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 authorised person only during approved construction within the TPZ and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.

1. Before the buildings, works or removal of trees commences, a Tree Protection and Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in a digital format. When approved, the Tree Protection Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The Tree Protection Plan must be generally in accordance with the plans and submitted arborist report but modified to include:

(a) A Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) which includes a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) must be submitted to, 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 under Section 4 Tree Protection Measures in AS4970-2025 Protection of Trees on Development Sites by a person who has a qualification in arboriculture, with a minimum Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture) / Arboriculture. It must include Tree Protection Zone Fencing Measures. It must detail how Trees #1 and #2 will be protected during the Pre-Construction/Demolition Stage, the Construction Stage, the Landscape Stage, and the Post Construction stages, and must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (RA).

(b) The Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) must detail how the excavation works, placement of fill soils, and hard landscaping works within the Tree Protection Zone of Trees 1 & 2 (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 Specifications (TPS) must detail how the driveway proposed within the Notional Root Zone of Tree 1 will be constructed above current grade; and be constructed on foundations that maintain appropriate permeability for the tree, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (RA).

(d) The Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) must detail where services will be located and how they will be installed within the Notional Root Zone of any retained trees, to be located outside of the Tree Protection Zone, or bored under the tree protection zone, or installed using hydro excavation under the supervision of the project arborist.

(e) The Tree Protection Specifications (TPS) must detail how any tree pruning of a protected tree is to be undertaken and that the required pruning conforms with AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and that the work is to be performed by a suitably qualified Arborist (AQF Level 3, minimum).

(f) 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.

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the Tree Protection Specifications must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each garage and car parking space. 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. All privacy screens and other measures to prevent overlooking as shown on the endorsed plans must at all times be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. The existing street tree must not be removed or damaged except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Stormwater that could adversely affect any adjacent land shall not be discharged from the subject site onto the surface of the adjacent land.
8. 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.
9. The subject land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. 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.
11. The qualified civil engineer when undertaking civil design must ensure that the landscape plan/s and drainage plan/s are compatible. The stormwater drainage system must be located outside the tree protection zone (TPZ) of any trees to be retained.
12. Floor levels need to be amended if vehicle access to the garage cannot be achieved. The architect and/or designer must ensure that vehicle access is to conform to the Australian Standards for Off-Street Parking (AS/NZS 2890.1:2004).

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 prior to the grant of a building approval or the 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.

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 and evidence 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.

[6] At paragraph 119 of the applicant's submission is a table that describes the applicable variations to the standard and how the proposal complies with the standard.