Mr M Waldon, Town Planner. Mr Waldon called expert evidence from Mr R Thomson, Landscape Architect.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

1. At the commencement of the hearing, I noted the presence at the table of a submitter (Mr H Welsh) whom I know professionally. I had not made the connection from reading the file. My association with the submitter is strictly professional and has only extended over the last six months as we have attended joint meetings (along with many others) on behalf of separate parties. I mentioned this to all parties at the hearing and I sought their views as to the appropriateness of my continuing in this matter. None of the parties objected to me continuing to hear and determine the matter.
2. Mrs Bystrzycka sought leave to join a number of other neighbouring parties to the hearing. Some of these were original objectors while others had not previously been involved. I declined to join the parties, but explained that the issues that these parties had hoped to address were already adequately covered by Council's assessment in its officer report; as well as in Council's submission at the hearing; and in the submissions of Mrs Bystrzycka, Mr Welsh and Mr Palumbo.
3. By letter received at the Tribunal on 3 May 2011, the permit applicant advised that he would seek to substitute amended plans. The modified plans are those of "The Silver Arc, Architecture and Design Dwgs 75T TP0-TP10 (inclusive) Revision C, 27 April 2011 VCAT Issue". The changes were described as:
   • Modified entry layouts and transition areas to provide for more workable vehicular turning circles.
   • Enhanced landscape beds along the main driveway.
   • Roofing modified from flat-roof form to skillion style.
   • All windows and balconies with potential for overlooking treated to comply with Standard B22 of Clause 55.
   • Slight reduction in size of balconies and slight increase in floor area of adjacent living areas.
   • Front fence modified to be 1.2m in height.
   • Additional plan (TP1O) demonstrating turning circles in accordance with 'Auto-turn'.
4. The plans were circulated to the parties in accordance with the Tribunal's practice. Neither Council nor the objectors opposed the substitution and accordingly, I ordered that these amended plans replace the original submitted plans.

1. Application No. KP295/2010 was lodged with Kingston City Council on 18 May 2010 to develop No. 17 View Street, Highett for six dwellings.
2. Key attributes of the proposed design (in its final form) include:
   • All dwellings are double storey.
   • The dwellings are to be arranged one behind the other commencing at a 9m setback from the street.
   • Each dwelling is to be of 2 bedrooms with Dwelling 1 at the front having a study as well.
   • Each dwelling is to be served by a single garage (6m x about 3.5m).
   • The garages are to be elongated to provide storage and a laundry.
   • Dwellings 2-6 are to have open space in the form of a 9.5m² (minimum) balcony and ground level courtyard ranging from 11.2m2 to 18.9m2.
   • A new crossover and driveway is proposed along the north boundary providing vehicular access for Dwelling 1.
   • All other access is from the existing driveway alignment along the southern boundary.
   • A visitor car space is to be provided mid-site.
   • The dwellings are to have a maximum height of about 7.3m.
   • The dwellings are to be constructed in a mix of face brickwork, rendered surfaces, timber panelling, aluminium windows, louvered balcony screens, and metal deck roofing.
   • Site coverage is to be about 41%, while there is a permeable area of about 26%.
3. I have inspected the subject site and the surrounding area and I adopt the description as provided to me by Mr Waldon of the site's attributes.

The subject site is on the west side of View Street and south of Highett Road, in Highett. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 15.24m, a depth of 60.96m, and a site area of 929.03m². The site is relatively flat and at grade with surrounding properties. The site is currently occupied with a single storey brick dwelling at a street setback of 11.98m. There is a garage to the rear of the dwelling sited on the southern boundary. The garage is accessed via a crossover and driveway along the southern side of the site.

1. Mr Waldon also noted that the immediate area was typical of post-war suburban housing being characterised by single storey weatherboard and brick veneer dwellings. View Street and surrounds have begun to experience medium density housing developments of both single and 2-storey form in recent times.
2. In terms of its abuttals, I noted on inspection that the property to the north (at No. 19 View) is occupied by two single storey dwellings in a tandem arrangement. The Welsh's live in the rear unit. This dwelling has its open space areas facing the site. The property to the south (at No. 15 View Street) is occupied by a single storey dwelling with a 7.6m setback from the street. Mr. and Mrs. Bystrzcka live in this dwelling. Their site has a driveway, a garage, an outdoor entertaining area, a brick wall and some relatively dense vegetation facing the subject site.
3. The properties to the rear (west) face Station Street and have rear yards which interface with the subject site with sheds, a pool and typical suburban planting, To the east, across View Street there are single storey dwellings at setbacks of between about 4.5m and 7m.
4. The site is also well located with respect to other facilities. It is close to the vast 'Southland' regional shopping centre and has an array of pre-school, primary school and secondary schools nearby. Recreation opportunities abound and Port Phillip Bay is a short drive away.

1. The subject site is contained within the Residential 1 zone under the Kingston Planning Scheme. Under Clause 32.01-4 a planning permit is required for two or more dwellings on a lot. Clause 55 of the Scheme is the operable assessment tool.
2. The site is also affected by a Design and Development Overlay - Schedule12 (DDO12) which relates to the Highett Activity Centre. DDO12 triggers a permit for buildings and works. I will address DDO12 in greater detail below.
3. There are extensive State and local policies that also apply and again, I will address these below.
4. It is relevant though, at this stage, to note that the DDO and important parts of the local policy framework were only recently introduced into the Kingston Planning Scheme as part of Amendment C73 which was approved in November 2008. This amendment implemented the Highett Structure Plan and it introduced modified planning controls for the Highett Activity Centre including a new policy (at Clause 22.17) as well as DDO12.

1. Upon receipt of the application and relevant information, Council notified nearby owners and occupiers prompting seventeen objections citing concerns with:
   • neighbourhood character
   • overdevelopment of the site
   • height, scale and mass of the building
   • amenity issues
   • car parking
   • traffic
2. Council also sought the views of some of its internal departments. I was advised that:
   • Council's Development Engineer advised of no objection, subject to the inclusion of a number of conditions on any permit issued; and
   • Council's Vegetation Management Officer advised of no objection, subject to the inclusion of a number of conditions on any permit issued.
3. Notably, Council did not seek the formal views of its strategic planning unit nor of its traffic officers.
4. Having assessed the application, Council decided to reject the application on nine grounds being:
   1. The proposal fails to achieve the objectives and strategic directions of the Municipal Strategic Statement - Residential Land Use contained at Clause 21.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
   2. The proposal fails to achieve the objectives of the Residential Development Policy contained at Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
   3. The proposal fails to achieve the objectives of the Highett Activity Centre Policy at Clause 22.17of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
   4. The proposal fails to satisfy the design objectives of the Design & Development Overlay - Schedule 12 (Highett Activity Centre).
   5. The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and standards of Clauses 55.02-1 (Neighbourhood character), 55.02-2 (Residential Policy), 55.02-5 (Integration with the Street), 55.03-1 (Street Setback), 55.03-7 (Safety), 55.03-9 (Access), 55.03-10 (Parking Location), 55.03-11 (Parking Provision), 55.04-6 (Overlooking), 55.05-2 (Dwelling Entry), 55.05-3 (Daylight to New Windows), 55.06-1 (Design Detail) and 55.064 (Site Services) of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
   6. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.
   7. The proposal would detract from the visual amenity of the locality and the streetscape.
   8. The proposal would detrimentally affect the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.
   9. Inadequate provision has been made for off-street parking to cope with the demands of the proposal.

1. Having inspected the site and the area and having considered all submissions, I think that the nominated grounds of refusal raise the following issues for me to address:
   • compliance with policy
   • impacts on amenity
   • impacts on traffic and parking
2. Of these, I must start with planning policy as this clearly frames my consideration and assessment of the other issues.

1. State and metropolitan policy supports urban consideration of established areas, especially those located near to public transport. Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment & Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing) of State policy explicitly support urban consolidation. Clause 11.01-2 places emphasis on providing increasing densities in and around activity centres or on sites that have good access to a range of services, facilities and transport options.
2. Not surprisingly therefore, Council advised me that:

In general, it is considered that there is State Planning Policy support for the development of such a site for multi dwelling developments in established residential areas, particularly where a site has access to community services and infrastructure and public transport.

1. This State direction is refined at the local level in Council's local planning policy framework. Unlike a number of other Councils, Kingston has a very clear local policy framework that has been updated in recent times to reflect contemporary planning strategies.
2. The origins of the changes to Council's local policy framework are to be found in the Highett Structure Plan 2006. This plan was a joint effort between Bayside and Kingston Council as the Highett Activity Centre is split by the rail line between these two municipalities.
3. The Highett Structure Plan "sifted" through the study area so as to distinguish between (at page 32):
   • Those areas in which clear policy support exists for a high degree of change towards medium density housing (ie. preferred medium density residential areas); and
   • Those areas in which incremental change should occur within the framework set by ResCode.
4. Having done so, the Structure Plan then identified only three areas for "preferred medium density residential", one of which was the immediate area noting (with my emphasis):

Station and View Street Areas south of Highett Road - the small pocket of residential land between the Highett Shopping Centre, the railway line and major strategic development sites fronting Nepean Highway. Considerable change is anticipated in this area given the redevelopment opportunities on adjoining strategic sites to the south, and the potential intensification of activities within the Highett Shopping Centre. This will have an impact on the existing character and amenity of the area. Given these changes and the proximity of the area to the Highett shops and station, it is considered well located for a greater concentration of sensitive medium density residential use.

1. The Structure Plan also noted that the practical difference between the preferred medium density areas and other incremental areas was that:

Council will support well designed apartment developments, as distinct from villa unit and town house style developments in preferred development areas.

A building height of up to 3 storeys will be supported in preferred medium density residential areas, where a consolidation of lots occurs. A maximum height of two storeys is more likely to eventuate in 'other' residential areas throughout the study area.

1. The objectors claimed no knowledge of this Structure Plan. I had no material before me on the process that was undertaken for the preparation of this plan, but seemingly it consisted of analysis, research, community consultation, adoption, planning scheme amendment, exhibition, Council assessment of submissions, consideration by a Panel and approved by the Minister.
2. Despite all of this, none of the objectors to this application had any idea that this had been undertaken, nor that a significant change to the development potential of their area had been approved. While I do not doubt for a moment that the planning policies and controls are a surprise to the neighbours, I can only proceed on the basis of the gazetted planning scheme. I will simply make the general observation that for reasons that are unclear, the 'community' typically only engages with the planning process in the face of a development application that directly affects them. They are less likely to engage with a strategic planning project that covers a wide area even though the impact of that project can be quite profound, as is the case here.
3. While the residents may not have known about the change in policy direction, Council clearly did. Disappointingly, I found that Council's assessment of this application very quickly drilled down to fine detail without ever properly acknowledging or understanding the very clear policy direction provided by its own planning scheme.
4. I will now outline the admirable clarity of that policy direction.
5. Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) seeks to provide guidance to development on residential zoned land, mixed use zoned land and land within activity centres. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston. On the basis of this plan, I was advised that the subject land is identified within an Increased Housing Diversity area.
6. All up, there are four categories of housing provided in the Kingston Planning Scheme being:
   • Increased Housing Diversity Areas
   • Incremental change Areas
   • Minimal Change Areas
   • Residential Renewal Areas
7. The intention of 'Increased Housing Diversity' areas is for new medium density housing to comprise a variety of housing types and layouts that respond to the established, yet evolving, urban character. Council noted that as these residential areas were already established, the design of any new medium density housing proposal should display sensitivity to the existing residential context and respond to the amenity standards in these areas.
8. The first few strategies for Increased Housing Diversity Areas identified at Clause 21.05 are to:
   • Promote increased housing diversity in residential areas that are within convenient walking distance of public transport and activity nodes..... Such areas will accommodate a variety of medium density housing types and layouts at increased residential densities, responding to the established but evolving neighbourhood character.
   • Promote new residential development which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.
   • Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and quality of life for future occupants.
9. Based on Clause 21.05, which is only a few years old, it is clear that the subject site is earmarked for more substantial change than any other areas in Kingston. Such change will inevitably alter the way that an area now looks. That is the whole point of the strategy. I am confused as to how Council can hope to promote change while anchoring it to a reference point of an existing character. Council either wants change here or it doesn't. It can't have it both ways. I think that any reference to existing character in an area marked for accelerated change is problematic.
10. This becomes more apparent when one considers the other applicable policies and controls introduced as part of the Amendment C73 package. Clause 22.11 (Residential Development Policy) is a general policy that seeks to:
    • Encourage all new residential development to respond positively and creatively to neighbourhood character. Unless a preferred character is specified, the existing character is that which is to be considered.
11. Council said that there was no preferred character specified and so it was the existing character that had to be considered. Again, I think this is fraught with difficulty.
12. In this context, I refer to a recent decision of the Tribunal in St. George Builders Pty. Ltd. V Moreland CC [2010] VCAT 749 where Mr. Sibonis noted (at paras 23 and 25):

......decision makers are faced with the task of reconciling a policy that promotes quite significant change with one that seeks to achieve built form outcomes that do not deviate substantially from what currently exists.

I consider that the application of the Neighbourhood Character policy to redevelopment proposals within Urban Villages is unlikely to facilitate the degree of change that is sought to be achieved in these areas. ..........I consider that the strict pursuit of the Neighbourhood Character Policy's implementation will, in all likelihood, inhibit the achievement of optimum development within areas identified for higher densities.

1. Clause 22.17 is the more specific and tailored Highett Activity Centre Policy which divides the activity centre into a number of precincts. The subject site is within Precinct No. 2 - "Preferred Medium Density Residential Areas" which primarily seeks to increase residential opportunities within the Activity Centre and which seeks to: [with my emphasis]

"establish a built form character that respects the existing character of the Activity Centre"

1. I note that it is the character of the centre, not the residential areas, that is sought to be 'respected' by this policy. That makes much more sense as the centre is already being redeveloped with some innovative and contemporary mixed use developments with housing above ground level. As to what that "character" might be in the centre, the policy aims to:
   • Support the development of contemporary medium density housing in the form of well designed apartment developments rather than villa unit and town house style developments.
   • Promote development with a maximum of three storeys on consolidated lots.
   • Encourage site consolidation.
2. Finally, Council tries to put even more flesh on the built form outcome with its Design and Development Overlay Schedule 12 (Highett Activity Centre). The objectives of the overlay include: [again with my emphasis]
   • To encourage apartment style residential development of up to three storeys in height on consolidated lots in residential areas close to the Highett Activity Centre.
   • To retain the amenity of existing low density residential development by ensuring that adequate side and rear setbacks are provided to taller buildings to allow screen planting and a landscape setting, and to prevent unreasonably (sic) overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk.
   • To encourage car parking to be provided within buildings rather than at ground level, to maximise the opportunity to use ground level open space for landscaping and communal and private open space.
3. DDO12 gets very specific and includes the subject site within Area H5 which, according to Council is "....... designated for preferred medium density housing". On a site of less than 1,000m², a two storey built form is specified.
4. I was advised that one of Council's main sticking points with this application is that the proposal is more "town house" than "apartment" which is contrary to their policy. While I think that this level of precision is a bit meaningless, I do note that Council acknowledged that if this application were to be its preferred 'apartment' design then, in all likelihood, the setbacks would have been less, the open space would have been less and the prospects for bulk, overshadowing and overlooking would probably have been greater.
5. I have to align these policy settings with what I see happening on the ground in Highett. It was apparent to me on inspection how well located the site and the area are in terms of access to commercial, community, recreational and transport infrastructure. View Street is a short and flat walk (of about 300m) to the Highett railway station. It was evident on inspection that there is already a modest level of redevelopment in View Street with No. 21 (3 units), No. 19 (two units) and No. 26 (2 units) all hosting medium density housing.
6. It was also apparent, and pleasantly so, that this redevelopment is extending into the Highett shopping centre. There are a number of renovated shopping outlets on Highett Road including a few 'smart' eating premises and cafes. Many of these sit on the ground floor of modest medium density apartment buildings seemingly constructed in recent times including at Nos. 535 and 342 Highett Road and at the rear of No. 364 Highett Road. The centre has a 'pulse' to it that I suspect is the very thing that this Council (and many other Councils) strive for with their strategic planning of activity centres and urban villages.
7. In my view, the Highett village has a lot going for it and it is clearly undergoing a period of change.
8. I finally return to the source document for the recent changes to the planning scheme and I cannot help but note the references in the Highett Structure Plan to "high degree of change" and "considerable change". I also note the acknowledgement that this "...... will have an impact on the existing character and amenity of the area". Of course it will, and this is what Council must clearly have anticipated in promoting this Structure Plan and in adopting the subsequent Amendment C73. To now hide behind 'nit picking' some ResCode objectives and an attack based on non-conformity with existing character sends a very confused message as to what Council is really hoping to achieve in this area. It also undermines its prospects of 'holding the line' in its minimal change areas.
9. If I sound a bit frustrated with Council's assessment of this application it is because I am surprised that having expended considerable time, effort and resources into changing its scheme so as to provide a refreshing clarity of direction, Council has had little regard to this direction and has retreated behind an attack based on "character" to deny the very thing that its planning scheme is inviting. Notably, Council's strategic planning unit was not asked to comment on this application. Council might like to change its practice so that this is done as a matter of course otherwise the confusion between policy and outcome will persist.
10. It follows that I not only find that this proposal is policy compliant, I think that this overwhelming level of compliance calibrates my assessment of other matters. Clearly, a "preferred medium density" label brings with it different expectations of amenity protection, car parking and landscaping than might be evident in less dense areas.

1. The amenity impacts of the proposal have to be seen in the context of a preferred medium density area. That said, it is evident that this is a skilful design that has avoided most off-site amenity impacts anyway. It is telling that every one of the normal amenity touchstones of Clause 55 are satisfied. When I asked Council's officer if there was any one of the normal amenity tests such as setbacks, provision of parking, open space, height, front setback, overlooking or overshadowing that were not complied with, I was told that there were none.
2. I think that the design has a nice blend of upstairs/downstairs open space and I think that it wisely uses some of the accessway for cantilevered living areas. This isn't suggestive to me of an overdevelopment, but is a smart use of the access corridor. The proposal has an interesting skillion roof form with plenty of variety and the building is well articulated. The building is well within height limits and is a 'contemporary' building as invited by Council. In my view, it provides an attractive and interesting presentation to the street.
3. In terms of the immediate neighbours, Mrs Bystrzycka has lived next door at No. 15 View Street for nearly 50 years and has a delightful internal/external aspect to the north bordered by a boundary brick wall with trellis atop. She fears that the proposal will not only render this area to shade, especially in winter, but also is fearful that her solar panels on the roof will be affected.
4. I inspected her site in the late morning in early winter (about 11.30am) and the sun was shining. There is no question that there will be a loss of sunlight into her open area and living room in mid winter. However, I note that that is not the test of the planning scheme which prefers the equinox (September) test. There is a very good reason that the appropriate planning scheme test is the equinox and not winter. The lower sun angle in the sky in the colder months means that compliance with a winter test would require buildings to be offset so far from one another as to have unacceptably low densities in a metropolitan context.
5. On the sunlight analysis provided it is clear that the siting of the proposed building means that most shade will fall on its own driveway. That in itself is indicative of a good design. While there will unquestionably be a loss of winter sun to the south, I am satisfied that from September through to March (at least) there will be an adequate level of sunlight penetration to the private areas of Mrs. Bystrzycka.
6. As for the solar panels, the shadow diagrams do not indicate that they will ever be in shade.
7. Mr Welsh resides with his family in a dwelling to the rear of No. 19 View Street, immediately to the north. Mr Welsh's main concern is with the prospect of overlooking from the upper balconies of Units 4 and 5 which are closest to his primary open space area. ResCode limits overlooking within distances of 9m but this can be overcome by having screening to a height of 1.7m around balconies. The proposal incorporates screening but it has a 25% transparency, which Mr Welsh is worried about, preferring it to be completely enclosed. Apart from Clause 55, I am also mindful of the test of DDO12 which is that overlooking (among other things) not be 'unreasonable'. I commend the design for acknowledging the Welsh property by 'indenting' the design at the very point where it interfaces with the Welsh's yard.
8. As a matter of principle, I don't think that it is a good outcome to completely 'box in' a balcony but I do acknowledge that the Welsh property is directly below these two balconies. The Welsh property is unusual in that its "front yard" is the main private open space (it being a rear unit). My inspection confirmed the degree to which it is used. I agree that the perception of overlooking from these balconies, as well as the inevitable domestic noise that would occur, requires some attenuation. Landscaping will make a significant contribution to this (on both sides of the fence), and in that context I noted the existence of four growing James Stirling pittosporums on the intervening fence (on the Welsh side). I think that this could be complemented (on the applicant side) by mature plantings in the north west and north east corners of the ground level courtyards of Units 4 and 5 as is shown on the proposed landscape plan.
9. I will also require a solid acoustic screen all around the balconies of Units 4 and 5 so as to protect the amenity of the Welsh's given their very close proximity to these balconies.
10. I was provided with a landscape plan and evidence from Mr Thomson and I propose to cross-reference that plan in the permit conditions. I support the planting of mature (or semi mature) trees around the site and will also include these as conditions. As I have done on a number of occasions where landscaping is important, I will specify a financial guarantee in the permit conditions. None of this is opposed by the applicant.

1. I had careful regard to the issue of traffic and parking on my inspection but again note that this was a broader issue that was part of the analysis of the Highett Structure Plan. While I accept that View Street hooks around into Station Street and then back onto Highett Road thereby being a bit of a "loop road", this may change in time with the expected redevelopment of the former Gas and Fuel site at the southern end of View Street. The expected increase in traffic from the proposed development will amount to about 50 vehicle trips over the course of a day and, on my assessment, View Street can easily accommodate that level of change.
2. That said, I agree with the objectors that if Council wants to promote medium density housing in and around this area, then they would be well advised to have a clear parking and traffic strategy in place.
3. Council's officer criticised the turning ability on some units (particularly Unit 1) and claimed that its traffic engineers had expressed concern. On the basis of the swept path template provided by the applicant, I am satisfied that this has been attended to.
4. Finally, there was concern about some exposed service areas of Unit 1. I completely agree with Council that a clothes line in the front yard is a poor design response. I cannot think of a worse outcome for these otherwise attractive units and I will require its deletion and relocation into a small rear service yard. This will mean that there as to be a slight redesign of Unit 1 to accommodate this and I will leave it to the applicant to determine the best outcome in consultation with Council. I think that the hot water and air conditioning units can both be housed in attractive timber compounds either side of the driveway to Unit 1.

1. My assessment begins with, and is framed by, the very clear, simple and logical planning policy framework of Council that is driven by urban consolidation principles and by common sense. If we are to host increased population levels then those areas within an easy walking distance of public transport, especially fixed rail stations, are the obvious candidates. Not every Council bothers to explore this and to articulate it clearly in its planning scheme. Kingston has bothered to do it and it invites, in this area, more intense development, even up to three storeys, so as to provide a mix of housing types and so as to help protect those parts of its city that it wants to keep at a lower intensity for character, heritage or amenity reasons.
2. In that context, it is frustrating to have an assessment that quickly moves beyond a rather tepid acceptance of that strategy to a clinical dismantling of some vague objectives and some doubtful character references.
3. Council will inevitably get more applications in this area as its planning scheme heralds change. I trust that it will be more guided by the threshold policy directions in the future than it was in this assessment.
4. It is directed that a conditional permit be issued.

1. Before the development starts amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans of The Silver Arc, Architecture and Design Dwgs 75T TP0-TP10 (inclusive) Revision C, 27 April 2011 (VCAT Issue) and the landscape plan of "Habitat" (submitted to Council on 16 May 2011), but modified to show:

1. A suitable service yard provided for dwelling 1; 2. The deletion of the clothesline area from the front of dwelling 1;

1. The services (hot water service/air conditioning unit) for dwelling 1 to be housed in timber corrals on either side of Unit 1 driveway;

1. A fully enclosed, non-permeable acoustic screen around the balconies for Units 4 and 5 to a height of 1.7m; 2. All south facing habitable room windows to have a minimum sill height of 1.7m; 3. The provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule (including samples) for all external elevations of the proposed dwellings.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Before occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must be consistent with the plan of 'Habitat' (Issue A - 2011) and include provision of (at the time of planting) 1.2m high pittosporums along the south side and 3.5m high pyrus on the north side.
4. Within three months from the date of issue of this permit, or at such later date as the responsible authority may approve in writing, there shall be lodged with the responsible authority either a bank guarantee or a security deposit for $5,000 for the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the landscaping works hereby permitted. Upon satisfactory completion of the landscaping works, the responsible authority will refund the guarantee or security deposit to the then owner of the subject land.
5. Before occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.
7. A Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (eg. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).
8. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.
9. Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times:
   1. Monday to Friday 7:00am to 600pm; and
   2. Saturday 9:00am to 1:00pm.

or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

1. Before the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted starts, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel, vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority's standard specification.
3. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, all boundary fences must be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.
4. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

1. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 2. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

1. Surfaced with an all-weather, coloured concrete, sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. External clothes drying facilities must be provided for each dwelling.
2. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • The development are not started before two (2) years from date of permit issue.
   • The development is not completed before four (4) years from the date of permit issue.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.