1. The Tribunal was constituted to hear application for review No. P3284/2008 on 18 June 2009. This application was for an objector's review under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act of Council's decision to grant a planning permit. I was advised that the permit applicant had concurrently lodged application for review No. P276/2009 against five conditions specified in that same decision. P276/2009 was not set down for hearing on 18 June 2009. The parties to both applications are exactly the same and the respondent objectors had requested, in writing, that they be heard together. The Council and the permit applicant advised me that they too wished to have the matters determined together. Accordingly, I joined P276/2009 with P3284/2008 and heard both applications together on 18 June 2009.
2. The permit applicant also requested that its name be modified to 'The First Stone Pty Ltd' and there being no objection to this request, I also made that order accordingly.

1. Application Nos. D/63/2008 was lodged with Darebin City Council in February 2008 for the purposes of developing in No. 70 Oakover Road, Preston for fifty one (51) dwellings comprising 30 double storey townhouses and 21 apartments which are to be within a three storey building.
2. Council described some of the attributes of the proposal in the following terms:
   • The townhouse dwellings are orientated to the street frontages with 5 attached pairs (10 dwellings) fronting Oakover Road, 7 attached pairs (14 dwellings) fronting Erin Street and 3 attached pairs (6 dwellings) fronting Austral Avenue.
   • The townhouse dwellings will typically comprise ground level entry, open plan family/meals/kitchen area, bathroom, and laundry areas with three first floor bedrooms and bathroom.
   • All townhouse dwellings will have a double garage at the rear and accessed via a central roadway off Austral Avenue.
   • All townhouse dwellings will have private open space of at least 40sqm in a rear yard.
   • Maximum height of the new townhouse dwellings is 7.8m.
   • The apartment building is to front Austral Avenue which is a street that displays some industrial characteristics on its eastern side.
   • The apartment dwellings will typically comprise of an entry, open plan family/meals/kitchen area, bathroom, and laundry areas with 2 bedrooms and bathroom. A variety of internal layouts are proposed.
   • All apartment dwellings will have a single car space within a common ground level garage which is also accessed via the central roadway off Austral Avenue.
   • A total of thirteen visitor spaces are proposed within the apartment garage.
   • An additional six on-street spaces will be made available by reinstating existing crossovers to the kerb and channel.
   • All apartment dwellings will have private open space of at least 8sqm in the form of a balcony.
   • Maximum height of the new apartment dwellings is 10m.
3. Overall, the front setback of the development will be a minimum 5m to Oakover Road, 7.5m to Erin Street and 4m to Austral Avenue. These setbacks are all increased at the upper levels.
4. The new dwellings will have a mix of traditional and contemporary design finished with face brick, render, timber and glazing with a mixture of pitched tiled, angled and flat roof forms.
5. A 2000mm high brick and timber front fence is proposed in front of the apartment building. Otherwise no front fencing is proposed.

1. I have inspected the site and the surrounding area and I note the following site and neighbourhood features:
   • The site is vacant and was most recently used for industrial purposes.
   • The allotment is very large for an inner suburban locality. The land is regular in shape with a frontage to Oakover Road of 72.54m and a depth of 134.42m. The site area is of just under one hectare (9750sqm). The land has no appreciable fall.
   • I was advised that no restrictive covenants apply to the land.
   • Vehicular access is currently available via several crossovers off Austral Avenue and Erin Street.

1. To the south of the site on Oakover Road there is mix of mainly single storey dwellings from the inter war period. To the north of the site there are residential properties fronting Austral Avenue and Erin Street respectively.
2. To the west of the site is Erin Street which also hosts a mix of mainly single storey dwellings. To the east is Austral Avenue which hosts some industrial buildings beyond which there is a mix of other industrial buildings of varying heights.
3. The wider area hosts a mixture of industrial and residential development. Industrial uses are situated to the east of the site extending to St Georges Road. To the north, south and west there are established and attractive residential precincts. These residential precincts are characterised by a mix of single and two storey dwellings typically with pitched tiled roofs. Some medium density development is also apparent.
4. The site is within close proximity to local schools and public open space. Public transport (tram) is available on Gilbert Road about 200m to the west. Miller Street Shopping Centre is 300m to the south west. Preston Shopping Centre and Bell Railway Station are about 600m to the north east.

1. The subject site is within the Residential 1 zone under the Darebin Planning Scheme. A permit is required for the development of two or more dwellings on a lot.
2. The site is also affected by three overlays being:
   • Special Building Overlay (SBO)
   • Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO)
   • Development Contribution Plan Overlay (DCPO)
3. There are also relevant state and local planning policy considerations and I will address these below.

1. It is a relevant consideration that this land has been the subject of a very recent rezoning which has precipitated the current application.
2. I was advised that Darebin City Council prepared an 'Industrial Land Use Strategy' in 2001 and that the subject site and parts of the surrounding area were identified as not being attractive for industrial development because of (among other things) amenity issues associated with industry in a residential area.
3. On the basis of that strategy, Amendment C10 (Part 3) to the Darebin Planning Scheme proposed to:
   • Rezone the land bounded by Erin Street, Oakover Road and Austral Avenue (ie the subject land) from Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to Residential 1 Zone (RIZ) and apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO).
   • Rezone the land bound by Austral Avenue, Stott and Showers Street, Newman Street and Oakover Road from Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO). This is the land to the east.
   • Rezone all of the Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) land on the corner of St Georges Road and Oakeover Roads to the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO). This is the land which is further to the east.
4. The explanatory report for the amendment justified the rezoning of the subject site as follows:

The rezoning of the land to Residential 1 Zone will provide an opportunity for an increase in the number of dwellings within the municipality to accommodate the decreasing household size in an area reasonably serviced by transport, open space and a range of services.

1. Amendment C10 (Part 3) was gazetted in May 2006 and I understand that the land was then cleared of its former industrial buildings.
2. Application Nos. D/63/2008 was a direct response to the rezoning.

1. Throughout the course of the hearing it became apparent that there was a degree of 'in principle' support for the development including from the objectors. Mr Kern acknowledged that the objectors felt that the outcome of fifty one dwellings was a "reasonable compromise" given the size and the new zoning of the land. The objectors support an outcome which is of a 'medium density' scale rather than a 'high density' development.
2. Mr Kern's specific concerns with the design (some of which were shared by council) related more to "character" issues including:
   • Upper level setbacks
   • Roof pitch
   • The use of balconies
   • Height of the apartments
   • Need for a landscape plan
   • Need to take account of flooding
3. Before turning to these issues, I want to firstly commend Mr Kern, Dr McKenzie and other residents for their involvement in, and contribution to, the design outcome. At all times I felt that their objections and submissions were constructive and were based on a genuine desire to achieve a reasonable and balanced design outcome for this large redevelopment site in the midst of their neighbourhood.
4. I also want to acknowledge the degree to which the proposal has the support of the state and local policy directions in the planning scheme on urban consolidation. This is a large site within close proximity to all urban services and infrastructure and is ideally suited to some modest form of housing density increase. Its policy support has been entrenched by its recent rezoning which invites a residential future to replace its industrial past.
5. I also agree with council and the proponent that the proposal has many factors in its favour including:
   • Its substantial size of nearly one hectare in an established urban area.
   • Its (new) Residential 1 Zoning
   • Its location in very close proximity to existing infrastructure and services including schools, public open space, public transport and activity centres at Miller Street and Preston Central (which is a Principal Activity Centre).
   • Its proximity to main arterial roads (Bell Street and St Georges Road) which provides convenient vehicle access.
   • The immediate neighbourhood context which displays a mix of residential properties with more robust industrial development to the east.
   • Three street frontages.
   • Interface to an established industrial area.
   • No car parking or access at the front of any of the dwellings which promotes residential character and maximises pedestrian opportunities on all streets.
   • All vehicular access from Austral Avenue which has the least sensitive immediate residential interface.
   • A very recent and uncontested strategic decision to rezone the land.
6. I will now turn to the specific issues in dispute.

1. Many of the issues in dispute related to the degree to which the proposal sat comfortably with the prevailing characteristics of the area.
2. To assist applicants in the addressing this issue, I note that there is a relevant council local policy (Clause 22.04 - Neighbourhood Character) which identifies this area as being within Precinct D3. In this precinct, the following characteristics are evident (according to the policy):

Californian bungalow style dwellings are predominant and other interwar styles are also common, including some Arts and Crafts style particularly along Miller Street. Occasional 1960s-70s brown and orange brick infill is found in the eastern parts of the precinct. New medium density development is located along the Bell Street frontage on remnant road widening land.

Predominantly timber construction, apart from the Arts and Crafts style dwellings which are clinker brick, and some rendered brick. Roofs are predominantly mixed tiles.

Front setbacks are consistently between 5 & 7 metres and side setbacks between 1 & 3 metres.

Building form is generally 'L' shaped with a projecting room.

Roofs are mixed throughout the precinct and include hipped, gable and flat roofs.

Front gardens are usually low level and consist of exotic species.

Front fences are rarely high and are usually permeable.

1. I also note the objectives for new development in the D3 area include:
   • To provide space for front gardens.
   • To ensure new development retains substantial space for landscaping.
   • To maintain and reinforce the existing rhythm of spacing between dwellings.
   • To minimise the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures.
   • To ensure the buildings and extensions respect the predominant height and form of buildings in the street.
   • To maintain, where present, the consistency of frontage widths and building heights and forms.
2. My inspections found that, of these, some really important aspects of this immediate area (apart from 'height' which I will comment on below) were the 'spacing' or 'rhythm' between buildings and the presence of front gardens. In my view, these are perhaps the most critical elements to incorporate into any new development and, in my view this has been satisfactorily achieved in the ultimate design. I also noted the extent of pitched roof forms in the area and I agree with the residents and council that the suggested flat roof forms on the townhouses would be an alien element in the area. In this context I support the modified roof forms as indicated on the amended plans.
3. I am satisfied that the design reflects the key character objectives and elements in precinct D3, especially the spacing of buildings and the inclusion of front gardens. I also am pleased to see that the development avoids the dominance of car parking and related structures and this too satisfies the character area objectives.

1. Council had imposed a condition on the notice of decision requiring that the upper level setback of the townhouses (units 1-30) be offset 2.5m instead of the proposed 1m. Council and the objectors felt that this would provide a better transition between ground and first floor and would better integrate, in a character sense, with the surrounding single storey development pattern especially on Oakover and Erin.
2. I had a close look at this issue on my inspection and I feel that, as submitted, the plans include a smooth enough transition between what exists and what is proposed. This was assisted by some artists impressions provided at the hearing by Ms Loddo which showed how the upper levels were typically setback about 2.8m other than for a protruding 'ensuite' which, by virtue of it being sometimes of different materials, actually provided good articulation and a sense of upper level 'interest' which might not be there if a standardised setback was adopted.
3. I do not think that anything more would be achieved by recessing the upper levels further.
4. In this same context, the Council and the residents also submitted that the use of balconies was uncharacteristic of the area although it became apparent on the basis of the artists impressions how innocuous the proposed balconies are to be. All of the balconies for the townhouses are small (4m2) and are actually recessed 2.8m from the footprint below excepting for part of them associated with the wall of a bathroom which will be recessed by a metre.
5. I feel that the balconies add to the design and help emphasise a nicely articulated front appearance of the townhouses.

1. While it was not pursued with much vigour, the residents queried the height of the apartment building in the context of the single storey built form in the area.
2. I note that the only time at which a third level is included in the design is on Austral Avenue, opposite the existing industrial buildings, and opposite a vacant site which (judging by an advertising hoarding on site) has permission for three levels of units. I think that a split three level design outcome is appropriate as the interface to the east (industry) is the least sensitive and already includes some taller structures. I also note that some of the buildings on Oakover, east of Austral, equate with about three storeys. I think that it is also relevant that the pre-existing building on the site consumed all of the land and evidently that building achieved a maximum height of over ten metres.
3. I finally note that the upper level third storey on the apartment building is well recessed from the front and is also well removed from existing single storey dwellings in Oakover and Erin. In my view, there is a reasonable transition in height from the established single storey regime to the new double storey buildings. The only variation to this occurs in a small area on Austral Avenue which has an interface with less sensitive industrial buildings.

1. There are to be no front fences to any of the townhouses but there is to be a fence at the front of the apartments. As proposed, this fence was to be 2m in height but council suggested a reduction in height and provided the applicant with two options as follows:

The heights of the fences in front of Apartments 1-4 reduced so that they are a maximum of 1.2 metres above natural ground level. Alternatively the fences may be reduced in height to a maximum of 1.8 metres above natural ground level but must be modified to be visually transparent.

1. The purpose of this condition is to assist in the visual integration between the units and the street as well as to address a flooding concern. Based on his experiences in the 2003 floods and on Melbourne Water advice, Mr. Kern strongly submitted that any fence needs to make allowance for the passage of overland flows. Ms Loddo noted that the fence is 'broken up' into parts and already faces industrial buildings opposite. That said, she acknowledged the flooding issue and felt that a modified condition based on a 1.8m height but with a base that allowed floodwaters would be appropriate. Ultimately I agree with Mr. Kern and Ms. Loddo on this issue and I have included a modified condition which addresses this concern.

1. I also note that a landscape concept plan (Zenith Concepts) was tabled at the hearing and this resolved a number of queries of Mr. Kern regarding landscape treatment, canopy trees and street vegetation. In my view this concept plan needs to be used as the basis for the landscaping of this site and I will cross reference the standard condition to this plan. At the suggestion of Mr. Kern I have also strengthened this condition by specifying the height of canopy trees in the front garden and a requirement that regard be had to underground and overhead infrastructure when undertaking landscaping.

1. Given the nature of the former land use of the land, it was common ground that an Environmental Audit needs to be provided before the development is occupied. While I understand that such an Audit has been prepared (Project Ref: ENVIABTF08111AA, dated 16 May 2008 and prepared by Tim Marshall) I will retain this as a permit condition and will require that written confirmation of compliance with the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental professional.

1. Council required the permit applicant to submit a 'Travel Plan' with the application inclusive of traffic details on the proposal; the existing transport context of the site; travel targets; actions to implement these targets; and a monitoring and reporting program.
2. The Travel Plan is intended to be endorsed as part of the planning permit (it is referred to in the preamble to the permit) and it is to be modified (according to condition 1(s) of the Notice of Decision) so that:
   • The target for the apartment building to read 'By 2015 100% of residents of the apartment building will only own one (1) motor vehicle.'
   • Each action nominated within the Plan must identify who has responsibility for the action and the cost associated with it.
   • A number of the actions (such as, but not limited to, organising a Bicycle Users Group or a 'Bike Buddy' system) to be promoted to all residents within the complex not just those within the apartments.
3. Ms. Loddo, on behalf of the permit applicant submitted that she saw some practical problems with the Travel Plan and that it places an unreasonable burden on future owners and occupiers. She also felt that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to enforce the Travel Plan. Ms Loddo noted:
   • It is envisaged that the town houses will be subdivided and sold off as separate lots with the only common property being associated with the access way. It is therefore considered that the requirements of the travel plan should not apply to the town houses but only the apartment building.
   • The proposed development has a surplus of parking provided. There are 34 car spacers provided within the apartment complex for twenty one (21) two bedroom apartments. There is provision for four (4) visitor spaces which results in a surplus of 9 car spaces.
   • The requirement to provide a travel plan when there isn't an overall shortfall of parking for the development is considered to be onerous.
4. I have assessed the submitted Travel Plan and note that the detail of the Plan contains targets such as:
   • By 2015, 50% of residents of the apartment building will only own one vehicle.
   • By 2015, 50% of trips by residents will be by sustainable modes.
   • By 2015, 50% of visitor trips to the site will be by sustainable modes.
   • By 2015, 50% of residents will use bicycles to visit High Street commercial centre.
5. I also note that the Action Plan includes such requirements as:
   • Provide a bicycle or subsidy from the local bike shop to each new resident who would like one.
   • Provide sufficient cycle parking to meet peak needs, which is easily accessible, light, attractive and secure.
   • Provide cycle parking for visitors and sign it as such.
   • Have a toolkit available to residents in the secure bicycle lock up area - this can consist of puncture repair equipment, a bike pump, spanners, allan keys etc.
   • Provide an interest-free loan to buy an annual Metcard.
   • Advertise where Metcards can be purchased from close to the site.
   • Approach residents with a car and determine their regular trips. Advertise these trips to other residents (with permission) in order to facilitate carpooling.
6. There is finally a requirement for an annual report to be submitted to council on 1st May each year monitoring the travel habits of residents and reporting on:
   • How the monitoring was conducted.
   • The results of the monitoring activities.
   • How the results compare to the targets.
   • What actions have been implemented from the travel plan.
   • What actions are yet to be implemented and when they will be implemented.
7. I have no problem in principle with the admirable objectives of Council in facilitating alternative means of transport in preference to forever using the motor car. I also have no problem in Council using all legal and promotional means at its disposal to get that message across by way of brochures, promotional events, subsidies and the like.
8. However I have great difficulty in connecting this standard Travel Plan with the permission sought in the application and I am bemused as to how it might possibly be enforced. The Travel Plan seems to fail every one of the accepted tests of the validity of a permit condition being:
   • Relevance;
   • Reasonableness;
   • Certainty.
9. In a practical sense, I am not sure what is intended to happen if the targets are not met by the anniversary date. Will this somehow invalidate the development? I am also unclear whose obligation it is to provide the interest free Metcard loan or to provide the toolkit. The requirement for an annual report also seems particularly onerous.
10. I do not think that the Travel Plan can be enforced and I propose to delete any reference to it from the preamble of the permit. On that same basis, I will also delete condition 1(s). That said, I propose to substitute a new condition 1(s) which will, I hope, deliver some of the admirable ambitions of the plan by requiring the provision of bicycle parking for the apartments in accordance with Clause 52.39 of the Planning Scheme. There seems ample space available for bike parking in the visitor car parking area.

1. The proposed urban renewal project on this former well located industrial site in Preston has the strong support of state and local planning policy.
2. The outcome of (mainly) two storey townhouses is a smooth transition from the attractive single storey inter war neighbourhood within which the site is located. The only variation to this townhouse regime is the three level apartment building which interfaces with existing industrial buildings to the east.
3. I agree with council that the proposed built form "...is respectful, modest and consistent with established neighbourhood character themes". The built form in the area exhibits a degree of repetition and standardisation which is reflected in the townhouse design. Importantly, the strong existing characteristic of spacing between buildings and a rhythm to the streetscape is also reflected in the design. Variety is provided on Austral Avenue but only in deference to the harder edge industrial built form to the east.
4. It is directed that a conditional planning permit be issued.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Dwg No.s TP-03, TP-04, TP-05, TP-06, TP-07, TP-08, TP-09, dated 08/09/08 and Dwg Nos. TP-13, dated 15/05/09, Project No. 2618 prepared by Nassima Design), but modified to show:

1. The appearance of Dwellings 13-14, 17-18, 21-24 and 25-28 along the Erin Street and Austral Avenue frontages modified to appear like Dwellings 1-2. The sequencing of the dwellings may be modified in order to achieve visual balance of dwelling styles. 2. The garage for the apartment building to be modified to be in two (2) stages. The first stage would contain at least four (4) visitors' spaces and be accessible to all within the development (and their visitors). The second stage would be a secure area only accessible to residents of the apartment building.

1. An appropriately sized area for the storage of wastes and recyclables located within the garage for the apartment building. Some of the remaining surplus visitors' spaces may be utilised for this purpose. Car parking for residents of the apartment building cannot be reduced.

1. The heights of the fences in front of Apartments 1-4 reduced in height to a maximum of 1.8 metres above natural ground level and be modified to be of an open style at the base to the applicable flood level as specified by Melbourne Water. 2. The setbacks of Dwellings 24 and 25 from the northern boundary to be increased (or alternatively the wall heights decreased) to comply with Standard B17 of Clause 55.04-1 of the Darebin Planning Scheme. 3. The northern boundary fence of the site where it is along side Dwelling 24 (and the rear private open space/garage but not forward of the front building line) to be a minimum of 1.8 metres above natural ground level. 4. A notation indicating that the north-facing, upper floor Bedroom 2 windows for Dwellings 24 and 25 have fixed obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level. 5. West and east facing Bedroom 3 windows for Dwellings 25 and 24 to be screened by the provision of fixed obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level. 6. The volume of the external storage areas for the town houses increased to a minimum of 6.0 cubic metres. 7. Dividing fences between the townhouses to be of an open style in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements and have a minimum height of 1.8 metres above ground level. If fences are forward of the front building line they must not exceed a height of 1.0 metres above ground level. Alternatively, divisions between pairs of town houses within the front setback need to be defined by low planting rather than fencing. Access in the form of gates are to be provided at the front building line so the rear of each dwelling can be accessed from the front yard. 8. The appearance of the walls separating the attached pairs minimised as much as possible by such treatments as reducing their size to the absolute minimum required and colouring them to blend with the wall they are adjacent to or any other appropriate treatment which would achieve the same result.

1. A visibility splay measuring 2.0 metres (width along the frontage) x 2.5 metres (depth into the site) provided on the northern and southern sides of the proposed crossover to Austral Avenue. 1. All vegetation and structures within these splays must be less than 1.15 metres in height.

1. Where eaves are provided over the window/door to the kitchen/meals areas on the sides of the townhouses they are to be deleted. Only Dwellings 1 and 10 may retain eaves at this location. 2. All site services for all dwellings (townhouses and within the apartment building) detailed on the plans. Services must be sited and, where appropriate, screened and/or baffled in such a way that they will not impact on the amenity of adjoining dwellings both on the subject site and adjoining properties. 3. Details of any services or plant proposed to be located on the roofs of the townhouses and the apartment building must be detailed on the plans. The services/ plant must be centrally located and screened so as to be concealed or have minimal visibility from the street and adjoining properties. 4. Location and height of a single communal antenna for the apartment building, sufficient to service the needs of future occupants. 5. Bicycle parking for the apartment building in accordance with Clause 52.34. 6. Provision of appropriate documentation regarding the management of the storage of garbage and recycling for the apartment building in accordance with Condition No. 7 of this Permit. 7. The provision of a 1.0 metre wide blind aisle for vehicles to be able to access the northern most car spaces within the apartment building car park. Alternatively swept path diagrams can be provided to demonstrate that vehicles can access these spaces. 8. The proposed treatment to the western edge of the internal accessway where it abuts Erin Street. Any edge treatment must allow sufficient area for dwellings associated with Dwelling 10 to enter and exit their garage. 9. A fence which prevents access to the Right of Way abutting the northern boundary of the land. The fence must be of an open style as per Melbourne Water requirements and its height above natural ground level must be a minimum of 1.9 metres above natural ground level.

1. All new garages constructed with finished surface levels a minimum of 150mm above the applicable flood level (Melbourne Water requirement).

1. The apartment building car park constructed with finished surface levels a minimum of 150mm above the applicable flood level (Melbourne Water requirement).

1. The car spaces within the apartment building car park allocated to residents or visitors as required (one (1) space per apartment and at least four spaces for visitors). The spaces must be clearly signed to identify them.

1. Modifications in accordance with the Sustainable Design Statement (refer to Condition No. 5 of this Permit). 2. A comprehensive schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (including colour samples). Materials, colours and finishes of Dwellings 1-30 must be more reflective of the materials, colours and finishes found in the dwellings in Oakover Road/Erin Street and Austral Avenue surrounding the site. 3. A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition No.8 of this Permit. 4. A plan outlining the sequencing and staging of the construction of the proposed development.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. This Permit will expire if:
   • The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this Permit; or
   • The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.

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

1. Prior to the issue of a building permit for any building or any works authorised by this permit, a development levy must be paid to Darebin City Council. The amount of the development levy for each charge unit must be calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Development Contribution Plan Overlay.
2. Before the development starts, a Sustainable Design Statement detailing sustainable design strategies to be incorporated into the development must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. The sustainable design statement must outline proposed sustainable design initiatives within the development such as (but not limited to) energy efficiency, water conservation, stormwater quality and management, waste management and material selection.

The development must be constructed in accordance with the requirements/ recommendations of the Sustainable Design Statement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development is occupied all conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit (Project Ref: ENVIABTF08111AA, dated 16 May 2008 and prepared by Tim Marshall) must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Written confirmation of compliance with the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental professional.

Where the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit require ongoing maintenance or monitoring, before the development is occupied the owner of the land must enter into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to the effect that, without the written consent of the Responsible Authority:

• All conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit issued in respect of the land will be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Written confirmation of compliance with the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental professional.

A memorandum of the Agreement must be entered on the Title to the land and the owner must pay the costs of the preparation and execution of the Agreement and entry of the memorandum on Title.

1. Before the development starts, a plan (and, if appropriate, other associated documentation) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, demonstrating the operation of the garbage and recyclables storage area for the apartments must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The plan/documentation must demonstrate the means by which garbage and recyclables will be stored on the site and must require that collection be undertaken by a private contractor. Garbage and recyclables storage and collection must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan/documentation to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan generally in accordance with the plan of Zenith Concepts (June 2009) must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must incorporate:

1. A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants. 2. Details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and hard paving (such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel).

1. Street trees within the nature strip/s adjacent to the property.

1. All constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting, clotheslines etc. 2. Edge treatment between grass (lawn) and garden beds. 3. An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of entry doors, windows, gates and fences. An outline of buildings on adjoining land, including the location of windows and doors which face the subject site must also be shown. 4. The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services. Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided. 5. Clear graphics identifying trees (deciduous and evergreen), shrubs, groundcovers and climbers. 6. A scale, North Point and appropriate legend. 7. A canopy tree with a minimum height of 5m in the front garden of each townhouse. 8. Measures to ensure that landscaping has taken account of overhead or underground infrastructure so as not to cause conflict.

The species of all proposed plants selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.

1. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. The waste storage/collection area for the apartment building must not be used for any other purpose and must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition, and free from offensive odour, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans, or in accordance with any other conditions in this permit are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
7. Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. Before occupation of the development, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:

1. Constructed; 2. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.

1. Before the development is occupied, vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant crossing(s) or crossing opening(s) must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.
3. Any new dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
4. Any new garages must be constructed with finished surface levels a minimum of 150mm above the applicable flood level.
5. The apartment building must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
6. The apartment building car park must be constructed with finished surface levels a minimum of 150mm above the applicable flood level.
7. 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.
8. The internal roadway must be constructed with finished surface levels set no lower than 51.8 metres to Australian Height Datum.
9. Any new fences within the overland flow path must be of an open style of construction to allow for the passage of flood waters / overland flow.
10. Prior to the commencement of works, a separate application direct to Melbourne Water must be made for any new or modified stormwater connection to Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.
11. The layout of the site and size and design and location of the buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of Melbourne Water.

• The flood line from the property grades from 52.15 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD) at the north eastern corner down to 51.9 metres to AHD at the north western corner and south eastern corner and down to 51.65 metres to AHD as the south western corner (Melbourne Water).