1. There was no dispute that this site is suitable for redevelopment and that a significant residential development could be constructed on this relatively large site within the Nicholson Street activity centre. The site is zoned Mixed Use, has no design, neighbourhood character or heritage style overlays, has only two residential interfaces, is very close to public transport, and within easy walking distance of commercial, retail and other facilities along Nicholson Street.
2. Both State and local policy encourage the redevelopment of large, well located sites such as this in order to meet the burgeoning need for additional residential accommodation in metropolitan Melbourne. Subject to satisfactorily responding to the site context, there should be no impediment to development achieving its maximum potential. In this case site context includes:
   1. The characteristics of the site itself and the tall boundary walls that are to be retained;
   2. Adjoining development, particularly residential development to the east and south affected by an heritage overlay;
   3. The position of site within the broader Nicholson Street and North Fitzroy neighbourhood;
   4. The road network and existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian movements, including the use of a shared carriageway to gain access to the site;
   5. Any off-site features, such as drainage systems, significant vegetation, viewlines, access to sunlight/daylight that need to be taken into account.

1. As already noted, the height of the building and boundary setbacks are the key issues in this case. On our inspection we were able to assess the impact of the proposed 4 and 7 storey building when viewed from adjoining properties and from vantage points within the street network. We particularly valued the opportunity to inspect the rear yards of adjoining and nearby properties in Batman and Reid Streets. Although we have not agreed with residents that the proposed buildings are too tall, our inspection enabled us to understand and appreciate the existing situation and assess the magnitude of impacts that will occur once the new buildings are constructed.
2. We accept that the taller parts of the building will be visible; from the nearest residential properties to the east the top floor of the 4 storey section will be visible over the top of the retained boundary wall, while both the 4 and 7 storey sections will be visible from further afield. But visibility/invisibility is not the test as to whether a building is acceptable - if that criterion had been accepted in the past then some of our finest churches and civic buildings would have never been built. In an inner urban context, in an activity centre close to public transport and a great range of urban amenities it is unrealistic to expect new buildings on this site to be largely invisible from adjoining single storey residential properties. Policy requires more intensive and more efficient use of sites such as this and inevitably that will mean taller buildings that do not seek to replicate the height of nearby buildings - whether that is in the residential areas to the south and east or the mixed use/business areas along Nicholson Street.
3. There were a whole host of economic, demographic, physical and social reasons why one, two and occasionally three storeys were the norm in the past, but those factors or reasons have radically changed. Although Council sought a 3 and 5 storey building, and we are approving a 4 and 7 storey building, we suspect that the debate in a few decades will be about allowing even much taller buildings in areas so central and so well serviced with urban facilities. Although there are strongly held alternative views about the wisdom of urban consolidation policies, the inescapable fact remains that Melbourne's population and household numbers are growing at a very rapid rate and new dwellings need to be provided. We don't intend to provide a discourse on the pros and cons of urban consolidation policies other than to note that it has been a crucial element of metropolitan planning for many decades.
4. In this case we are satisfied that the proposal for a 4 and 7 storey building strikes a reasonable balance between maximising the development potential of this large site while minimising any off site impacts to adjoining and nearby properties. There is no doubt that retention of the existing boundary walls is a benefit in how the review site is used, but even in the absence of those walls, it is likely that a 4 and 7 storey building would still be acceptable given the mixed use zone and planning policies. What would change without retention of the tall boundary walls would be site layout, setbacks, screening, fencing, landscaping and access. Given our support for the proposal at 4 and 7 storeys, are there any changes required to improve off site impacts or internal amenity?

Height of boundary walls and impact on internal amenity

1. Although the retention and extension of the boundary walls has relevance to the previous discussion, we consider that the internal amenity impacts of providing 8 metre high boundary walls with very small setbacks to the new dwellings is more problematic. We have already noted that Council sought the advice of Mr McGauran and that in general he found the design approach well resolved for a site that is complex in its configuration. He identified a number of minor concerns which primarily related to internal amenity. The most significant of these concerned poor internal amenity caused by inadequate boundary setbacks and he generally advocated setbacks of at least 4.5 metres. At the hearing Mr Connor, Mr Sheppard and Ms Heggen were questioned about internal amenity and of the need for increased setbacks, particularly at ground floor. Although Mr Sheppard was satisfied with the proposal, Mr Connor and Ms Heggen had either already recommended changes incorporated in the substitute plans or were advocating some additional changes. We acknowledge that the walls are not flat planes and that there is considerable articulation and visual interest in the design presented at the hearing. At their closest points, the eastern and southern walls at ground level are setback 3.165 and 2.54 metres respectively. Upper levels have different and varied setbacks to provide articulation but there isn't significant stepping back of the upper floors. For example, the top level of the eastern building has a minimum setback of just 4.59 metres. Along the southern boundary the minimum setbacks are 2.78 metres for the top level of the 4 storey section of the building and a minimum 4.045 metres for the top level of the 7 storey section of the building. On the western interface opposite the Moonlight Receptions building on the adjoining land, the setback is 3.775 metres for apartment G.06 but mostly they are setback 4.74 metres.
2. Having explored these issues with witnesses, heard submissions from parties, viewed the plans and undertaken our site inspection, we consider that the boundary setbacks need to be increased. Although Council required setbacks be increased by 5 metres (proposed Condition 1 (b)), we consider this an unjustifiable increase as in some cases it would mean the building being set back at lower levels by up to 9 metres. Instead we have assumed that the Council actually meant setbacks of up to 5 metres rather than an additional 5 metres over what is already proposed.
3. We are primarily concerned about what we determine are poor amenity impacts at ground level of narrow courtyards with surrounding tall walls. We do not have a magic formula for what might be an appropriate setback but in the absence of any suggestions from witnesses have decided to adopt the 4.5 metres suggested by Mr McGauran. But in adopting this setback we are not suggesting the setback be a uniform 4.5 metres. Instead, because we like the articulation now proposed, we are suggesting that the minimum setback be 4.5 metres on the southern and eastern boundaries at ground level and that all other setbacks be adjusted so that the relative differences remain the same. We acknowledge that these additional setbacks may result in some changes to the internal layout of apartments but emphasise that we seek to retain the present appealing external articulation and appearance of the building.
4. So that parties are not confused about what we mean we provide the following example. The eastern wall of Apartment G.32 is 3.165 metres from the boundary. It needs to be set back an additional 1.335 metres to achieve the 4.5 metres minimum we require. The adjoining apartment is G30. Its eastern walls are 4.15 and 5.72 metres from the eastern boundary. To retain the same relative setbacks these two walls need to be setback 5.485 and 7.055 metres respectively. The same applies on other levels as well. For example the eastern wall of Apartment 2.30 is setback 3.410 metres - it needs to be increased to 4.745 metres.
5. The western boundary abuts the Moonlight Receptions building for about 3/5ths of its length towards the southern end of the site and a right-of way for the northern 2/5ths of its length. At the northern end the right-of-way has an open character and we do not have any concerns about setbacks or the interface along the right-of-way. The Moonlight Reception building is a large 3 storey brick and concrete building that has a blank abuttal with the review site. Mr d'Oliveyra submitted that his clients do not object to the overall height and massing of the proposal but are concerned that any future redevelopment of the Moonlight Reception site would be compromised unless setbacks were increased on the review site. In essence he asked that any balconies or windows should be set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from the boundary so that any 9 metre separation distance required to avoid future overlooking would be equally shared between the review site and a future development on the adjoining site. We do not accept this proposition. In the same way that development on the review site must take account of its existing site context, including the blank walls next door, so too will any future development on the Moonlight Reception site need to take account of what exists next door. If that means windows and balconies have to be orientated or screened to avoid overlooking or loss of privacy then it becomes part of the design response of any proposal for that site. In so far as the proposal before us is concerned, we do not advocate that the ground floor setbacks on the western boundary be changed to reflect what we have decided for the southern and eastern boundaries or to respond to the concerns raised by Mr d'Oliveyra. However we do agree that the amenity of apartments 1.05, 1.06 and 3.07, which look out towards the neighbouring blank wall, could be improved and agree with the changes suggested by Ms Heggen. We have included conditions to achieve the desired outcome.
6. It will be evident that we do not agree with Council that the boundary walls should be reduced to normal fence height. The tall boundary walls exist and provide a level of privacy that could not be replicated without a significantly different building design. Backyards and the rear sections of houses backing onto the review site or the intervening right-of-way have been developed on the basis of the existing tall walls. To remove them may provide some benefits in terms of additional daylight and sunlight but would have dis-benefits in terms of loss of privacy and sense of enclosure, and changes to sunlight, daylight and micro climates. It is evident that residents do not want the boundary walls lowered in height and indeed we had one request for the southern wall to be extended further to the west to provide more privacy. Our inspection confirmed that increasing the height of the existing southern wall so that it has a uniform height would be an acceptable outcome and have included a condition to that effect.
7. Although we received submissions about overshadowing and overlooking of the rear yards of Nos 3 and 5 Reid Street, our inspection revealed that these yards offer very little amenity at present and that the houses are not designed with north facing living areas. We therefore consider that any overshadowing or overlooking is within acceptable standards and are further encouraged in this view by the improvements which will result from the additional setbacks we are requiring from the southern boundary.
8. The eastern boundary wall along the right-of-way has a saw tooth form at its northern end. The proposal includes a brick infill extension of the saw tooth to provide a wall with a uniform height for its full length. Extending the wall provides major benefits in preventing overlooking from upper level apartments into the dwellings to the east but adds visual bulk when viewed from these same dwellings. We specifically asked residents in these dwellings what they would prefer as there were different opinions about what would be a preferable outcome. Given that we have supported a four storey building along this boundary- but with additional setback - then it is desirable that the potential for overlooking is minimised. Although infilling will block some sky views and late afternoon sun, we consider that on balance, the saw tooth should be in-filled. However, as discussed with Mr Sheppard at the hearing, a lighter weight material may lessen the sense of visual bulk and provide some contrast to what is a relatively long section of brick wall. We have therefore included a condition requiring the sawtooth to be in-filled with a lighter weight material which allows daylight penetration but prevents overlooking to Batman Street residences then we are content to leave the choice of materials to Council's satisfaction.

1. Council sought to include a condition requiring 15% of the dwellings to have 3 or more bedrooms. Ms Lane sought to justify this condition on the basis of census statistics which suggest that 17.8% of households in Yarra comprise a traditional nuclear family. Aside from the fact these figures relate to the whole of Yarra and not to sub areas and different suburbs, we find that such a requirement has no relationship to broader trends to smaller, older households. Even if we accept the proposition that larger families in Yarra should be catered for by providing new dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms, we have no evidence to suggest that there is unmet demand for such housing or that it should be provided in this style of building. Indeed Mr Gobbo submits that his client has designed the mix of dwellings based on his own analysis of what is required by the market and that there is no justification for requiring 15% to contain 3 or more bedrooms. It is more often the case at Tribunal hearings that submissions are made that not enough 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings are being provided in a particular development, although the allegation is more usually made about developments in more distant suburbs. In our view the size of dwellings reflects the market in a particular area and we have no doubt that if there were an unmet market for larger dwellings then new developments would incorporate such accommodation. We therefore do not support Council's suggested condition.

1. Council did not find any traffic or car parking reasons to oppose this development. Although residents did raise some concerns about visitor parking to the east and then accessing the complex from Albert Street, we are satisfied that the provision of a swipe card system for residents and absence of intercom, will severely limit the use of Albert Street by visitors.
2. In all other respects we accept the evidence of Mr Symons and do not find any justification to reject this proposal on traffic or car parking grounds. However as indicated at the hearing we do support the provision of a loading zone/drop off area near the front entrance to the building. In the absence of such a facility we are concerned that residents may try to use the Albert Street entrance for loading/unloading purposes (perhaps by holding the door open while goods are delivered/taken away). Mr Gobbo advises that a loading zone/drop off area can be provided near the entrance area and we have therefore included a suitable condition.

Building overhang to the north and impact on access/parking for the adjoining site to the north

1. Mr Sayer and Mr Sherman made submissions concerning the commercial/warehouse site to the north which shares carriageway easements (E5 and E6) with the review site. We note that these former industrial buildings were originally part of the complex which included the buildings on the review site. They have since been subdivided into nine smaller tenancies/ownerships and that at least two have been converted into dwellings, with two more likely to be converted in the near future.
2. In essence the submissions by Messrs Sayer and Sherman raised seven issues - visual impact, noise, visual privacy, traffic and parking, waste management, construction management and common property management. We have already commented about our support for a 4 and 7 storey building and, subject to changes to setbacks, are satisfied with the building design. We are not convinced that there are any unreasonable or unacceptable amenity impacts on the buildings to the north as a result of visual bulk, overlooking, noise, traffic and parking. We are also satisfied that conditions requiring waste management and construction management plans and limiting construction hours and noise will safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties.
3. Issues concerning common property management are more complicated. Mr Sherman dealt specifically with this matter and offered some draft conditions to deal with the various issues raised in his submission. Mr Gobbo responded to the suggestions made by Mr Sherman.
4. In a nutshell two issues emerge about the common property.
5. The first concerns the protrusion of the upper floors of the western 'wing' of the 7 storey building over the carriageway easement. From a design perspective we do not have any reservations about the upper floors protruding slightly over the carriageway easement. In our view the concerns raised about impacts of buildings sitting above a small section of the carriageway easement are overstated but we accept that unless agreement can be reached between the parties then the building will have to be slightly redesigned to setback the building outside the easement. As discussed at the hearing we have reworded condition 1(b) to allow for both possibilities but with our first preference being retention of the building as now designed.
6. The second issue concerns works within the carriageway easements and involves a request that the following works be undertaken by the permit applicant:
   1. construction of a raised footpath along the northern side of the easements;
   2. provision of a raised speed hump to slow traffic - this may be positioned so it links the new footpath with the entrance area of the new development;
   3. provision of an electronic boom gate and bollards to restrict unauthorised entry into the open car park area at 650A;
   4. appropriate signage to improve traffic and pedestrian arrangements along the carriageway easements; and
   5. the future maintenance of the carriageway easements to be at the entire cost and responsibility of future owners within the development on the review site.
7. Mr Sherman included a list of suggested works (in the form of draft conditions on pages 4 and 5 of his submission) and these were discussed at the hearing. Our inspection enabled us to assess these proposed works and we agree with the suggestions included on page 4 other than the requirement for an electronic boom gate. In our view the need for a gate is not directly related to development on the review site and is a piece of equipment that would have benefits for security and access to the owners and occupiers at No 650A irrespective of what development occurs on the review site. Condition 1 (u) includes the works we consider warranted in the carriageway easements.

1. In assessing the conditions proposed by Council, we have made a number of changes to reflect submissions and discussion at the hearing. We have also made some minor changes to replace the word 'shall' with the word 'must' in order to give some consistency in the way conditions are worded.

1. Having regard to the above we will therefore direct that a permit issue subject to conditions.

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 further modified to which show:
   • (a) the minimum setback of ground floor walls to the eastern and southern boundaries to be 4.5 metres. All other setbacks on every level are to be adjusted so that there is no change to the relative setbacks of walls from these boundaries;
   • (b) remove the overhang on the northern end of the western wing to within the property boundaries unless evidence is provided that the building as proposed can be lawfully constructed;
   • (c) the sawtooth of the eastern boundary wall is to be in-filled with a lighter weight material which allows daylight penetration but prevents overlooking;
   • (d) the lower section of the southern wall is to be increased in height so that it matches the higher section behind No's 19-25 Reid Street;
   • (e) apartments 1.05 and 1.06 shifted 400mm to the east into the foyer area and the foyer modified to retain an appropriate lift circulation area. The layout and floor areas of these apartments to remain unaltered;
   • (f) the street layout and western setback of apartment 3.07 modified to reflect or mirror the layout of apartment 2.04;
   • (g) the fire exit door on the northern end of the eastern wing to be locked, to only open on the fire alarm and alarm on open;
   • (h) apartment 3.16 and 3.17 to have the south face of the east facing balcony and screened to a height of 1.7m high above finished floor level. Screening to be no more than 25% visually permeable;
   • (i) provision of a designated loading/unloading/drop off zone on the northern side of the building;
   • (j) all proposed external plant and equipment (including roof top plant and equipment) reasonably concealed from view from street level and adjoining properties and be acoustically baffled or otherwise sound treated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (k) an area set aside within the property boundaries for pits, meters and essential services;
   • (l) a notation that no external intercom or communication device will be provided and only external card access entry will be permitted at the Alfred Street entrance;
   • (m) pedestrian refuge on Alfred Street to be accurately shown on the ground floor plan and landscape plan;
   • (n) a car parking allocation schedule of a maximum one car space per dwelling and a minimum 16 visitor car spaces:
   • (o) provision of an additional eight bicycle parking spaces at ground level for visitors;
   • (p) provision and details of all acoustic and noise attenuation measures prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer to protect the internal amenity of the dwellings from external noise sources from the adjacent commercial premises;
   • (q) provide a staging plan that must include (but is not limited to) the order in which the development is to be staged, including excavation, construction, landscaping and car parking facilities;
   • (r) an updated schedule of all external materials and finishes (including colour samples). The schedule must show the materials, colour and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames, glazing types, doors and fences;
   • (s) details of ESD measures included in the information provided with the permit application;
   • (t) an updated landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prepared by a suitably qualified person. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:
     • (i) the location of all areas to be covered by lawn or other surface materials;
     • (ii) the location of any permanent structures, furniture or other facilities;
     • (iii) the location of a designated drop off zone or pedestrian 'shared zone';
     • (iv) the botanical and common names of proposed plant species, quantity, size at planting and maintenance regime;
     • (v) the location and specification of a tank for rainwater collection and re-use in irrigation of landscaping (or alternative);
     • (vi) provision of lighting;
     • (vii) detail and location of fencing;
   • (u) Pedestrian and traffic works must be undertaken on the carriageway easements E5 and E6 as follows:
     • (i) a raised pedestrian footpath along the northern side of the carriageway easements E5 and E6 from the existing pedestrian access from the west until it reaches the pedestrian crossing referred to in (ii) below;
     • (ii) A speed hump or like traffic calming device must be constructed across the carriageway easement, incorporating a pedestrian crossing, and linking the footpath along the northern side on the carriageway easement with the pedestrian area in front of the new building at No 648A Nicholson Street.
     • (iii) The establishment of appropriate signage within carriageway easements E5 and E6 to deter parking and incorporate any appropriate traffic and parking instructions.

provided the design and nature of construction of the works required by this condition must be resolved in consultation with Owners Corporation No. 1 Plan No PS531226L and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All development must accord with the endorsed plans. Any alterations must be approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
2. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. All new on boundary walls must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the use of the land commences, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority following consultation with the Department of Infrastructure (Public Transport Division). The Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must encourage the use of non-private vehicle transport modes by the occupiers of the land. The Plan must include, but not be limited to the following:
   • (a) a description of the location in the context of alternative modes of transport and objectives for the Green Travel Plan;
   • (b) outline Green Travel Plan measures for the development including, but not limited to:
     • (i) household welcome packs - tram, train and bus timetables relevant to the local area must be included in the pack of information provided to purchasers and/or occupiers upon occupation of an apartment;
     • (ii) bicycle parking and facilities available on the land; and
     • (iii) monitoring and review.

1. The Alfred Street footpath extension / pedestrian refuge and associated drainage infrastructure is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Council's Standard and all relevant Austroads Standards. The applicant is to submit detailed engineering design drawings to Council's Engineering Services Unit for assessment and approval one month prior to the commencement of works.
2. Any damaged road(s) and footpath(s) and other infrastructure adjacent to the development site must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The permit holder must not commence any civil infrastructure works on any Public Highway without obtaining official consent from the Responsible Highway Authority.

1. No fewer than 173 car parking spaces must be provided on the land at all times.
2. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles, together with the associated access lanes as delineated on the endorsed plan must:
   • (a) be provided and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted;
   • (b) thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (c) be made available for such use at all times and not used for any other purpose;
   • (d) be properly formed to such levels that it can be used in accordance with the endorsed plan; and
   • (e) be drained.
3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, car parking must be allocated to each apartment in accordance with the endorsed car parking allocation schedule (Condition 1).

1. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each car parking space, motorcycle parking space, bicycle parking space, store, rubbish bin, recycling bin, pedestrian walkways, stairwells, lift, dwelling entrances and entry foyer. Lighting must be located, directed, shielded and of limited intensity so that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Noise emanating from the development, including plan and other equipment, must comply with the State Environment Protection Policy N-1.

1. Prior to occupation of the development, all landscaping works must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan and be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Provision must be made for the drainage of the site including landscaped and pavement areas all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All piping and ducting, other than for drainage above the ground floor storey of the building must be concealed.

1. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings the applicant must submit a waste management plan, generally in accordance with the plan submitted with the application, for approval by the Responsible Authority. Once approved the waste management plan must be complied with. Collection may be undertaken by private contractors or by Council Service.

1. Before the construction or carrying out of buildings or works commences, with the exception of works required for basement excavation and construction, either:
   • (a) a certificate of Environmental Audit indicating the land is suitable for residential use must be issued for the land in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or
   • (b) an environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Section 53ZS of the Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive (residential) use.
2. A copy of the certificate of environmental audit and/or statement, and the complete audit report and audit area plan, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
3. The use and/or development/buildings and works allowed by this permit must comply with the directions and conditions of any statement of environmental audit issued for the land.
4. Prior to the occupation of dwellings a letter must be submitted to the Responsible Authority by an Environmental Auditor accredited with the EPA, to advise that all remediation works necessary and required by an environmental audit or statement have been carried out.

1. Any handling and disposal of contaminated site soil must be in accordance with the requirements of any statement of environmental audit issued for the land, the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority and the Environment Protection Act 1970.

1. Before any development starts, a Construction 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 as evidence of its approval. The plan must provide for or include the following:
   • (a) a pre-conditions survey of all adjacent Council roads and footpaths;
   • (b) protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
   • (c) remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
   • (d) 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;
   • (e) on site facilities for vehicle washing;
   • (f) methods for management of noise and general nuisance; site security;
   • (g) waste and stormwater treatment;
   • (h) construction program;
   • (i) preferred routes for trucks delivering to the site; parking facilities for construction workers including measures to ensure no parking at No650A or on the carriageway easement;
   • (j) delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
   • (k) an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services;
   • (l) 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; and
   • (m) traffic management measures to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads.

1. During the construction, the following must occur:
   • (a) any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system 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; vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the site;
   • (c) the cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on site and not on adjacent footpaths or roads;
   • (d) all litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be disposed of responsibly; and
   • (e) all site operations must comply with the EPA Publication TG302/92.
2. The development, once commenced, must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, demolition or construction works must only be carried out between: 7.00 am - 6.00 pm, Monday-Friday (excluding public holidays) and 9.00 am - 3.00 pm, Saturday and public holidays. No work is to be carried out on Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day or Good Friday without a specific permit. All site operations must comply with the relevant Environmental Protection Authority's Guidelines on Construction and Demolition Noise.

1. This permit will expire if the development is not commenced within three years from the date of this permit. All development must be completed within five years from the date of this permit. The Responsible Authority may approve extensions to these time limits if requests are made within three months of expiry. (End conditions)

[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.