Would the development fit its strategic and neighbourhood contexts?

What guidance is provided by the site's features and context?

1. A development is required by the scheme to be designed to respond to its site features and to be respectful of its context. Its context also includes its strategic policy context[2].
2. The site is a large site, approximately twice the size of many other lots in the area. It also has a regular shape and dimensions that do not constrain design options. It contains largely exotic vegetation, most of which is medium height. None of the existing vegetation is considered to be significant or worthy of retention. All reticulated infrastructure services are connected to the land. The site has a 3.6 metre wide right-of-way at its rear. This is unconstructed and does not appear to be used for vehicle access to this site.
3. The site's most notable feature is its slope. It rises approximately 4 metres from the street to its rear boundary. The effect of the slope is that taller buildings may be prominent when viewed from the street or from nearby backyards. The design response is to set the building well back from the frontage, and to cut into the site and so reduce to some degree the building's height at its rear.
4. We concur with the parties that the site has no conditions or features that constrain its redevelopment.
5. The site is adjoined by two, single storey dwellings to its northeast (at No.132 Locksley Road and No.38 Silverdale Road). No.132 Locksley Road is one of a pair of similar dwellings, the matching pair being at No.134 Locksley Road. No.126 Locksley Road adjoining to the southwest is developed for one, one storey dwelling with a generous rear yard. These three dwellings are located on lots smaller than the review site.
6. The site is located within a residential precinct. Lots on the southeast side of Locksley Road are predominantly developed with single storey interwar dwellings. The main features of the southeast side of the street include 7 to 9 metre front setbacks, low fences, exotic gardens, single crossovers and driveways usually located on one side boundary.
7. The northwest side of Locksley Road generally opposite the review site, has a different built form. The lots are larger, similar in size to the review site. Most sites close to the review site have been developed for two storey apartment buildings. A three storey apartment building has been developed at No.14 Ashby Grove approximately 100 metres west of the review site.
8. In general the northwest side of Locksley Road comprises two storey buildings set in landscaped front gardens, low front fences, single width crossovers leading to expansive paved car parking areas around the buildings. Walls comprise brick and have little articulation except for balconies.
9. The parties disputed the weight to be given to the more robust built form on the northwest side of Locksley Road. We think it has to be included in the characterisation of the neighbourhood, the two storey apartment buildings are present in the streetscape and contribute to the form and appearance of the street.
10. We agree with the Council and the permit applicant that the site is well located. It is within 200 metres (a five minute walk) to the Eaglemont neighbourhood activity centre. This centre contains a small supermarket and other shops offering services for local people, as well as businesses we think would be likely to draw customers from a wide area. The Eaglemont activity centre also contains a train station that provides up to seven train services per hour to or from the CBD in the peak period.
11. The site is approximately 1.5 kilometres from the Ivanhoe and Heidelberg higher order activity centres that contain health and education services and a wide range of shops, services, and employment opportunities.

What guidance is provided by the planning policy context?

1. The planning policy framework contemplates that over the next several decades Melbourne will need to accommodate 1.5 million additional dwellings[3]. Planning policy anticipates that a sizeable proportion of the new dwellings should be designed to meet the needs of smaller households. Many of the dwellings preferred by smaller households are likely to have high levels of internal amenity, compact outdoor entertainment areas, without spacious front and rear yards that require maintenance. Increasing the number of smaller dwellings suitable for households with one or two persons would enhance housing choice and affordability that are specific objectives of both the state and local planning policy frameworks of the Banyule Planning Scheme.
2. Planning policy generally proposes that the residential growth described above is to be met by a mix of development in Melbourne's CBD, growth in Victoria's provincial centres, new suburbs on Melbourne's fringes, and redevelopment in Melbourne's established suburbs. Nearly forty percent of the forecast residential growth of 650,000 additional dwellings are forecast to be located in Melbourne's established suburbs. In general, planning policy expects development in established suburbs to play a significant role in meeting future housing demand.
3. It is recognised that established suburbs have either substantial, moderate or limited capacity to accommodate further dwellings. In general, the scheme identifies areas close to public transport, activity centres, employment corridors and adjacent to a main road to be best placed to accommodate substantial change[4]. Established suburbs that are more remote from train stations, activity centres and that comprise local streets are best placed to accommodate moderate or limited change. An area's capacity to accommodate residential growth is contextual and depends on factors including the presence of heritage fabric, sensitive vegetation, topography or specific neighbourhood character attributes or infrastructure constraints. The planning policy framework is also a relevant consideration.
4. The area that includes Locksley Road is included in the General Residential Zone. The purposes of the zone are to implement planning policy and to:

Encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

Implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

Provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

1. The land is included in the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 3. We refer to the objectives of the schedule to the overlay in relation to our review of landscaping.
2. Guidance regarding the extent of change and the scale and massing of new development in an area proximate to, but not adjoining a lower order activity centre is provided by the local planning policy framework.
3. Clause 21.04 highlights that a balance must be struck between protecting residential amenity and a desired future neighbourhood character outcome with the need to provide for urban consolidation and satisfying housing demand. Objective 4 of clause 21.04 encourages an increase in the diversity of housing types and new housing that meets the needs of the broader community in a manner that respects and contributes to the desired future character of residential neighbourhoods.
4. Clause 21.06 notes the key issues facing the municipality include recognising the contribution that vegetation makes to the quality of the environment and character of the neighbourhood, and poorly designed development can erode the desired future neighbourhood character and the community's sense of place.
5. This is to be achieved by

Encouraging a substantial proportion of new housing to be located within or close to Activity Centres and the Principle Public Transport Network particularly where there is high frequency and quality of transport services in operation[5].

1. The clause also encourages the provision of a range of types and sizes of housing in areas close to public transport and facilities. It particularly encourages the provision of smaller dwellings, including one bedroom dwellings.
2. Clause 21.06-2 includes a Residential Areas Framework that guides the location of new housing. The review site is within an Incremental area. This is the third level of change on a six tier table. The vision for infill housing change in incremental areas is

These areas are typically located further away from Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network, where there is less convenient pedestrian access. They will provide for well designed single dwellings and medium density dwellings.

Development must make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting.

1. Ms Lunn says the preferred housing typology envisaged in a general residential zone and an incremental change area includes town houses and villa units. Council says it does not include apartment buildings. Her proposition derives from a Fact Sheet on the Reformed residential zones that says to a question: what sort of housing can be expected in a GRZ?

Single dwellings and some medium density housing. A mixture of single dwellings, dual occupancies with some villa units and in limited circumstances town houses, where appropriate[6].

1. Council acknowledges that policy envisages that some sites within a general residential zone and an incremental area may have characteristics that enable it to be developed more intensively than generally envisaged. Such sites would be strategic redevelopment sites with the following attributes:

Fronting an arterial road that forms part of the Principal Public Transport Network that is in operation.

Within 5 minute walking distance (approximately 400 metres) to a Supermarket, or

Within 5 minute walking distance (approximately 400 metres) of a regional employment or education facility, such as a large public hospital, technology park, university or TAFE.

Large enough to make a significant contribution to the provision of a diversity of housing types in the area and space for a transition in built form and for landscaping.

1. Ms Lunn says strategic redevelopment sites are usually redundant petrol filling station or school sites. She says a larger residential lot located mid block in a local residential street is not a strategic redevelopment site. Ms Lunn says an apartment typology would be unable to comply with the qualification provided in local policy that it comply with the requirements to make a significant contribution to housing diversity in the area and to make a positive contribution to neighbourhood character. While an apartment building might contribute to housing diversity, its built form would be unlikely to fit into the character of the neighbourhood.
2. Mr McGurn disagrees and cites clause 16.01 that also refers to strategic redevelopment sites. He says this site would meet the criteria as it:
   • can accommodate more than 10 dwellings;
   • is close to a well serviced neighbourhood activity centre and train station.
3. The purposes of the zone and planning policy requires new development to demonstrate that it positively responds to the site's features, its context and the character of the neighbourhood. It should respect and comfortably fit into the prevailing or preferred character of the neighbourhood. It should not appear out of place or incongruous[7].
4. We think there is some complexity in the Banyule planning scheme regarding the interplay of the purposes of the reformed zones and state and local policy. It arises from the interpretation of key phrases such as moderate, incremental and neighbourhood character. The confusion is further compounded by references to housing typology and strategic development sites.
5. Our starting point is the State Planning Policy Framework that sets out Melbourne's substantial housing task and the role to be played by established suburbs. It is a background "hum" that cannot be ignored.
6. In our view, the purposes of the general residential zone indicate that areas to which the zone applies are to make a moderate contribution to accommodating additional housing in a manner that contributes to a more compact urban form and expands housing diversity. The term moderate is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary (Fourth Edition) as follows:

In keeping with due bounds; not extreme, excessive or intense; of medium quantity or extent

Confined within limits; restricted; circumscribed; restricted with reference to powers or limitations

1. We think that the term "moderate growth" directs that the areas included in the general residential zone are to, as a whole, accommodate a medium share of the forecast new dwellings. In our view, the term moderate cannot be applied prescriptively or bluntly to a particular site. It is not a de facto density control on numbers of dwellings in an area, nor is it a control on the form of new dwellings. We think that people living in a general residential zone should reasonably expect to see over some time a noticeable change in the built form arising from more dwellings in their area, and most of the new dwellings designed to be suitable for smaller households.
2. This is particularly so in a municipality where part of the planning context encourages six and seven storey apartment building in its growth areas, whereby a two storey development in a moderate change area might be seen as is relatively modest. There is also little guidance about the overall quantum of new residential development expected in the municipality and its distribution throughout the municipality. Without such guidance, it is reasonable to expect the moderate change areas to do much of the heavy lifting to achieve the policy outcomes.
3. The proposition put by the Council that this site should only be developed for eight to ten townhouses is a blunt assessment. Calculations of density, numbers of dwellings or a designated mix of housing types are not only misguided, but are likely to prevent the comprehensive assessment of the design response in its policy and built form context that is required by the scheme. We see no distinction in the purposes or the decision guidelines of the zone that suggest one form of dwelling is more appropriate than another, provided the built form can demonstrate that it responds to, and respects the character of the neighbourhood. The design is critical, a single storey dwelling can be abrasive in a street an apartment building can fit well.
4. We note that clause 22.02 refers to dwelling typologies in the Garden Suburban precinct 3 and refers to town houses and "other medium density dwellings". We think this reference has to include all medium density dwelling types, including apartment buildings for the following reasons:
   • No criteria or guidelines are provided in the clause that provide the basis to include some dwelling types, but exclude others.
   • The planning permission is required only for the built form rather than the use of the land for a dwelling.
   • Guidance is provided by clause 55 that includes multiple dwellings in any form up to five storeys, typically an apartment building.
   • We agree with Senior Member Hewet's comments that the zone contemplates developments that adopt an apartment typology. Whether an apartment building is acceptable depends on its design response to the site features, the context and the character of the neighbourhood[8].
5. Within the above policy context, we consider the site to be well located to contribute to the state and local policy objectives of making Melbourne more compact, contributing to moderate housing growth and providing more housing diversity. We give weight to its close location to an activity centre with a small supermarket, other shops serving the local community and a train station. We also give weight to its generous size and the absence of constraints. We agree with the permit applicant it is not wise to waste or underdevelop these rare opportunities.
6. We are also satisfied an apartment typology can be considered and the opportunity should not be foreclosed by reference to Practice Notes or local policy, both of which are intended as guides to discretion and not as prescriptive or mandatory requirements additional to the zone itself.
7. On balance we think whether or not the site meets the criteria for a strategic redevelopment site is not determinative. We give weight to its proximity, its unconstrained features and the opportunity and the contribution it can make to broader housing objectives. We think the opportunity should not be closed off by reference to literal application of general phrases in policy.
8. The purposes of the zone and the policy framework generally say that an apartment building (like any multiple dwelling development) should respect the prevailing or preferred neighbourhood character. In this area, it should demonstrate that its form, appearance and landscaping fits into and enhances the character of the area.
9. Council considers the building would be too large and would extend too deep into the site to provide adequate landscaping to comply with the preferred neighbourhood character, design objectives and design responses of clause 22.02. It also considers the provision of private open space in the front setback and the scale and massing of the front façade would be excessive on a mid block site in a local residential street. Council and the respondents say a more tempered design response is needed.
10. The review site is included in a Garden Suburban Precinct. This typology is described as follows:

The Garden Suburban character area type has a spacious leafy character in generally formal garden settings, with space around and between dwellings, a relatively wide and open street space, and garden style vegetation, often mature and exotic, in both the private and public domain, creating an attractive, tree-dominated landscape setting in some streets. The most important characteristics of the area type are the scale, siting and architectural style of the dwellings and the vegetation and topography of their settings.

Development in these areas should reflect the main themes of existing dwelling styles, and defined special characteristics of particular precincts should be protected and enhanced.

1. The scheme classifies Garden suburban areas into five types. The review site is within Garden Suburban Precinct 3. The preferred character is defined by reference to eighteen matters to be considered.
2. Clause 22.02 then provides further direction for the design response within a GRZ1 as follows:

These areas will accommodate change in a manner that supports the garden suburban character of the precinct. All developments will contribute to an enhanced treed environment, including opportunities for tree protection and planting, whilst providing for town houses and other medium density dwellings, as well as some dispersed single dwellings. Canopy trees and understorey vegetation will continue to contribute to the character of the area, particularly in front setbacks to reinforce the boulevard character, and along rear boundaries to soften the interface between dwellings.

The site coverage may be greater for sites in the GRZ1as long as tree and vegetation protection is achieved. The treed and spacious feel of the streetscape character will be retained and enhanced by ensuring front setbacks are large enough to plant a large tree and other vegetation. Building heights may also be increased for these developments, with the higher components generally positioned to front onto the street, and recessed from the lower levels to reduce their visual prominence and provide space for tree canopies.

1. Clause 22.02 then sets out a further objectives and design responses to guide design responses for sites in this neighbourhood character typology. We think that many of the design objectives and responses repeat provisions set in out in the general parts of the clause.
2. We think the proposal responds well to the general design matters set out in clause 22.02 as follows:
   • Viewed from the street, its front façade would appear as a two storey dwelling with a pitched roof, an architectural style sympathetic with, and utilising materials commonly seen in the area.
   • It is respectful of, but does not mimic or mirror existing dwellings.
   • It would have a two storey scale visible in the streetscape.
   • Its front façade would comprise a scale that is sympathetic to its neighbours.
   • It follows the topography of the land, but would be cut in at the rear to reduce the rise in height.
   • Provides a front setback consistent with the streetscape and sufficient for suitable landscaping.
   • Proposes low fencing consistent with the streetscape.
   • Provides landscaping in the front setback and avoids car parking in front of and around the building.
   • Provides only one crossover, and the ramp to the basement would be curved and landscaped to soften its visual appearance in the streetscape.
   • The ramp and basement would be minimal elements in the streetscape.
   • Landscaping would in time provide additional trees that would be viewed in the streetscape and in views from private properties.
   • Household services would be screened.
3. With regard to the particular design objectives and responses set out in the Garden Suburban precinct 3, noting there is considerable repetition, we comment below only on any additional matters that we have not considered above.
4. With regard to the front setback, the proposed building provides a setback of 12.1 metres at the ground floor and 11.8 metres with protruding balconies at upper level. The setbacks would be consistent with the adjoining dwellings and would comply with Standard B6 (front setbacks).
5. We accept that reference to second storey parts of a building refers to its first floor. It says the upper floors should be recessed from ground wall surfaces. We agree the first floor front façade is not recessed. However, it would largely comprise glazing behind balconies, and it would be a generous distance from the street. We think it would not be prominent or intrusive into the streetscape, particularly as the streetscape includes multiple examples of two storey apartment buildings opposite. This building would be, in our view, considerably more muted and recessed than the older apartment buildings that are a prominent part of the streetscape and the neighbourhood character relevant to this review.
6. This proposal places two areas of secluded open space front of the building, each 4 metres in width. We acknowledge this would be contrary to the design responses in clause 22.02 and Standard B28 of clause 55.05-4 that encourage secluded open space to be located behind the line of the dwelling or building that faces the street. We think the proposed arrangement is acceptable as it allows landscaping between the front boundary and the open space areas to a depth of 8 metres. This would be sufficient for canopy trees and medium height vegetation. The open space areas would be screened by 1.3 metre high fencing that would not be dominant in the streetscape, and it would not screen the building to such an extent it would be removed from the streetscape.
7. Clause 55 also provides guidance regarding integration with the streetscape, front setback, building height, site coverage, permeability, fencing and landscaping.
8. With regard to these considerations that are important to fitting into a prevailing streetscape, we have noted above that the front setback of 12.1 metres complies with Standard B6. We think it would contribute to the building being recessive in the streetscape and it would be consistent with the adjoining and nearby dwellings.
9. With regard to height, we note that the building would be approximately 8 metres to the ridge of the roof. This height would be similar to the roof height of the adjoining dwelling to the northeast at No.132 Locksley Road. It would be lower than the multi storey apartment buildings on the northwest side of Locksley Road. Two storey buildings are commonplace in the area, both single dwellings and multiple dwellings.
10. The existing dwelling on the land has high roof ridge aligned parallel with the front boundary. Two smaller hipped roof elements face the street at each end. We think the proposed building would have a similar scale, height and massing to the existing dwelling. It's roof line has been designed to moderate its height. Two roof ridges would face the street, thereby creating a built form of two adjoined dwellings rather than one larger building. In so doing it reflects the two adjoined dwellings to the site's northeast.
11. Materials and glazing are integral to a building's appearance in the streetscape. Clause 22.02 encourages materials to match the predominant materials in the streets. The building proposes face brickwork (Bowral Blue) on the ground floor and render (bleach or off-white) on the first floor. The columns to the front porches would also be brick. Balconies would be render roughcast, with glazing behind. The roof would be appear to be dark coloured slate. We think the materials would be modest and demure. They are readily seen in the single and multiple dwellings in the street and they would be unremarkable in this area.
12. Architectural styles also contribute to the building's integration. The front of the building has strong vertical elements comprising the columns of the first floor balconies. These are complemented by horizontal elements, being the balustrades and facia boards. We think the sense of proportion is also conveyed by floor to ceiling heights and horizontal lines that align with the adjoining dwellings. Together with the building's articulation, we think these framing elements create a built form that comprises a massing that would be proportionate to the nearby dwellings and not so much greater to be overwhelming.
13. The building includes narrow, vertical windows with floor to ceiling heights at both the ground and first floors. While the extent of glazing is much greater than seen in other dwellings, we think it is a positive feature as it greatly enhances a perceived openness of the building, opportunities for casual interaction with people in the street, and it reduces the bulk and massing of the building that faces the street.
14. With regard to fencing, the development would have a brick fence between 0.6 metres and 1.2 metres in height along the site's frontage. The height and materials would be highly consistent with fencing in the street. Additional fencing comprising 1.3 metres high screening would adjoin the secluded open space areas for dwellings G06 and G07.
15. We think these fences would have limited visibility from the street as they would themselves be screened by the dense landscaping within the front setback area and are setback 8 metres from the frontage. We are satisfied the fencing is appropriate and it would assist the building to fit comfortably into the streetscape.

Site coverage, landscaping and the landscape character

1. With regard to site coverage the schedule to the zone provides that it should be 40 percent. The proposal would have a site coverage of 43 percent. The schedule to the General Residential Zone varies Standard B28 to 40 percent. Clause 55 provides that a development should meet the standard. If it cannot do so, it must meet the objective.
2. The objective for clause 55.03-3 is

To ensure that the site coverage respects the existing or referred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site.

1. Clause 55.03-3 also provides decision guidelines to assist the exercise of discretion. We also note that a design response in clause 22.02 related to the garden streetscape also contemplates that site coverage may exceed 40 percent in the GRZ1, provided it demonstrates that:

the vegetated character of the site and precinct is protected and enhanced by retaining existing vegetation and providing sufficient area for planting of additional trees and other vegetation.

1. The land is affected by Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 3. While a permit is required to remove ten trees, all parties agreed they have no retention value. They are aged or in poor health and they make little contribution to the streetscape and neighbourhood character.
2. The objectives of Schedule 3 to the overlay are relevant to our review of the proposed replacement landscaping. They are:

To retain and enhance the vegetation, and in particular the tall trees in the area, that contributes to the identified character of the area.

To ensure that prior to removal of tall trees all alternatives are considered, including redesign of proposed buildings and associated works.

To ensure that where a tree to be removed, comprehensive landscape plans are prepared and provision is made for substantial vegetation and trees elsewhere on the site.

To protect and enhance the area as a habitat for local flora and fauna.

1. The landscape character in the streetscape largely comprises mixed vegetation in the order of 2 to 3 metres in height, mainly planted along property boundaries. Front setbacks are commonly landscaped with grass. Canopy vegetation is mainly provided by the street trees.
2. A landscape plan has been prepared by Mr Dimitropoulos. His plan proposes 20 canopy trees be planted around the building, including four canopy trees in the front setback. These trees would be complemented by many medium height shrubs and ground cover plants. Many of the medium height plants would be located along the north and south boundaries to enhance screening to the neighbours.
3. The plan proposes the following landscaping:
   • Four canopy trees in the front setback including a Fantasy Crepe Myrtle and three Bella Pink Brachychiton (to 9 metres).
   • Five canopy trees on the southwest boundary including a Biloxi Crepe Myrtle, two Natchez Crepe Myrtles a, Chinese Elm and a Blueberry Ash (all in the order of 6 to 8 metres in height).
   • Five canopy tress on the rear boundary to the right-of-way. These would include two Watergums, a Greenback Magnolia and two Japanese Maples (one a Purple Maple), (all 6 to 10 metres except for the smaller Purple Japanese Maple at 3.5 metres).
   • Six canopy trees on the northeast boundary including three Biloxi Crepe Myrtles, a Greenback Magnolia, a Chinese Elm and a Blueberry Ash, all between 6 to 9 metres in height.
   • Bush Christmas Lily-pilly and Pinnacle Lily-pilly along the side boundaries to provide screening to 3 metres.
4. Mr Dimitropoulos says the basement setbacks from the side and rear boundaries of at least 3 metres provides sufficient space for canopy trees planted in the ground. He also says the front setback of 8 metres between the front boundary and the secluded open space areas of G06 and G07 are sufficient to accommodate canopy trees.
5. We are satisfied the proposed site coverage and vegetation would provide a landscaped setting to soften the massing of the proposed building as viewed from the streetscape and by the neighbours. With regard to the streetscape, the mix of the building's generous setback and the presence of four canopy trees would, in time, limit views to intermittent glimpses of built form.
6. We consider the proposed site coverage and landscaping would meet the local policy framework that encourages a development to contribute to the landscape character. This character comprises street trees with private properties providing sporadic canopy trees through the area in both the front and rear setbacks. The vegetation on the review site is in fair to poor health and makes a limited contribution to the area. The new vegetation will, in a short time, make a significant contribution to both the immediate neighbours and the wider neighbourhood.
7. Council says the proposed landscaping would not achieve the outcomes set out in policy. It says the species are slow growing, some are deciduous, they would have inadequate soil volumes and maintenance and watering arrangements are not specified.
8. We acknowledge that these matters need to be further addressed, but do not consider them to be fatal to the landscape plan or the proposal as a whole. We consider there is ample soil volumes given the basement setback from the boundaries and the limited built form on adjoining land. A mix of evergreen and deciduous vegetation can be appropriate as it would provide both screening for neighbours and light to the secluded open space areas and habitable rooms within the development. The maintenance regime, irrigation from the proposed watertanks and the inclusion of faster growing species can be resolved through conditions in the permit that would require the approval by Council of a landscape plan and landscape maintenance plan.
9. We now turn to the amenity that would be provided for its neighbours and future residents.

Would the development impose adverse amenity impacts on neighbours?

1. There is considerable emphasis in the planning scheme on ensuring a proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of nearby properties[9] together with provisions that address parking, traffic, overlooking, overshadowing and impacts on trees.
2. Council submitted that the siting, height and extent of built form, including its sheer wall form with minimal setbacks, would have an overbearing physical impact upon the neighbouring properties at Nos.126 and 132 Locksley Road and Nos.36 and 38 Silverdale Road. Respondent objectors raised concerns about amenity impacts arising from a number of matters including inadequate car and bicycle parking, increased traffic, poor provision for waste, impacts on a Pin Oak tree on No.38 Silverdale Road, loss of privacy, the extensive built form and resulting visual bulk to adjoining properties especially to their back yards.
3. We address the concerns raised by Council and the respondents as follows.

1. The proposal will introduce a two storey built form deep into the review site and we agree with the respondents that it will be visible from adjoining properties. Visibility per se is not in itself sufficient to impose adverse impacts. The matter we need to determine is whether the height, scale and massing of this proposal would be so dominant and imposing to make it unacceptable.
2. We are satisfied that it would present as acceptable visual bulk. In reaching that view we have had regard to the proposed heights, setbacks exceeding the Scheme standard[10] to all boundaries, the absence of walls on boundaries, lack of impacts on daylight to neighbours and the other matters relevant to amenity. We have also taken into account the alignment of the neighbouring habitable room windows and open space to the proposed building, and the proposed landscaping that we think would screen and soften the extent of built form, complemented by existing and possible additional landscaping on the neighbouring properties. We consider the impact of the proposed built form to each neighbour as follows.

1. This property shares the entire southwestern boundary with the review site. It is occupied by a single storey dwelling that faces Locksley Road and it has a large rear garden. Two bedroom and two bathroom windows face the review site. There is little screening vegetation within No.126 Locksley Road along the common boundary.
2. The proposal presents a two storey built form to this interface and would be set back a minimum of 3 metres, other than three upper level balconies that would be set back 2.3 metres. The overall height of this elevation would be a maximum of 7.8 metres, with wall heights varying from 6.1- 4.75 metres.
3. We agree with submissions that this is the most sensitive interface to the review site given the extensive adjoining secluded private open space. We have carefully considered the design response and consider that while it will be a change and it would be visible, it has incorporated sufficient features to avoid unreasonable building bulk to its neighbour. These features include the following:
   • A central break in the upper level of the building and a substantial setback of the lower level that would relieve the visual extent of built form when viewed from the south.
   • Side boundary setback at ground level a minimum of 4 metres where adjacent to the secluded private open space, a distance that would allow for canopy and medium height landscaping that can soften the built form.
   • Varied setbacks that would achieve a stepping effect which combined with different roof forms and diverse external materials, would create an articulated elevation that comprises many smaller parts and avoids the appearance of sheer walls and an unbroken building bulk.
   • The absence of living room windows in No.126 Locksley Road that face the review site.
   • Excavation to the rear of the site as the land rises that would limit the building's height and result in mixed wall heights of between 6.1 metres and 4.7 metres, adding to the perceived variation and mix of the form.
   • The three balcony protrusions to within 2.3 metres of the side boundaries are small protrusions that would add to the modulation of the elevation and importantly, would not constrain medium and taller landscaping.

1. This property adjoins the review site to the northeast with a common boundary of approximately 33 metres. It is occupied by a single storey dwelling with the driveway adjoining the review site. Two bathroom windows and a kitchen window face the review site, set back nearly 3 metres. A garage is located at the end of the driveway, with secluded private open space behind the dwelling and garage.
2. The proposal is set back 3 metres from this boundary except for an upper level balcony to dwelling 109 that extends to within 2.3 metres of the common boundary. The height of the proposal opposite No.132 Locksley Road varies due to the slope of the land. It would be up to 7.15 metres to the roof and 5.5 metres wall height.
3. We consider the proposal will not result in unreasonable visual bulk impacts to this property having regard to the following:
   • The presentation to this neighbour includes varied setbacks, two roof forms and a mix of external materials that together would provide articulation and avoid an unrelieved built form.
   • The minimum 3 metres ground floor setback would provide the opportunity for landscaping that can soften the built form.
   • The outlook from No.132 Locksley to the review site is limited. Only one habitable room window faces the review site and it is separated by the driveway and garage on the boundary. Views from the secluded open space are screened by the garage and canopy vegetation within the neighbour's property, and the building steps away from the secluded open space area.

1. This property is located to the northeast of the review site and has a shared boundary of some 28 metres with the review site. It is occupied by a single storey dwelling. The dwelling is sited on an angle to the review site so that a living room, bedroom, bathroom and laundry windows face the front half of the review site. Part of its secluded private open space is located adjacent to the common boundary (used for clothesline and access), and its more sensitive open space is separated from the review site by the existing dwelling.
2. The proposal would have a minimum of 4.2 metres setback at ground level with two upper level balconies to within 2.3 metres of the boundary. The overall height to the top of the roof would be 7.5 metres, with wall heights adjacent to the boundary up to 5 metres.
3. We accept this interface is sensitive due to the presence of habitable room windows with an outlook to the review site and the secluded private open space adjoining the boundary. We are satisfied that the design of the proposal has acceptably limited the appearance of visual bulk to No.38 Silverdale Road. We say this for the following reasons.
4. The proposal incorporates a 'gap' in the built form opposite the secluded private open space of No.38 Silverdale Road, and the building would be setback over 7 metres offering a break in the length of wall to the boundary and avoiding the appearance of one continuous building. We think it would appear as two separate buildings in views from this neighbour. In addition, there are varied setbacks, two roof forms and different external finishes that in combination would provide a modulated appearance.
5. Overall the height of the proposal when viewed from the northeast, would be relatively low due to the proposed excavation to the rear portion of the site. Furthermore, there would be sufficient setbacks to this boundary to allow for landscaping that will, in time, provide some screening of the development.
6. The angled siting of the dwelling on No.38 Silverdale Road will limit broad views of the entire development from windows. While there is secluded private open space adjoining the common boundary, this area has a service function, indicated by the presence of a clothes line. The primary area of secluded private open space for this dwelling is further north with its aspect directed away from the review site and views screened by the existing dwelling.

1. A short 3.6 metres wide unmade laneway divides the review site from the property to the southeast. No.36 Silverdale Road is occupied by a single storey dwelling with a garage that adjoins the right-of-way. There are several habitable room windows and a deck area that is elevated on the northwest side of the dwelling. A portion of private open space that has outlook to the review site, although this secluded open space area is at least 0.8 metres below the floor level of the dwelling, hence views from this area would be of the upper parts of the proposed building. A fence to 2 metres in height extends along the right-of-way.
2. Two upper and two ground dwellings would face the rear boundary. They would be a minimum of 5 metres from the rear boundary, reaching approximately 6.5 metres roof height and 4.75 metres wall height. Two pedestrian gates are proposed to the rear laneway.
3. We think that the proposal presents well to the rear interface, with no unacceptable visual bulk created and an improved safety outcome, matters that were of concern to the neighbours.
4. The 5 metres minimum setback combined with the 3.6 metres width of the laneway provides an 8.6 metres separation between the review site and No.36 Silverdale Road. Together with the limited heights achieved through excavation to the rear, we are satisfied the built form would not be imposing to this interface. In addition, the side setbacks of the development of 4.3 metres (save for upper level balconies at a 2.3 metres setback to side boundaries) would contribute to a sense of spacing that reflects the side setbacks evident in the area.
5. The orientation of the dwelling, the different levels and the boundary construction on No.36 Silverdale Road to the laneway limits its outlook to the review site to windows, the rear deck and secluded private open space. There will be views to the development from the northern section of its private open space but this area, open to Silverdale Road, functions more as a front yard without the sensitivity of secluded private open space. In any event, it is separated from the proposed development by more than 8 metres, a distance we think avoids imposing built form.
6. We are also satisfied the inclusion of pedestrian gates to the rear laneway together with the two upper level dwellings facing the laneway would be a positive outcome as it would improve safety in an area that presently has little surveillance. These design features will create an active interface and provide passive surveillance that will enhance personal safety and property security. We think this is sought by various provisions of the Scheme[11] and good urban design and planning practice.

1. We acknowledge respondent objector submissions that there are times when the parking available in Locksley Road and other nearby streets is heavily utilised by commuters and resident/visitors. However, we are not persuaded that there are reasons relating to car parking that justify rejection of the proposal. We say this for the following reasons.
2. The proposal provides 20 car spaces for residents and 4 spaces for visitors within its basement. This provision meets the standard set in the scheme that specifies one car space for each one or two bedroom dwelling and one visitor car space per five dwelling[12]s. In meeting the standard, we have to conclude the number of car parking spaces will cater for the parking demand generated by the future occupants of the dwellings. We do not have the discretion to require more car parking spaces than is specified by the scheme.
3. The car park layout would be accessible, meet standards and provide secure covered car spaces; factors that we consider would lead most residents to prefer using the basement rather than on-street parking. The visitor spaces require access to the basement via an intercom system, an arrangement that is useable and, in a context of high demand for on-street parking, will be attractive to visitors. We note that there are various mechanisms available to Council to address on street parking pressures should the need arise including resident parking permits and time restrictions.
4. The design that includes only one crossing to the street means only one on-street car parking space would be lost, while three on-street car spaces can be provided along the wide site frontage.
5. We agree with submissions that bicycle racks over car bonnets may have limitations on use depending on vehicle size. We note there is no requirement in the Scheme that bicycle parking be provided for this development. Nevertheless we consider it appropriate that a permit condition require provision for at least three useable bicycle spaces in the basement in addition to the two visitor bicycle spaces provided adjacent to the entry.
6. The proximity of the review site to Eaglemont railway station makes the use of public transport a convenient and attractive option that could reduce the demand for car spaces by future residents. We think this outcome is supported by State policy[13] that seeks to create '20 minute neighbourhoods' and seeks opportunities for more people to live within walking distance of services including public transport.

1. It was the evidence of Ms Marshall[14] that there would be a daily traffic generation of 100 vehicle movements, with 10 movements generated in both the am and pm peak hours. Having regard to the proximity of the site to the Eaglemont railway station and the size of the apartments, we find this to be a conservative assessment.
2. We consider this level of traffic can be comfortably absorbed by Locksley Road and the nearby road network. It would be on average, one additional car movement each six minutes in the peak periods, and fewer vehicle movements in each of the non-peak hours. We think this increase in traffic would be imperceptible at most times. We note that Council's traffic engineers also concluded the traffic from the development could be readily accommodated on the road network.

1. We do not share concerns about the storage and collection of waste. The basement level contains a bin storage area and the waste would be collected by a private contractor. The fine details of that private service, including access to the bin store, mechanism for bin transfer and times for waste collection are to be addressed through a waste management plan, to be approved by Council. We note the use of private waste collection services in apartment buildings is now routine. The collections usually take a very short time, and we cannot see any reasons why such a service would not be easily provided for this development or that it would disrupt local traffic or amenity.

1. There is a 16 metre high Pin Oak tree on No.38 Silverdale Road adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the review site. The neighbour is concerned about the impact of the proposal on the tree. On the basis of the two arborist reports[15] provided to us, we are satisfied that the development can avoid any adverse impacts on the future viability and life expectancy of the tree. The extent of intrusion into the tree's root zone, estimated to be no more than 7 percent, is well within the limits set out in the relevant Australian Standard. We agree with the submissions that a tree management plan specifying tree protection measures be required and we will include this in the permit conditions.

1. We find the design satisfactorily limits loss of privacy to adjoining properties. This is achieved by excavation into the site that ensures boundary fencing will obstruct views to adjoining properties from the ground level windows and open spaces. At upper level, windows and balconies that face adjoining properties and that are within 9m of secluded private open space or habitable room windows are either screened to a height of 1.7m above floor level or have sill heights of 1.7m above floor level.
2. Each balcony has been designed to include a section that is unscreened. These face internally to the site, to the street or the rear laneway. We agree with Mr McGurn that this design provides a reasonable balance between the privacy of adjoining properties and the amenity for the occupants of the new dwellings. The proposed treatments limit overlooking and allow some outlook. There are some inconsistencies in the screening measures shown on floor plans and elevations, we think these can be readily addressed by permit conditions.

Would the development provide acceptable amenity for its future residents?

1. Council criticised the internal amenity that would be provided to future residents. It says there would be limited internal light to bedrooms in 8 dwellings, they would be a small size, have poor outlooks from living rooms that face screened balconies and a number of dwellings would have inadequate solar access to their private open spaces. Addressing these concerns in turn, we find as follows.
2. There are two ground floor one bedroom dwellings (GO5 and GO8) where the bedroom window is located at the end of a 2.3 metres long hallway, sometimes described as a saddleback arrangement. We consider this layout is acceptable providing for both light and ventilation and noting the windows extend floor to ceiling and so maximising access to light.
3. We do not share concerns about access to daylight for the bedroom windows of two ground level dwellings (GO1 and GO2) at the rear of the proposal. Although the windows of the four bedrooms face a retaining wall, the limited height of the wall (between 500mm and 1 metre) combined with the minimum 5 metres setback of these windows from the rear boundary do not compromise the daylight received into these rooms.
4. At upper level there are two dwellings with bedrooms that each rely on borrowed light (Apts 106 and 107). We agree with Council that this is not ideal but consider it acceptable given the following:
   • The bedrooms affected are contained in one bedroom dwellings without the privacy concerns that would arise in a dwelling with more than one bedroom. As such the dividing door to the living room can remain open providing light without compromising privacy within the dwelling.
   • The bedroom door is a maximum of 4.1 metres from the living room window from where daylight will be obtained, a distance that will allow for access to natural light. It is not clear on the plans what materials are proposed for the internal bedroom wall but we consider a permit condition that requires glazing in the internal wall or a partially retractable wall will ensure acceptable daylight access.
   • Both dwellings face northeast providing good solar access and include living rooms that would face unscreened balconies, further enhancing their access to natural light.
5. The bedroom windows of a number of upper level dwellings are shown with obscure glazing to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor levels to limit overlooking to adjoining properties. Whilst this will limit outlook, we consider it an acceptable arrangement for bedrooms and will allow ventilation, sky views and daylight.
6. The ten upper level dwellings would have private open space in the form of balconies, all of which have an area that meets or exceeds the standard in the Scheme and would be accessible from a living room. Six of the balconies would be partly screened to address privacy of adjoining properties but the design has incorporated an unscreened section to each of these balconies allowing some outlook. We find this layout acceptable.
7. Four dwellings at ground level of the development (GO2, GO3, GO4 and GO5) would have private open space with a southwest orientation. We consider the size and layout of the private open spaces of three of these dwellings will ensure there is sufficient solar access, particularly having regard to their areas that range from 53 square metres to 98 square metres, well in excess of the standard specified in the Scheme. The private open space of one of the dwellings (GO5) at 26 square metres in area is relatively confined but, in our view is adequate given it provides for a one bedroom dwelling, is directly accessible from the living room and is not overhung by a balcony above.
8. Private open spaces of four ground level dwellings (GO1, GO8, GO9 and G10) will be at a lower level than the floor level and require retaining walls. We consider that this layout will not unreasonably compromise the solar access or useability of those spaces given the northeast orientation, the generous size of three of the spaces (minimum of 51 square metres) and the limited height of retaining wall required for the smaller space (GO8).
9. The use of the garden area either side of the central lobby area is unclear on the plans. We think the spaces are most usefully allocated to private open space for the adjoining ground floor dwellings rather than dedicated for communal use. We will include a permit condition that requires this to be shown on the endorsed plans.
10. The two bedroom dwellings are a minimum of 60 square metres and the one bedroom dwellings are a minimum of 50 square metres. We find the mix of dwelling size proposed combined with the layouts that include all dwellings with a living room accessible to useable private open space will achieve liveable dwellings and contribute to the diversity of dwelling type and size to cater for a range of households as sought under policy[16].
11. Other positive aspects for internal amenity include access for persons with limited mobility, a clear sense of address and adequate storage.

1. Council provided a draft set of permit conditions that were discussed at the hearing. We have adopted these conditions subject to changes that have regard to these discussions, the submissions and evidence and our findings.

1. For the reasons explained above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.

• Development of two or more dwellings in a two storey building over a basement on a lot in the General Residential Zone Schedule 2;
• Removal of trees in Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 3

1. Before the development permitted by this permit starts, 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 must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Urban Design Architects drawing numbers TP01-TP09, TP11-TP13, TP15 and TP16 (inclusive) Revision B dated 27 August 2014 but modified to show:

1. A schedule of external building materials and colours, including details of cladding and roofing materials; the schedule should be presented on a separate sheet and must include colour samples. 2. Location of solar panels if any, air conditioning, rainwater tanks, bins and storage to be located and/or screened so they are not visually obtrusive in the streetscape.

1. Provision for accessible bicycle parking in the basement for at least 3 bicycles.

1. Provision of a warning system in the basement car park to alert exiting vehicles that a vehicle is entering. 2. Modified ramp design that ensure provision of a 5 metre transition at the Locksley Road frontage and 2 metre transition at the bottom of the ramp. 3. Provision of an intercom system located approximately 3 metres north of the security gate to allow access to the basement. 4. A notation on the plan that should construction access be intended via the proposed crossover on the Locksley Road frontage, an assessment of the canopy clearance requirements and the impact of such pruning on the one street trees must be undertaken by the applicant and prepared by a suitably qualified person. This impact assessment, and approval from Banyule's parks department, must be obtained prior to undertaking any construction works. 5. All driveways and paved areas finished in a subtle muted tone to the satisfaction of the relevant Authority. 6. Retractable shading devices installed on west facing windows. 7. Elevations that match floor plans. 8. Allocation of the ground floor garden space either side of the lobby to private open space of adjoining dwellings.

1. Details of all proposed boundary and courtyard fencing.

1. Glazing in the internal walls or retractable walls to increase daylight to the bedrooms in Dwellings 106 and 107. 2. Engineering plans showing a properly prepared design with computations for the internal drainage and method for of disposal of stormwater from all roofed areas and sealed areas including: 1. The use of an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge; 2. The outfall drainage works necessary to connect the subject site to the Council nominated Legal Point of Discharge; 3. Please note the Engineering plans must show all protected and/or retained trees both on the site and on adjoining properties where within 5m of the boundary and every effort must be made to locate services away from the canopy drip line of trees and where unavoidable, details of boring must be provided. 4. Landscaping as required by Condition 3 of this permit.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory detailed landscaping plan is submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. Such plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd dated October 2014, but modified to show:

1. A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the number and size of all plants (at planting with all exotic species to be at least 2 metres high at the time of planting and at maturity), their location, botanical names and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn, mulch or other surface material;

2. An additional tree of evergreen species located adjacent to dwelling GO2;

1. Boundary hedge planting proposed to include species that can grow above 2m height;

1. The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site; 2. Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas; 3. Location of existing trees on adjoining properties within 3 metres of the boundaries; 4. Details of irrigation system. 5. The location of the Tree Protection Zone for the Pin Oak tree located on 38 Silverdale Road. 6. Details of arrangements for the on going maintenance of the landscaping in common areas and any irrigation system.

When approved the landscape plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

1. Landscaping in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan must be completed prior to occupation of the permitted development, or if not occupied, within 3 months of completion of the permitted development. All landscaping must be maintained or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Except with the further written consent of the responsible authority, no vegetation (other than that indicated on the endorsed plan, or exempt from planning permission under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme) shall be damaged, removed, destroyed or lopped.
2. The development permitted by this permit (including demolition) must not be commenced until a satisfactory Tree Management Plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in arboriculture and shall include:

(a) A plan and corresponding detail identifying the location of Trees #1 and #13 (as identified in the Tree Assessment Report prepared by Kylie May October 2013).

(i) The processes required to initiate, manage and protect trees during the construction process including inspections by the City of Banyule's Development Planning Arborist.

(ii) The treatment required for the driveway when in the tree protection zones of site trees and neighbouring trees

(iii) Inclusion of the project arborist details, dates when periodical inspections will take place to ensure compliance.

(iv) Show locations of tree protection fencing and any other methods such as signage, and limits to access that may be used to protect trees during demolition and construction.

(v) A tree protection plan showing locations of tree protection and any trunk and ground protection required.

(iii) Other relevant recommendations.

(iv) Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of at least 0.6 metres;

1. A suitably qualified arborist must approve and supervise any activity within the calculated Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of a retained tree. All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of 'Air-Excavation' techniques and any root severance within the TPZ must be undertaken to their satisfaction using a clean sharp and sterilised pruning saw. All and any excavations within the TPZ of retained trees must be undertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniques suitable in the vicinity of trees.
2. Any underground service installations within a Tree Protection Zone must be bored to a depth of at least 600mm.
3. Where decking is proposed within the TPZ of any retained tree, any and all excavations for posts must be undertaken by hand under the supervision of the project arborist, and final post locations must be set away from structural roots. The decking must be constructed using the minimum number of piers necessary, and so that gaps between boards are no more or less than 6mm in width.

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority the proposed dwelling permitted by this permit must not be occupied until:

1. The parking area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible authority. 2. The garden and landscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been planted to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Drainage works have been undertaken and completed to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The dwellings are numbered in accordance with Council's allocation of street numbers.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Such plan must specify that collection is to be by way of private contractor and detail:

(a) How waste and recycling materials are to be managed within and collected from the subject site;

(b) Anticipated frequency of collection(s) and hours of collection(s);

(c) How bin storage areas will be maintained to ensure there is no unreasonable emission of odour or noise;

(d) Provision of bin storage and collection areas for all dwellings and the shop; and

(e) Nomination of collection point (must not be within the laneway to the rear of the site).

1. Once approved, the waste management plan must be complied with by the owner(s), permit holder(s) and operator(s) of the dwellings at all times unless otherwise approved by the responsible authority.
2. The waste bin area illustrated on the plans must be provided prior to the commencement of the use permitted by this permit, maintained and used to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and must not be used for any other purpose.

1. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service lane must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council's Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway and the vehicles that will use the crossing. The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing must be approved by the responsible authority. Any existing unused crossing must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council Supervision under a Memorandum of Consent for Works which must be obtained prior to commencement of works.
3. Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

1. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit; or
   2. 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, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing along with payment of relevant fee before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

[1] We have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[3] Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy DTPI 2014

[6] Reformed Residential Zones for Victoria Fact Sheet July 2014 DTPLI

[8] Maher v Darebin CC [2014] VCAT 912 paras 18, 19

[9] Including at Clauses 15, 21.04-1.1, 22.02-3, 52.06, 55 and 65.01.

[10] At Clause 55.04-1 Side and rear setbacks.

[11] Including Clauses 15.01-2 and 22.03.

[14] Based on a generation rate of 5 vehicle movements per apartment with 10% of these movements occurring during the peak hour periods.

[15] Tree Assessment Report prepared by Kylie May Consultant Arborist of John Patrick Pty Ltd October 2013 and Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Sean Gentry Consulting Arborist of Treespace dated 24 September 2014.

[16] Including at Clauses 16.01-4, 21.04-1 and 55.02-3.