Do site context and planning policy support a development of the scale proposed on this site?

1. I agree with Mr Tweedie that the site provides an excellent opportunity for a development of the type proposed. It is a large site of nearly 1,500m2 in area, has only one sensitive residential abuttal to the south, is well served by train and bus public transport, has excellent and convenient walking access to all the services provided within the Church Street Major Activity Centre, and is close to schools and recreation areas including Port Phillip Bay. I agree with Ms Ring that it is a strategic redevelopment site having regard to the criteria included at Clause 16.01-3.
2. Under the existing local planning policy at Clause 21.02-5 - Strategic Land Use Framework Plan - the review site and surrounding land is identified as being within a Residential Opportunity Area. Clause 21.03 has as one of many strategies to:
   • Direct new medium density housing to Major Activity Centres, residential opportunity areas, particularly those with good access to public transport routes as identified in the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan
3. Clause 21.06 notes as a key issue that:
   • Development and subdivision outside of residential opportunity areas should not significantly erode the prevailing scale and density of housing.
4. By implication there is an expectation that within residential opportunity areas there will be an erosion of prevailing scale and density of housing. Indeed I do not understand how it would be possible to try and retain the prevailing scale and density of housing in areas clearly identified on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan as being the target for new medium density housing since new medium density housing will invariably be of a different scale and density to the mainly single dwellings per lot that have existed in these areas.
5. I consider it would be unreasonable to rigorously apply the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.06 to areas identified as Residential Opportunity Areas, particularly on sites close to the activity centres around which the Residential Opportunity Areas are defined. That does not mean that the policy should be ignored but rather that achievement of the objectives and design responses for the relevant precinct - in this instance Precinct B2 - should be tempered by the proximity to the Major Activity Centre and the weight of other policy specifically directing change to these areas.
6. Ms Ring provided a detailed assessment against the guidelines for Precinct B2. I do not repeat or comment on her assessment in these reasons but it is apparent that an apartment style building of the type proposed here does not reflect the sort of detached or semi detached medium density style to which the guidelines seem to be focussed. This proposal does not maintain and enhance the garden settings of dwellings, does not maintain the rhythm of spacious visual separation between dwellings and provide space for front gardens, and only partly respects the dominant building form and scale of buildings in the precinct through innovative architectural responses. But it is important to note that in Clause 22.06-3 (Exercising Discretion) there is specific recognition that if a site is in a Residential Opportunity Area then it may alter the relevance of the design responses to consideration of a proposal. That is a relevant factor in this case, further reinforced by the changes proposed in Amendment C102 which I now discuss.
7. In addition to these existing controls and policies in the planning scheme, Bayside City Council has been engaged in a significant review of those controls and policies, including those applying to this section of the municipality.
8. The site is included within the boundaries of the Church Street Major Activity Centre. The Council has undertaken considerable strategic planning assessment of activity centres within the municipality. In the case of Church Street, a final Church Street Centre Structure Plan (CSCSP) was prepared in November 2006. It has formed the basis for Amendment C102 which has been exhibited, considered by an independent panel, adopted by Council and forwarded to the Minister for Planning for his consideration and approval.
9. The CSCSP is structured into sections dealing with Values; Vision; Future Role and Character; Activities; Buildings; Spaces; and Access. Of these, Future Role and Character, Activities and Buildings are of most relevance in this application.
10. The Activities Plan identifies 3 business precincts along the Church Street 'spine' with an extensive residential precinct surrounding the business precincts. The western boundary of the CSCSP follows New Street so that properties to the west, including the Marine Hotel, are outside the defined activity centre referred to on page 3 of CSCSP. Strategies for the residential precinct are to:
    • Encourage residential development close to shops and services to provide a transition from business areas to low scale residential areas.
    • Encourage redevelopment of larger sites and grade level carparks for residential with basement car parking.
    • Encourage additional housing in established residential neighbourhoods that is in keeping with the preferred future character of the area as outlined in the Bayside Neighbourhood Character Policy (Bayside Planning Scheme, Clause 22.07).
    • Provide adequate off-street parking for all new dwellings.
11. As it relates to the residential areas, the commentary for future role and character is that:

Existing residential areas will retain their spacious and leafy character, which is highly valued by the local community. New housing will integrate with the existing streetscape and provide additional opportunities for people to live near the Centre.

1. On the Building Plan buildings within the surrounding residential area are to be no more than two storeys (7.5m wall height and a 9m overall height and no change to existing setback controls). More detailed objectives and strategies are provided for these areas including for building frontages, heights and setbacks.
2. As noted above, Amendment C102 seeks to implement the CSCSP. It makes various changes to the Planning Scheme but importantly for the review site, introduces a Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 11) over the Church Street Major Activity Centre. Given that the Amendment is now with the Minister for Planning for his consideration and approval, I agree with Council that it is a seriously entertained planning proposal. A point also acknowledged by Mr Tweedie. I also agree with Mr Kane:

...that the DDO11 has an important role to play in this application and must mean something; or there is no point to its existence.

1. The version of the DDO11 submitted to the Minister for Planning includes several key features:
   • The expansive residential precinct around the central Church Street spine is identified as Precinct E on Map 1.
   • The minimum street setback, building height, site coverage, side and rear setback, and private open space provisions varied by the schedule to Clause 32.01 do not apply.
   • A building must not exceed the Maximum Building Heights (in metres and storeys) specified in the built form precinct provisions - 11 metres (3 storeys) for this site.
   • The height of buildings within the Special Building Overlay is to be measured from the applicable flood level (to AHD). The flood level of the review site is 6.87 metres which would allow a building with an overall height of 17.87 metres (220mm higher than the proposed upper floor parapet and 1.08 metres lower than the plant and equipment screening element).
   • Within residential precincts, on land zoned Residential 1, buildings should be setback in accordance with the relevant (unvaried) Clause 55 Standards except that the third storey level should be setback a minimum of 4 metres behind the front wall or the level immediately below, unless the third level storey level is an attic.
   • Variations to the requirements are possible although not to the mandatory height and storey limits. This would include the 4 metres upper level setback referred to in the previous dot point and all the ResCode standards provided, as in all cases, the related objective is satisfied.
2. Having regard to all these policy influences, I am persuaded that there is support in the planning scheme for an apartment style building of the general height and scale proposed in this application. Both the existing and proposed controls and policies identify this site and this location as being suitable for more intensive medium density development. There is clear recognition in Clause 22.06-3 that in Residential Opportunity Areas the relevance of design responses may be altered and neighbourhood character policy moderated or tempered as it applies to sites such as this.
3. However all development must also respond to its site context. The key issue then is the specific design response and whether it is an acceptable response to those contextual issues.

Is the height, boundary setbacks and scale an acceptable response to the site context?

1. I have already commented about the heights of the building. Council is correct that it exceeds the 9 metres included in standard B7. It is also evident that Council, in adopting the DDO11 submitted to the Minister for Planning, has now accepted that a building on this site can reach a height of 11 metres/3 storeys above the applicable flood level. In this instance the flood level is 6.87 metres AHD and so a building can reach 17.87 metres without exceeding the proposed mandatory height limit.
2. The building is of 3 storeys and the top of the upper floor parapet is 17.65 metres or 220mm below the maximum. The parapet to the screening feature around the roof top plant and clerestory windows rises to 18.95 metres or 1.08 metres higher than the maximum height. Building height as defined in the planning scheme is measured to the roof or parapet. There is no question that the building as now designed exceeds the proposed maximum height limit. There is also no question that the building design could be changed to remove the screening feature and alter the openable clerestory windows so that no part of the roof or parapet exceeds the maximum height limit.
3. I have no hesitation in stating that if DDO11 with a maximum height limit had been approved prior to finalising my decision, I would have required such a change to achieve technical compliance. However, I do not consider such a change is necessary for reasons of urban design, character, or off site amenity. The higher screening element occupies a relatively small section of roof space - its removal would expose the lift overrun, air conditioning units, solar hot water units and the small element containing the openable clerestory windows. Removal of the screen element to comply with the maximum height limit would potentially expose the unattractive plant and equipment to longer distance views and would result in an inferior design outcome compared to that now proposed. I therefore do not agree with Council that the building is too high and that it should be reduced in height either to achieve the existing ResCode standard or the proposed DDO11 height limit.

1. It will be evident from my earlier comments that I distinguish the review site from other sites in neighbourhood character Precinct B2 because of existing policy concerning Residential Opportunity Areas and proposed policy and controls for the Church Street Major Activity Centre, Precinct E and DDO11 in particular.
2. Although this site is in the Residential 1 Zone, it is not a site within the residential hinterland where the preferred future character described for Precinct B2 is much in evidence. I accept that along New Street to the south, along parts of Well Street and in nearby intersecting residential streets the preferred future character, which in reality is as much about the existing character as about the future character, is a reasonably accurate commentary about that character.
3. But the review site is different. More than half the site has been a hard edged service station with concrete aprons, very high site coverage, very low permeability and little or no landscaping. The two dwellings at 188 New Street and 2 Well Street are different and more akin to the type of residential development described in the character statement, although the high front fences, attached built form and parking areas in the front setback are less typical of the more conventional suburban development in Precinct B2.
4. The location of the site at the point of a five way intersection with a hard edged two storey hotel and bottle shop opposite on the western side of the intersection, an open concrete forecourt and canopy/workshop of a service station on the opposite north side of the intersection and a two storey medium density development set behind a tall rendered wall along the front boundary on the opposite north western side of the intersection. The large residential complex on the eastern side of Well Street is the exception in terms of presenting a hard edge to the intersection and immediate sections of street frontage, with the buildings set well behind a landscaped screen comprising shrubs and taller trees. The intersection contains a roundabout, is very open and presents a harsh appearance despite some low ground covers around the central light pole. I discuss the southern residential interfaces later in my reasons.
5. Given these mostly hard edged interfaces I consider that the proposal comprising an apartment style development, rising to three storeys with zero or relatively small setbacks is an acceptable response. The triangular site and the necessity to raise floor levels to avoid flooding are further factors suggesting that an apartment style development is appropriate on this site.
6. The notion of trying to provide, for example, front setbacks, side and rear setbacks, site coverage and permeability that achieved the standards referred to in Council's reasons for opposing the development would result in a development which would appear out of character in this context and moreover, be quite difficult to achieve given the need to raise floor levels well above footpath level. I accept that it is always possible to take a different approach to elevating buildings above defined flood levels, but I consider that the approach used in this application is acceptable, even if it results in a building different to the other medium density developments in the vicinity.
7. I also consider that the triangular shape of the site and two street frontages makes it impractical to achieve the preferred 4 metres top floor setback referred to in DDO11. A 4 metres setback from both frontages would result in a much smaller top floor and would not achieve any benefit in terms of the architectural appearance of the building. The DDO11 includes a list of matters to consider if varying any requirements such as the 4 metres setback. I consider that the proposed building satisfies to a large degree the outcomes sought where a variation is to be entertained.
8. As a result of the minimal setbacks, site coverage is relatively high at 83.5% against 60% for the unvaried ResCode standard. I have already commented that the site, or at least the part containing the service station, has had very high site coverage. High site coverage is not necessarily unacceptable although it is usually indicative of small boundary setbacks and limited opportunities for in-ground planting as is the case in this application. However, depending on the site context and relevant planning controls and policy directing change, high site coverage may well be acceptable. It does not automatically mean that a proposal is an over development and therefore unacceptable. What is important in terms of the ResCode standard referred to in Council's reasons for opposing the development, is whether the related objective for site coverage is satisfied. That objective for Standard B8 is:

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

1. It is something of a circular argument given that I have already commented about the relevance of existing and preferred neighbourhood character given the location of the site in a Residential Opportunity Area and the effect of Council's adoption of Amendment C102.
2. I accept that the street setbacks are very small and may well be inappropriate in a suburban street. In this particular site context, I support the concept of extending the building almost to the street frontages. Not only does it maximise the useable space above flood level and space for basement parking but it provides dwellings that have a very close relationship with the two street frontages and one that is very different to that normally available in the municipality. On the New Street frontage the steps leading up from footpath level give access to small terraces that provide outlook to the street. These are positioned approximately 1 to 1.2 metres above the footpath. On Well Street the terraces are much closer to the footpath level and vary from approximately 900mm above near the intersection to approximately 200mm above at the southern end. While providing elevated terraces in this manner is uncommon, it responds to the particular context, provides for diversity in housing type and is not unacceptable for that reason. The two floors above ground floor are not setback further from the street frontages except that they are articulated by the materials, finishes and balconies which will provide visual interest and break up the mass of built form when viewed along the two street frontages.
3. The southern boundary is the most sensitive as it adjoins the single storey dwelling at 4 Well Street occupied by Mr Keith Williams. It is also the boundary from which the building has been setback furthest so that it complies with the relevant ResCode standard as varied in Schedule 1 to the Residential 1 Zone. At ground level the building is set back 7.1 metres behind the basement ramp at the western end and 3 metres at the eastern end. First floor is set back between 5.32 and 7.1 metres while the second floor (top level) is set back at least 10.2 metres. Ms Ring provided an analysis against the standard and I agree with her assessment that demonstrates easy compliance with the standard for all three levels. The location of the basement ramp along the western end of this boundary also results in the built form being pushed well back from the boundary and the rear yard of the Williams property. Ms Ring also assessed the amenity impacts on the Williams property using the standards contained in Clause 55 (ResCode) and I agree that there are no unreasonable impacts caused by walls on boundaries (Standard B18), daylight to existing windows (Standard B19), solar access to north facing habitable room windows (Standard B20), shadow to secluded private open space (Standard B21) and overlooking (Standard B22). In the case of overlooking, Mr Sheppard identified a potential opportunity for overlooking to the south from Apartment 1.08. I have therefore included a condition requiring the parapet outside Apartment 1.08 to be modified to prevent any downward looking into habitable room windows or secluded private open space at 4 Well Street. Any overlooking beyond 9 metres, such as across the width of Well Street, is not deemed unreasonable under ResCode and does not warrant any screening.
4. I accept that the proposed building will result in a very different outlook from the Williams property. Assessment against the different objectives and standards of Clause 55 provides consistency in deciding whether a development has reasonable or unreasonable impacts when assessed against those individual objectives and standards. I accept that people have different ideas about what constitutes reasonable/unreasonable impacts and I understand that Mr Williams highly values his current amenity and does not accept that he should suffer any adverse changes as a result of the development next door. 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 at Clause 55.04-5 only requires an assessment at the equinox. Overshadowing at the winter solstice is not assessed, although many people would still feel a greater loss of amenity when overshadowed in winter compared to spring and autumn.
5. Council, Mr Basic and other neighbours were critical about the lack of landscaping opportunities, including the absence of canopy trees. I accept that landscaping is limited. Small planting strips, garden planters at ground level and climbers on vertical frames provide limited opportunities for softening the building from the street frontages. Planting along the southern residential interface is greater although I do not agree with Mr Merlo that it is generous. It will nevertheless serve to filter, but not screen, views from the south. This is not a proposal for a building positioned within a landscaped setting with extensive gardens and canopy trees. My inspection confirmed that it is the tall street trees along both New and Well Streets that make a significant contribution to the leafy character and that the trees outside the review site will positively contribute to the overall visual appearance of the development.

1. In assessing Council's draft permit conditions I have made a number of changes to reflect submissions and discussion about them at the hearing. As discussed at the hearing I have included conditions requiring an environmental assessment and an increase in the height to the parapet outside Apartment 1.08 to prevent downward views into habitable room windows and secluded private open space at 4 Well Street. I have deleted the 'notes' as these can be included as an attachment or covering letter to the permit.

1. Having regard to the above I will direct that a permit issue subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.

Construction of a three storey building containing 27 dwellings over a basement car park, front fencing exceeding 1.2 metres in height and buildings and works in a Special Building Overlay in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. 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 generally in accordance with the plans substituted by the Tribunal but modified to show:
   • (a) The southern parapet outside Apartment 1.08 modified to prevent any downward views to the habitable room windows or secluded private open space at 4 Well Street.
   • (b) The location of all plant and equipment in accordance with Condition 4.
   • (c) A schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (incorporating two (2) paint samples).
   • (d) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 9 of this planning permit.
   • (e) Water Sensitive Urban Design measures as required by Condition 17.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5. Before the occupation of the development, the area set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
   • (a) Constructed.
   • (b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
   • (c) Surfaced with an all-weather-seal coat.
   • (d) Drained.
   • (e) Line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes.
   • (f) Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways.

1. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
2. Vehicular crossings must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any existing crossing or crossing opening must be removed and replaced with footpath, nature strip, and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Before the developments starts, a landscape plan generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Jack Merlo Design Landscape and Construction (Plans marked TP01 (B), TP02 (A) and TP03 (A)) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must show:
   • (a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed.
   • (b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary.
   • (c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
   • (d) Details of water sensitive urban design elements to be incorporated and the plant species to be used.
   • (e) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.
   • (f) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.
   • (g) Provision of an in-ground irrigation system to all landscaped areas.

All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
2. Prior to the commencement of all landscaping works associated with the "Green Wall" a landscape management plan detailing the ownership, maintenance regime and management responsibilities of the Green Wall/ Hanging Gardens associated with the development must be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of all landscaping works associated with the Green Wall/ Hanging Gardens.

If the Green Wall/Hanging Gardens fail, details of an alternative treatment must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The alternative treatment must be implemented within three months of approval at no cost to Council and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before development commences the applicant must pay ($3422.33) to the Responsible Authority for the removal and replacement of the existing street tree(s). This amount has been determined in accordance with Councils current policy for the removal of street tree(s). This amount may be increased by the Responsible Authority if an extension of time to commence work is granted and the amenity value of the street tree(s) has increased. The Responsible Authority, or a contractor or agent engaged by the Responsible Authority, must undertake the removal and replacement of the street tree(s). Any replacement planting will be at the discretion of the Responsible Authority.
2. Before the occupation of the development or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Before the development (including demolition) starts, tree protection fencing must be erected around all trees within 5 metres of the property boundary and on adjoining properties, as recommended in the Arborist report prepared by Galbraith & Associates, 16 October 2011. The tree protection fences must encompass the tree protection zones identified in this report. The fences must be in accordance with AS 4970-2009. The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed.
4. Prior to the commencement of any works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The construction management plan must address, but is not limited to:
   • (a) Hours of construction, control of noise and airborne matter, deliveries, vehicle access, worker car parking, damage to public assets, and contact numbers for complaints.
   • (b) The covering and maintenance of all roads/storage areas/external stockpiles/or vacant areas to avoid dust nuisance to any residential and commercial premises.
   • (c) All works must accord with the approved construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Before the development begins, three sets of detailed plans indicating the method of stormwater discharge to the nominated Legal Point of Discharge (and Stormwater Detention Systems where applicable) must be submitted to and be approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. These plans are to be prepared in conjunction with the plans referred to in Condition 17.
6. Before the development begins, detailed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and be 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 in accordance with the guidelines outlined in Clause 22.10 of the Bayside Planning Scheme and must show:
   • (a) The type of water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures to be used;
   • (b) The location of the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures in relation to buildings, sealed surfaces and landscaping areas;
   • (c) Design details of the water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment measures, including cross sections;

These plans must be accompanied by a report from an industry accepted performance measurement tool, which details the treatment performance achieved and demonstrates the level of compliance with the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999.

The water sensitive urban design stormwater treatment system as shown on the endorsed plan must be retained and maintained at all times in accordance with the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the occupation of the development starts, a waste management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include, but is not limited to:
   • (a) Provision on the land for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. This area must be graded and drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (b) All waste material must be regularly removed from the site. All vehicles removing waste must have fully secured and contained loads so that no wastes are spilled or dust or odour is created to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (c) The waste collection service must be carried out within the property by a private contractor at no expense to the Responsible Authority.
   • (d) The waste management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The waste management plan must not be modified unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Environmental Assessment (Audit may not be required)

1. The following conditions apply in respect of the environmental condition, monitoring and remediation of land:
   • (a) Prior to development of the land (excluding works necessarily forming part of the environmental audit process), a preliminary site assessment of the land must be conducted by a suitably qualified professional in accordance with the National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination) 1999 as amended from time to time and the findings of that assessment must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
   • (b) Having regard to the Preliminary Assessment, if the Responsible Authority is satisfied that further assessment of the potential contamination of the land is required:
     • (i) An appointed auditor must be engaged pursuant to Section 53U of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to perform an environmental audit of the land.
     • (ii) An environmental audit report must be produced in accordance with Section 53X of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and must be provided to the Responsible Authority; and
     • (iii) A Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit must be provided to the Responsible Authority.
   • (c) Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land:
     • (i) Development and/or use allowed by this permit must comply with any condition attached to the statement unless a certificate of environmental audit is subsequently issued for the land; and
     • (ii) At the direction of the Responsible Authority, an agreement must be prepared and entered into by the owner, at the owner's cost, pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to facilitate notification of future occupiers of the land of any conditions attached to the statement of environmental audit; and
     • (iii) Prior to the occupation of any dwellings allowed by this permit, a letter prepared by an appointed auditor must be submitted to the Responsible Authority verifying that all conditions attached to the statement of environmental audit have been complied with.

1. No polluted and/ or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.
2. The dwellings, lobby and lift area must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
3. The entry/exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex of a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
4. All doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park, with the exception of the entry / exit driveway, must be a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
5. Any drainage system to the basement must be designed such that stormwater is unable to penetrate the basement.
6. Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.
7. The building/structure including footings, eaves etc must be set outside any easement or a minimum 1.5 metre laterally clear of the outside edge of Melbourne Water's drain, whichever is greater.
8. The depth of the footings must be adequate to satisfy the angle of repose relative to Melbourne Water's drain, as determined by a qualified engineer, as per Melbourne Water's specification.
9. A pre and post construction CCTV inspection of Melbourne Water's drain must be undertaken at no cost to Melbourne Water. The CCTV footage must be submitted to Melbourne Water for review and must conform to the Conduit Inspection Reporting Code of Australia (WSA05-2008).
10. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
    • (a) The development is not started within three years of the date of this permit.
    • (b) The development is not completed within five years of the date of this permit.

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

[1] In accordance with Section 4 (2) (d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse the application.

[2] Slightly different figures are given in the Council report and in the witness statements of Ms Ring and Mr Sheppard and I have calculated them slightly differently again.