1. The respondent/permit applicant is amended to be Mr & Mrs ten Burge.
2. The decision of the responsible authority is varied.
3. It is directed that a permit be issued for the development of a two storey dwelling and vegetation removal at 20 Hearn Street, Dromana in accordance with the conditions at Appendix A.

Mr T Callander, solicitor of Rigby Cooke. Mr Callander called evidence from:

• Mr D Hansen, Town Planner
• Mr A Lovelock, Licensed Land Surveyor
• Mr J Stanley

Mr J Rantino, solicitor, Maddocks Lawyers. Mr Rantino called evidence from:

Application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

1. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Rantino, on behalf of the permit applicant sought leave to amend the name of the applicant from that of the designer (Graham Jones Design) to that of the landowners, Mr. and Mrs. ten Burge. No parties opposed the request and I therefore amended the application accordingly.
2. Application No. P09/0782 was lodged with Mornington Peninsula Shire Council on 21 April 2009 for the purpose of constructing a double storey dwelling at 20 Hearn Street, Dromana together with vegetation removal and associated works.
3. There is an existing double storey dwelling on the land and this is proposed to be demolished. Most of the existing vegetation on the site is to be cleared including two eucalypt trees which are presently in the front setback area. Excavation on the site up to 2.5 metres is also proposed.
4. In terms of the proposed dwelling, the ground floor will consist of three bedrooms, a rumpus room, laundry and bathroom. The first floor consists of another bedroom, living, dining, study, kitchen and a theatre. Decks are provided at ground and first floor level. The proposal includes two garages, one accessed from Hearn Street and the other from Drury Lane.
5. Council provided the following helpful table showing height, setbacks, materials, colours and open space details.

Ground floor - 3.67 metres to pool fence, 5.294 metres to wall.

Ground Floor - garage built to boundary, 2.8 metres to wall, 0.8 metres to deck wall.

First floor - 1.9 metres to theatre wall, 2.435 metres to kitchen wall

5.8 metres wide connecting to crossover to Hearn Street (garage 1)

4.2 metres wide connecting to crossover to Drury Lane (garage 2)

Deck areas with a total area of approximately 122m²

1. I inspected the subject site and the surrounding area on the afternoon and evening of Wednesday 26 May 2010. I note that the land has an area of about 937m² having a fairly regular shape with a depth of about 48m and a width of just over 20 metres. The site is located on the north-east corner of Drury Lane and Hearn Street in Dromana.
2. The site and its neighbours are notable for their hillside location which provides expansive views to the foreshore and to Port Phillip Bay. The site slopes from south to north by about 6 metres.
3. The immediate area is exclusively residential and typically dwellings are detached with most of them at two levels to take account of the panoramic views to the north, east and west. Mr Fetterplace, in his evidence, provided a very helpful general description of the surrounding area built form pattern and I confirmed this on my inspection.

No.18 Hearn Street is located immediately to the east of the subject site. This dwelling is of two storeys in height with balconies located on the northern elevation at ground and first floor levels. The existing dwelling has built form setbacks from the common boundary which vary from approximately 1.16 metres to 2.19 metres.

No. 16 Hearn Street is the next property along to the east of the subject site. This dwelling is two storeys in height and also has an upper level balcony located on the northern elevation.

No. 8 and No. 10 Drury Lane are located to the west of the subject site, the dwellings are located on sloping land and are two storeys in height.

No. 21 Burton Street is located to the north of the subject site and comprises a two storey dwelling which is setback approximately 17.1 metres from the front boundary of the subject site. A 'shed' structure is located in the south-eastern corner approximately 1.6 metres from the common boundary. The roof of this dwelling is visible from the current dwelling and there are obscured views to the remainder of the property from the subject site due to the location of vegetation and the sloping nature of the land.

1. The subject site and all surrounding land is within the Residential 1 zone under the Mornington Planning scheme. No permit is required for a dwelling in the zone, although the objectives and standards of Clause 54 are relevant.
2. The site is covered by Design and Development Overlay Schedule 3 (DDO3) which addresses "coast and landscape design". The objectives of DDO3 are particularly relevant to the application and they include (with my emphasis):
   • To ensure that the design of subdivision and housing is responsive to the environment, landform, site conditions and character of coastal villages, hillsides and cliff top areas.
   • To recognise areas where substantial vegetation cover is a dominant visual and environmental feature of the local area by ensuring site areas are large enough to accommodate development while retaining natural or established vegetation cover and to provide substantial areas for new landscaping and open space.
   • To ensure that new development has proper regard for the established streetscape and development pattern in terms of building height, scale and siting.
   • To protect shared viewlines where reasonable and practical.
   • To ensure that buildings are designed and sited to avoid being visually obtrusive, particularly in terms of creating a silhouette above a skyline or existing tree canopy line when viewed from surrounding streets and properties.
   • To ensure that subdivision and development proposals have proper regard to heritage values and coastal landscapes, including those of areas such as the Mount Martha Cliff top area, the Sorrento Heritage Precinct and the Ranelagh Estate in Mount Eliza.
3. Apart from these objectives, DDO3 includes specific building requirements including:
   • No building may exceed a wall height of 5.5 metres or a building height of 6 metres. (This is a discretionary provision).
   • No part of the dwelling is to exceed two storeys and 8 metres in height (This is a mandatory provision that cannot be varied by a permit).
   • The dwelling must be connected to reticulated sewerage.
   • All buildings and works must be located on land with a slope of less than 20%.
   • Buildings must not be located on a ridge.
   • The difference between finished ground level and natural ground level as a result of excavation and filling must not exceed one metre and must be properly battered or retained.
   • Buildings must be setback at least 7.5 metres from a road frontage and 3 metres from any side road boundary. Where a dwelling on an adjoining lot that fronts the same road is set back less than 7.5 metres, the minimum setback is the same as that of the adjoining dwelling.
   • A building containing more than one storey must not provide access to a roof area, deck, verandah or the like which has a level higher than the floor level of the upper storey.
   • More than half of the external wall cladding of any dwelling must consist of brick, masonry, timber, simulated weatherboards or other materials approved by the responsible authority.
4. It was common ground among the parties that DDO3 triggered a 'buildings and works' permit.
5. Under Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay - Township Vegetation, a permit is required for the removal of native vegetation. A separate permit is not required where the vegetation removal is part and parcel of a dwelling application, and where the removal of vegetation is to be carried out in conjunction with a development approved under a planning permit. That is the case here.
6. In addition to these prescriptive controls, there are a number of State and local policies, the most relevant of which appear to be:

11.03: Principles of land use and development planning

16.01: Residential development for single dwellings

21.04: Mornington Peninsula Strategic Framework Plan

1. When it received the application, Council sought the views of its relevant internal departments. The Development Engineer offered no objection to the proposal and the Vegetation Officer did not object to the removal of vegetation.
2. Council also advertised the application to nearby land owners and occupiers and it received six objections citing concerns with (in summary):
   • inadequate information;
   • fails to meet neighbourhood character objectives;
   • fails to address the objectives of DDO3;
   • loss of amenity;
   • proposal does not provide for a reasonable sharing of viewlines;
   • overdevelopment in terms of height, bulk, and massing;
   • loss of vegetation and habitat.
3. Council considered the application at its Delegate Committee on 1 September 2009 on the basis of a report recommending the grant of a permit subject to extra requirements relating to:
   • The garage wall to be built on north-eastern boundary to be setback to allow the existing fence along common boundary between No. 18 & 20 Hearn Street to be retained.
   • The first floor screen wall to be cut back in line with the north-west elevation to reduce the impact on views from No. 16 and No. 18 Hearn Street.
4. A Notice of Decision to this effect was issued on 4 September 2009.
5. An application for review was then lodged on behalf of the owners of Nos. 16 and 18 Hearn Street noting:
   • adverse impacts on shared viewlines;
   • impacts on amenity;
   • non-compliance with DDO3;
   • failure to respond to neighbourhood character.

1. Having inspected the site and having considered all of the submissions made, I think that the issues to be addressed are:
   • height of the building;
   • neighbourhood character;
   • impacts on viewlines.
2. I can dispose of the first two issues fairly easily as clearly the focus of submissions and the basis of the dispute goes to the third issue.

1. There was some debate about the actual height of the building with a suggestion that at its highest it would be 8.22 metres above natural ground level.
2. DDO3 has a mandatory provision requiring buildings to be no higher than 8 metres. This height cannot be varied with a permit. There is therefore no prospects of me varying this.
3. There is a simple solution to this and it needs to be enshrined in any permit condition should a permit be issued. The plans must clearly show that no part of the building at any point exceeds 8 metres above natural ground level. So as to remove any doubt about this I support Mr Nicol's suggestion that there be an extra condition specifying that a height survey be undertaken by a licensed surveyor at the 'frame stage' to confirm that no part of the building exceeds 8 metres above natural ground level.
4. Having said all that, I do not want to just dismiss the height issue as being an exercise in mathematics. The height control implements the objectives of the DDO. Those objectives go to (among other things), streetscape, visual impacts, silhouettes and shared viewlines. In order to accommodate these objectives, the DDO has imposed an 8m height limit meaning a building of this scale is contemplated on the land. Inevitably in a settlement pattern such as Dromana, a building of this scale will be seen and will have some off site impacts. I don't interpret a control which contemplates structures of up to 8 metres in height as one that is trying to 'hide' buildings; rather, it is a control that accepts that there will be buildings of about this scale and that such buildings might be clearly visible and may have some off site impacts.

1. It was suggested in the application, but not vigorously pursued at the hearing, that the proposal offended the characteristics of the area. Unlike many Council's, Mornington Peninsula does not have a 'Neighbourhood Character Study' (or its equivalent). It also does not have a character type policy on which to rely in exercising its discretion at Clause 54.02. I hasten to add that I don't think that the absence of such a study or policy is fatal in any way as much more often than not I get the greatest assistance in assessing 'character' by simply walking around a site and area to see what are the dominant elements. These elements might be buildings, they might be landscape, they might be public domain issues (like the nature of the road way) or they might be less tangible aspects such as the proximity to natural features like a river, the coast or the mountains.
2. On my assessment, 20 Hearn Street, Dromana is part of a very attractive seaside neighbourhood where slope, views, beachside vegetation and an eclectic built form all conspire to deliver a neighbourhood where double storey homes have been placed in a naturally vegetated setting so as to take advantage of seaside views.
3. In my view, the new dwelling is entirely consistent with others in the immediate and wider area and I think it will make for a seamless addition to the character of this area.

1. As noted, and at the request of the parties, I conducted a daytime, dusk and night time inspection of the properties to get a sense of the changing views throughout the day. I attended the sites and the area from about 4pm to about 6.15pm on 26 May and was able to take in the views in daylight, with a setting sun, at dusk and at night. The day was very clear and the views to and around the bay were expansive and uninterrupted.
2. I inspected the views from within Nos. 16, 18 and 20 Hearn Street during daylight hours but I confined my dusk and night views to those from the balcony and interior of No. 18 Hearn Street. I was assisted in this view by the placement of four poles on the subject site which had been supervised by Mr Lovelock, a licensed surveyor. These poles marked the location and height of the north-westerly roof top position; the north westerly wing wall extension; and the east and west living room positions.
3. In terms of a typical position to undertake the view, there was considerable debate as to where to position oneself to capture the 'view'. Should it be standing or sitting; inside or out; at the railing or midway on the balcony? I think there is no right or wrong answer to this as the internal and external areas of the dwellings will be used by residents and visitors in a myriad of ways and in a variety of settings.
4. However, I accept that the area in the vicinity of the tables and chairs on the deck of No. 18 is the most commonly used area and the fairest place to conduct an assessment. This is roughly between Photo Points 1 and 3A on Mr Lovelock's material. The photo evidence of Mr Lovelock was helpful although a little unclear given some of the inevitable distortions that occur when photos are zoomed and cropped. Nonetheless, his material was of benefit and directed me to some important viewing areas on my inspection.
5. Without question, the 'view' that immediately took my attention from this point was the view out to sea. This view is much more than of just water. It takes in the coast, the beach, the sky, the Bellarine Peninsula, the city, the Dandenongs, Mt Martha and the Port Phillip heads. The view is a moving and changing one with ships, boats, people, cars, clouds, trees and even planes all having their moments on stage. It is the totality of the view and the broad sweep of its extent that in my opinion define the 'view' that Nos. 16, 18 & 20 (and presumably many others) share. I have trouble confining that 'view' to a particular point as there is no one physical element that captures the eye. Were the equivalent of (say) Mont St Michel to be just off the coast that would certainly capture the attention and be the focus of the view. By contrast, this view is less defined and is more of an expansive and sweeping view of many natural and man made elements. It is the wide extent of the view that helps categorise it as opposed to a specific viewline to a specific object. I also noticed from the deck of No.18 that while the wide sweep of the bay is uninterrupted, the more peripheral view to Point Nepean Road and McCrae village is also clearly apparent.
6. In terms of the planning controls that I have to assist me, there is only one reference anywhere in the planning scheme that provides guidance on the issue of views. One of the twelve design objectives for DDO3 is:

To protect shared viewlines where reasonable and practical.

1. I note that the language in this objective is quite different from the language used in other planning schemes. For instance, the Surf Coast scheme (in a Significant Landscape Overlay at Clause 42.03) has an objective to:

...... provide for a reasonable sharing of significant landscape features, including views of the ocean and coastal shoreline ......

1. By contrast, the Mornington Peninsula Scheme emphasis is on protecting viewlines rather than providing a reasonable sharing of views. I think that it is quite a different test in the Mornington Peninsula Scheme and I am bound to implement it.
2. So as to get an insight as to what the scheme intends, I asked Council whether there was any strategic basis for this objective to be found anywhere in the scheme. Seemingly, there is no reference in the MSS or any local policy to viewlines, the weight that is to be attached to them or the criteria that is to be applied in assessing them. I note that Mr Hansen found a fairly oblique reference to avoiding '...the loss of critical values' in Clause 21.07-2 but this is once again nothing like the anchor provided by Surf Coast's LPPF which recognises (at Clause 22.01):

...... that views form an important part of the amenity of a property and to provide for a reasonable sharing of views of significant landscape features, including views of the ocean, coastal shoreline and notable cultural features.

1. All this means to say that I don't get much help from the Mornington Peninsula Scheme on how I am to interpret the sole objective in DDO3 of protecting shared viewlines.
2. So as to assist in this process, the parties referred me to a number of Tribunal decisions concerning coastal views starting with Tashouindis v Shire of Flinders & Others (1AATR 116) and then others such as Clausen v Shire of Mornington & Others (4AATR 125); Healy v Surf Coast Shire Council 2005 VCAT 990; Holmes v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 2008 VCAT 507; Simpson v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 2009 VCAT 1255; Wilson v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 2006 VCAT 1853; Centrum Architects Pty. Ltd. v Surf Coast Shire Council, Morling and Others (10VPR126); and Van Hoof v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council & Anor 2009 VCAT 2065.
3. In particular, all parties relied on the restated "Tashouindis principles" relied on in Healy where Mr Marsden noted:

The Tribunal considers that the "Tashouindis principles" have now been refined to the extent that they should be re-stated as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. I have analysed all of the Tribunal decisions referred to me and in particular I have focussed on Healy's case which resulted in the refusal of the application by the Tribunal. There are many relevant distinguishing features between this case and Healy's. I detected from Healy that there were a number of discreet views available to the objector (presumably a wider view was interrupted by other features). Mr Marsden categorised these as 'principal', 'secondary' and even 'ancillary' views.
2. In the current case, there is no such interruption of views as to segment the vista but rather there is a broad sweep of at least 150 degrees from all properties. (Some of the parties referred to it as being a 180 degree view). Secondly, it was evident in Healy that the objector would lose his primary view being that to Point Roadnight. Interestingly, Healy's neighbours would not have lost that view. Mr Marsden found that the loss of the viewline to Point Roadnight would be unreasonable and he spoke of the 'significant' and 'dramatic' impact on this view (but not that of the neighbours). This goes to the heart of one of the restated Tashouindis principles about the importance of the view that is to be lost in the overall panorama. Once again, in the subject case there is no suggestion of a loss of a view to a specific object and certainly no sense of a 'significant' or 'dramatic' impact. Thirdly, and in a quantitative sense, the evidence was that about 30% of the Healy view would be lost and that the view to Point Roadnight "..... will be almost totally lost". There is no such claim in this case with the lost view (if there is one) certainly being less than 10 %.
3. Most of the other Tribunal decisions go to the question of a 'reasonable sharing' of views even though that is not the test of DDO3 in the Mornington Peninsula Scheme. Nonetheless, the findings in those cases are relevant. In Inkran the Tribunal noted:

A reasonable sharing of views does not mean retaining forever all or most of the view that one enjoys if there is land within that view which has the potential for development of a dwelling.

I do not think it reasonable to expect full retention of those views having regard to considerations relating to view sharing.

1. Notably, Healy's case was in Surf Coast Shire which, as I have already noted, has a different test than the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. Nonetheless, the Healy list of considerations provides me with the best benchmark for assessment. In particular, I think it is especially relevant to consider the importance of the view to be lost within the overall panorama that is available. In my view, that loss would be either incidental or peripheral.
2. If I now return to my sole reference point for decision making, the objective in DDO3 is simply to protect the shared view (or viewline). In my opinion, and having carefully analysed this on site, I am satisfied that the submitted design has comfortably passed that test and the Council's decision has even improved on it. I say this even though a small part of that view will be lost.
3. I don't regard the Council test as trying to maintain every aspect of every view that every person might enjoy from every vantage. It is about protecting those views that are shared (but only if reasonable and practical). In my view, it is not reasonable to require the building to be further reduced given that the building footprint adopts a similar setback to its neighbours. I also think that it is not practical for the lower deck not to have some form of weather protection like its neighbours do.
4. I actually commend the designer on the degree to which the design has maintained most of the views of the neighbours. One option for the designer was to encroach into the rear setback area even more than is proposed and to perhaps capture more expansive views towards Mt Martha. However, in deference to the neighbours, the design adopts much the same rear setback as Nos. 16 & 18 thereby keeping at least a 150º sweep for all neighbours. I also think it is relevant that the design forfeits a full upper level deck (unlike Nos. 16 & 18) confining the upper deck to the north-west corner.
5. I think that it is especially relevant that Council has required the screen wing wall to be truncated and brought into line with the living room wall. This condition is not opposed by the applicant. The effect of this was apparent to me on inspection and was also evident from the photo and survey evidence of Mr Lovelock. The removal of the wing wall has provided No. 18 with a similar effect to the portal that it has provided for the benefit of No. 16. That portal view seems to be as much about providing a glimpse of what lies beyond as it does about providing an actual view. It provides relief to an otherwise blank wall and blocked view. The portal view from No. 16 is a filtered view that reveals that there is more to be seen and this enlarged view is then provided by the expansive deck views from this property. I agree with Council that the proposed condition for the removal of the wing wall on the subject site provides a similar level of relief for No. 18 and strikes a balance and helps "protect" a small part of the shared view that the properties enjoy.
6. There is no doubt there will be some loss of view to No. 18 and (to a lesser extent) No 16 Hearn Street. That of itself is not fatal in my opinion. There was considerable discussion about the quantitative and qualitative aspects of that loss of view and so I have assessed those two aspects on my inspection. In a quantitative sense I find that the loss of view is minor especially as the Council endorsed development maintains at least a 150º sweep around the bay. The loss of (at worst) less than 10 degrees of that view from the balcony of No. 18 represents a very small part of that aspect.
7. In a qualitative sense, and with the removed wing wall, I think that the design maintains all of the critical viewlines from No. 18, save perhaps for the township hinterland of McCrae which is oblique at best and which is complemented anyway by extensive uninterrupted township views beyond McCrae, almost down to Portsea. All of the water views, the beach views, the channel views, the Rosebud pier and even Point Nepean Road will remain in view from the common vantage point of No. 18. The 'lost' view in that overall panorama, will be very minor.
8. As for the loss of the sky view brought about by the roof structure, this needs to be put in context. The view of the sky is important, both day and night, but in my opinion, that part of the view which is lost behind the roof represents a very small intrusion that is quite peripheral to the main aspect. Doubtless there will be times of the year where a late setting sun fills the sky with pinks and mauves that will be partly interrupted by the roof. But this loss, in the context of such a wide sweep will, in my opinion, be as incidental as it will be ephemeral.
9. I found the night view from the decks really interesting and not just black or blank. The night view has a definition to it brought about by the lights around the bay which help frame the vista. I found the sweeping night time view as interesting as the day view. However, I don't think that dropping or removing the roof achieves anything for No. 18 given the extent of views otherwise available. But, I do think that removal of the roof would rob the design of some energy efficiencies and architectural flair for no real viewing benefit.
10. As for No. 16 Hearn Street, I felt that the loss of view from its central table and bench on its deck would be insignificant. This dwelling commands the same expansive views as its neighbours and I noted that its deck actually protrudes well beyond the building line of No. 14, 18 & 20 anyway. Apart from its commanding sweep of views, the portal on No. 18 provides a nice picture frame view of the coast from inside the home.

1. My assessment of this application must be anchored by the references in the planning scheme. The DDO3 test in the Mornington Scheme places strong emphasis on the protection of shared viewlines. As I read it, such protection is only to take place if 'reasonable and practical'. Presumably, there will be occasions where a viewline will not be protected as it is neither reasonable or practical. That may result in a shared view being entirely lost which is quite a different test to the "reasonable sharing" test of other schemes.
2. Despite all of that, I am satisfied that whichever way I look at it, or whatever planning scheme test I apply, the proposal both 'protects' shared viewlines and provides a reasonable 'sharing' of views. In fact, and as already noted, I don't think that the proponent (or Council) has been given enough credit for the sensitivity of this design in deference to the amenity of near neighbours.
3. In the end, there is no doubt in my mind that a permit should issue. There is some doubt though on what conditions to attach. Options for conditions that were discussed among the parties included:
   • Scaled back wing wall (as proposed in Condition 1b)
   • Removal of the roof structure.
   • Further reduction in the building by 800mm to align with the balcony louvre screen on No. 18.
4. All parties agreed with the first condition which leaves only the roof and the further recessed wall in dispute.
5. It was apparent to me on inspection that Council's uncontested condition enables all of the important hinterland and coastal views to be maintained. From a central position on the deck of No. 18, the McCrae lighthouse, the Rosebud pier, the lights of Point Nepean Road and the lights of the coastal villages will all be clearly visible. All that will be lost is some hinterland (which the screen on No. 18 restricts anyway) and some sky view from the roof.
6. I am satisfied that the important viewlines that the objectors wish to maintain (especially from No. 18) will be maintained by virtue of Council's proposed condition and would not be greatly improved by the extra conditions.
7. On that basis, I will direct that a conditional permit be issued more or less in accordance with Council's Notice of Decision but with some tightening of other conditions especially relating to height.

1. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, amended plans 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 show:

1. The site plan amended to show the existing brush fencing along the eastern boundary of the site to be retained and the proposed garage on this boundary to be setback appropriately; 2. The first floor screen wall to be cut back in line with the northerly extent of the living room;

1. AHD levels for the highest point of the building and corresponding natural ground level below;

1. AHD levels for the different roof levels along each of the elevations; 2. AHD levels prepared by a licensed surveyor demonstrating that no part of the building exceed 8 metres above natural ground level; 3. A landscape plan showing: 1. all vegetation to be removed and retained; 2. a survey of all existing vegetation and natural features; 3. the area(s) set aside for landscaping; 4. a schedule showing a mixture of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover species which will include the quantity, location and size at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified; 5. not less than three (3) trees and twenty-four (24) shrubs to be planted in appropriate locations within the site; 6. more than 80% indigenous species to the locality; paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill; and 7. the installation of appropriate root barriers in locations where trees to be retained may impact upon the dwelling structure.
2. The layout of the land, the size and type of the proposed buildings and works, including the materials of construction, on the endorsed plan must not be altered or modified without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. The materials and colours of the exterior finish of the building must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless with the further permission of the Responsible Authority.
4. At the 'Building Frame Stage', a height survey shall be undertaken by a licensed surveyor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to confirm that the finished maximum height of the dwelling shall not exceed 8 metres above natural ground level.
5. To ensure compliance with this permit a licensed surveyor's report confirming finished floor and roof levels as shown on the approved plans must be submitted to the Responsible Authority on completion of the relevant floors and roof structure.
6. A reinforced concrete vehicular crossing must be provided to the standards of the Responsible Authority prior to the initial occupation of the development.
7. Prior to the initial occupation of the development a driveway must be provided to the land and surfaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. The extent of vegetation removal as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the further consent of the Responsible Authority.
9. Temporary barricades to protect trees to be retained shall be erected to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works.
10. No goods or materials shall be stored or vehicles parked within the drip line of any tree to be retained.
11. No excavation, trenching or soil removal shall be carried out within the drip line of any tree to be retained without the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.
12. Prior to the initial occupation of the development or other time approved by the Responsible Authority, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any dead or diseased trees or shrubs must be replaced as soon as possible.
13. All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the buildings and works must be revegetated and stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. This permit will expire if one of the following applies:
    • The development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit.
    • The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend this period if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within the following three months.