Corner Springs Road and Longs Hill Road, Brown Hill

Monsien Developments v Ballarat CC [2006] VCAT 2261

1 In permit application no. PLP/2006/190, a permit is granted for the land at the corner of Springs Road and Longs Hill Road, Brown Hill. The permit will allow the staged subdivision of the land, removal of vegetation, removal of a powerline easement and removal of a carriageway easement, in accordance with the endorsed plans. The permit is subject to the conditions included in Appendix 1 to these reasons.

2 The Responsible Authority must issue a permit in accordance with this order under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Ms S Davison and Mr D Wilson in person and for Mr T Ryan.

1 The Ballarat City Council and some residents of Brown Hill oppose a proposal for a staged subdivision of land on the outer edge of the zoned urban area of Ballarat. As the Council failed to determine the permit application within the prescribed time, the Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted. The following issues raised by the parties are central to my determination of the planning merits of the proposal:

•

is the review site suitable for a subdivision of the intensity proposed given the location and the policy directions of the Planning Scheme?

•

is the subdivision respectful of neighbourhood character?

•

are the extent of native vegetation removal and new proposed landscaping acceptable having regard to the land's setting and potential impacts on wildlife?

•

would the proposal cause an unacceptable impact on adjacent properties including agricultural enterprises?

•

are there any infrastructure issues that should cause the subdivision to be modified or rejected?

•

does the proposal satisfactorily respond to a decision[1] by the same division of the Tribunal relating to the subdivision of the review site?

2 Located on the south-east corner of Springs Road and Longs Hill Road, the review site has an area of 15.38 hectares and forms part of the north-east boundary of the residentially zoned area of Ballarat. The land is used for grazing. It is undulating and generally falls to the west with a drainage line through the southern section of the land. Land to the north and east of the review site is used for grazing and is zoned Rural. Land to the south is developed with single dwellings on substantial lots and has a low density residential character. These lots contain substantial native vegetation. To the west of Springs Road is rurally-zoned land that is heavily vegetated. The Gong Gong Creek is close to the road. That Creek is a tributary of the Yarrowee River. Further to the south-west is State Forest. The review site is not serviced by reticulated sewerage or gas. Proceedings before another division the Tribunal are relevant to the installation of a sewer.[3]

3 Approval is sought to subdivide the land into 94 lots. The proposed lots would range in size from 806 square metres to 2,500 square metres. Of those, 32 of lots would be between 800 and 1,000 square metres or less, 31 lots between 1,001 and 1,200 square metres, 13 lots between 1,201 and 1,600 square metres and 18 lots over 1,601 square metres.

4 The layout comprises a central east-west road from which one loop road extends plus several cul de sacs. Public open space of 7,890 square metres would be created at the high point on the land abutting the south-east boundary and including an area of native vegetation. A wetland reserve is to the south-west corner, abutting Springs Road, serving a stormwater detention function. It has an area of 5,133 square metres. Two small accessways/reserves are also proposed. Existing mature native trees are proposed to be retained in the reserves and roadside reserves within the review site. A large tree is to the north of lot 4, a group of trees is on proposed lot 46 and additional trees are to the rear of lots 80, 81, 84 and 85. A building envelope is shown for lot 79 plus a 5 metre wide vegetation buffer to the rear of lots 85 - 87 and 90 - 94 (inclusive) abutting the south-eastern site boundary. Several easements are proposed to be removed.

5 A permit is required to subdivide the review site under the Ballarat Planning Scheme. The requirements of Clause 56 must be met.[4] No Overlays affect the site. Clause 52.17[5] is relevant to the removal of native vegetation. The proposal was forwarded to VicRoads for comment.[6]

6 The previous proposal for the review site comprised 110 lots. It was not approved. The current application can be regarded as a "repeat appeal". The principles set out in K & B Reichert v City of Banyule & Ors (Appeal No. 1996/38819) are often considered such cases[7] and, when assessing how a proposal responds to a previous Tribunal decision and the weight to be given to that decision, attention is given to whether there have been:

•

significant changes in the application itself;

•

changes in the circumstances of the land and its surrounds;

•

changes in planning policy; and/or

•

changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.

7 As a matter of fairness, where a proponent has genuinely sought to address a Tribunal's findings through a new permit application and is found to have done so appropriately, and there are no substantive or material changes in the physical or policy context, it is reasonable to expect a permit to issue.

8 In the current proceeding:

•

revisions to the proposal have sought to respond to the Tribunal's findings in the previous application;

•

there seem to be no significant variations in the circumstances of the review site;

•

there is no apparent change in the Scheme provisions or policies that apply to an assessment of the permit application;

•

there are no other obvious changes or factors identified by the parties that are relevant.

9 Thus, there being no substantive change in the policy context and planning scheme regime and there being little physical change, modifications made to the proposal are a very significant consideration. I discuss these next but record that I have also reviewed the merits of the proposed subdivision afresh and as a whole.

Is the Intensity of the Subdivision Acceptable?

10 Many of the arguments I addressed in the previous Application were raised in this proceeding in opposition to the proposed subdivision. Those submissions focus on the semi-rural nature of the area, concerns about the zoning that applies, inadequate services in the immediate area and the distances to the nearest services. The out of sequence nature of the proposed development was a related matter raised by those opposing the permit application.

11 In my previous decision I set out the strategic context that is relevant to a subdivision proposal for the review site. That is unchanged and consequently I do not need to recite my findings.[8] Importantly:

•

although the Council has resolved to prepare an ODP, that work has not commenced so there is no applicable ODP at present[9];

•

although the review site is within a well vegetated valley surrounded by low density residential lots of around 4,000+ square metres to the east and south, State Forest to the west and agricultural land to the north, the land is zoned for urban development;

•

although no policy drives the immediate or intensive development of this locality as the review site is not within a targeted priority area, the land is excluded from/beyond the ODP and there is other residential land available for development, subdivision is possible under the provisions of the Scheme that apply.

12 Some Respondent Objectors request the proposal be rejected because the region north of the Freeway by-pass should be protected from urban encroachment and there is no demand for lots of the size proposed in such a remote location with few services.

13 I do not accept these submissions against the proposal for several reasons. First, the land is zoned for residential development and not low density residential. Other areas of the municipality have been designated for low density housing. I understand that the Council has pursued changes to the zoning; a Scheme amendment(s) is(are) the proper way to address the supply of land for low density housing purposes rather than preventing land zoned for more intensive development from being subdivided or limiting subdivision as though the land was zoned low density residential. If there is a shortage of land for low density housing then the strategic review processes undertaken by the Council will be the means by which such land is set aside by the Planning Scheme. Second, although there may be no urgency or imperative for the proposed subdivision, it is not reasonable to contend that it should not be subdivided because there is other land supply. Even with limitations on services in the immediate area, the likely reliance on private transport, I remain of the view that the land is suitable for subdivision at lots of a smaller size than dictated by a low density zone.

14 Submissions by Respondent Objectors and the Council referred to the out of sequence nature of the proposed subdivision and the need to await an ODP before subdivision proceeds. Despite the potential benefits of an ODP as I discussed in the previous Application, is it reasonable to effectively place a moratorium on any development, for what may be several years, awaiting an ODP? In the circumstances of the review site, I consider the fair answer is "no" for the following reasons. The land is at the outer edge of land zoned for urban purposes and can be subdivided in a manner that does not prejudice the co-ordinated planning and development of other parts of this development corridor. While the gradual extension of development from the more urbanised part of the Brown Hill corridor may be preferable from several perspectives, I am not persuaded of a fundamental problem arising for the development of the corridor if the proposal is allowed. That is assisted by the fact that the intensity of lots proposed is less than lot sizes found in many parts of urban Ballarat.

15 I was advised that although the Council intends preparing an ODP there is no budget allocation to do so. With the number of proposals that may come forward, it would be helpful to proponents, existing residents and decision-makers for an ODP to be in place. That would provide for the orderly planning of the whole corridor and give certainty to all with an interest in the growth of Brown Hill. It would, I expect, provide a better long term planning outcome for this part of Ballarat than if no ODP is in place.

Is the Proposal Acceptable in terms of Neighbourhood Character?

16 In the previous case I nominated the key neighbourhood character issues as:

•

the ability of the subdivision of the subject land to make a positive contribution to the landscape character which is regarded as a important and distinctive feature of the area;

•

the presentation of lots to the existing road frontages, mindful that as the outer edge of the urban area I think that the land will be a marker or have some type of gateway role and, as the first intensive subdivision, it will establish some benchmarks for future housing;

•

the way in which the proposed subdivision responds to the site features and landform;

•

the way in which the proposed subdivision relates to abutting lots to the south and east mindful that based on current zoning at some time in the future they may be far more intensively developed for housing.

17 I referred to the difficulty of assessing whether the proposal is a suitable response to neighbourhood character given the existing low density/semi-rural feeling contrasting with the zoning and policy direction that give rise to considerable change from the existing pattern and character of development. I indicated the landscape character derived from public and private land around the review site, less so than from stands of native vegetation on the subject land itself, is valued and the proposal should respond to it. I also recorded that some parties share a view that a valid approach to integrate the development with its setting involves larger lots on the periphery with more intensive development internally.

18 The proposal does not have to replicate the existing low density character but it must respond to the environmental features and be cognisant of its setting. The parties disagree as to whether the proposal suitably responds to its setting. Respondent Objectors seek larger lots, some referring to a minimum of 4,000 square metres. The Council and some Respondent Objectors variously submitted the lots fronting Longs Hill Road and Springs Road are too narrow, other lots are too small to plant mature eucalypts and other trees, some lots are on land with a steep slope, and too many lots would abut low density land to the south and east.

19 Respondent Objectors said that the changes between the previous and current proposals are not substantial and a lesser density would have been expected.

20 I do not think that the changes made to the plans, resulting in the current permit application, are minor or insignificant. The lot yield remains substantial, but importantly the layout and design retain elements that I found acceptable in the last application while varying lots to respond to my concerns. Some significant changes are set out in the following table:

21 Specifically, I find the proposal[10]:

•

retains major group of trees in communal open space with the manna gum providing the central feature along the main road spine;

•

includes road reserves that allow for street tree planting and retains other key trees within public reserves;

•

retains several other (albeit not all) trees;

•

includes fewer roads associated with larger lots increasing the area available for landscaping and reducing hard surfacing;

•

has roads that follow the contours rather than producing steep grades;

•

has a reduced number of lower density lots fronting Springs and Longs Hill Roads with lot frontages equivalent to other properties to the south;

•

adopts variation in lot sizes having regard to the topography;

•

has some vegetation buffers and larger lots along the eastern boundary;

•

includes larger lots associated with steeper parts of the site.

22 There are no lots of less then 800 square metres. There has been an attempt at a less regulated/standard suburban design and layout via a more informal lot pattern. The larger lot sizes enable a more spacious setting for dwellings.

23 Although the size of lots was criticised in terms of the ability to plant mature eucalypts, I am satisfied that the lots are large enough to enable the planting of canopy trees based on the Council's landscape guidelines (an emphasis on indigenous species should be ensured).

24 Public spaces such as road reserves, open spaces and wetlands include pathways and planting. The size of these areas was also criticised, and a desire for a more boulevard-style approach suggested. I find that the proposal would be able to present in a way that sits comfortably in this location mindful of the extent of change that is reasonably expected by the zoning. That is assisted by the Applicant's intent to adopt environmentally sustainable design features examples of which are referred to in the draft Design Guidelines.

25 The Applicant's proposed Design Guidelines include principles such as:

•

one dwelling per lot;

•

houses to be designed to address all street and open space frontages;

•

front setbacks of 6 metres to Springs Road, Longs Hill Road and 3 metre setbacks to any reserve;

•

cut and fill of no greater than one metre;

•

limitation on boundary development;

•

minimum 30% private open space;

•

no more than 2 storeys with a maximum wall height of 6.5 metres;

•

size and form of outbuildings;

•

limitations on garage frontages to streets;

•

farm-style front fencing for lots with frontage to Springs Road and Longs Hill Road (including replacement when required);

•

limits on side fences forward of a dwelling façade;

26 Having considered submissions on the Guidelines I invited subsequent to the Hearing, I find that (with some variation) implementation of the principles would assist to achieve a suitable response to the site's setting and a less suburban or standard response than may be seen on many estates in urban areas. I understand that the Guidelines do not go as far as some residents wish, but together with the lot sizes and layout, a sense of setting and spaciousness will be achieved. I agree with some submissions that the suggested minimum setbacks to Springs Road and Longs Hill Road are too narrow. I also consider the situation of corner lots needs to be addressed to avoid high side fences or buildings close to the boundary at the entry into the subdivision. I will make the necessary changes as part of my order, requiring building setbacks from the main roads to be nominated on an endorsed plan (as a base I have used a measure of no less than 10 metres including garages) and referred to in an agreement.

27 I understand the Applicant's desire for the Guidelines to be finalised and secured by a Section 173 agreement and the Council's contrary position that the principles can be set by a Section 173 agreement and then detailed guidelines placed on each title as a covenant. Residents seek to minimise the impost on Council for enforcement.

28 The Applicant's approach has been used on many occasions although they usually had the benefit of a finalised, or close to finalised, set of Guidelines that is not the case here. In the circumstances, I consider the key principles should be secured by a Section 173 agreement. I will provide for that in my order. Design Guidelines can be finalised in consultation with the Council, if so desired by the permit applicant, with the benefit of some useful suggestions by local residents. If the proponent desires The Guidelines can be included/referenced via a registered restrictive covenant on the title to each lot and requiring compliance with the Guidelines.

Is the Layout of Proposed Subdivision Acceptable?

29 In the previous proceeding, in addition to concerns about the relationship of the lot form to the character of the area, I expressed concern about a number of aspects of the internal layout of the 110 lot subdivision including:

•

retention of trees within several lots rather than within public reserves.

•

slope in some lots raising potential issues such as soil erosion, significant excavation and limiting the potential for tree planting.

•

orientation of lots.

30 I have addressed some of these matters above. A revised plan tendered at the Hearing ("Coorabin Ridge Springs Road, Glen Park, Proposed Site Layout 81-02PL Rev 8 23/9/2006") improves on some points compared with the plan submitted with the permit application. I add the following:

•

the size of the lots was identified as a concern by several submittors. Ms Davison submitted the proposed lot sizes would not be sufficient to accommodate a dwelling, associated works, and mature trees of the size of those currently on the subject land. She also said the lot depth is critical for lots with Spring/Longs Hill road frontages as this is an important aspect of rural and semi-rural lots. As I have alluded to, the lots are of a size that would allow canopy planting albeit of a different species that the large eucalypts currently found on the review site.

•

the lot configuration and orientation is acceptable and would be assisted by limits on cut and fill proposed in the Design Guidelines.

•

the addition of a vegetation buffer along the southern boundary would assist to protect existing vegetation and ensure spacing between the review site and adjacent land; similarly, I consider a vegetation buffer should extend along the whole of the eastern boundary.

•

I am concerned about the location of a cross-over to Lot 8, on the corner of Springs Road and Longs Hill Road. I will require this lot to be deleted and absorbed into one or both of the adjacent lots, thereby preventing a crossover close to the intersection.

•

I am not persuaded to retain vegetation on lot 46 (or adjacent lots if affected) and the tree on lot 4 should be able to be kept.

31 The Council proposed increasing the size of the reserve to the east for reasons including a possible future road link. I support the notion of inter-connectivity between subdivisions and think this suggestion is appropriate. I can also envisage other links that would be possible from the layout adopted, notably to the south. The revised location of "Access 2" in the tendered plan is acceptable in this regard.

32 The proposal involves the removal of several trees and grassland, as well as roadside vegetation required to create crossovers to Longs Hill Road. The Council and some Respondent Objectors opposed the removal of trees from Lot 46 and expressed concern about the retention of trees on other lots or in small nature strips. Ms Davison submitted that an additional study of roadside vegetation is required in association with driveway locations.

33 In addition to findings made above, on these matters I find:

•

the proposal retains the key trees and groups of trees;

•

removal of trees from Lot 46 is acceptable having regard to their condition and the extent of new vegetation proposed on-site within public spaces that would aid wildlife movement;

•

the removal of some roadside vegetation is acceptable to create a limited number of driveway access points to Longs Hill Road;

•

no further vegetation survey is necessary but the location of driveways from the main roads should be identified and secured, minimising native vegetation removal. The Applicant proposed that be undertaken with the advice of an arborist and I accept that suggestion.

Would the Proposal have Unacceptable Impacts on Adjacent Properties?

34 Mr Quick expressed concern about the impact of the subdivision on his farming enterprise to the north of the review site. He submitted the incoming residents may cause his farming activities to be restricted due to concerns about noise from equipment (such as irrigation pumps), dust and use of chemicals. He referred to impacts on stock from dogs and vermin.

35 I appreciate these concerns. The zoning of the land for urban purposes brings with it the potential problems that arise at the interface of rural and urban areas. I am not persuaded that the proposal must fail for this reason and note the Applicant does not oppose a condition/ agreement alerting buyers to the realities of living near land used for productive agriculture (noise, late night activity and smells). Risks arise from the introduction of pets but I do not find it appropriate to restrict the keeping of pet animals on the land given there are no restrictions on other lots within the area.

36 The impact on properties sharing a direct abuttal with the review site was not argued other than in relation to neighbourhood character as already addressed. The reduced number of direct abuttals between existing and proposed lots plus vegetation buffers may limit potential interface issues.

Is Adequate Infrastructure Available to Service the Proposed Subdivision?

37 The first issue is connection to reticulated services, specifically sewer and gas. The former is the subject of a separate proceeding before the Tribunal that has yet to be decided. As I said in the last proceeding, the proposal has been designed to be serviced by reticulated sewerage and a permit condition can require that service to be available to each lot (as has been sought by Central Highlands Water). If that service cannot be provided then the development would not be able to proceed in its current form. The connection of gas has been agreed to be provided by the permit applicant and can be required by a permit condition. The Applicant has also agreed to services being undergrounded, such as power.

38 Issues were also raised about other services that were said to be inadequate such as mobile telephone reception, television reception and lack of broadband facilities. The Applicant said that talks were held with service authorities in relation to improving access for these types of services. The availability of services is a matter for prospective purchasers/occupants who will form their own views as to whether the level of available services meets their needs. This is not a ground upon which the proposal fails.

39 The second matter relates to the condition of Spring Road and Longs Hill Road in terms of the impact of additional traffic and driveways accessing these roads directly. The safety of pedestrians and road users were among the concerns identified given the configuration of these roads, vehicle speeds, and use by potato trucks in season. My findings on this point are the same as in the previous proceeding. I previously said[11]:

I am not persuaded that the permit application fails for reasons relating to increased traffic or that the proponent should be required to pay for road upgrading beyond what is necessary to directly access lots associated with a subdivision of the subject land.

40 Traffic volumes are relatively low on Springs Road at present. I am not persuaded that the increase in traffic that would result from the proposed development would jeopardise safety and, in time, as the area develops, it will be a matter for the Council as road manager to determine further works that might be required. It is this type of matter that might, for example, be the subject of a Development Contribution Plan developed through an ODP or like process. I do not see a need for a full service road along Springs Road.

41 A lack of bus stops, limitations on public transport and an absence of walking/ bicycle paths along Spring Road were further matters raised in relation to the safety of local residents. I find no basis to reject or vary the proposal for these reasons.

Do any Other Matters Warrant Rejection of/Changes to the Proposal?

42 Several other matters were identified as concerns arising from the proposal upon which I summarise my findings as follows:

•

Inadequate recognition and provision of wildlife corridors. The proposal allows for some movement of wildlife through private and public land aided by the lot sizes and the extent of private open space proposed by the Design Guidelines. The review site can also play a role in reintroducing indigenous and other native vegetation into this locality enhancing opportunities compared with the existing pasture.

•

Wider vegetation buffers to the drainage line. Ms Davison submitted that a 30 metre buffer vegetated buffer should be provided to the natural drainage line. Clause 15.01 of the Scheme refers to buffers of at least 30 metres wide along waterways. I am not persuaded that the existing drainage line is a waterway of the type envisaged or that a 30 metre wide corridor is required in the circumstances before me.

•

Waterflow into the wetland. A concern was raised about the amount of water that would flow into and from the wetland and how stormwater treatment across the land (including parts of the land that do not flow toward the drainage line) would be treated. I am satisfied this can be addressed by permit conditions.

•

Runoff of soil and water into the Gong Gong Creek. I am satisfied that this can be controlled by the permit conditions proposed.

•

Fill and seed sourcing. There is scope to source seed stock locally and to ensure that any fill is weed free as proposed by permit conditions.

•

Pollution and noise with increased traffic flow. The proposal will increase traffic on the road network, including a main road, but to the extent that the additional noise and fumes might be perceived by those living in the area, I am not persuaded that these are grounds that warrant rejection of the proposal or modifications to plans.

•

Increased crime. There is no evidence before me suggesting a correlation between additional dwellings and crime rates. Crime is a societal problem and that there might be a perceived or actual increase in the overall level of crime is a much broader community issue to address. The layout of the proposed lots does not create any obvious security risks to any larger extent than other dwellings found in residential areas.

What Variations are Required to Proposed Conditions?

43 At the end of the Hearing, as usual possible permit conditions were discussed based on a draft required to be supplied by the Council. A number of matters were agreed at the Hearing and I do not need to recite all of the variations from the draft that I will require. As noted above, I also granted leave for submissions on the draft Design Guidelines that were tendered at the Hearing and I have considered all responses.

44 I record the following key matters in relation to conditions:

•

Changes to the lot layout. Based on my findings, I will adopt the plan tendered at the hearing showing 89 lots ["Coorabin Ridge Springs Road, Glen Park, Proposed Site Layout 81-02PL Rev 8 23/9/2006"] subject to some further revisions being:

s

delete lot 56 and no less than the northern half of lot 89 so as to increase the size of the open space reserves/wetland areas;

s

remove Lot 94 and this to the wetland reserve;

s

remove Lot 8 and incorporate this land into an adjacent lot(s);

s

add vegetation buffers to southern and eastern boundaries to protect existing vegetation to the south and provide a setback to the whole of the western abuttal.

•

I accept some other changes to the layout (eg. access point to the south/south-west as noted above) that were agreed by the Applicant.

•

Agreement by the Applicant to supply gas to all lots.

•

Access to Spring Road lots. As noted, VicRoads suggested a service road be provided although this is a Council managed road and there was no similar request by the Council or its engineers. I find no need for this given the number of lots with direct access to that road. I will, however, require driveways to be nominated.

•

I do not accept that a case has been made by the Council to oblige the permit applicant to reconstruct the intersection of Springs Road and Longs Hill Road and to fund street lighting at the same intersection. I will however oblige the Applicant to provide street lighting at entries to the approved subdivision.

•

Design Guidelines. I have set out my findings in relation to the Guidelines and a Section 173 agreement above. I will not include the proposed notes that refer to departures from the Section 173 agreement included in the draft conditions. These and related provisions and/or an ability to vary the agreement's terms can be determined between the parties in preparing an agreement.

•

Footpaths. I agree with the Applicant that a variation from the Council's standard designs may be warranted to produce a "softer" appearance in keeping with the intended design theme. I will vary the conditions to allow such an approach although any design will still need to ensure that materials do not runoff into the waterway system. That will also enable footpath locations to be agreed with the Responsible Authority so as to avoid positions under large trees.

•

Nature strips. In a similar approach as noted above in relation footpaths, I have generalised a draft permit condition to allow a variation from the Council's standard design if agreed by the Responsible Authority.

45 The changes I will require will reduce the number of lots to approximately 86.

46 For the above reasons, subject to additional changes, I find the proposal represents an acceptable outcome in terms of the policies and decision guidelines of the Ballarat Planning Scheme. I will order that a permit be issued subject to conditions.

1 Prior to certification of the plan of subdivision, the permit holder must provide amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be generally in accordance with the plan submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a)

Reduction in the number of lots and increase in the size of lots around part of the site periphery as shown in the plan tendered to the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal in Application for Review No. P1543/2006 identified as "Coorabin Ridge Springs Road, Glen Park, Proposed Site Layout 81-02PL Rev 8 23/9/2006" (and marked for identification on the Tribunal's file) but further modified to:

(i)

Remove Lot 8 and incorporate this land into an adjacent lot(s);

(ii)

Show any existing trees on Lot 44, 45, 46 as being removed;

(iii)

Delete lot 56 and no less than the northern half of lot 89 so as to increase the size of the open space reserves/wetland areas;

(iv)

Incorporate the balance of Lot 89 into Lot 88;

(v)

Remove Lot 94 and add this to the adjacent reserve (noting that it may be required in part for a future access connection);

(vi)

Re-number lots as required;

(b)

The accessway width between reserve 1 - Public Open Space, and the internal road off Longs Hill Road to be increased to at least 8.0 metres at the southern extent of Lot 19 [the lot number based on the plan referred to in part (a) above]. The accessway boundary may splay outward from the court to achieve this.

(c)

The width of the accessway linking the site to the south to be increased to accord with the requirements of an 'Access Place' as shown on table C6 at Clause 56.07-4 of the Ballarat Planning Scheme.

(d)

The nomination of building envelopes for lots 4, lots 78, 79, 82, 83 so as to protect existing vegetation on or abutting the land [lot numbers based on the plan referred to in part (a) above].

(e)

Nomination of a minimum building setback for each lot fronting Springs Road and Longs Hill Road that must be no less than 10.0 metres from the title boundary (including garages/carports). A minimum building setback is also to be nominated for a lot fronting Springs Road or Longs Hill Road that has a secondary frontage to the internal road network.

(f)

Nomination of a minimum setback of 5 metres to any public open space or wetland reserve.

(g)

Nomination of 5 metre wide vegetation buffer along the eastern and southern boundaries [being Lots 13 - 19 inclusive, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89 with lot numbers based on the plan referred to in part (a) above].

(h)

All other relevant requirements specified by other referral agencies, including building envelopes and driveway locations. Driveway locations to Longs Hill Road are to be in accordance with a report by an arborist so as to minimise the removal of existing vegetation.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed to form part of the permit.

2 The formal plan of subdivision lodged for certification must be in accordance with the endorsed plan and must not be modified except to comply with statutory requirements or with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3 Any plan lodged for certification will be referred to the Central Highlands Region Water Authority pursuant to Section 8(1)(a) of the Subdivision Act.

4 Reticulated sewerage facilities must be provided to each lot by the owner of the land (or applicant, in anticipation of becoming the owner) to the satisfaction of the Central Highlands Region Water Authority. This will include the construction of substantial works and the payment of major works contributions by the applicant.

5 A reticulated water supply must be provided to each lot by the owner of the land (or applicant, in anticipation of becoming the owner) to the satisfaction of the Central Highlands Region Water Authority. This will include the construction of substantial works and the payment of major works contributions by the applicant.

6 The owner will provide easements to the satisfaction of the Central Highlands Region Water Authority, which will include easements for pipelines or ancillary purposes in favour of the Central Highlands Region Water Authority, over all existing and proposed sewerage facilities within the proposal.

7 The owner will provide easements to the satisfaction of Central Highlands Region Water Authority for pipeline or ancillary purposes through other land in the vicinity, as it is considered by the Authority that such easements are required for the economical and efficient subdivision or servicing of or access to land covered by the subdivision.

8 If the land is developed in stages, the above conditions will apply to any subsequent stage of the subdivision.

9 Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of CFA must be submitted for approval by CFA and the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must generally be in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a)

Operable hydrants, above or below ground. Hydrants must be shown with a maximum distance between a hydrant and the rear of a building envelope (or in the absence of the building envelope, the rear of a lot) of 120 m and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart.

(b)

Constructed roads with a minimum trafficable width of 7.3m if parking unrestricted, or 5.4m. if parking prohibited on one side of road or 3.5m if parking prohibited on both sides of road.

(c)

Constructed roads more than 60m in length from the nearest intersection must have a turning circle with a minimum radius of 8m (including roll-over kerbs if they are provided)T or Y heads of dimensions specified by the CFA may be used as alternatives.

10 Hydrants:

Operable hydrants, above or below ground must be provided to the satisfaction of CFA.

The maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all building envelopes (or in the absence of the building envelope, the rear of all lots) must be 120m and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart.

Hydrants must be identified as specified in 'Identification of Street Hydrants for Firefighting purposes' available under publications on the Country Fire Authority web site (www.cfa.vic.gov.au)

11 Roads:

Roads must be constructed to a standard so that they are accessible in all weather conditions and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width. The average grade must be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50 metres. Dips must have no more than a 1 in 8 (12%) (7.1degree) entry and exit.

12 Prior to the certification of the first plan of subdivision:

(a)

Amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. Once approved, the amended plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit. The plans must be amended to show:

(i)

Building envelopes on lots 4, 80, 81, 84 and 85, setback an adequate distance from the drip line of native trees, to ensure the long term protection of the trees.

(ii)

Suitable locations for driveway access to lots 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11, site so as to avoid and minimise the need for removal of native vegetation.

(b)

A detailed native vegetation net gain Offset Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified ecological specialist and submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, following consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Once approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The Offset Plan must include the following:

(i)

Quantification of native vegetation to be removed in accordance with the scattered tree criteria (ie. in terms of tree trunk diameters at 1.3m above ground level).

(ii)

Details of the proposed offsets which will achieve a net gain in quality and quantity of native vegetation, in accordance with VPP Practice Notes titled 'Assessing applications involving native vegetation removal' (March 2006) and 'Native vegetation offsets' (March 2006).

(iii)

The gain to be achieved by the offset actions.

(iv)

A plan which clearly shows the location of where offsets will be provided (eg. the proposed public open space reserve).

(v)

Type of offsets to be provided for each location.

(vi)

Details of revegetation including number of trees, shrubs and other plants, species mix and density (consistent with the characteristics of the relevant Ecological Vegetation Class).

(vii)

Methods of managing and restoring the vegetation, such as fencing, weed control, enhancement planting and other habitat management actions.

(viii)

A statement of the need to source local seed stock and options available for sourcing of local seed.

(ix)

A statement of the need for revegetation works to be carried out by a suitably qualified ecological specialist.

(x)

Methods of permanent protection for any offsets on freehold land, such as the registration on title, of a covenant under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972, or an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (requiring the site to be managed in accordance with the approved Offset Plan).

(xi)

Persons responsible for implementing and monitoring the offset plan.

(xii)

Time frame for implementing the offset plan. The Offset Plan must state that all initial works (eg. planting, fencing and initial weed control works) will be completed prior to a statement of compliance being issued for the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988.

13 Prior to the commencement of construction works:

(i)

Temporary fencing or tape must be installed around areas of native vegetation to be retained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(ii)

Sites containing Gorse (Ulex europaeus), Broom or other environmental weeds declared under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 must be identified and marked on site.

These plants must be stockpiled, burned and buried on site at an appropriate depth and location (ie. in an area clear of native trees and grasses, to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment; contact Nick Jaschenko on 5336 6719), so as to eliminate the possibility of germination. All machinery must be thoroughly washed down before proceeding into areas clean of weeds.

(iii)

All Willow (Salix babylonica) trees and suckers must be removed and the stems must be painted with a suitable herbicide.

14 Site works must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations included in Environment Protection Authority publication No. 275 "Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (May 1991)" (batters steeper than 3:1 must be treated in accordance with this publication) and publication No. 960 "Doing it Right on Subdivisions (September 2004)".

15 The stormwater drainage system must be designed in accordance with best practice guidelines (refer to Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines; CSIRO 1999). Discharges for the 1.5 year ARI must be limited to pre-development levels.

16 Sites for stockpiles, storage, vehicle parking, site offices, etc (ie. during construction), must be limited to existing cleared areas close to existing roads and tracks. Such sites must not be located near erosion sources, surface water runoff or weeds.

17 To prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens, all vehicles and equipment must be made free of soil, seed and plant material prior to entering or leaving the project site.

18 All excavated material, including topsoil, taken from the works site to be returned later must be stored on a clean site free of weeds.

19 Underground services must be located and installed/constructed so as to minimise the need for removal of native vegetation and be based on the recommendations of a qualified and experienced arborist to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20 Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the relevant stage of subdivision, the owner must enter into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority (at full cost to the applicant or owner), under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, covenanting that:

(a)

Where a building envelope is shown on the endorsed plan, buildings or works shall be within the building envelopes shown;

(b)

Driveway access to lots fronting Longs Hill Road and Spring Road shall be constructed in the locations shown on the endorsed plan.

(c)

Native vegetation must not be removed, lopped or destroyed, without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

(Refer to Condition 41 for additional Section 173 requirements)

21 Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance for the final stage of subdivision, all works specified in the endorsed Offset Plan, including measures to be implemented to improve the security of any offset works on freehold land (such as the registration on title of a covenant under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972, or an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987), must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Note: The lot numbers referred to in this condition refers to the lots as shown on the plan of subdivision submitted with the application. The intent of the relevant condition must be maintained.

22 The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 shall be referred to Powercor Australia Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

23 The applicant shall:

(a)

Provide an electricity supply to all lots in the subdivision in accordance with Powercor's requirements and standards. (A payment to cover the cost of such work will be required.) In the event that a supply is not provided the applicant shall provide a written undertaking to Powercor Australia Ltd that prospective purchasers will be so informed.

(b)

Where buildings or other installations exist on the land to be subdivided and are connected to the electricity supply, they shall be brought into compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the Victorian Electricity Supply Industry.

(c)

Set aside on the plan of subdivision for the use of Powercor Australia Ltd reserves and/or easements satisfactory to Powercor Australia Ltd where any electric substation (other than a pole mounted type) is required to service the subdivision.

Alternatively, at the discretion of Powercor Australia Ltd a lease(s) of the site(s) and for easements for associated powerlines, cables and access ways shall be provided. Such a lease shall be for a period of 30 years at a nominal rental with a right to extend the lease for a further 30 years. Powercor Australia Ltd will register such leases on the title by way of a caveat prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision.

24 Provide easements satisfactory to Powercor Australia Ltd, where easements have not been otherwise provided, for all existing Powercor Australia Ltd electric lines on the land and for any new powerlines required to service the lots and adjoining land, save for lines located, or to be located, on public roads set out on the plan. These easements shall be for the purpose of "Power Line" in favour of Powercor Australia Ltd.

25 Obtain for the use of Powercor Australia Ltd any other easement external to the subdivision required to service the lots.

26 Adjust the position of any existing easement(s) for powerlines to accord with the position of the line(s) as determined by survey.

27 Obtain Powercor Australia Ltd's approval for lot boundaries within any area affected by an easement for a powerline and for the construction of any works in such an area.

28 Provide to Powercor Australia Ltd, a copy of the version of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification, which shows any amendments which have been required.

29 That the applicant enter into an agreement with Telstra or other licensed telecommunications carrier for the satisfactory provision of telephone cable reticulation to extend (1) one metre into each allotment created. Refer www.relstrasmartcommunity.com to Register Your Development

30 That the applicant pay to Telstra, the reasonable cost of any works necessary, as a result of the subdivision, to remove, or alter the position of any existing facility on the subdivision, or any adjacent land of Government Road, pursuant to Clause 53 of Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. Refer - Dial Before You Dig process - Ph: 1100.

31 That the plan of subdivision submitted for certification be referred to Telstra in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

32 Set aside on the plan of subdivision, reserve/s satisfactory to Telstra, for Telecommunications substation/s if required.

33 Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance, each allotment must have access to reticulated gas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

34 Before the issue of Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, Landscape Plans for all landscape works on public lands, or for a particular stage of a subdivision, 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.

35 A landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or a suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be drawn to scale, be dimensioned, and must provide detailed planting, construction and specification details for all of the proposed landscaping works on public reserves and roads. The Landscape Plans must show:

(a)

subdivision layout in accordance with the endorsed plans (refer to condition 1);

(b)

all existing vegetation to be retained, protected and/or removed;

(c)

proposed topography and earthworks;

(d)

drainage infrastructure within public reserves;

(e)

landscaping and planting within all public open spaces and roads;

(f)

street tree plantings (must be all native with a mix of local indigenous stock. Planting in clumps and the use of understorey is also acceptable to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority);

(g)

landscaping of traffic management devices (such as roundabouts, centre medians and entry treatments);

(h)

a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers including botanical names, common names, supply sizes, and plant numbers;

(i)

landscape features (such as playgrounds, water features, paved areas, paths, retention basins, park furniture, footpaths, bridges, picnic shelters);

(j)

all finished surfaces (such as lawns, paving, mulched garden beds);

(k)

perimeter fencing to all private boundaries adjoining pubic reserves (except road reserves);

(l)

locations of temporary materials storage (eg soils and road construction materials);

(m)

details of management and maintenance;

(n)

any staging plan.

In addition to the above, the following must be provided:

(o)

Reserve No. 2 ("Community Wetland" - Detention Basin/s):

(i)

Designed and developed in consultation with the Responsible Authority.

(ii)

Details of Water Sensitive Urban Design elements to protect the health of waters that are expected to receive stormwater.

(iii)

Details of fencing to ensure public safety and discourage vehicle access.

(p)

Reserve No. 1 ("Community Neighbourhood Park" - Public Open Space Reserve):

(i)

Must be designed and developed as a neighbourhood park in consultation with the Responsible Authority.

(ii)

Provide standard amenities, including playground/s, park furniture, fencing and tree plantings. (Note: fencing treatment along east boundary must be negotiated in consultation with the owner of the relevant land parcel).

(iii)

Must incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design elements to protect the health of waters that are expected to receive stormwater.

36 Before the issue of Statement of Compliance (for the stage required by the Responsible Authority), all landscape works forming part of the endorsed Landscape Master Plan for all, or a particular stage, of a subdivision (including any additional conditions or amendments to the Plans) must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

37 Where landscaping works forming part of the endorsed plans are not completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the applicant seeking Statement of Compliance for all or a particular stage of a subdivision, the responsible authority may issue a Statement of Compliance where the works are appropriately bonded or covered by a bank guarantee.

38 Where a bond or bank guarantee is required, the estimate for the cost of incomplete landscaping works must be professionally costed and then be submitted to the responsible authority for approval. The estimate must allow for completion of all incomplete works, maintenance of all of the works for a minimum period of twelve months, and include a 10% contingency factor.

39 Prior to the issue of statement of compliance for the final stage, all weeds must be removed.

40 All existing native vegetation to be retained and protected unless otherwise agreed in writing by DSE and the Responsible Authority.

41 Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the relevant stage of subdivision the owner must enter into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 covenanting all requirements/restrictions in Condition 20 and the following:

(a)

PART 1: Applies to All lots adjoining Longs Hill Road Only:

(i)

Land owners are aware that the Lots are in close proximity to rural land and that they may be affected by agricultural activities.

(ii)

No invasive environmental weed species must be planted on the lot or adjoining road reserve.

(iii)

No vehicle access is permitted to Longs Hill Road from lots 12 and 13.

(iv)

Farm-style front fencing fronting Longs Hill Road (including secondary frontages for corner lots and replacement when required).

(v)

All front fences must be no greater than 1.2 metres in height.

(b)

PART 2 Applies to All lots adjoining Springs Road Only:

(i)

No invasive environmental weed species must be planted on the lot or adjoining road reserve.

(ii)

No vehicle access is permitted to Springs Road from Lots 3 & 4.

(iii)

Farm-style fencing fronting Springs Road (including secondary frontages for corner lots and replacement when required);

(iv)

All front fences must be no greater than 1.2 metres in height.

(c)

PART 3 Applies to all lots:

(i)

The lot may not be further subdivided to create additional lots and the lot must only contain a single dwelling, with usual outbuildings and infrastructure.

(ii)

Each dwelling to be no more than 2 storeys with a maximum wall height of 6.5 metres.

(iii)

All houses to address all street and open space frontages.

(iv)

Building setbacks for each lot fronting Springs Road and Longs Hill Road to not be less than the distance specified on the building envelope/setbacks plan endorsed pursuant to Condition 1 of this Permit. That includes minimum setbacks to a secondary frontage to the internal road network.

(v)

A minimum setback of 5 metres to any public open space or wetland reserve.

(vi)

Protection of vegetation buffers and vegetation to be retained where shown on the endorsed plan.

(vii)

Limitation on boundary development, size of outbuildings and garage frontages to streets.

(viii)

Minimum 30% private open space for lots less than 900 square metres with higher proportions to be nominated for larger lots.

(ix)

Maximum use of pervious materials for driveways.

(x)

Encourage use of indigenous species in plantings. No invasive environmental weed species must be planted on the lot.

Lot numbers referred to in this condition are those shown on the plan of subdivision submitted with the application. The intent of the relevant condition must be maintained. No other matters must be included in the Section 173 Agreement other than specified in this permit.

Before the issue of Statement of Compliance an application must be made to the Register of Titles to register the section 173 agreement on the title to the land under section 181 of the Act.

The owner must provide evidence of registration of the Agreement to the Responsible Authority as soon as possible after registration has occurred.

The owner/operator under this permit must arrange for the preparation of the 173 Agreement at his/her cost before submitting it the Responsible Authority for approval. The owner/operator under this permit must pay the costs of execution and registration of the section 173 agreement.

42 A vegetation report prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any site works. The report must provide the following:

(a)

The name and location of all native trees to be retained and removed, with tree canopy dimension, within all public spaces areas.

(b)

Immediate remedial works (ie. weight reduction pruning/hazard pruning) required to ensure their structural integrity and safety in an urban environment.

(c)

The author of the report must be aware and make reference to all plans for all underground services to prevent conflict with existing vegetation to be protected.

43 Prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance (for the stage required by the Responsible Authority), all immediate remedial works required to ensure the structural integrity and safety of all tress in the urban environment as shown or described on in the approved arborist report must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

44 All tree works undertaken on this site must be done by Qualified Arborists, to Australian Standards and left in a safe and undamaged state (ie. no bark wounds or damage to tree roots) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

45 Prior to the commencement of any site works within 30 metres of Trees no. 52, and 53 (located within the proposed road reserve) as shown on the 'Vegetation Assessment' prepared by THA Landscape Architects dated April 2005, a permanent post and rail fence must be constructed to the satisfaction of Council's Arborist to discourage pedestrian access under the tree for both public/personal safety and to prevent compaction or disturbance under the tree whilst still allow access for native wildlife.

The area under the tree must be planted with a dense layer of native grasses and other local indigenous understorey species.

46 Where conflict arises with installation of services and vegetation protection, boring or other method approved in writing by the Responsible Authority must be undertaken.

Drainage Construction with On-site Stormwater Detention

47 All underground or surface drainage works that are considered necessary by the Responsible Authority shall be constructed in accordance with plans, computations and specifications submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of construction of drainage works.

48 Such drainage works shall include the provision of an on-site stormwater detention system designed in accordance with the City of Ballarat's 'Site Stormwater Management Systems Policy' and installed to transport stormwater run-off from the subject land and surrounding land or adjoining road(s) to an approved point of discharge.

49 The permit holder must incorporate Water Sensitive Urban Design elements to protect the health of waters that are expected to receive stormwater.

50 No stormwater shall drain or discharge from the land adjoining properties without the prior approval of the Responsible Authority.

51 On completion of the construction of the stormwater detention system, as constructed drawings shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The plans shall be certified by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer eligible for Corporate Membership of the Institution of Engineers, that the completed works are in accordance with the approved plans, design levels and specification.

52 All works shall be completed to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority prior to a Statement of Compliance being issued.

Note: The pre development coefficient of runoff to be adopted is 0.3

53 All easements deemed necessary to protect existing or future drainage lines within the proposed development site and properties between the development site and the nominated point of discharge shall be created to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

54 Details of site sediment control measures (a Sediment Control Plan) during site construction works shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the commencement of site works. Control measures should be consistent with the EPA publication 480 "Environment Guidelines for Major Construction Sites". When approved the Sediment Control Plan shall be endorsed as forming part of this permit.

55 All sediment control measures shall be undertaken and remain in place until the completion of site works in accordance with the Sediment Control Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

56 Prior to certification of the Plan of Subdivision a soil report prepared by a suitably qualified geo-technical engineer or similar shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority which includes data on a reasonable number of test bores on the site as determined in consultation with the Responsible Authority. Any fill and the nature of that fill shall be detailed in the report.

57 Should the report identify the existence of fill then the following information shall be submitted:

(a)

If clean fill, the full extent and depth of the fill is to be shown on a plan. This information may require some alteration of proposed lot boundaries or further works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; OR

(b)

If not clean fill, either:

(i)

A certificate of environmental audit issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be provided prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance; OR

(ii)

an environmental auditor appointed under the Environmental Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of that land are suitable for the intended use prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

58 Pursuant to Section 17(2)(b) of the Subdivision Act 1988 and Clause 8 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 1989, the prescribed fee for supervision of work shall be up to 2.5 per cent of the cost of constructing those works, which are subject to supervision.

Such a fee shall be paid to the Responsible Authority prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

59 Pursuant to Section 43(2)(a)(iv) of the Subdivision Act 1988 and Clause 9 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 1989, the prescribed maximum fee for checking engineering plans shall be 0.75 percent of the estimated cost of constructing the works proposed on the engineering plan. Such a fee shall be paid to the Responsible Authority prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

60 A footpath shall be constructed along the frontage of lots numbered 3, 4, 26, 51, 51-57, 80-83, 88-94, 26-34, 42-50, 12, 21-25 and from Lot 57 to Lot 80 within the streets as shown on the plan of subdivision submitted with the application. [Lot numbers are based on the plans submitted with the permit application]. The footpath shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Designs and specifications for footpaths must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

61 If lots within the development are to be filled, details of the filling must be shown on the road and drainage construction plans. Fill must be sourced on-site or otherwise only be clean and weed-free fill. Details to be shown include:

(a)

Existing natural features;

(b)

Existing improvements;

(c)

Natural and finished surface levels.

Once approved the filling operation shall be undertaken in accordance with the plan in the following way.

62 Prior to the commencement of filling commencing on any particular area of the site, topsoil shall be stripped and stockpiled on the site. Topsoil is not to be removed from the site but stored to be used and spread over the site on the completion of the filling operation, with additional soil if needed, to a depth of 100 millimetres.

63 The land shall be shaped so as not to concentrate water onto adjoining land.

64 Only clean inert filling shall be deposited on the site.

65 No material shall be stored or dumped on any area not approved for filling or stockpiling.

66 No damage shall be caused to kerb and channel, road pavement, nature-strips, drainage infrastructure or any other Council asset due to the filling operation.

If any damage is caused, the damage shall be repaired immediately to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

67 Deposited material shall be shaped in accordance with the approved detailed plan or as directed by the Responsible Authority.

68 Any land proposed to be further developed by the construction of buildings, roadways or drainage lines shall be compacted to 95% Modified (In accordance with Australian Standard 1289.5-2.1). Test results shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority.

69 Appropriate dust suppression measures shall be implemented to ensure that a nuisance is not caused to adjoining landowners or the general public to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

70 If the filling is not completed in accordance with the approved plan, an as constructed plan, showing natural and finished surface levels, shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority.

71 All works required to comply with conditions 60 to 69 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance for the relevant stage.

72 A street lighting proposal for the proposed development shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person generally in accordance the appropriate sections of AS1158, having regard to the classification of the road, and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval.

73 Street lighting is required at the intersection of Springs Road and the entry road accessing the subdivision and the intersection of Longs Hill Road and the entry road accessing the subdivision.

74 Once approved all works detailed on the plans shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

75 The naturestrip fronting the development shall be constructed in accordance with levels and specifications submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The works shall include seeding with an appropriate indigenous seed mix. All works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

76 Three sets of civil plans, designs, computations and specifications shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval prior to works commencing on the site.

All works shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans, design, computations and specification to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

77 At the completion of the works one set of 'as constructed' civil plans shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority.

78 The works to be completed include:

(a)

placement and compaction of road pavement

(b)

construction of kerb and channel

(c)

placement of asphalt wearing course

(d)

underground drainage.

(a)

LATM devices are to be included in the detailed design to ensure the safe operation of all intersections and road legs greater than 100m in length to ensure a 50km/hr speed environment

(b)

A type "CHR " intersection treatment is to be provided on Springs Road at the entry road accessing the subdivision, in accordance with Austroads Publication "Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade". Any native vegetation required to be removed as a part of the intersection works will require further written approval and will be subject to the necessary replacement offsets to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and other relevant authorities.

(c)

Pavement widening in Longs Hill Road from Springs Road to Lot 13 to 6.0 metre width, including construction of Type BA standard intersection at subdivision road.

(d)

Court Bowl road reserves to be a minimum 13.5 metre radius, with radius to back of kerb 10.15 metres.

80 Prior to certification of the plan of subdivision, written approval must be obtained from Council's Place Names Officer in relation to proposed street names. Once approved, the name shall not be altered without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

81 All services (gas, water, sewerage, communications and power) must be installed underground unless otherwise approved in writing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless otherwise approved in writing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

[1] Ryan v Ballarat CC [2006] VCAT 163.

[2] The following description is largely drawn from my previous decision cited above.

[3] Central Highlands Water, Patstep Developments Pty Ltd, Monsien Developments Pty Ltd and Madgeor Developments Pty Ltd v Ballarat CC and Ors in Application for Review No. P3369/2005.

[4] The relevant provisions of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks include Clauses 11, 14, 15.07, 15.09, 15.10, 15.12, 16, 19.01, 19.03, 21 (Municipal Strategic Statement), 22.01 (Residential Policy), as well as the particular provisions at Clause 65 (general decision guidelines and decision guidelines relating to subdivision).

[5] The proposal was referred to the Department of Sustainability and Environment; it offered no objection subject to conditions..

[6] VicRoads offered no objection to the proposal subject to conditions that are not contested. It suggested consideration be given to a service road to access lots 1-8.

[7] And reaffirmed in matters such as Spencer v Moorabool SC [2006] VCAT 1595 at Appendix 1.

[8] Ryan v Ballarat CC [2006] VCAT 163 at paragraphs 12 - 23.

[9] Since my decision in February 2006, I understand the Council has resolved to prepare an ODP but a budget allocation has yet to be made. Thus, any ODP is quite some time away from completion.

[10] I have had regard to a tendered plan with some revisions referred to as "Coorabin Ridge Springs Road, Glen Park, Proposed Site Layout 81-02PL Rev 8 23/9/2006". It shows 89 lots with a varied lot configuration.