1. Does the proposal provide an appropriate level of on-site amenity for Dwelling 1?
2. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Maroondah Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council's decision with the result that a permit will issue. My reasons follow.

IS THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSAL, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF AN AT-GRADE CAR PARKING AREA, SUPPORTED BY DDO10 AND THE STATE AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK?

1. This case involves land that is within an area demarcated for growth, being the Croydon Major Activities Area ("Croydon MAA"). In support of the proposal, the Applicants point to the objectives of the Council - and, indeed, the State Government - to increase housing quantity and diversity in an area such as this.[3]
2. Amongst the objectives of clause 22.09 of the Scheme is the provision of a range of new housing opportunities within the Croydon MAA.[4] Amongst the specified strategies to achieve these objectives is the specific contemplation of apartment buildings, as well as the strategy to:

Encourage the development of accessible, affordable and diverse housing stock.[5]

To create vibrancy by promoting and improving residential housing opportunities in the Croydon Major Activities Area,[6]

Support a diverse range of housing in the Croydon Major Activities Area via the provision of an adequate number of smaller and affordable dwellings so that all family types, age groups, levels of mobility and affordability are accommodated. Support higher density housing in areas identified as Housing Opportunity in the Activities and Land Use Map.

1. The site is specified as an area of Housing Opportunity in clause 22.09 of the Scheme as well as being designated as an area for which building to a maximum height of 4 storeys, with a 2-3 storey street interface, is effectively encouraged pursuant to DDO10.
2. That the site is suitable for higher density development is not disputed by the Council. Further, whilst observing that the 4 storey limit is the maximum height permissible under DDO10, the Council did not take issue with the height of the proposal per se.
3. Rather, the Council's concerns involved whether the design of the proposal appropriately responded to the policy context for the surrounding land and the neighbourhood character of the surrounding area, which it says is strongly influenced by the natural environment and canopy vegetation of the surrounds.
4. To this end, the Council took me to other parts of clause 22.09-3 of the Scheme that stated it was policy that, among other things:

Residential development consists of low rise, multi level, multi occupancy, apartment style buildings in garden settings, where the buildings are softened and framed by canopy trees.

The consolidation and development of sites occurs in a progressive manner and does not result in creation of small isolated holdings of land.

Provide opportunities for the planting or retention of canopy trees to maintain the existing streetscape and frame larger buildings.

Hard paved areas are kept to the minimum required for vehicle and pedestrian access to the site and do not dominate the setback area.

1. Also part of this context is the directive in paragraph 2.0 of Schedule 10 to the DDO that states:

Buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:

Ensure street facades are active, including clear glazing that allows a visual connection between the building occupants and people on the street, entrances are accessed directly from principal street spaces.

Maximise built form potential for each site and limit the amount of site area used for surface car parking.

Design buildings to create a sense of human scale and interest in the streetscape through the incorporation of elements of traditional residential and commercial design, materials and finishes found in the Croydon Major Activities Area, including pitched roofs, parapets, brick work, timber cladding and rendered finishes with articulated facades, fenestration and a range of materials and other detailing.

Higher density residential development on the edges of the Croydon Major Activities Area is to provide a transitional scale to adjoining established residential areas, including adequate landscaping. A transitional scale should also be provided to sites adjoining a sensitive interface, including open spaces, residential areas and sites of identified heritage significance.

1. Amongst the decision guidelines for DDO10 are to consider, as appropriate:

Whether the bulk, location and external appearance of any proposed buildings will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings,

Whether the impact of development contributes towards a positive urban design, image and the overall landscape concept.

The provision of active frontage with weather protection elements that encourage a pedestrian friendly environment.

1. The Council considered that the proposal is not supported by the Scheme as it includes:

1. an at-grade car park, rather than a basement car park; 2. inadequate setbacks to allow for appropriate landscaping;

1. a façade treatment that does not provide an active street frontage; and

1. a side entrance to the building, which is unidentifiable from Landale Avenue.
2. Further, the Council contended that the adjoining lot at 13 Landale Avenue would be effectively isolated.
3. In terms of the inclusion of an at-grade car park, the Council considered this to be contrary to the requirement in paragraph 2.0 of Schedule 10 to the DDO to:

Maximise built form potential for each site and limit the amount of site area used for surface car parking.

1. Mr Hocking challenged the Council's interpretation of the meaning of "surface car parking", claiming that it was not clear that this referred to the at-grade car park included in the proposal but rather, might be referring to the traditional car parking areas that are open to the sky and over which there is no built form.
2. The Macquarie Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines "surface" as meaning, among other things:

3. the extent or area of outer face; superficial area.

4. the outward appearance, especially as distinguished from the inner nature..

9. of, on or relating to land and/or sea: surface travel.

1. To the extent that the various definitions of "surface" emphasise the outer face or the outside of a thing, it would appear that the term more comfortably aligns with the concept of a surface car park being an outdoor area that is clear to the sky, as opposed to what is proposed here, being an area that is effectively entirely undercover; essentially completely covered by the built form of the first storey. In which case, this aspect of the design is not inconsistent with DDO10.
2. Although the Council might prefer the inclusion of a basement car park in the design, I do not consider that the built over car park area proposed is unacceptable in terms of its design or its use of space on the site.
3. What would be impacted upon by the construction of a basement would be the overall cost of development. Mr Hocking submitted that the costs would be substantially higher and that this would impact upon the overall affordability of the dwellings.
4. Encouraging the development of affordable housing stock is amongst the strategies contained in clause 22.09 of the Scheme, however, this should not be taken to be justifying unacceptable or sub-standard developments to proceed, in the name of affordability. In this case, I do not think that the design of the proposal, in incorporating an at-grade car park, is an unacceptable or sub-standard design outcome in the context of the site and the surrounding apartment developments. In particular, I consider that the external appearance of the proposal in terms of the access and car parking area will be in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings.
5. Having regard to the adjacent building at 17 Landale Avenue, I consider that the "bulk, location and external appearance"[7] of the proposed built form will be in keeping with the character and appearance of that development. Whilst the proposal will stand one storey higher, this fourth storey is setback a relatively significant distance from the street - 10m to the balcony and 12.28m to the building itself. This fourth storey also enjoys relatively large setbacks from each side boundary,[8] and the rear boundary - this varying between 9.08m from the boundary to the balcony of Dwelling 14 to 11.25m to the building wall of this dwelling. I do not consider that a building of this size is unexpected, unacceptable or inappropriate on the subject land, in the context of the Scheme controls for the site and the existing surrounding development. I say this having regard to the location of the site in the Croydon MAA, in an area identified as being one of Housing Opportunities, with a maximum permissible height of 4 storeys (granted, with 2-3 storeys at the street interface), and zoned GRZ1.
6. The Council drew a distinction between the proposal and the apartment developments at 14 and 17 Landale Avenue on the basis that those were approved prior to the introduction of DDO10 and were subject to DDO8. In this respect, I note the difference between the design objectives of DDO8 and those of DDO10, where DDO10 appears to support an intensification of development of the affected area compared with the direction of DDO8. Whilst DDO8 included amongst its design objectives:

To ensure that the height of new development is compatible with the character of the Croydon Town Centre and surrounding area,

To ensure that development takes advantage of the 'village feel' and urban services of the central Croydon area,

To create an attractive and distinct built environment that supports a range of activities in the Croydon Major Activities Area,

To intensify built form in the centre by filling empty sites, capitalising on key intersection sites and creating improved interfaces.

1. The Council took issue with the "boundary to boundary built form" that it contended was evident in the proposal. Mr Hocking then took issue with such a description, as there are no building walls on boundaries that are proposed in the development.
2. I understood the Council's concern to relate to the presence of both the 4m stack stone posts located on the western boundary - effectively forming the edge of the canopy under which vehicles drive to access the rear car parking area - and those that are 3.15m high and located on the eastern boundary and that create the entrance canopy, under which pedestrians walk when accessing the main entry and lobby to the building. These posts resemble the pylons on carports and, similarly, provide visual permeability to the building when a person looks between the not-insubstantial spaces between these posts. I am not concerned about the suitability of the posts as part of the design for this site. I do not consider that they will be read as an extension of the built form from boundary to boundary, having regard to the spaces in between.
3. The Council's concerns regarding the width of development also related to the first floor built form extending beyond the width of the footprint of the ground floor when viewed from Landale Avenue, thereby adding to the visual bulk of the building. Whilst the first storey is larger than the ground floor, similarly, I am not concerned that the side setbacks provided are inappropriate in the context of the Scheme controls for the site, and having regard to the surrounding development.
4. Further to this, the design of the building employs a variety of materials, colours and finishes, including face brick, as well as articulation and variation in design to provide visual interest in the streetscape, whilst also incorporating pitched roof elements.
5. In terms of the interface with the street façade, whilst I accept that often an active street frontage in an apartment building like this is expressed as the front, ground floor dwelling having a direct, separate entrance point from the street, I do not think that this is necessary in all cases. Here, the proposal provides vehicular access to one side, and a pedestrian entry, accessed underneath a signposted canopy containing the street address, on the other side. Various windows and balconies face Landale Avenue, including the terrace doors for Dwelling 1. I consider that the combination of the windows and balconies will provide adequate surveillance onto the street and the combination of the various elements on the front façade will create an acceptable overall interface with Landale Avenue. Further, providing Dwelling 1 with access from the main pedestrian entry path allows a greater part of the front setback to be vegetated, rather than this area accommodating an additional hard paved path.
6. Finally, the Council was concerned by the apparent lack of landscaping opportunities available to the site due to the extent of built form and the car park. The Scheme refers to the neighbourhood character of the area being that apartment style buildings are located:

in garden settings, where the buildings are softened and framed by canopy trees,

provide opportunities for the planting or retention of canopy trees to maintain the existing streetscape and frame larger buildings.[9]

1. In addition, the site is subject to SLO4 - Landscape Canopy Protection, which has as its landscape character objectives:

To conserve the existing pattern of vegetation, landscape quality and ecosystems within the area.

To maintain a dense vegetation canopy that contributes to the special environmental character of Maroondah.

To maintain the overall scenic beauty of the municipality.

1. In its Delegate Report, the Council stated that the trees on site that were subject to SLO4 were not considered to be worthy of retention and could be removed. The Council went on to assess that the replacement planting was acceptable, given the rear and front setbacks which could both sustain a canopy tree, and the areas central of the building that provided a vertical clearance which assisted with the planting of a canopy tree to assist in framing the building. At the hearing, however, the Council argued that it did hold concerns regarding the landscaping of the front setback on the basis that this failed to frame the building as sought by the Scheme, effectively because there would not be canopy trees on either side of the front of the building.
2. In the context of the Scheme seeking to provide opportunities for the planting of canopy trees to maintain the existing streetscape and to frame larger buildings, I consider an interpretation that requires such framing to be the provision of trees on either side of a building to be needlessly restrictive. Here, the Applicant proposes the introduction of two trees in the front setback (one growing to 15 metres, the other to 6 metres), along with two 10 metre trees mid-block on the western boundary, a 9 metre tree mid-block on the eastern boundary and five trees in the rear setback (two growing to 15 metres and three growing to 6 metres). Further planting of Capital Pears and Narrow Bruch Cherry shrubs are also proposed along the side boundaries.
3. I agree with Mr Hocking that the extent of planting required for a development in order for that development to meet the relevant policy objectives of the Scheme has to be relative to the site's context and other planning controls regulating the site's development. In this context, where an apartment building is being proposed in the GRZ1 and within the Croydon MAA, this is a different regulatory and policy context than, for instance, where a multi-unit dwelling development is proposed on land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone[10].
4. The Council also held concerns regarding the practical implementation of the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by Mr Hutchison, including as regards the soil depth and light available to new plantings. I accept Mr Hutchison's evidence that the trees and plants selected for the various setbacks were chosen having regard to the level of light and the amount of lateral space that was available in each area, such that he was confident of the ability of these plantings to grow in the areas identified.
5. Overall, I find that the extent, type and layout of landscaping proposed will appropriately contribute to the existing streetscape and frame a building that is to be located in the Croydon MAA.
6. Lastly, the Council considered that the development would result in 13 Landale Avenue becoming isolated and, as such, this was inconsistent with the policy contained in clause 22.09-3 that:

The consolidation and development of sites occurs in a progressive manner and does not result in creation of small isolated holdings of land.

1. I am not convinced that the development of this site will result in the adjoining property that is of a similar, relatively large, size becoming isolated, either physically or notionally. This is not to say that if the two properties had been consolidated and a development was proposed that encompassed both that this would not be in-keeping with the Scheme's policy; just that failure to consolidate, in this instance, should not be reason for refusal of the permit application.
2. Overall, I consider that the proposal enjoys a significant level of support from DDO10 and the relevant aspects of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

DOES THE PROPOSAL CREATE ANY UNACCEPTABLE OFF-SITE AMENITY IMPACTS?

1. Ms Lugg held concerns that the car parking area would create noise and fumes that would impact unacceptably upon her property to the rear of the site.
2. I accept that the car parking area is, although covered, also open at the sides and, as such, will allow for ventilation of any fumes. Conversely, the presence of the built form over the car parking area may act to limit some of the noise that may otherwise emanate from the car park. I observe that the car park is not directly on the boundary and that the rear setback will be vegetated which, when mature, might act to dampen some of the noise generated.
3. It will be the case that the development of the site in the manner proposed will result in more noise and emissions than are presently generated by the existing single dwelling. But an increase to some degree is expected, having regard to the relevant planning controls and policy for the development of the Croydon MAA. I am not persuaded that the noise and emissions that may be generated will create an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residents.
4. Similarly, whilst the proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the street, I am not persuaded that such an increase in unacceptable given the site's location. I observe that the Council did not take issue with any traffic impacts caused by the proposal.

DOES THE PROPOSAL PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ON-SITE AMENITY FOR DWELLING 1?

1. The Council did take issue with the layout and design of Dwelling 1, including its south-facing orientation, its outlook from the terrace and kitchen being affected by the floor level being below natural ground level, the overhang of built form above various windows and the bathroom window opening to the car park. The Council described this as a "bunker style dwelling" which would have a poor level of amenity for future occupants and which should not be supported.
2. Although south-facing, which is not ideal, I note the proximity of the site to Croydon Park and Memorial Pool in terms of additional recreational opportunities. I also observe that Dwelling 1 is of a good internal size, providing 67.4m2 of floor area for a two bedroom apartment and with an outlook from the terrace and the kitchen window to the vegetated front setback, which will assist in providing a sense of space.
3. In terms of the interface with the car parking area, I observe that the closest spaces to Dwelling 1 are visitor parking spaces, which it is conceivable will not be used as frequently as the car parking spaces allocated to the dwellings. I do note, though, the proximity of the two lounge widows on the west of Dwelling 1 to the accessway. Given the ventilation and outlook that will be provided by the terrace and kitchen windows, these windows could be fixed and obscured, as suggested by the Applicant, as could the bathroom window.
4. Overall, I do not consider that the less positive amenity aspects of Dwelling 1 are sufficient to outweigh the benefit of providing the increased housing quantity proposed on this site in the Croydon MAA.

1. The Applicant took exception to the Council's draft planning permit conditions in terms of the "permissions" granted and condition 1, arguing that the combined effect of these was to transform the development. The changes sought by the Council included introducing a basement level car park, removing Dwelling 1 and reducing the overall building height to 10 metres above natural ground level.
2. Having regard to my views above, I do not consider that the changes sought by the Council are warranted. I have amended the permissions section and condition 1 accordingly. I have also amended condition 1 to require that the west-facing lounge windows and the north-facing bathroom window of Dwelling 1 be non-operable and constructed of obscure glass. Finally, I have amended condition 5 to require that the final landscape plan submitted to the Council be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by Justin Hutchison Pty Ltd, dated 9 December 2015, including as to the number of trees provided, their locations and their supply size.

1. For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.

• Construction of a four storey apartment building comprising 16 dwellings and the removal of two trees in the Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 4

1. Before any buildings and works start, 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 dated 6 April 2015, but modified to show:
   • (a) the redesign of car park space B13 and B14 to ensure the car spaces can be entered and exited in a maximum of two movements;
   • (b) the relocation of the bicycle racks in the car park area to ensure access to parking bay B15 is not restricted; and
   • (c) the west-facing windows in the lounge room area of Dwelling 1 and the north-facing bathroom window of Dwelling 1 as non-operable and constructed of obscure glass.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before any buildings and works start, three copies of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the CMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CMP must include, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) details of hours of demolition and construction including deliveries;
   • (b) details of the construction program;
   • (c) Traffic Management details including VicRoads Memorandum of Authorisation (MOA) if required;
   • (d) methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within land, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures;
   • (e) details of facilities on the land for vehicle washing;
   • (f) protection measures for features of the land to be retained including vegetation, retaining walls, buildings, other structures and pathways;
   • (g) details of delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
   • (h) details of a liaison officer for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event queries or problems are experienced;
   • (i) details of the movement of construction vehicles to and from the land to avoid traffic hazards in and around the land;
   • (j) details of parking facilities for construction workers (including any builder/contractor parking permits issued by Council);
   • (k) measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land;
   • (l) an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services;
   • (m) the processes to be adopted for the separation, re-use and recycling of demolition materials;
   • (n) the measures for prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials and other pollutants on or off the land, whether by air, water or other means;
   • (o) the measures to minimise the amount of waste construction materials; the provision for the recycling of demolition and waste materials; and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a program of reuse or recycling);
   • (p) the measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours;
   • (q) the provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all contractors and sub-contractors on the land; and
   • (r) measures to protect the stormwater drainage system so that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the land enters the stormwater drainage system.

1. Before any buildings and works start, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the WMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WMP must include, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) calculations showing that all occupiers will be sufficiently catered for with the proposed number of garbage, recycling and where required; garden organic bins;
   • (b) details of the size and location for the storage of general wastes and recyclables on the ground/basement floor and details of screening from view;
   • (c) specification of waste collection point (e.g. on-site or nature strip collection) and where the waste collection vehicle will park;
   • (d) a plan showing that the storage area is sufficient to cater for the number of bins, which must include the option of the Owners Corporation opting for Council collection;
   • (e) if opting for Council collection;
     • (i) calculations showing there is adequate space on the nature strip to present bins collection;
     • (ii) calculations showing that bin transfer grade does not exceed 1:14; and
     • (iii) consideration given to minimising the transfer distance from the dwellings to kerbside,
   • (f) provision of a risk and hazard analysis to ensure potential risks to both residents and waste collectors are minimised;
   • (g) details of the size and location for the storage of recyclables;
   • (h) details of ventilation if garbage bins are in enclosed areas;
   • (i) management measures for the communal bin storage area(s) to address cleaning and maintenance, prevention of vermin, lighting, safety signage considerations and other relevant matters;
   • (j) where required a plan for a caretaker to manage communal bin areas;
   • (k) details of the provision of dual bins provided in cupboards in each dwelling to encourage separation of recyclables from garbage;
   • (l) design details of the built-in waste/recycling system for the building indicating the provision made for the separate disposal of garbage and recycling streams;
   • (m) an assessment of the ease of waste disposal for residents so as to not disadvantage recycling (e.g. chutes work for garbage but not for recycling, because of smashed glass, requiring additional effort to recycle, and discourage recycling);
   • (n) a plan for the ongoing provision of education for residents on how to use the proposed waste disposal system;
   • (o) details of private contractor options, if applicable, detailing the methods of collection with regard to land and road network constraints and the potential requirement to manoeuvre garbage trucks, including a collection plan approved by the proposed collection agencies that meets Council's Waste Management Plan;
   • (p) the hours and frequency of pick-up for general and recyclable waste, with regard to potential noise impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood; and
   • (q) details of the provision and maintenance of public rubbish bins throughout the car parking areas.

1. Before any buildings and works start, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority which must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by Justin Hutchison Pty Ltd dated 9 December 2015. When approved, the landscape 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 plan must show:
   • (a) a survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;
   • (b) buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary;
   • (c) details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;
   • (d) a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;
   • (e) landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;
   • (f) a minimum of two trees within the front setback;
   • (g) a minimum of two trees within the rear (north) setback;
   • (h) a minimum of three trees along each of the eastern and western boundaries of the site; and
   • (i) an in-ground irrigation system to all landscaped areas.

All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development is occupied, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. 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.

1. A watering system must be installed which is capable of adequately watering all of the areas set aside for landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before any building or works start, construction plans for all parking areas and access lanes must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The construction plans must be consistent with the endorsed site layout, development plans and landscaping plans.

1. Before the development is occupied, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan must be:
   • (a) surfaced with a durable all-weather seal;
   • (b) drained to the nominated legal point of discharge;
   • (c) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
   • (d) marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways; and
   • (e) provided with concrete kerbs or other barriers to prevent direct vehicle access to an adjoining road other than by a vehicle crossing,

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development is occupied, the owner must at its cost construct a concrete vehicular crossing at right angles to the road to suit the proposed driveway to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The vehicle crossing must be a minimum 1.0 metre offset from any existing tree or utility service assets.

1. Before any building or works start, drainage plans including calculations prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Drainage Plans must:
   • (a) show all drainage works associated with the development including any drainage works required beyond the boundaries of the land;
   • (b) show the nominated legal point of discharge;
   • (c) convey stormwater runoff by means of underground drains to the nominated legal point of discharge.
   • (d) prevent overland flows from having a detrimental effect on the environment or adjoining properties;
   • (e) limit the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to the equivalent of a 35% impervious site coverage, or the pre-developed discharge rate, if it is less than 35% impervious site coverage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and
   • (f) provide appropriate stormwater detention storage for a 10 Year ARI storm event to limit the maximum discharge rate to the PSD.

1. Before the development is occupied, the drainage and associated works shown on the Drainage Plans must be constructed in accordance with those plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Within 14 Days of the completion of the works, certification by a suitably qualified engineer must be submitted to the Responsible Authority certifying that works have been completed in accordance with the Drainage Plans.

1. During the construction of the development, methods to control sediment laden runoff as described under 'Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater' or similar must be implemented and used to minimise sediment laden runoff and stormwater pollution from leaving the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

1. The plant and equipment on the roof of the building must be screened in a manner to complement the appearance of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Communication devices, cabling, antennae, satellite dishes and plant must be consolidated, rationalised and integrated into the building design and must not be visible from the surrounding streets to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit; or
   • (b) the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards if the development has not yet started, or within 12 months afterwards if the development has lawfully started before the permit expires.

[1] I have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[2] Being those contained in clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 (Croydon Major Activities Area) and clause 22.09: Croydon Major Activities Area Development Policy of the Scheme.

[3] See for instance clauses 11.01-2, 11.04-2, 15, 21.07-2 and 43.02 (DDO10).

[7] Refer Decision guidelines to DDO10 at paragraph 4.0.

[8] These range from 5.7m between Dwelling 14 and the eastern boundary to 6.995m between Dwelling 16 and the eastern boundary.

[10] With reference to Waters v Maroondah CC [2015] VCAT 859, which was referred to me by the Council.