Naqebullah v Kingston CC [2014] VCAT 1537 | Case summary

Naqebullah v Kingston CC [2014] VCAT 1537 | Case summary | Zoe

[30]

Although not exactly an earthquake, the built form that Council is foreshadowing in the residential area bounded by Wickham Road, Nepean Highway, Highett Road and the Frankston railway line, represents a dramatic change to the one and two storey dwellings that predominate in this area at present. Given the comments made in statements of grounds and in submissions by residents at the hearing, it seems that people living in this locality do not appreciate the changes that are being encouraged for this area by the Kingston Planning Scheme.
Although the General Residential Zone has a purpose to encourage development that respects neighbourhood character and another purpose to implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines, these aims need to be balanced against local policy for the Highett Activity Centre and a Design and Development Overlay (DDO12) which are encouraging apartment style buildings of up three storeys in height on lots more than 1000m2 in area and with frontages of more than 20 metres, and double storey townhouses on lots of less than 1000m2 in area and with frontages of less than 20 metres. Buildings on the larger sites have a mandatory setback of 6 metres from the front property boundary and must have side and rear setbacks which exceed the ResCode standard.
Already the Tribunal has approved three, double storey townhouses on a single lot on the corner of Railway Parade and Aster Crescent[2] and a three storey apartment building at 1-3 Oaklands Court[3] consistent with the outcomes sought by local policy and the DDO12.
The proposal I am considering at 64-66 Railway Parade is for a three storey apartment style building on a consolidated site with an area of 1,190m2 and frontage to Railway Parade of 32 metres. The building contains 26 one and two bedroom dwellings with the main pedestrian and vehicle access off Railway Parade. As a corner site it also abuts Wickham Road. At present this forms the side boundary of No 66 with a paling fence along most of the boundary. I discuss the presentation to Wickham Road later in my reasons, but I do not accept Council's submission that the building should be set back 6 metres from both Railway Parade and Wickham Road because they are both frontages. If that is an outcome being sought then the DDO12 should include such a requirement for corner sites. I note that Council staff recommended conditional approval for the development and did not suggest at that time that the building should be set back 6 metres from Wickham Road.
Each ground level dwelling has access to ground level open space, whilst the dwellings at first and second floors have access to balconies of at least 8 square metres in area. The building is also provided with a large roof top communal open space. The basement provides one car space for each dwelling and four visitor spaces. There is shortfall of one visitor space.
Despite a recommendation from Council staff to support the proposal, Council refused the application on nine grounds concerning failure to respond to all relevant clauses of the Kingston Planning Scheme, inadequate response to the DDO12, inappropriate height and bulk and lack of articulation, inadequate amenity for future residents, adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties, failing to consider equitable development opportunities on adjoining sites, failing to respond to the corner location, inadequate landscaping opportunities and insufficient visitor parking.
Neighbours support Council's refusal and three attended the hearing to present submissions. Whilst they are concerned about the overall concept of developing a three storey apartment building on this site, the adjoining neighbours at 142 Wickham Road also identified some specific amenity impacts to their property including visual bulk, overlooking, overshadowing, landscaping and traffic congestion.
The permit applicant rejects these criticisms and submits that the proposal represents an appropriate response to the controls and policies that apply to this part of the Highett Activity Centre. It is also submitted that there are no unreasonable or unacceptable off-site amenity impacts to neighbours when the proposal is assessed against Clause 55 (ResCode).
For the reasons which follow, I consider that the proposal with further modifications is one that can be supported on this site. The modifications include additional boundary setbacks, a reduction in the number of dwellings, a reduction in the size of the roof deck and a reduced parking requirement so that a permit is no longer required to reduce on-site parking.
But I want to be crystal clear that a three storey apartment building, as the first such building at this end of the Highett Activity Centre, will be a dramatic and visible intrusion into the neighbourhood. However, just because it is the first such building does not mean that it should be penalised for doing almost exactly what the Planning Scheme is asking in this location.

[36]

Clause 22-11-3 also lists policy under headings for Neighbourhood character; Site landscaping; Building form, siting and scale of development; Car parking and vehicle access; Stormwater run-off mitigation and quality management; and Heritage features. These have relevance to varying degrees, particularly where there is no distinction drawn between the different housing change areas. For example, it makes commonsense that the landscaping achieved in an activity centre, mixed use area or increased housing diversity area will be different, and most likely less, than in incremental or minimal housing changes areas given the anticipated intensity of built form will be different.
The Kingston Planning Scheme also contains specific policies for important activity centres and geographic areas throughout the municipality.
Clause 22.17 is the Highett Activity Centre Policy which, amongst other matters, seeks:
- To implement the vision for Highett based on the Highett Structure Plan 2006.
Clause 22.17-4 includes policy for the three precincts within the Highett Activity Centre. The area bounded by Wickham Road, Nepean Highway, the rear of commercial properties fronting Highett Road, and the railway line is in Precinct 2. Although not relevant to this application, I note that land south of Highett Road is also in Precinct 2. Each of the three precincts has separate policies which are in addition to the general policies for the whole centre. Unlike the many listed for Precincts 1 and 3, for Precinct 2 these are limited to:
- Support the development of contemporary medium density housing in the form of well designed apartment developments rather than villa unit and town house style developments.
- Promote development with a maximum of three storeys on consolidated lots.
- Encourage site consolidation.
The DDO12 applies to the same land as shown on the plan attached to Clause 22.17 but provides specific controls for 10 separate Areas (H1 to H6(e)) rather than the three precincts referenced in Clause 22.17. General design objectives are given for Highett Road, Preferred Medium Density Residential Areas and Increased Medium Density Highway West.
The design objectives for the Preferred Medium Density Residential Areas are:
- To encourage apartment style residential development of up to three storeys in height on consolidated lots in residential areas close to the Highett Activity Centre.
- To retain the amenity of existing low density residential development by ensuring that adequate side and rear setbacks are provided to taller buildings to allow screen planting and a landscape setting, and to prevent unreasonably (sic) overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk.
- To encourage car parking to be provided within buildings rather than at ground level, to maximise the opportunity to use ground level open space for landscaping, and communal and private open space.
- To encourage consolidation of land that facilitates the creation of viable development sites capable of achieving the outcomes promoted by the Scheme and the Highett Structure Plan, May 2006.
As noted, the DDO12 provides separate controls for 10 areas. The review site and the land between the Highett Road commercial strip, Wickham Road, Nepean Highway and the railway line is in Area H5. In that area, buildings and works on sites over 1000m2 in size and with a frontage of more than 20 metres should not exceed 11 metres (3 storeys) in height. It is possible to exceed the height limit if the additional height is necessary to achieve the design objectives. There is a clearly stated preference for residential apartment style developments on larger consolidated sites, rather than villa units or townhouses.
Where sites are consolidated there is a mandatory 6 metres minimum setback from the front property boundary. There is also a mandatory requirement that developments must be setback from side and rear boundaries greater than the standards of Clause 55 (ResCode). Setbacks are to provide for substantial landscaping and preserve the amenity of adjoining residences. Car parking spaces are to be provided within new developments rather than at ground level in order to maximise areas for landscaping and communal open space.
When these specific outcomes sought by the DDO12 are combined with the relevant local policy I have referred to previously, I consider there is a strong message in the Kingston Planning Scheme that there will be a very significant change to the existing character and built form in the residential area between the Highett Road commercial strip and Wickham Road.
However, despite the unambiguous support in the Planning Scheme for an apartment style development of the scale and intensity proposed, it is also necessary to consider the more immediate or localised impacts, particularly on the two adjoining residential properties to the south and east.

[38]

Clause 55 is specifically designed for the assessment of applications for medium density development of up to four storeys in height and provides guidance as to what is acceptable. Compliance with the relevant ResCode standard is deemed to be compliance with the related objective. Decision guidelines must also be considered. Where compliance with a numeric standard is not achieved then a judgement needs to be made as to whether the related objective has been met. Whilst it is not a question of ticking all, or most, of the ResCode boxes in order to receive a permit, compliance with all the numeric ResCode standards is a good indication that a proposal is not an overdevelopment and that off-site amenity impacts have been well managed.
As I have noted on many occasions in previous decisions, I accept that people have different ideas about what constitutes reasonable/unreasonable impacts and I understand that nearby residents value their current outlook and amenity and do not accept that they should suffer any adverse changes as a result of the development on the review site. However, it is because people have different opinions about reasonable/unreasonable impacts that the objectives and standards have been included in Clause 55.
Compliance does not prevent any loss of amenity; rather it ensures that any loss is within what has been decided by the formulators of the planning scheme as reasonable. For example, the overshadowing standard (B21) only requires an assessment at the equinox. Overshadowing at the winter solstice is not assessed, although the loss of sunlight at that time of the year would have a much greater impact compared to spring and autumn. The same applies to amenity impacts (Clause 55.04) where compliance with standards such as B17 (side and rear setbacks) and B18 (walls on boundaries) ensure that impacts on the amenity of existing dwellings are limited to what has been deemed acceptable or reasonable.
Assessing the building against the requirements of Clause 55, including the variations specified in DDO12, also requires consideration of site context and the manner in which the design has responded to that context having regard to the relevant controls and provisions applying to this site.
In the following sections I make specific comment about street setbacks, eastern and southern boundary setbacks, internal layout including balconies and ground level secluded open space, roof top deck/communal open space and overall height, landscaping, overlooking and overshadowing.
Earlier concerns raised by Mr Chirgwin about non compliance with the B8 site coverage standard of 60% were not strongly contested at the hearing, given that site coverage is now 59%. I also note that permeability at 33.93% far exceeds the B9 standard of 20%.

[42]

I have therefore come to the conclusion that Wickham Road is a side boundary and that there is no mandatory requirement that the building be set back at least 6 metres. However, as a side boundary the DDO12 requires that setbacks must be greater than the standards contained in Clause 55. Given there are no variations to ResCode in the GRZ2, the effect of the mandatory control in DDO12 is that the setback envelope contained in standard B17 becomes the starting point in deciding whether the building achieves the required boundary setbacks.
Under ResCode standard B6 (Street Setback), a setback of as little as 2 metres would be possible along Wickham Road. However, I would not support such a small setback. With the exception of six, relatively short lengths of bedroom walls, the building walls are setback 4.1 metres at ground floor and nearly 5 metres at first and second floors. Balconies extend to within 3 metres of the boundary. With the exception of the four bedrooms at first and second floors protruding to within 3 metres of the boundary, I consider this an acceptable design response for this corner site.
Although I accept that the bedrooms provide articulation along the Wickham Road facade and separate the balconies, I do not support the way these four bedrooms introduce built form so close to the boundary and will require them to be set back approximately 5.9 metres to match the walls. Although the first floor bedrooms achieve compliance with the B17 envelope as now designed, it is my assessment that the two bedrooms at second floor do not. In this instance it is not just about simple compliance with the B17 envelope, but rather achieving an appropriate presentation to Wickham Road. I consider that the additional bedroom setbacks, together with the ability to plant larger trees as depicted on the landscape plan, will provide an acceptable and attractive interface to Wickham Road. I also observe that unlike many apartment style developments, there is no basement below the setback area to Wickham Road so that the in-ground planting of 9 metre high canopy trees proposed by Mr Thomson has plenty of room for root growth.
Although Council is concerned about the relationship of the proposed building with existing and future buildings on sites to the east, I do not share that concern. The existing dwelling at No 142 Wickham Road is positioned at an angle to the street and with a high front fence. At its closest eastern point it is set back approximately 6.5 metres from the front boundary, but at the western point closest to the review site it is set back 15.5 metres. Although I understand the current owners have no intention of further re-developing their property, at some point in the future and if the planning controls remain the same, then it is possible that a medium density development could be positioned parallel with the front boundary and with a minimum setback of 6 metres.
Such a scenario is of course speculative, and I need to be satisfied that the relationship of the new building with the existing dwelling and front yard at No 142 is acceptable if there is no change to No 142. Having now visited the site and looked through the open front gate at No 142, I consider that the physical relationship is acceptable and that when combined with the proposed landscaping along this Wickham Road boundary, will result in a development which will not be an uncomfortable fit as the area develops in accordance with the built form outcomes sought by local policy and the DDO12.

[46]

I have already indicated that the building needs to be set back further to achieve the mandatory boundary setbacks. Except for a few exceptions which I discuss shortly, those increased setbacks are to be achieved without any reduction in the size of any of the balconies.
The loss of floor space will be greater on the second than the first floor. In addition to the redesign of dwellings facing Wickham Road to accommodate the increased set backs of the four bedrooms as previously discussed, I agree with Council staff that the layout of Dwelling 1.03 should be reconfigured to locate the bedroom in the south eastern corner with the living room and associated balcony located to the north east corner further away from the dwelling at No 142 so that potential adverse amenity impacts are minimised. For the same amenity reasons I consider that there is no necessity to retain the narrow section of balcony outside the bedroom.
On the second floor, I consider that for the same amenity reasons, the terrace in the south east corner outside the eastern wall of the bedroom for Dwelling 2.03 and outside the southern and eastern walls of bedroom 2 of Dwelling 2.02 should be removed. These sections of terrace are very close to the dwelling at No 142 and are not the main areas of open space off living areas for Dwellings 2.02 and 2.03.
In redesigning the layout to reflect the increased setbacks, all dwellings are to remain with one or two bedrooms, although I accept that the mix of one and two bedroom dwellings may change. Although I have not calculated the exact loss of floor space, I will require the removal of at least one dwelling on each of the first and second floors so that the maximum number of dwellings is reduced by two to 24.
As I later discuss, this reduction has a benefit for parking because it obviates the need to approve a reduction in visitor parking. It may even allow one of the stacker units to be converted to a single car space and still result in the development complying with Clause 52.06.
However I want to stress that my main reason for removing two dwellings is to provide for greater setbacks at first and second floors. Those additional setbacks are of at least 800mm from Railway Parade, 500mm for some of the eastern boundary and an uncertain amount from the northern boundary. The setback from the southern boundary now appears to comply with the B17 envelope but should be verified by cross sections to be submitted with amended plans.
At ground level, all open space areas have a minimum width of 3 metres. Although most are well below the 40 square metres referred to in ResCode standard B28, I consider they satisfy the related objective which is 'to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents'. These are all small dwellings of one or two bedrooms and all but one of the open space areas face north, north east or west. They are all conveniently located off living areas and are wide enough to provide room for landscaping as proposed in Mr Thomson's landscape plan. As an apartment style development, these areas have an acceptable orientation and size. In addition, the building has a roof top communal area to complement the open space provided for each dwelling.

[55]

Although Council's Traffic Engineering Unit had no objection to the proposed on-site parking arrangements, one of Council's grounds of refusal was failing to provide for the required number of visitor car parking spaces. None of the grounds of refusal concerned traffic congestion or impacts on the street network. However these issues were of concern to local residents and Mr Chirgwin made a detailed submission about both the basement parking layout and traffic congestion, particularly in Wickham Road during peak periods.
Based on the parking requirements set out in Clause 52.06, the only reason a permit is required for parking is the one space shortfall in visitor parking. A total of 26 spaces are being provided for residents which is a number that complies with the rate included in Clause 52.06. Four visitor spaces are being provided which results in a shortfall of one space. My decision about increased setbacks at first and second floor and the deletion of two dwellings will mean that the provision of four visitor spaces meets the rate set out in Clause 52.06. Such an outcome means that there is no need for a permit to reduce the provision of on-site parking. The removal of two dwellings may also mean one less resident car space is required.
Traffic congestion is always a more problematic issue. Whilst I fully understand concerns raised about traffic and parking congestion, it is an unfortunate fact that any increase in housing and motorists living in an area will lead to more traffic. It is a cumulative effect but it is an effect that needs to be considered on a much broader regional or metropolitan scale than on an ad hoc or application-by-application basis.
Ever increasing traffic volumes have been a feature of our society since motor vehicles first used our roads last century. Government policies aim to reduce our dependence on motor vehicles by, amongst other things, encouraging new development into areas already well served by public transport and by trying to better match housing and work places (Plan Melbourne's concept of the 20-minute neighbourhood). The proximity to the train station, bus routes and the commercial areas of the Highett Activity Centre within a few minutes walk and larger commercial centres within an easy train ride will encourage residents to leave their cars at home, thereby reducing traffic movements even further than would be expected if the site was more remote from such facilities.
Rejecting new development on sites such as the review site because of the potential for increased traffic congestion does not mean that the traffic situation will improve or stop getting worse. Allowing new development on sites such as this, located so close to public transport and in areas where people can readily access jobs, education institutions and other facilities, may eventually encourage a slowdown in the growth of traffic volumes. It may be an optimistic and long term outcome, but it is one that planning policy seeks to achieve.

[64]

Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the substituted plans being Drawing Nos TP-2.01, TP-2.03, TP-2.04, TP-2.05, TP-5.01, TP-5.02 and TP-6.01 Rev B plotted 17/10/2014 and TP-2.02 Rev B plotted 14/11/2014, but modified to show:
- (a) The entire building set back an additional 800mm from the Railway Parade frontage so that existing articulation provided by balconies is retained;
- (b) The four bedrooms on first and second floors that are setback 3 metres from Wickham Road set back approximately 5.9 metres in line with the building wall behind the balconies;
- (c) Provision of a canopy over the entrance door to provide weather protection. The canopy is to be set back a minimum of 6 metres from the Railway Parade frontage;
- (d) In addition to the setbacks referred to in condition 1(b), the building including eaves, fascias, balconies, balustrades and similar features along the eastern and southern boundaries, is to be set back so that the setbacks are greater than the ResCode B17 side and rear setback standard as required by DDO12. Cross sections are to be provided for points along these boundaries to demonstrate compliance with this requirement;
- (e) Where screening of east and south facing balconies is depicted on the plans, it must have a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level;
- (f) In addition to any additional setbacks required by condition 1(d), Dwelling 1.03 is to be reconfigured to locate the bedroom in the south eastern corner with the living room and associated balcony located to the north east corner further away from the dwelling at No 142 Wickham Road. No balcony is to be provided outside the relocated bedroom;
- (g) The terrace in the south east corner outside the eastern wall of the bedroom for Dwelling 2.03 and outside the southern and eastern walls of bedroom 2 of Dwelling 2.02 is to be removed;
- (h) The roof top communal deck is to be reduced in size by increasing the set back of the parapet/balustrade to at least 12 metres from the eastern property boundary, at least 10 metres from the Railway Parade boundary and 7 metres from the Wickham Road boundary. The parapet/balustrade along the southern side is to remain unaltered;
- (i) Resident and visitor parking must be provided that satisfies the rates in Clause 52.06;
- (j) The provision of an amended landscape plan generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Habitat dated November 2013, Issue C November 2014, but including the following:
  - (i) All trees must be supplied at a height as shown on the landscape plan.
  - (ii) Replacement of the existing shrubs along the eastern boundary with trees and shrubs of an appropriate species, height and density to filter views of the building from the front yard of No 142 Wickham Road.
- (k) The provision of a landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the roof top terrace showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the roof terrace, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:
  - (i) Increased landscaping, including in planter boxes around the perimeter of the roof terrace; and
  - (ii) Provision of permanent furniture within a centrally located area of the roof terrace.
- (l) Notes on plans relating to the implementation of initiatives nominated in the updated Sustainability Management Plan, required by Condition 3;
- (m) Details of the vertical height of the storage areas within the basement to ensure that storage areas meet the noted 6 cubic metres required;
- (n) Provision of external clothes drying facilities screened from public view;
- (o) The provision of full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations and driveways of the development, including the use of timber (or similar) screening in lieu of metal louvers;
- (p) Any changes required to the basement layout in accordance with the amended Waste Management Plan required by Condition 8.

[67]

Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and must thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but is not limited to, the following:
- (a) A detailed schedule of works including a full project timing;
- (b) A Traffic Management Plan for the site, including when or whether any access points would be required to be blocked; an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services; and preferred routes for trucks delivering to the site;
- (c) The location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles during construction;
- (d) Delivery of materials including times for loading/unloading and unloading points; expected frequency; and details of where materials will be stored and how concrete pours would be managed;
- (e) Proposed traffic management signage indicating any inconvenience generated by construction;
- (f) A fully detailed plan indicating where construction hoardings would be located;
- (g) A Waste Management Plan including the containment of waste on site, disposal of waste, stormwater treatment and on-site facilities for vehicle washing;
- (h) Containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of clean up procedures in the event of build up of matter outside the site;
- (i) Business operations on the site during construction;
- (j) Site security;
- (k) Public safety measures;
- (l) Construction times, noise and vibration controls;
- (m) Restoration of any Council assets removed and/or damaged during construction;
- (n) Protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
- (o) Remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
- (p) An emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;
- (q) Traffic management measures to comply with provisions of AS 17 42.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads; and
- (r) All contractors associated with the construction of the development must be made aware of the requirements of the Construction Management Plan.
Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works on the land, a pre-construction site and immediate surrounds inspection and condition assessment of all road ways and footpaths abutting the development is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. This must occur in a media format (photos/video) which is able to accurately illustrate the full condition of all potentially impacted assets prior to the construction commencing. In the event of damage during construction, such damage will be required to be repaired by the developer, at the developer's cost and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
During the construction, the following must occur:
- (a) Any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system is to comply with EPA guidelines;
- (b) Stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the premises enters the stormwater drainage system;
- (c) Vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the site;
- (d) The cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on site and not on adjacent footpaths, roads or parks;
- (e) All litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be disposed of responsibly; and
- (f) All site operations must comply with the EPA Publication TG302/92 (including all revisions or replacement guidelines).
The developer/owner must contact the Responsible Authority and VicRoads (if required) and arrange traffic management plans and WORKS ZONE for any works that may affect traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) or parking on Wickham Road to the side of the site or any of the surrounding streets. Works vehicles may not be able to stop in the street fronting the property. The developer will be responsible for the costs of arranging a WORKS ZONE and reinstatement of parking restriction signs, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

[70]

A flood proof apex (i.e. ridge level) protecting the property from any overland flows must be provided. This apex is to be a minimum of 200mm above the existing invert of kerb and channel along the Railway Parade frontage. This apex is to continue through any driveways or pathways that may cross it. The apex is to be a permanent structure (e.g. rise in concrete driveway/pathway, sleeper retaining wall, solid brick fence/wall). Low mounded soil on its own is unlikely to be acceptable due to the likelihood of future disturbance.
Before the development commences, a comprehensive stormwater management strategy of the site must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The strategy must include MUSIC model output incorporating Rainwater Tanks for water reuse and other Water Sensitive Urban Design Treatments to achieve best practice objectives as per Council's "Civil Design Requirements for Developers - Integrated Stormwater Management" to the satisfaction of the Council.
The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bio-retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system. The overall outflow of the site to the Council drainage system must be limited to 10.8 l/s.
Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).
Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.
Any footings of the proposed fence must maintain the minimum required clearance from any Council asset within the easement.
The existing Council drain within the easement must be protected at all times during construction.
All basement and subsurface construction must be constructed as a fully-tanked dry basement with no groundwater/subsurface water collection and must allow for any hydrostatic pressures.

Naqebullah v Kingston CC

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (82 paragraphs)

Naqebullah v Kingston CC (Correction) [2014] VCAT 1537 (15 December 2014)

Parties