[4] The submissions and evidence of the parties, the supporting material given for and at the hearing, the statements of grounds filed, and the accompanied inspection have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[5] The Significant Landscape Overlay purpose includes to identify significant landscapes and to conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.

[6] I have not included the decision guidelines concerning building and works as they are not a part of this planning application.

[7] Paragraphs 51 to 74 of council's original submission.

[8] Clause 02.01 of the planning scheme.

[9] Clause 02.03-2 of the planning scheme.

[10] Clause 02.03-5 of the planning scheme.

[11] Clause 14.02-1S of the planning scheme.

[12] Clause 12.03-1S of the planning scheme.

[13] Clause 12.05-2S of the planning scheme.

[14] Clause 12.06-1S of the planning scheme.

[16] Clause 12.01-1L of the planning scheme.

[17] Clause 15.01-5L-01 of the planning scheme.

[19] Sykes v Whitehorse CC [2024] VCAT 473 and Elliott v Whitehorse CC [2024] VCAT 579

[20] Mr Kenyon identifies the available categories are improbable, possible, probable, and imminent.

[21] Mr Kenyon identifies the available categories are very low, low, medium and high.

[22] Mr Kenyon identifies the available categories are negligible, minor, significant and severe.

[23] My decision does not include all Mr Kenyon's risk assessment, rather I have just referred some pertinent aspects.

[24] It states the year 2024 on the report but I was advised during the hearing this is an error and it should state 2025.