Feodora Fomin, Brooke Fuller, Judith Freeth, Kate Borg, Anne Jaworski, Lyn Maxwell, Mark Daniel, Owners Corporation No PS326691B

SPEC Property Developments Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2010] VCAT 1369

1. Amended plans comprising 14 sheets marked Rev E and dated June 28 2010 are substituted for the application plans.
2. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
3. In permit application PP10/00117 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 39 Riversdale Road, Hawthorn. The permit will allow:
   • Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot.
   • Partial reduction of on-site car parking requirements.
   • Alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

Mr Phil Bisset, Barrister of Minter Ellison Lawyers. Expert written and oral evidence provided by:

Mr Russell Fairlie, Traffic Engineer of Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd.

Mr David Crowder, Town Planner of Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd.

Mr Mark Sheppard, Urban Designer of David Lock Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd.

Mr John Patrick, Landscape Architect, prepared a witness statement but with the agreement of parties was not called to give evidence or answer questions.

No attendance but by letter gave its conditional support to the amended proposal shown on the substituted plans.

Ms Feodora Fomin (both days), Ms Brooke Fuller (day 1), Ms Judith Freeth (both days), Ms Kate Borg (both days), Ms Lyn Maxwell (both days), Mr Mark Daniel (day 1).

Construction of a 4 storey building containing 27 dwellings over basement parking for 33 vehicles.

Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Cl. 32.01-4 (two or more dwellings on a lot in R1Z).

Cl. 52.06 (partial reduction in on site car parking).

Cl. 52.29 (alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1).

We inspected the review site, the locality and neighbouring sites including the interiors of two dwellings to the east and front yards of two dwellings opposite on the second day of hearing.

The review site is located on the northern side of Riversdale Road about midway between Glenferrie Road and Power Street. It is one lot west of Through Street and has an area of 1,395 square metres. It contains a single storey Victorian era dwelling that has been extensively damaged by fire in the recent past. The garden comprises taller vegetation including two significant trees within the front setback, although the site is now in an overgrown and unkempt condition. Erasmus School is located to the east of Through Street but the area is otherwise residential with many medium density developments from different time periods. Trams pass the site with a stop outside the site and the Glenferrie Hill neighbourhood activity centre is located approximately 400 metres to the east. Parks, schools and larger activity centres are within relatively close proximity and easily accessible.

1. This is one of the first applications for review that has been dealt with by the Tribunal under new procedures for Major Cases. The permit applicant appealed against Council's refusal to grant a permit and nearby residents living in the apartment block next door to the east and across the other side of Riversdale Road have supported Council's decision to refuse the application.
2. As part of the Major Cases process, applications are firstly sent to mediation in an effort to achieve agreement amongst parties as to an acceptable outcome. In accordance with that process, two mediation sessions were conducted but a final settlement could not be reached amongst all the parties.
3. Although settlement could not be reached at mediation, the applicant has since prepared amended plans and Council now supports the amended development, subject to some further minor alterations to the set backs in the south west corner of the building. Nearby residents remain opposed to the development because of its height, scale and direct amenity impacts such as noise and loss of daylight to the dwellings to the east. Traffic and parking are also of concern.

Is the site suitable for a 4 storey building given the relevant planning controls, planning policies and site context?

1. This case again highlights the conflict that often exists between planning policy and local aspirations about built form outcomes. Such conflict or tension is common across Melbourne where residents, although often acknowledging that some change is inevitable, do not accept the level of change that is encouraged by metropolitan and local planning policies. Both State and local policies encourage more intensive built form in and around activity centres, along major transport routes and on strategic redevelopment sites.
2. The neighbourhood character statement for Area 97 called up in Clause 22.07 clearly recognises the character of the arterial road location (affected by high volumes of traffic and tram routes) and the long history of redevelopment; from the original mansion houses, to interwar multi-dwelling redevelopment, to more recent blocks of three storey walk-up apartments. Since the character assessment was completed in the mid 1990's that history of redevelopment has continued apace with many more examples of 3 and 4 storey apartment style developments being built along both Riversdale Road and behind in Lisson Grove. While there can be debate about whether new buildings should be 3, 4, 5 or more storeys, any suggestion that new buildings could be two storeys (or two or three storeys as suggested by Mr Daniel) neither acknowledges the extent of medium density development that has been built in the area nor the clear directions set out in the Boroondara Planning Scheme. This is not a remote outer suburban area where one and two storey dwellings are the norm and where policy does not specifically encourage more intensive built form. Although the multiple ownership arrangements in the existing one and two storey medium density developments in this section of Riversdale Road make redevelopment a more complex process than sites with single ownership, we suspect that even those sites will, in the future, attract proposals for higher and more intensive buildings. The history of urban development is a tale of constant renewal and, perhaps with the exception of outstanding historic sites, one that almost inevitably involves an intensification of built form and activity.
3. This is not a low scale, suburban streetscape where one or two storey houses are the norm. Taller, more imposing buildings have for a long time formed part of the character of this part of Hawthorn. Although more recent developments are generally higher than those constructed in the past, they have responded both to the site context and planning policy encouraging more intensive development in such locations. They also reflect the intensification or 'upsizing' of built form across Melbourne. Two, three or four storey apartment blocks may have seemed very high when most dwellings in Melbourne were only of one or two storeys, but as dwellings have become larger and taller then so too have apartment buildings. What was once considered tall now appears quite ordinary in terms of height. That applies to this section of Riversdale Road where the one and two storey villa unit and apartment style buildings seem very low compared to the newer buildings along both sides of the street.
4. We agree with Council that it is clear that the subject site is suitable for higher density residential development, due to its location in a well established suburb with good services and its main road frontage with tram services along Riversdale Road.

1. Although nearby residents are concerned about the overall height of the building, we are satisfied that a building of 14.2 to 14.4 metres above ground level is not excessively tall having regard to the specific site context. The building is now 0.67 metres lower than the proposal shown on the application plans and the upper level has increased setbacks from Riversdale Road of between 13.3 and 15.24 metres. Although the sight line diagrams suggest that the upper level will not be seen from the opposite footpath in Riversdale Road, we accept that it will be seen on oblique angles and from nearby properties including from the front yards and verandahs of the dwellings owned by Ms Fomin and Ms Freeth. Although they are concerned about the visual appearance of the building and the potential for overlooking, we note that their front yards are partly screened by vegetation, across major arterial road and well over 50 metres away from the proposed building. Based on the tests and guidelines included in the Planning Scheme for the assessment of medium density residential development it is not possible to conclude that they will be adversely impacted by the proposed development.
2. At lower levels the building is setback from Riversdale Road to match the adjoining properties. The vertical and horizontal articulation and the use of different materials and textures will create interesting visual articulation across the façade. With one exception, the building is setback from each side boundary. Although not required to meet the Rescode side and rear setback standard (B17) because it exceeds three storeys, we note that for the most part it easily complies with this standard. It does not comply on the eastern boundary and residents in the apartments at No 41 were critical about this level of non-compliance and questioned why compliance had been achieved on the other two boundaries but not the one which they consider most sensitive. We asked Mr Crowder to discuss this criticism in his evidence and he provided us with his working diagrams on which he had plotted the B17 'setback envelope' from the eastern boundary[1]. These demonstrate that the envelope is only breached to a small degree by the top level of the building. The apartments to the east have a narrow service yard along the common boundary. Although they do have windows facing the review site, none have direct access to the service yard and it is both visually and functionally 'back of house' with exposed pipes and other service facilities. The only exception is towards the Riversdale Road frontage where a path is provided into a stairwell leading to a number of apartments with their main outlooks to the east and south. The setbacks of the proposed building are greater here due to the access path to the entry.
3. Riversdale Road is a significant traffic artery and taller buildings of 2, 3 and 4 storeys or the equivalent have been built along it for many years. It is not only the newer apartments further east that exceed one and two storeys, but many of the older apartment buildings are of 2 to 3 storeys, including the apartments at No 41 which, because of the slope of the land, appear higher than 2 storeys when viewed from Riversdale Road.
4. It is obvious that the new building will look very different to the dwelling it replaces and the period dwelling to the west at No 37. Although taller and of a more modern design than the apartments to the east, it is clearly a building containing multiple dwellings and to that extent is similar in built form character ('building typology') to the apartments at No 41. We consider that the building as now modified with increased setbacks and articulation does respond well to its site context. We do not accept that it is so inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood that it should be scaled back in height or provided with even more generous setbacks from the eastern side boundary. State and local planning policy frameworks are strongly encouraging an intensification of built form along major arterial roads and tram routes such as along Riversdale Road. Since the hearing, Amendment C67 which was referred to by Mr Bisset has been ratified by Parliament and is now part of the Boroondara Planning Scheme. It includes amendments to Clause 12 that facilitate targeted redevelopment and more intense housing development along tram routes.
5. There is no question in our minds that buildings of 4 or more storeys will become increasingly commonplace along tram routes across Melbourne. It is also clear that such buildings will look different and be taller than most of the older buildings along the tram routes and they will be more visible. Provided the off-site impacts are managed having regard to what the Planning Scheme suggests is 'acceptable' then there is no justification to refuse such proposals simply because they are one, two or more storeys higher than existing buildings.
6. What then are those off-site impacts and are they acceptable having regard to the tests or guidelines contained within the Planning Scheme. As noted, this is not a 'Rescode application' but is instead to be assessed having regard to the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Clause 19.03-3). In some cases the Guidelines cross-reference ResCode standards to assess impacts such as overlooking. It is also recognised (as it was by Messrs Sheppard and Crowder) that use of, and compliance with, a Rescode standard for a building of 4 or more storeys can demonstrate that a development achieves off-site impacts that are even more acceptable to neighbours even though there is no requirement to satisfy those generally more onerous ResCode standards.

Are the impacts on residential properties to the east unreasonable?

1. Apart from the traffic aspects which we discuss in the next section, the major amenity impacts on the dwellings to the east are the potential for loss of daylight and overlooking. Although overshadowing was a point of discussion, we agree with Mr Bisset that overshadowing impacts only relate to secluded private open space. The dwellings to the east all have their balconies facing east but on our inspection we observed that the main living/dining room stretches from east to west and that the windows to the west, although facing a narrow service yard, do provide light and amenity to the apartments. Partly that is because the eastern windows are set behind balconies which reduce light compared to the western windows which sit flush with the western wall.
2. Although we have already noted that ResCode does not apply to buildings of more than 3 storeys, the use of ResCode standards does provide a useful guide as to how well a building sits within its site context. Mr Bisset's comment that an assessment against ResCode standards is of more relevance for a building just above the 3 storey cut off than a skyscraper such as the Eureka Tower is perhaps obvious, but it is nevertheless something that should be noted.
3. Loss of daylight is of concern to neighbours in the apartments directly east of the review site. While we accept that the existing situation will change, elevations and sections depicting the ResCode daylight standard (B19) clearly demonstrate that based on this quite onerous standard there is no loss of daylight to any of the existing west facing windows at No 41. Removal of the top level or greater side setbacks would not affect this outcome as the building as currently designed easily allows compliance with this standard.
4. Prevention of unreasonable overlooking based on the guidelines included in the Planning Scheme requires some refinement. At the hearing Mr Crowder identified a number of east facing windows that may provide opportunities for overlooking into the apartments to the east. He was uncertain about the extent of screening required so we have included condition 1c) requiring screening of windows and decks to prevent unreasonable overlooking.
5. It is also obvious that the western outlook and views from the dwellings at No 41 to the east are directly related to the height and upper level setbacks of the proposed building. It is self evident that for every level removed, or increasingly larger boundary setbacks, such impacts will become progressively less. While we understand that the residents may desire a lower building with even greater side setbacks, clearly that is not what the Planning Scheme contemplates for amenity impacts. Instead there is an expectation that a certain change in amenity between buildings will occur, and is acceptable. There is also an expectation that what is acceptable will vary depending on the particular site context including existing conditions, whether a site is in an area where more intensive built form is encouraged, what the zones might be, relevant planning policies and what land uses are involved (for example, residential, commercial, industrial, entertainment).

1. Residents with apartments close to the main pedestrian entrance are particularly concerned about noise impacts arising from people coming and going near their apartments. They consider that the entrance should be directly facing Riversdale Road rather than on the eastern side of the building. On our inspection we were able to assess the relationship between the main entrance and the apartments to the east. We have also taken into account that residents and visitors arriving by car will use the internal lift and that it is guests or residents walking to and from the site who will use the main entrance.
2. We recognise that there will be some noise associated with this entrance and that it will be noticeable given that the existing dwelling has a service yard along the common boundary. But we emphasise that this is not an entertainment area where people will be sitting, eating, drinking and listening to music. We consider that any noise will be transient and needs to be considered in the context of the location on a busy arterial road with high traffic volumes and trams travelling in both directions. The lowering of the building by 0.67 metres has resulted in the entrance area being at or slightly below ground level, with a pergola/canopy structure over the top. When combined with the existing boundary fence it means there is only a small space open to the east through which noise can travel.
3. It is also self evident that noise caused by speech and laughter will be generated from any form of residential development but we are not convinced that possible noise disturbance warrants relocation of the entrance.

1. Another issue of concern to neighbours is the inclusion of a small section of boundary wall. The lowering of the building by 0.67 metres has resulted in the only section of boundary wall now largely positioned below the height of the boundary fence. Although neighbours were concerned about this section of wall, we are satisfied that it will have virtually no visual impact because of its excavation into the ground. We also noted on our inspection that the high side wall of the existing dwelling and a tall trellis structure, although both located off the boundary, have a much more dominating appearance than will a wall that barely extends higher than the existing fence. We would also note that the side wall of the floor above in the proposed building is set back between 2.59 and 3.363 metres from the side boundary. This is much greater than the set back of the wall of the existing dwelling and will further reduce the visual impact of the new building for residents living to the east.

Are car parking, loading and access arrangements acceptable?

1. Residents raised concerns about traffic generation and access arrangements and noted that at certain times of the day traffic and parking around the review site can be quite congested, particularly associated with traffic to nearby schools and for weekend courses.
2. Despite these submissions we are not convinced that Riversdale Road and nearby streets cannot cope with the additional traffic from the 33 vehicles. Council's traffic engineers and VicRoads were satisfied with parking and traffic arrangements of the amended proposal. Mr Fairlie was called to give evidence about car parking and traffic related issues and no alternative evidence was presented disputing any of the expert traffic or car parking material provided to the Tribunal.
3. Insufficient on-site car parking and unacceptable traffic impacts are not reasons that we would refuse this development. Adoption of the parking rates in Clause 52.06 would result in a requirement for 54 spaces. Alternatively, 46 spaces would be required based on the local car parking policy at Clause 22.03 or 34 based on the rates included in Clause 55 (Rescode). It is now widely accepted that the residential parking rates in Clause 52.06 are too high and that instead the ResCode rates of one space per one/two bedroom dwelling and two spaces per three or more bedroom dwelling should be used.
4. A total of 33 car spaces are provided in the basement carpark of which 30 are available for the dwellings and 3 for visitors (29 are required for residents but because 6 spaces are in a tandem arrangement, it has not been given over to visitor use). There is therefore a shortfall of 2 visitor spaces but we agree that those two spaces can be provided within the street. The removal of the redundant crossover will also provide additional legal parking space other than at Clearway Times.
5. The substituted plans include some changes to the basement car park and we accept the evidence of Mr Fairlie about the layout of the basement car park and that it will operate satisfactorily. We have therefore deleted the draft condition concerning the blind aisle.

1. Mr Patrick prepared a witness statement but with the agreement of parties was not called to give evidence. The main feature of the landscape proposal is the retention of the two very tall trees within the front setback. We consider this a major plus for the development and fully support changes to the design that have been incorporated to ensure their health and long term retention. The new landscaping is also acceptable although neighbours were concerned about damage from trees roots and the positioning of a new Jacaranda Tree too close to the north east corner. These are matter of design detail that can be finalised with Council at a later stage. However we have amended the landscape plan condition to include a requirement for both matters to be dealt with during the preparation of an amended landscape plan.

1. The permit applicant is largely in agreement with the draft permit conditions prepared by Council. However, in assessing those draft conditions we have made a number of changes to reflect submissions and discussion about them at the hearing or in our reasons above.
2. One of the conditions suggested by Council and not disputed by the permit applicant requires an additional setback of the third and fourth levels in the south west corner. We support the additional setbacks despite some initial reservations about them creating greater opportunities for overlooking to the levels below.

1. Having regard to the above we will set aside Council's decision and direct that a permit issue subject to the conditions set out in the Appendix.

Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot, partial reduction of on-site car parking requirements and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided, substantially in accordance with the amended plans circulated for Application for Review No. P1251/2010 on 28 June 2010, marked TP02 - TP11Rev E but modified to show:
   • (a) The front setbacks of the western part of level 3 stepped back and the front setback of the western part of level 4 set back an additional 1 metre in accordance with plans marked Mediation (Preliminary) Rev D dated 25 June 2010;
   • (b) A sample board of all external materials and finishes;
   • (c) All east facing windows and balconies that provide views into habitable room windows in the dwellings at No 41 Riversdale Road are to be fitted with fixed screens to prevent any such views into habitable room windows. Sightline diagrams are to be provided demonstrating that this requirement has been achieved;
   • (d) Any changes to the plans as a result of the Tree Management Plan required by Condition 3 of this permit; and
   • (e) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 12 of this permit.

1. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the endorsement of the plans referred to in Condition 1 of this permit or the commencement of any works including demolition or levelling of the site, a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Three (3) copies of the tree management plan must be provided. When the tree management plan is endorsed it will then form part of the permit. The tree management plan must specify actions for the management and maintenance of the two trees in the front setback, as identified as tree 11 (Quercus palustis (Pin Oak)) and 12 (Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum)) in the report by John Patrick Landscape Architects dated February 2010, making specific comment on the following matters to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure that the tree remains healthy and viable on site.
2. The procedures (in accordance with AS4970) to be employed for any buildings and works (including excavation) within the tree's TPZ measurement of 7.4m for Tree 11 and 6.6m metres for Tree 12. The construction method will need to be specified by the Arborist in conjunction with engineering specifications;
3. Reporting on the presence of any exposed roots over 50 mm diameter and management of these roots e.g. how they were pruned, fertilisation, watering regime etc;
4. When supervision by an Arborist will be required on-site and time frames specified for supervision;
5. Any remedial pruning works that are required to be performed on the tree before, during and post development of the site and the amount of canopy that will be lost as a result of construction. The pruning comments must reference Australian Standards 4373:2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees and a detailed photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur.
6. The location of vehicle and pedestrian access to the site during construction, which specifies all buildings and works within the TPZ referred to in point a). This should include any recommendations for staging or timing of access to the site throughout the construction phase.
7. A plan showing the location of scaffolding and any pruning required in order for scaffolding to be erected.
8. The recommendations contained in the approved tree management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The owner and occupier of the site must ensure that, prior to the commencement of buildings and works, all contractors and tradespersons operating on the site are advised of the status of trees to be retained as detailed in the endorsed Arborist report and are advised of any obligations in relation to the protection of those trees.

1. A landscape plan, generally in accordance with the plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd (dated July 2010 and marked Job No 10-187 VCAT-01), 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 form part of this permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimension and three copies must be provided.
   • (a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and /or removed;
   • (b) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;
   • (c) Details of any root barriers between the landscaped areas and the property at no 41 Riversdale Road;
   • (d) 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;
   • (e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;
   • (f) A repositioning of the Jacaranda Tree in the north east corner so that it is further from the eastern boundary fence; and
   • (g) Planting required by any other Condition of this permit.

1. Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

1. All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plans must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and all drainage works must be completed prior to the occupation of the building.

1. Car parking spaces must be designed to allow vehicles to drive forwards when both entering and exiting the property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
2. The edges of the vehicular crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary to improve entry and exit conditions, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
3. A sealed driveway must be constructed within the site and be 6.0 metres wide for the first 6 metres to allow two-way traffic flow, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and
4. The wall and garden bed located on the western edge of the driveway must be no higher than 0.5 metres to provide adequate sight distance for drivers exiting the site.

1. Before the use starts or any building is occupied, area/s set aside for car parking, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed and formed to such levels and properly drained so that they can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. External driveways and parking areas must be constructed with dark coloured concrete or bitumen, coloured patterned concrete, interlocking paving blocks or brick paving to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before any building is occupied, details of any car park control equipment (controlling access to and egress from the internal/basement car parks) must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. These details must include a car park control device which can be accessed by visitors to the development including clear instructions on how to operate any security system, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Car spaces must not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any new vehicle crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover must be constructed in accordance with Council's standard details. No such works are permitted to commence unless a Supervision Permit is first obtained from the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the completion of the development, the developer must remove all disused or redundant vehicle crossovers and re-instate kerb and channelling and the affected nature strip, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent light from the site causing any detriment to the locality, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Garbage containers must be stored out of general view, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All pipes (except down-pipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from external view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Buildings, engineering works and fences must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Reticulated Electricity to be Provided Underground.

1. Reticulated electricity must be provided underground to the subject land and all buildings on the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. A waste management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once satisfactory, such plan will be endorsed and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must provide the following details of a regular private waste (including recyclables) collection service for the subject land including:
   • (a) Private collection of waste on-site;
   • (b) The type/s and number of waste bins;
   • (c) Frequency of waste collection;
   • (d) Type/size of trucks;
   • (e) Location of collection points within basement; and
   • (f) Evidence that the waste collection vehicle will be able to collect waste on-site and turn and exit the site in a forwards direction

1. Prior to the commencement of any site works a construction management plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed, the construction management plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must provide details of the following:
   • (a) Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit;
   • (b) Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;
   • (c) The location and design of a vehicle wash down bay for construction vehicles on the site;
   • (d) The location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows. Any basement carpark on the land must be made available for use by sub-constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay;
   • (e) Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the construction management plan;
   • (f) Contact details of key construction site staff;
   • (g) The location of any site sheds and the like; and
   • (h) Any other relevant matters.

1. All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated with the approved development must take place only during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) Monday to Thursday: 7:00am to 6:30pm
   • (b) Friday: 7:00am to 5:00pm
   • (c) Saturday: 8:00am to 5:00pm
   • (d) Sunday & Public Holidays: No construction.

1. This Permit will expire if:
   • (a) The development does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this Permit; or
   • (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the Permit expires or within the three (3) months afterwards.

[1] Sections B-B, C-C, D-D and E-E on sheets TP-09, TP-10and TP-10a.