1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the application is amended by substituting the following plans for the application plans:
   • Prepared by The Silver Arc Designworks, Drawing Numbers TP0 to TP13, inclusive, all Revision D dated 28.05.14; and
   • Landscape Plan prepared by The Lonely Tree, dated 02-06-14.
2. In permit application no. 2012/619/1, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
3. A permit is granted and is directed to be issued for the land at No. 318A/320 St Kilda Street, Brighton. The permit will allow:
   • Construction of two or more dwellings in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone; and
   • Creation or alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1;

1. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A to these reasons.

Ms J Bowdern, legal support planner, Bayside City Council.

Construct five double storey dwellings. Two rows of units would be centrally divided by a pedestrian access. All vehicle parking would be in a common basement accessed from St Kilda Street by a new crossover at the southern site boundary. Two dwellings would extend along the southern part of the site and three would align with the northern part of the site.

Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 Minimal Residential Growth Area.

Clause 32.09-4 to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Clause 52.29 to create or alter access to a Road Zone Category 1.

Clauses 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22.06, 55 and 65.

The review site comprises two lots on the east side of St Kilda Street, south of Bay Street. The land has a total area of 1483.3 square metres in area with a frontage of 20.12 metres. The site abuts a period dwelling to its north (No. 322 St Kilda Street, on the south-east corner with Bay Street). It abuts the side of a recent two storey dwelling (No. 34 Bay Street) and the rear garden of No. 316 St Kilda Street to its east. To the south is a two storey dwelling at No. 318 St Kilda Street.

1. The review site is relatively large and is located in an established residential area where there are generously proportioned dwellings. It fronts a main road.
2. This proceeding comes before the Tribunal as a consequence of a decision by the Bayside City Council to refuse a permit for six dwellings. The permit applicant is asking for the Council's decision to be set aside. Based on plans that I have substituted, the permit applicant seeks approval for five, two storey, dwellings with a common basement.
3. The Tribunal must decide whether to a grant a permit and, if so, what conditions to apply. Based on the issues raised in submissions, and having regard to the matters that I must consider through the Bayside Planning Scheme, I must determine:
   • Whether the principle of developing the site with five dwellings is acceptable based on the current provisions of the Scheme;
   • Whether the proposed dwellings represent an acceptable outcome with respect to the preferred character for the area and implement the neighbourhood character guidelines;
   • Whether the proposal would cause unacceptable impacts with respect to the amenity of abutting and neighbouring properties; and
   • Whether the proposed dwellings offer an acceptable level of amenity for their occupants in terms of the site layout and relevant matters in Clause 55 of the Scheme.

1. The review site is within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This Zone was introduced subsequent to the Council's decision. A Design and Development Overlay applies but is not triggered by this application.
2. The permit application relies on the Zone's transitional provisions in Clauses 32.09-3 and 32.09-8 - it comprises more dwellings than would otherwise be permitted (four vs the proposed five dwellings) and the proposed building height is greater than 8 metres (at a maximum height of 8.57 metres).
3. Key themes drawn from State and local policies, the Zone, and Clause 55, as relevant to this application and issues in dispute, are:
   • Broadly, State and local policies emphasise urban consolidation and infill housing opportunities in established urban areas, as well as diversity and affordability[2].
   • Housing growth is directed to appropriate locations with the Neighbourhood Residential Zone providing for predominantly single and double storey residential development and limited opportunities for increased residential development[3].
   • The Neighbourhood Residential Zone, requirements of Clause 55 and local policies emphasise that new development contributes to the preferred neighbourhood character. A Zone purpose is to implement the neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines[4].
   • The statement of preferred character in Clause 22.06 for Precinct C1, which includes the review site, is:

The mix of dwelling styles, including a substantial presence of pre WW2 dwellings, sit within spacious gardens and do not dominate or overwhelm the streetscape. Garden plantings, and well-articulated façades and roof forms, assist in minimising the dominance of buildings from within the street space, as well as providing visual interest. Front setbacks allow planting of substantial trees and shrubs and side setbacks on both sides maintain a sense of spaciousness in the area. Trees are a mixture of exotic and natives, with an increasing frequency of traditional coastal and indigenous species, strengthening the visual connection of the area with the coast. Open style front fences retain an ability to view buildings from the street. Buildings fronting the foreshore reflect their setting and provide a visually attractive built form interface with the reserve.

• Precinct Guidelines are included in Clause 22.06-4 to which I refer below. Key objectives are achieving a front garden and a garden setting; visual separation and spaciousness between buildings; buildings that do not dominate the streetscape; encouragement of an openness of the streetscape; and variety in materials, finishes and design detail that complement the coastal setting.
• The Schedule to the Zone includes varied Clause 55 requirements with respect to front, side and rear setbacks, site coverage and front fences.

1. Ms Bowdern submitted that the introduction of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is significant; the proposal could not, without the transitional provisions, be approved today. She was critical of the proposed five dwellings because they do not limit residential development and are at odds with the Zone purpose. That argument was said to be distinct from an assessment of character outcomes. Ms Barclay did not agree that the Zone purpose is not met. Both relied on Tribunal decisions in support of their respective submissions including Verbuk[5], Petryshyn[6] and Bayside Property Projects Pty Ltd[7]. I note that:
   • Ms Bowdern highlighted comments in Verbuk that there are separate purposes relating to limiting residential development and character[8]:

That is, even if one decides that a proposal is respectful of neighbourhood character, one also needs to find that the proposal is consistent with the purpose that seeks to limit opportunities for new residential development. One also needs to make that assessment on the understanding that the provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone seek to implement that purpose by restricting new development on every site within the zone, even though this proposal is exempted from those provisions.

• Ms Barclay referred to Bayside Property Projects Pty Ltd[9]:
  • Different outcomes can be considered for transitional sites;
  • No mandatory density or height controls apply[10];
  • All other purposes and provisions of the zone apply;
  • The scope of the third purpose has less application in a transitional proposal to the extent that it may be implemented through the mandatory density and height controls;
  • What is meant by "limited" will turn on the individual circumstances of each case;
  • The purposes of the zone have a strong emphasis on neighbourhood character considerations;
  • The emphasis on neighbourhood character considerations weighs heavily in balancing the strategic considerations for a proposal in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

1. Bayside Property Projects therefore contextualises what is "limited" having regard to the fact that the transitional provisions are in the Scheme.
2. It is common ground between the Council and Applicant that:
   • The purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and provisions of Clause 32.09 limit opportunities for increased residential development. Such development is to implement neighbourhood character policy and is to respect the identified character.
   • The weighting between urban consolidation and neighbourhood character objectives in Clause 32.09 has shifted when contrasted with the previous Residential 1 Zone.
   • The Neighbourhood Residential Zone purposes apply to cases relying on the transitional provisions as discussed in Verbuk (cited above).
3. "Limited" in the Zone purpose reflects the provisions of Clause 32.09 that restrict and/or allow restrictions on subdivision, height, density and some Clause 55 standards. The provisions in the Clause allow a proposal that does not meet mandatory provisions to be lodged, assessed and approved.

1. There can, therefore, be a different outcome on land that is the subject of a transitional application compared with other properties in the same Zone but I do not read the provisions as advocating that. A decision on the merits of any application must involve an assessment against the Zone purposes including to "Ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character" and "Implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines" (my emphasis added). These purposes make clear that transitional applications must respond positively to and achieve the identified neighbourhood character outcomes which, in this case, are within Clause 22.06 of the Scheme. Character assessments are, by necessity, contextual. Clause 22.06-3 makes this point when it states under the exercise of discretion[11]:

The extent to which the characteristics of the built and natural environment in the immediate vicinity of the site may determine a preferred future character that is different from that applying to the remainder of the precinct in which the site is located.

1. Consequently, I find the argument included in the Council's submission (that because the proposal has five rather than four dwellings it must fail) does not sufficiently recognise that it is possible for a proposal that departs from the density and height restrictions in Clause 32.09 to still respond positively to, and achieve, the specified neighbourhood character outcomes in Clause 22.06.

Is the proposed design response acceptable in character terms?

1. Ms Bowdern explained why the plans accompanying the permit application were not acceptable and submitted the substituted plans have not resolved the Council's concerns.
2. The reasons why Council submitted the proposed development fails to implement the neighbourhood character guidelines focused on the following:
   • There is scant room around the site and between dwellings to create a spacious garden setting notably between Units 1-2 and 2-3 and along the southern site boundary. The only significant area for landscaping is within the front setback.
   • The western elevation of the front dwellings will dominate the streetscape. They lack recession and articulation. That is despite the addition of juliette balconies in the substituted plans.
   • The lack of articulation along the northern and southern interfaces with adjacent properties is exacerbated by the lack of architectural features, boxy presentation and uniform materials.

• Landscaping and building design do not complement the coastal setting[12].
• The proposal is unsympathetic to the existing and preferred character and fails to meet a number of the design objectives for Precinct C1.

1. The Council did not raise any concerns about the removal of vegetation from the site or the removal of a street tree. Nor did it criticise the two storey form of the proposed dwellings, the use of a basement, or the front setback of Dwellings 1 and 5 that face the street. The Council conceded that the proposal meets the numerical components of Standard B17 (as varied).
2. Mr Hayes' statement of grounds referred to some similar concerns as those identified by the Council and specifically the need for setbacks to allow for canopy trees. He also identified the failure to provide a front setback of 9 metres in his grounds opposing the application.
3. In reply, Ms Barclay submitted the proposal meets the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone because two storey dwellings are common in this area, multi-unit development is also common in this area, and the proposal provides only one more dwelling than four that would be possible under the Zone. Further, she submitted the proposal respects the preferred neighbourhood character and adopted guidelines for various reasons including the following - the presentation to the street is of two dwellings of a scale and form that is typical of the area, there is generous spacing along side and rear setbacks and between the two rows of dwellings, there are numerous examples of dwellings without recessed upper levels and with rendered finishes, site coverage is around 43%, and there is sufficient space for landscaping with canopy trees. She described the articulation to the dwellings and referred to the landscape plan showing tree locations.
4. The substituted plans have provided an improved response in character terms. For essentially the same reasons as relied upon by Ms Barclay, I find that the proposal is sufficiently "limited" in the context of this site and that the proposal implements the preferred neighbourhood character. In reaching this conclusion, I have been particularly influenced by the following:
   • The presentation of two dwellings to St Kilda Street with good spacing (4 metres) to side boundaries and between the two front dwellings (2 metres at ground level and 3.7 metres at first floor).
   • The spacious layout along the southern part of the site where there are sensitivities with secluded private open spaces to the south and east.
   • The concealed car parking layout and 43% site coverage.
   • The 8.9 metre front setback that, coupled with the use of only one access point, provides sufficient space for planting.
   • The fact that many older and newer dwellings do not have highly recessed upper levels and are of a similar height as the proposed units.

• While the layout is tighter associated with Units 1, 2 and 3, there are breaks between these buildings and there is space for landscaping and canopy trees adjacent to No. 322 St Kilda Street. Units 2 and 3 are recessed and articulated at their upper levels where more they are open to view from the small open space behind No. 322 St Kilda Street and along the side of the two storey unit at No. 34 Bay Street. The open space for Unit 3 aligns with that to the rear of No. 34 Bay Street.
• The use of detailing to the wall planes and balconies that provides some visual interest.
• The use of a high front fence in the context of the main road and the significant presence of high front fencing in the immediate area.

1. Two units along the northern part of the site would offer a more spacious layout. However, I am satisfied in the context of this site that includes multi-unit developments and some tight building spacing that the overall presentation sufficiently respects the preferred character. The more intense part of the proposed development is associated with the rear of No. 322 St Kilda Street and the side of No. 34 Bay Street, neither of which have deep setbacks at this edge while the proposal offers reasonable setbacks with scope for canopy trees along the sensitive parts of these edges.
2. I am further assisted in reaching my conclusion by the following findings with respect to the Precinct Guidelines:

Precinct Guidelines in Clause 22.06 Precinct C1[13]

To encourage the retention of dwellings that contribute to the valued character of the Precinct ....

Attempt to retain wherever possible intact and good condition dwellings that contribute to the valued character of the Precinct in the design of new development.

Demolition of dwellings that contribute to the valued character of the Precinct.

To maintain and enhance the garden settings of the dwellings.

Prepare a landscape plan to accompany all applications for new dwellings that includes substantial trees and shrubs.

Removal of existing vegetation is not opposed by the Council nor is the removal of a street tree. Sufficient space is provided in the front setback and around the dwellings to create a garden setting and accommodate substantial trees and shrubs. This is demonstrated on the landscape plan.

To enhance the bayside vegetation character of the area.

Retain large trees and established native trees and traditional coastal vegetation and provide for the planting of new indigenous coastal trees where possible.

Removal of existing vegetation is not opposed by the Council nor is the removal of a street tree. The landscape plan provides for new trees and while not coastal in theme, species could be varied.

To retain the sense of spaciousness in the area and provide adequate space for front gardens.

Buildings should be sited to allow space for the planting of trees and shrubs.

Buildings should be sited to create the appearance of space between buildings and accommodate substantial vegetation.

Setbacks along the north and east boundaries, at the south-east, and in the front setback allow sufficient areas for substantial vegetation to be accommodated.

To minimise the loss of front garden spaces and the dominance of car parking structures.

Locate garages and carports behind the line of the dwelling.

Underground car parking accessed from the front of the site should only be provided where other options are not possible due to site constraints, the garage doors do not dominate the façade and the front setback area is retained as predominantly garden space.

Car parking structures that dominate the façade or view of the dwelling.

Car parking is concealed in a basement. No alternative access is available to the site. The use of one vehicle access point at the south-west corner allows for front gardens for Units 1 and 5 with sufficient space to allow for the planting of canopy trees.

To ensure that new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.

Two storey dwellings face the street with sufficient side and front setbacks to avoid dominating the streetscape.

To encourage the use of a variety of building materials, finishes and design detail that complement the coastal setting.

Use a mix of materials including timber or other non-masonry wall materials in building design.

Use simple building details and articulate roof forms.

Large, poorly articulated external wall surfaces of one material only.

Heavy materials and design detailing (eg. large masonry columns and piers).

The upper levels are not recessed but are articulated through balconies, varied roof elements/porch detailing and banding. This is acceptable because many other existing, large, dwellings in the vicinity do not have recessed upper levels.

Materials and finishes complement the other contemporary building forms.

Provide open style fencing, other than along heavily trafficked roads.

The proposal includes a 1.8-2 metre high front fencing which accords with Standard B32 because of the main road location. Many other properties in the immediate area have high front fences and in this way the proposal responds to the existing fencing characteristics in the locale.

1. I further find no reason to conclude that the proposal will affect the heritage place (No. 316 St Kilda Street) which is nestled in off St Kilda Street behind other residential properties.
2. In conclusion, I find the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is met and that the relevant standards and objectives in Clause 55 relating to neighbourhood character are also satisfied.

Would there be unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?

1. I was advised by Ms Barclay that negotiations with several abutting property owners resulted in the withdrawal of statements of grounds following the preparation of the now-substituted plans. A permit condition was agreed with respect to their being no roof top plant and equipment on Units 4 and 5.
2. No other grounds were identified with respect to matters such as overlooking and overshadowing. I accept Ms Barclay's submission that the applicable standards and objectives in Clause 55.04 are met.
3. Ms Bowdern referred to excessive visual bulk along several interfaces but also acknowledged that the varied Standard B17 is met. Taking that fact into account, and the findings in the above discussion, I am not persuaded that the proposal would cause unreasonable visual bulk to abutting properties. That is principally because the proposed secluded private open spaces have been mostly aligned with those on abutting properties and ground level setbacks to the two storey forms vary from 4 - 8.7 metres with sufficient room for intervening landscaping.

Are there any other relevant outstanding issues?

1. With respect to other matters identified in relation to the original plans, I observe that VicRoads does not now object to the application subject to conditions because the access has been modified to its satisfaction. Design details can be addressed by permit conditions.
2. Ms Bowdern queried the adequacy of some of the private open spaces with respect to useability and overshadowing. I find that the proposed spaces are sufficiently sized and proportioned to provide useable space and accommodate vegetation. Mindful of the high front fence, Units 1 and 5 have adequate solar access in the westerly areas of open space in addition to the other secluded and private areas available to them.

1. For the above reasons, I will set aside the decision made by the Responsible Authority. A permit is granted subject to the conditions included in Appendix A.

• Construction of two or more dwellings in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone; and
• Creation or alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1;

1. Before the development start(s), amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by The Silver Arc Designworks, Drawing Numbers TP0 to TP13, inclusive, all Revision D dated 28.05.14, but modified to show:
   • (a) A longitudinal section of the basement ramp to demonstrate compliance with AS2890.1;
   • (b) A 5.2 metre wide door opening for each double garage and a 3.2 metre wide door opening for each single garage to improve ingress/egress;
   • (c) A notation that there must be no roof top plant and equipment on Units 4 and 5;
   • (d) A Waste Management Plan as per Condition 11;
   • (e) A Landscape Plan as per Condition 12;
   • (f) A Report from a qualified Arborist in accordance with AS4373 to demonstrate how vegetation on adjoining land will be protected during and after construction;
   • (g) Compliance with Vic Roads conditions [Conditions 26 and 27].
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Before the development starts, a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

1. All pipes with the exception of downpipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building(s) without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. The walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Before the development starts, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
   • (a) Constructed;
   • (b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
   • (c) Surfaced with an all-weather-seal coat;
   • (d) Drained;

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

1. Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and any existing crossing or crossing opening must be removed and replaced with footpath, nature strip, and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Before the development commences the applicant must pay $6,851.55 to the Responsible Authority for the removal and replacement of the existing street tree. This amount has been determined in accordance with Council's current policy for the removal of street trees. This amount may be increased by the Responsible Authority if an extension of time to commence work is granted and the amenity value of the street tree has increased. The Responsible Authority, or a contractor or agent engaged by the Responsible Authority, must undertake the removal and replacement of the street tree. Any replacement planting will be at the discretion of the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of any works, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Construction Management Plan will then form part of this permit. The Construction Management Plan is not limited to, but must include, measures relating to:
   • (a) Hours of construction;
   • (b) Control of noise, dust and litter;

• (c) Vehicle access and deliveries;
• (d) Protection of public assets;
• (e) Communication with the council and the public;
• (f) The management of construction vehicles and construction vehicle parking;
• (g) Prevention of the deposition of mud or other materials on roadways.

The Construction Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Construction Management Plan must not be modified unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

The Waste Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must not be modified unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by The Lonely Tree, dated 02-06-14, and must show:
   • (a) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;
   • (b) 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;
   • (c) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;
   • (d) Provision of an in ground irrigation system to all landscaped areas.

1. Before the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
3. Before the development commences, the Applicant must pay $6,851.55 to the Responsible Authority for the removal and replacement of the existing street tree. This amount has been determined in accordance with Council's current policy for the removal of street trees. This amount may be increased by the Responsible Authority if an extension of time to commence work is granted and the amenity value of the tree has increased. The Responsible Authority, or a contractor or agent engaged by the Responsible Authority, must undertake the removal and replacement of the street tree. Any replacement planting will be at the discretion of the Responsible Authority.
4. The applicant must apply for the nominated legal point of discharge for the development where stormwater run-off must be collected and free drained to Council's drainage assets to Council standards.
5. Stormwater discharge must be retained for the portion above the discharge calculated using a Coefficient of Runoff of 0.35. The development is to have a Stormwater Detention System installed, the design capacity to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Any seepage/agricultural drainage water must be filtered to rain water clarity and must be pumped to the nearest Council Drain/Pit and not be discharged to the kerb and channel unless directed otherwise.
7. All on-site stormwater is to be collected from the hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled onto adjoining properties. The on-site drainage system must prevent discharge from each driveway onto the footpath. Such a system may included either:
   • (a) A trench grate (150mm minimum internal width) located within the property; and/or
   • (b) Shaping the driveway so that water is collected in a grated pit on the property; and/or
   • (c) Another Council approved equivalent.
8. Any subsurface water captured on the site must be treated in accordance with Council's policy to "Discharge of pumped Subterranean Water Associated with Basement or Below Ground Structures".
9. The driveway / parking areas / paved courtyards / paths and 'pervious' pavements must be graded / drained to prevent storm water discharge onto the front footpath and into adjacent properties.

1. All on-site storm water is to be collected from the hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled onto adjoining properties. The on-site drainage system must prevent discharge from each driveway onto the footpath. Such a system may include either:
   • (a) A trench grate (150mm minimum internal width) located within the property; and/or
   • (b) Shaping the driveway so that water is collected in a grated pit on the property; and/or
   • (c) Another Council approved equivalent.
2. Before the development begins, three sets of detailed plans indicating the method of storm water discharge to the nominated Legal Point of Discharge (and Stormwater Detention Systems where applicable) must be lodged with Council's Engineering Services department for approval.
3. The driveway / parking areas / paved courtyards / paths and 'pervious' pavements must be graded / drained to prevent storm water discharge onto the front footpath and into adjacent properties.
4. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) The development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit.
   • (b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing:

(i) Before the permit expires; or

(ii) Within 6 months afterwards if development has not commenced; or

(iii) Within 12 months afterwards if the development has lawfully commenced.

1. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, a sealed vehicle crossover at least 6.0 metres in width as measured at the property boundary and generally in accordance with drawing T04 Revision D - Ground Floor Drawing by The Silver Arc Designworks, must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary.
2. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, the redundant vehicle crossover onto St Kilda Street must be removed and the footpath, nature strip, kerb and channel reinstated at no cost to VicRoads and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

[1] I have considered all submissions and material tendered and statements of grounds by parties who did not attend the hearing. All written documentation is retained on the Tribunal's file. I do not repeat and recite all of the written and oral submissions, and exhibits, in this decision.

[2] For example, Clauses 16.01 and 21.02.

[4] For example, Clauses 21.06, 32.01 and 55.02-1.

[5] Verbuk v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 967.

[6] Petryshyn v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 939.

[7] Bayside Property Projects Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 958.

[8] Verbuk v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 967 at paragraph 12.

[10] I assume this to mean that such controls do not apply in the case of a permit application relying on the transitional provisions.

Whether the site is located within a residential opportunity area as shown on the Strategic Framework Plan of the Municipal Strategic Statement and the extent to which this may alter the relevance of the design responses to consideration of the proposal.

However, the Scheme has been amended to delete residential opportunity areas from Clause 21.02. I was advised that the review site was not in such an area prior to that recent Amendment.

[12] The Council was initially critical of the absence of a landscape plan but one is part of the substituted set of plans.