In permit application no. 2006/721, a permit is granted and is directed to be issued. The permit relates to the land at No. 132 Reserve Road, Beaumaris. The permit will allow the use and development of the land for a child care centre and removal of vegetation in accordance with the endorsed plans. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1 to these reasons.

Ms S Loddo, of Keen Planning. She called Mr T Hardingham, traffic engineer, and Mr J Davidson, landscape architect, to give expert evidence.

Mr G & Mrs C Edmunds, Mr K Sheedy, Mr G Garlick and Mr V Marree all in person.

Several parties requested their presence be recorded - Mr B Hulls, Mr R Lowe, Ms S Bartaby (their statements of grounds have been taken into account). Other persons who had not filed statements with the Tribunal but sought to be recognised as attending the hearing were Mr J Ball, Mr J Blake, Ms J Connard, Mr J Allport, Ms M Allport.

1 A 40 place child care centre is proposed within an existing building on a corner site in Beaumaris. As a review against the Council's failure to decide upon the application was lodged, the Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted. The Council and some local residents oppose the proposal on grounds variously relating to impacts on neighbourhood character including a loss of vegetation, increased traffic congestion, potential conflict with school traffic and pedestrian activity, and insufficient on-site car parking. Having considered all written and oral submissions with regard to the provisions of the Bayside Planning Scheme, and having conducted inspections of the locality at peak school and other times, we will allow the Application. Our reasons follow, noting that we do not recite all of the material presented as all documentation is held on the Tribunal's file.

2 Located on the south-east corner of Reserve Road and Clonmore Street, the review site has street frontages of 28.02 metres and 39.62 metres respectively. The land is 884 square metres in area. It is occupied by a detached dwelling with several large trees. There is 1.6 - 1.97 metre high brush fencing along the front boundaries with a section of brick fencing abutting Clonmore Street. Three crossovers serve the land although the crossover serving Reserve Road seems seldom used.

3 The review site abuts residential properties to its south and east. Further to the south is a Telstra depot and then additional dwellings while Clonmore Street appears to be entirely residential in use. Additional residential properties are located on the north side of Reserve Road and Clonmore Street.

4 The Sandringham Secondary College - Beaumaris campus is opposite the review site. A school crossing abuts the review site about half way along the site's Reserve Road frontage. A bus stop is just north of this crossing on the west side of the road. All school drop-off/pick-up occurs on street.

5 Clonmore Street is a local residential street although it carries some through traffic and buses. Reserve Road is in a Road 2 Zone. It carries through traffic and, as noted, serves as the drop-off/pick-up area for the School. Parking is unrestricted other than close to the school crossing and a 40km/hr speed limit applies during nominated school hours.

6 Approval is sought for alterations and additions to the existing building to enable its use for a 40 place child care centre. That includes a first floor addition that would provide an office and staff amenities. The centre would operate from 7am-6.30pm Monday to Friday with 6 full-time employees. The plans show eight on-site car spaces accessed via a one-way system entering from Clonmore Street and exiting to Reserve Road.

7 The garage off Clonmore Road would be re-used as staff parking. Play areas are positioned to the rear, side and front, with the existing fencing enclosing the front play areas and car parking areas. No signage is proposed. Existing trees to be removed are a large desert ash, two sweet pittosporum and a small golden cypress. The palm to the street corner would be kept. A landscape plan has been tendered. Two sections of fencing abutting crossover to Reserve Road would be lowered to 900mm.

8 A permit is required to use and develop the review site for a child care centre under the Residential 1 Zone of the Bayside Planning Scheme.[2] Two Overlays apply - Design & Development Overlay Schedule 2 (with which this proposal complies) and a Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 3 where a permit is required for the removal of two sweet pittosporum and a desert ash.[3] Parking requirements are at Clause 52.06.[4]

9 We were referred to Amendment C50 that proposes to introduce a new policy [Clause 22.10] into the Scheme regarding discretionary uses in residential areas; that has been adopted by the Council but not yet gazetted. We have taken that policy into account in reaching our decision.

Is the use of the site for a child care centre acceptable in principle?

10 The suitability of the review site for a child care centre is a ground of refusal in terms of the application of the proposed policy [Clause 22.10]. Some submissions and statements of grounds by local residents specifically oppose a commercial enterprise in this residential location.

11 The relevant provisions of the Scheme focus on the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone, policies at Clauses 21 and decision guidelines at Clause 65 as the basis for assessment. We do not consider the principle of a child care centre in this residential setting, utilising an existing house and a corner site, as inappropriate. Such uses need to be near to the local community they serve and a site on a busy or main road is usually desired to maximise accessibility and assist to minimise impacts on local streets.

12 Helpfully, the Council has adopted a policy that contains criteria for the preferred locations for discretionary uses. We find the proposal performs well when tested against the criteria as set out by us in this table:

Policy as to preferred location for discretionary uses in a residential zone

Site consolidation is encouraged to ensure adequate on-site parking, landscaping and setbacks.

No consolidation is proposed and the other matters are subject to assessment later in these reasons and found to be acceptable in terms of parking, landscaping and setbacks.

The proposed discretionary use is on a corner site.

The proposed discretionary use is located on the periphery of a commercial area or adjacent to other discretionary uses to provide a transition between commercial and residential areas.

The review site is not on the periphery of a commercial area or in a location that would serve as a transitional element between commercial and residential areas.

The discretionary use is located near similar community and support facilities.

The discretionary use be located to be within walking distance of public transport and promotes safe and convenient pedestrian access.

The site is near a bus stop on Reserve Road. It abuts a school crossing that could service those arriving by bus and/or walking to the proposed child care centre. Safety issues are found below to be acceptable.

13 The proposed hours of operation are less with those referred to Clause 22.10. No late night or weekend use is proposed in this application.

14 Thus, we do not consider a commercial child care centre of the scale proposed in this residential area must fail on the basis it is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of Amendment C50 even though we do agree with those opposing the permit application that there are matters that fairly require assessment in terms of safety, access, parking and neighbourhood character outcomes. The review site is the type of accessible location preferred for these types of facilities and whether it is suitable or not turns on the proposal's ability to present an acceptable built form and design outcome plus control its off-site impacts.

15 Some residents submitted there are other facilities with vacancies in the nearby area demonstrating there is no great or overwhelming need for the proposed facility. We note there is no policy proposed or within the Scheme that calls for need to be demonstrated in some way. There are a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered the relevance of the question of need[5] with the primary finding being that a demonstrated need for a facility or use may be a relevant factor but lack of a need will rarely, if ever, be a ground for refusing to grant a permit.

Are the built form outcome and removal of vegetation acceptable?

16 The Council and some Respondent Objectors oppose the proposal in terms of its built form outcome particularly the removal of large trees in the site's frontage to Reserve Road. The Council also referred to the high front fencing and dominance of hard surfacing across the site and along the frontages that would be at odds with its policy at Clause 22.07.

17 The Scheme's focus is for a proposal of this type to respond to the preferred neighbourhood character as described in Clause 22.07.

18 The review is in area H3 where the statement of preferred character is:

The bushy gardens surrounding the dwellings dominate the streetscapes. Where the topography is hilly, the buildings are set within the landscape, and are sometimes sited to take advantage of water views without dominating the streetscape. Adequate space is provided around dwellings for the retention and planting of vegetation, and indigenous canopy trees are common. Low or open style front fences are usually provided, in order to retain the openness of the front garden to the street.

The extent to which the characteristics of the built and natural environment in the immediate vicinity of the site may determine a preferred future character that is different from that applying to the remainder of the precinct in which the site is located.

20 The VPO provisions are also relevant in terms of the vegetation objectives to be achieved. They focus on preventing the loss of native and particularly indigenous vegetation for habitat, character and amenity reasons and, related to that, promoting indigenous replanting.

21 The area of the review site is quite bushy in its feel with the type of vegetation contributing to that character comprising native and indigenous species as well as exotics. There is also a significant presence of high fences along property frontages and sideages although there are low/no fences associated with the two lots immediately to the east and south of the review site.

22 Re-use of the existing dwelling and retention of fencing are significant elements in achieving an acceptable outcome in design and character terms. The first floor addition was not the subject of significant criticism in the proceedings and we also have no issue with that part of the development given the small floor area and central positioning. The focus of criticism was the amount of hard surfacing/parking in the site's frontages, high fencing and loss of large trees that have a strong amenity value to residents. On these matters we find as follows:

•

Extent of paving. The review site presently contains a large amount of paving to the Reserve Road frontage and open areas associated with a pool. The position of car spaces (based on seven spaces on-site) will expand that area in part but opportunities are retained for landscaping abutting the frontages with sufficient spaces for new canopy trees.

•

Parking in the frontage. This can often produce a dominant outcome that would be found inappropriate. We are, however, persuaded that an acceptable outcome is achieved based on the layout with seven on-site car spaces having regard to the amount of existing paving, landscaped areas along the two site frontages that can be achieved, and the retention of the existing fencing that would assist to conceal paving and cars (as is the case at present).

•

High fencing. This is an aspect of the existing circumstances of the review site and not uncommon in the area. It may not be favoured in a whole scale redevelopment of the site but it is acceptable in this case.

•

Removal of several large trees. Two of the trees that are proposed to be removed are environmental weeds. Both arborists that have examined the trees agree that replacement is preferred.[6] Even though they are native, have amenity value, and policy favours the retention of existing trees, that must be balanced with the fact the trees are species are recognised as being problematic and the focus of the VPO on indigenous plantings.

Removal of the trees would expose views to the building, as noted by Ms Bowdern, but we do not think that is a reason to require the weed species and other trees to be retained given the scale of the structure and setbacks from most boundaries plus the fact that a new landscape treatment will mature to provide a good canopy in time. There is a disagreement between the Council and Applicant in relation to suggested new canopy tree species. We will defer that to be addressed via conditions on the basis that we consider a suitable landscape treatment can be achieved given the spaces provided.

•

Landscape buffers to the street. The buffers suggested by Clause 22.10 are not meet in relation to parking area. However the policy also refers to lesser buffers when a reduction will not reduce the effectiveness of landscaping or unreasonably impact on the streetscape. We are satisfied that the landscape beds and areas for canopy trees are acceptable given the presence of the existing fencing to conceal parking using part of the site's Reserve Road front setback. There would be scope to provide an extra car space on the site, using the front setback, but that would result in the loss of a proposed canopy tree. Having regard to our assessment of parking we prefer the retention of space for another canopy tree as we are satisfied that seven spaces is sufficient parking on the land without unreasonable off-site impacts (refer discussion below).

•

Side and rear boundary setbacks and landscaping. The works include a wall along the southern boundary and no planting is proposed along the eastern boundary. As discussed later, we find the southern boundary treatment acceptable - in some ways it would be no different to a garage built on a boundary. We note a plan tendered through Ms Loddo's submission indicating that two canopy trees could be added along the eastern boundary. We accept that proposal.

23 For these reasons, we find the proposal achieves acceptable design and character outcomes particularly having regard to the re-use of the existing building, retention of existing fencing and scope for new planting to assist to achieve the landscape and vegetation outcomes sought by the Scheme.

24 The substituted plans show eight on-site car spaces including re-use of the existing garage fronting Clonmore Street. Through the written and oral evidence of Mr Hardingham, it is proposed that car park layout be improved but with a consequent loss of one space. The landscape plan is based on seven spaces on-site consistent with the traffic evidence.

25 There is no prescribed parking rate for a child care centre in the Scheme. On the evidence before us, an empirical assessment indicates that six-seven spaces would be required to meet the peak demand for parking. While that assessment was criticised we accept it as a likely outcome.

26 Applying the rates included in the Council's proposed Clause 22.10, eight on-site spaces would be required.

27 On the information and evidence available to us, seven spaces provided on the review site should accommodate the expected peak morning and afternoon demands generated by the facility including staff. If we accepted eight spaces as the required rate, then there would be a shortfall on-site of one space.

28 The Council strongly opposes less than that amount being provided on the land. Consequently, the debate between the Council and Applicant is essentially about one car space potentially required to meet peak demand being off-site.

29 We find that during the expected peaks for the child care centre, there is adequate on-street parking to accommodate one or two parked cars close to the review site even though that would add to cars on-street (parked or involved in drop-off/pick-up). Parking is unrestricted and most of the space available is used for drop-off during the School peak rather any longer term parking. We reach that conclusions having regard to the traffic evidence that is generally consistent with observations we have made on our site visits. In forming that view, we have also assumed few staff and/or customers of the child care centre would use public transport but a bus service is available if desired. Further, on-site bicycle parking could serve some involved with the facility and this should be added.

30 A number of criticisms were raised about the car park layout to which Mr Hardingham responded in evidence. On those matters we find as follows:

•

Adequacy of sightlines for vehicles entering and departing the site. With the one-way system proposed, vehicles will enter the site from Clonmore Street. Pedestrians, road users and others on that street will be seen by drivers. Vehicles would depart via Reserve Road where the fence is shown on the elevations as being lowered to 900mm to provide adequate sightlines. All vehicles (other than a staff member using the existing garage) would arrive and depart in a forward motion and we accept Mr Hardingham's evidence that the arrangement is safe and workable. We agree with Mr Garlick that signage within the site would be useful to warn of pedestrians and others for vehicles departing the land and that can be included as a permit condition.

•

Clonmore Street crossover width. The Council requested this be reduced from 4 metres to 3.6 metres but that was not supported by Mr Hardingham who stated the wider opening is desirable to assist vehicle manoeuvrability. We prefer the traffic evidence on this point and find the opening should remain as shown on the plans for safety and manoeuvrability reasons.

•

Manoeuvrability of car spaces. Given revisions to the layout shown in the substituted plans, we find the layout to be acceptable in terms of vehicle manoeuvrability.

•

Bicycle parking. We consider such provision should be made on-site consistent with the evidence of Mr Hardingham. This requirement can be added by a permit condition.

31 It follows that we find the layout of the car park to be acceptable.

Would there be potential for traffic congestion or increased danger to pedestrians and road users?

32 This is one of the main issues raised by local residents opposing the proposal. They described existing parking and traffic congestion along this part of Reserve Road having regard to through traffic (and delays and queues created by the traffic lights at Balcombe Road and school crossing) and School drop-off that occurs in this section of Reserve Road. They fear that the existing problems will be exacerbated by increased vehicle traffic coinciding with high volumes of through and School traffic, jeopardising driver, cyclist and pedestrian safety. The concerns focus on the morning peak.

33 Our visits to the locality confirm that there is a period of activity involving traffic backed up from traffic lights and the School crossing both in-front of and past the review site. That is complicated by traffic using Clonmore Street, whether for drop-off or parking, the School crossing itself, pedestrians including children on bicycles and bus, the presence of speed restrictions to 40km/hr to manage traffic and traffic cutting through residential streets to avoid the intersection of Balcombe Road and Reserve Road. Some of those factors would also assist vehicles associated with the proposed development insofar as:

• when staffed, the monitored School crossing assists to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists;

• the crossing and traffic lights to the north result in gaps in traffic that would enable cars to turn right into Clonmore Street or left or right out of the review site into Reserve Road;

• the "Keep Clear" road markings assist to provide a gap for vehicles to enter Clonmore Street;

• there is a low speed environment at peak times.

34 Having regard to the evidence for the Applicant that the outcome of a 40 place child care centre would be to add around 15 vehicle movements in the peak hour into this setting (15 in and 15 out of the review site), we are satisfied that the projected increase in traffic could be accommodated within the engineering capacity of the road network and not unreasonably add to existing traffic volumes.

35 Examples of poor and discourteous driver behaviour were described at the hearing which we accept; we observed some undesirable drop-off locations on our inspections including vehicles that stopped too close to the corner or even across part of Clonmore Street at the intersection with Reserve Road. Even so, we consider the proposal can be accommodated within the constraints of the existing situation of the land and having regard to the operation of existing traffic lights, school crossing and bus stop. While not required for the proposal before us, we expect that extending the "Keep Clear" marking across the full width of Reserve Road could help vehicles turning right from Clonmore Street into Reserve Road but the desirability of such works is a matter for the Council to consider.

Would the proposal have unreasonable off-site impacts to the abutting residential properties?

36 Submissions by Mr Maree (No. 2 Clonmore Street) and Mr & Mrs Edmunds (No. 130 Reserve Road) raised several specific matters in terms of impacts on their properties upon which we set out our findings next:

•

Acoustic fence to the southern and eastern boundaries. This suggestion was accepted by Ms Loddo although there was no discussion as to the fence height. We will require it to be no less than 1.85 metres (similar to the existing fencing) although the Applicant may wish to seek the advice of an acoustic engineer in relation to the need for a higher structure. The design of boundary fencing was the subject of some discussion at the hearing, including in relation to noise generated by children banging on the wall and we think the detailed design of the structure would be best considered and assessed by a permit condition.

•

Views from kitchen window. This is a matter of concern to Mr Maree who referred to the potential for views into his private open space, upper level terrace and habitable rooms. We are not persuaded to require the window to be screened given its separation from the common boundary with No. 2 Clonmore Street by at least14 metres, the times of operation of the proposed facility, the lack of weekend use and nature of the kitchen space. In forming that view we are also mindful of vegetation on Mr Maree's property and proposed trees on the review site that would further filter any potential viewing.

•

Southern boundary wall. Mr & Mrs Edmunds sought this wall to be setback by 1.5 metres from the boundary and 3 metres in height. We note the Applicant's position that a loss in floor area would reduce the number of places able to be offered and there is no scope to reposition elements to make up lost floorspace (other than extending into the site frontages). We also record Ms Loddo's offer to lower the wall to 2.7 metres.

We appreciate the concerns about this wall raised by Mr & Mrs Edmunds in terms of the position 2.5 metres forward of their dwelling and distance between the wall and their dwelling. However, as the main interface of the wall is to a side path, bathroom window, toilet window and a landscaped section of the front garden on No. 130 Reserve Road, we find a 2.7 metre high wall to be acceptable and without an unreasonable loss of sun and daylight. It would be akin to a garage wall and comply with Clause 55 (Rescode) if applied.

•

Vegetation overhanging the review site. Mr Maree referred to existing vegetation on his property that overhangs the review site and could be affected by the development. One is a very old tee tree and the other appears to be a eucalypt. The larger tree is close to the boundary and should be protected during construction. The tee tree would need to be pruned unless it could somehow be lifted. We will require an arborist report to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to provide for the protection of these and other trees to ensure their protection including in relation to any pruning.

What conditions are included on the permit to be issued?

37 We have included conditions on the permit to be issued consistent with our findings above. We also record that we have included some matters raised in submissions by the parties to which Ms Loddo offered no objection, for example, signage within the site to assist traffic movement and warn of the presence of pedestrians/cyclists; no public address system; and provision of acoustic fencing along the southern and eastern boundaries. We have not required changes to the location of the vehicle crossovers or required the Clonmore Street crossover to be narrowed having regard to Mr Hardingham's evidence that we have accepted. We have retained the hours of operation as set out in the Applicant's submission with a secondary consent mechanism should any variation to hours be sought thereby enabling an assessment to be made.

38 When balancing all relevant considerations, we find the proposal would produce an acceptable outcome in the terms required by the Bayside Planning Scheme. That is with respect to the provisions of the Scheme as it exists today and when tested against the Council's proposed Clause 22.10. We will order that a permit be issued subject to conditions including minor changes to the development.

The permit will allow the use and development of the land for a child care centre and removal of vegetation in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1 Before the use and/or development starts three copies of revised plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, 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 marked as Issue C, dated 5/3/07, but modified to show:

(a)

The southern elevation (wall) reduced to 2.7 metres in height.

(b)

The location of rubbish and garbage bin and any other storage areas external to the building.

(c)

The location of bicycle parking.

(d)

Acoustic fencing along the southern and eastern boundaries abutting the play areas of no less than 1.85 metres in height.

(e)

Signage and pavement marking to advise drivers of the one-way driveway system and to alert drivers departing the site of pedestrians and cyclists. Signage must confirm entry via the vehicular access point off Clonmore Street and exit via the vehicular access point off Reserve Road.

(f)

All paving (except driveways) to be permeable. Details of the permeability of the paving must be supplied to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(g)

A schedule of all external materials and finishes to be provided to the buildings and works on the land. The schedule shall show the materials, colour (including two colour samples) and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames and paving (including car park surfacing).

(h)

The proposed landscape treatment for the site including the existing and proposed species. Additional canopy trees are required abutting the eastern boundary and the tree abutting the southern boundary to be deciduous.

(i)

All plant and equipment (including air conditioning units, heating units, hotwater systems, etc.) which is proposed to be located externally shall be identified on the plans and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such equipment should be located away from bedrooms of adjoining properties.

(j)

The refuse/service area shall be located on the site plan and accessible to the street frontage for collection.

(k)

The locations of security lighting and details to control light spillage from the site.

2 The use and/or development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3 The hours of operation are limited to 7am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday unless otherwise with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4 No more than forty (40) children and six (6) full-time staff members may be present on the premises at any one time without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

5 All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6 No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building(s) without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7 Without further consent of the Responsible Authority no form of public address system or sound amplification equipment shall be used on the premises so as to be audible outside the premises.

8 Noise emanating from the use hereby permitted shall comply with SEPP N-1 Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9 External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10 The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the

(a)

transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land

(b)

appearance of any building, works or materials

(c)

emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil

(d)

presence of vermin

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

11 Before the use and/or development starts, areas set aside for parked vehicles, access lanes and associated access ramps as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a)

constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(b)

properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

(c)

surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(d)

drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(e)

line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(f)

have erected directional signage indicating car parking areas to be erected in accordance with the endorsed plans.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

12 Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any existing crossing or crossing opening must be removed and replaced with footpath, nature strip, and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13 Before the development hereby permitted starts, three (3) copies of a Landscape Plan must be submitted for approval by the Responsible Authority. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site and include supporting information to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In particular, the plan should be to a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 and show:

(a)

Accurate location of boundaries, existing and proposed built elements, neighbouring buildings and/or vegetation that may affect or be affected by the proposed development and landscape.

(b)

Accurate location and identification (botanical name) of existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed including vegetation on abutting property at No. 2 Clonmore Street (including the tee tree and eucalypt abutting and overhanging the site boundary) and street trees.

(c)

Tree Protection Zones as required by the Responsible Authority.

(d)

Clear identification of the following elements:

(i)

Areas proposed to be lawn, pavement, garden beds, other landscape features;

(ii)

Proposed tree locations, shrub and ground cover groupings, climber locations;

(iii)

Coded identification for these groupings and the numbers proposed; and

(iv)

A Plant Schedule, which consists of an itemised list of all proposed species. The schedule must include the following headings:

Plant code; (refers to codified botanical names used on plan, for example, Bm)

(e)

Supporting notes on the plan that elaborate on specific requirements for the proposed landscaping (such as site preparation, protection during construction of existing vegetation, use of a suitable mulching material and proposed depth).

(f)

A legend that explains any graphic symbols used on the plan.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

14 Before the development starts a report must be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist to ascertain the potential impact on trees on the property at No. 2 Clonmore Street, street trees and any other trees on abutting properties that might be affected by construction and the completed development. The report must set out measures to protect these trees including tree protection zones no less than set out in the table below and requirements for pruning. The arborist report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once submitted and approved the recommendations of the arborist's report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Street Tree 1: Allocasuarina stricta - Drooping Sheoak

Street Tree 2: Melaleuca quinquenervia - Five-veined Paperbark

Edge of kerb and footpath north/south, 6 metres east/west

15 Before the use allowed by this permit starts, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16 The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

17 All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans to be retained must be suitably marked before any demolition of existing buildings commences or development starts on the site and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

18 The tree removal and pruning shall be in accordance with the endorsed plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The endorsed plan shall not be altered or modified unless further consent is obtained from the Responsible Authority.

19 The existing street tree(s) must not be removed or damaged.

20 The Legal Point of Discharge for this development is to be the Council drain located at the rear of the property. The Developer should be satisfied that levels permit the adoption of the above discharge point.

21 Plans for the construction of the outfall drain must receive Bayside City Council approval prior to the commencement of the development.

22 Any paved courtyards/ paths must be graded/ drained to prevent stormwater discharge into adjacent properties.

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

(a)

the development and use is/are not started within two years of the date of this permit.

(b)

the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

[1] Based on plans that we substituted at the commencement of the hearing without objection by any party.

[2] Pursuant to Clause 32.01. The provisions of Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15, 17.02, 18.02, 19.03, 21 (Municipal Strategic Statement), 22.07 (Residential Development Policy; the review site is in Character Precinct H3), and Clause 65 (general decision guidelines) are relevant to a decision and have been taken into account by the Tribunal.

[3] We have considered the provisions of Clauses 42.02 and its schedule 3 and Clause 43.02 and its schedule 2 as relevant.

[4] A child care centre is not specified in the table to this Clause. Where a use is not included in the table at Clause 52.06-5, an adequate number of car spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

[5] Notable is Shell Company of Australia Pty Ltd and Ors v City of Frankston and Anor 8 APAD 127 at 135.

[6] The Council's arborist and an arborist for the permit applicant.