1. Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the application is amended by changing the name of the applicant to:

1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:

1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

1. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. PP13/01063 is set aside.
2. A permit is granted in relation to land at 322-324 High Street ASHBURTON VIC. The permit will allow
   • Construction of nineteen (19) dwellings on two (2) lots; and
   • Alter access to a Category 1 Road Zone

generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A.

Mr D Crowder, Town Planner, Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd

Mr J Patrick, Landscape Architect, John Patrick Pty Ltd

Construction of a three-storey apartment building containing nineteen (19) dwellings on two (2) lots and alter access to a Category 1 Road Zone.

Car parking is to be provided in a basement. 24 car spaces are to be provided for the residents and 4 visitor car spaces, as well as 4 bicycle racks. Vehicle access is via a crossover at the western end of the High Street frontage. Pedestrian access is via a pathway to the entrance foyer in the centre of the building.

The proposal consists of 3 one-bedroom dwellings, 11 two-bedroom dwellings and 5 three-bedroom dwellings.

The building is to be setback 7.5m from High Street at ground level, a minimum of 3m to the rear southern boundary, 1m to the western boundary and 3m to the eastern boundary. At first floor level the building is to be setback 7.75m from High Street, a minimum of 3m to the eastern boundary, 4m to the western boundary and 3.9m to the rear southern boundary. At the upper level the building is setback 10.7m from High Street, a minimum of 6.15m to the eastern and western boundaries and 7.93m to the rear southern boundary.

Dwellings at ground level are provided with an area of private open space in the form of terrace courtyards varying in size from 27m² to 73m². At first floor level private open space is provided in the form of balconies ranging in size between 8m² and 11m². The area of private open space for the upper level is in the form of terrace balconies ranging in size between 11m² and 18m².

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

General Residential Zone, Schedule 5 (clause 32.08)

Clause 32.08 - construct more than one dwelling on a lot

Clauses 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21.03, 21.05, 21.07, 22.07, 55 and 65.

The review site is located on the south side of High Street, approximately 40 metres east of Gloucester Road, in Ashburton. The key features of the review site are summarised as follows:

• It is comprised of two regular shaped lots and has an overall frontage of 39.62 metres to High Street and a depth of 36.58 metres. This yields an overall site area of approximately 1,449sqm.
• The topography falls by almost 2 metres from north to south and almost 1 metre from east to west. The southwest corner is the lowest point of the site.
• No 322 High Street (westernmost) is occupied by a single storey brick and weatherboard dwelling with a pitched tiled roof. A standalone garage is located to the rear of the dwelling, on the western boundary. Private open space is located to the rear of the dwelling, with mature vegetation located throughout the site. The site is fenced with a low stone wall to High Street.
• No 324 High Street is occupied by a single storey render dwelling with a pitched tiled roof. A crossover extends along its western boundary and provides access to a garage on the western boundary, set back behind the dwelling frontage. A sealed turning bay is located in the front setback. Private open space is located to the rear of the dwelling. A high timber paling fence is located on the site frontage and mature vegetation is located throughout the site.
• Powerlines extend along the southern side of High Street, with poles located on the eastern side of the crossover to No 322 High Street and at the eastern boundary of No 324 High Street.

A 1.83 metre wide easement extends across the rear of the site. there are no other easements, covenants or other restrictions registered on the titles which may affect this proposal[1].

The Tribunal conducted an inspection of the subject site and adjoining properties at the time of a previous application (Zolynda Projects Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2013] VCAT 2153).

The Tribunal inspected the site and surrounding area on 2 May 2015 but did not consider it necessary to attend the adjoining properties.

Zolynda Projects Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2013] VCAT 2153; Reid v Nillumbik SC (No 3) [2011] VCAT 925 at [10]; Sprut Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1675 at [15 - 16]

1. This is the return of an application for construction of a three storey building on the subject land. The Tribunal previously dealt with a similar application in 2013, upheld the Council's decision and refused the granting of a permit[3]. The previous application was for 21 dwellings. This application is for 19 dwellings in a not dissimilar built form to what was previously proposed.
2. This application is to the extent that there was a previous application before the Tribunal for a not dissimilar built form a repeat appeal. Taking account however of the Tribunal's previous determination, where although it refused the application, it also indicated the overall proposal was generally satisfactory, but for some specific issues that needed to be addressed, this application falls within what has been described as a 'mending' or 'correcting' application[4].
3. The Tribunal stated:
   1. The site is an ideal location for medium density development given its close proximity to the Ashwood Neighbourhood Activity Centre and the Ashburton Activity Centre. It is in close proximity to public transport and well serviced by public open space and other community facilities.
   2. Whilst the proposal provides for an increase in housing and housing diversity in an established urban area it is considered that the proposed development does not sit comfortably within the context of the neighbourhood and does not respond sufficiently to the rhythm and spacing of buildings along High Street.
   3. A three storey building is not inappropriate in this location, but sufficient care should be taken to ensure that the built form will not be visually dominant, particularly when viewed from adjoining properties. It is considered that the upper third level is sufficiently setback to ensure it will not be a dominating element. It is however the relationship of the building at the first floor level that results in a visual impact on the adjoining properties due to insufficient setback of the built form along the eastern and western elevations.[5]
4. The applicant submits this application has addressed the concerns expressed by the Tribunal. The Council has however refused the application although a recommendation for approval was made by a Council officer.
5. The Council's grounds of refusal relate to impacts to neighbouring properties, inconsistency with the neighbourhood character and a failure to provide sufficient landscaping opportunities.
6. The grounds of refusal raise the following issues to be addressed:
   • Does the proposal respond to the character of the neighbourhood?
   • Will the proposal result in unreasonable impacts to the adjoining properties?
   • Does the proposal provide sufficient landscaping opportunities?
7. 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 Boroondara Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Council and determine to grant a permit. My reasons follow.

Does the proposal respond to the character of the neighbourhood?

1. At the time the previous Tribunal determination was handed down the subject land was located within the Residential 1 Zone under the Boroondara Planning Scheme. The land is now located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 5. The two zones are in many respects similar, however the General Residential Zone now contains an additional objective 'to implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines'.
2. The Council's recently adopted Neighbourhood Character Study 2013 has been incorporated into clause 22.07 by Amendment C199. The land is located within Precinct 67 and the description of the area, whilst in general terms, notes 'the area has been increasingly influenced by the construction of newer, generally 2 storey dwellings, many of which feature period reproduction detailing'. The preferred character for the area is 'to maintain the 1 and 2 storey suburban feel of the area and the garden setting of the dwellings'. A threat to this character is 'two or three storey developments that dominate the street'.
3. Having considered the earlier application, I remain of the view that due to the sites location in 'close proximity to the Ashwood Neighbourhood Activity Centre, approximately 200m to the east, and to the Ashburton Activity Centre, approximately 800m to the west' it is in an ideal location for a medium density development. I also remain of the view that a three storey development in this location is not inappropriate.
4. The Council submitted the changes in this proposal compared to the previous proposal are minimal and expressed the view that the concerns raised by the previous Tribunal in its determination are still outstanding.
5. In my view the character of the area in close proximity to the subject land, particularly along High Street, a major road, is changing with the replacement of older dwellings with either two storey townhouses or apartment buildings not dissimilar to what is proposed. The subject site currently contains two of those older style dwellings.
6. Plan Melbourne is now referred to in the planning scheme[6]. Plan Melbourne provides general policy support for higher density development in and around activity centres and on strategic redevelopment sites. Under clause 16.01-3 the subject site would be considered a strategic redevelopment site as it is in or beside a Neighbourhood Activity Centre that is served by public transport, and able to provide 10 or more dwelling units, close to activity centres and well served by public transport.
7. To achieve the preferred character for Precinct 67 buildings are required to be sufficiently setback from front boundaries and 'are composed of facades that are no more than two storeys high to the street'. The upper or third level is well recessed from High Street at a setback of a minimum 10m ensuring the presentation to High Street is of a two storey built form.
8. I agree with Mr Crowder that whilst the proposed development has a minimum front setback of 7.59m at ground level and 8.73m at first floor level the front setback is not inappropriate. At the western side the setback is 8.83m and at the eastern side it is 8.88m. These varied setbacks sufficiently take into account the average setback of the two adjoining dwellings at 8.87m.
9. In its previous determination the Tribunal agreed with the Council's view that the building would present as a consistent built form across the front of the site and stated at paragraph 17:

To achieve a separation that is clearly distinguishable and pays regard to the construction over two lots, as well as the rhythm and spacing between buildings along High Street, this central area should be at least a width of 5 metres or more with a setback to the foyer and lift area and such setback should be evident at the ground and first floor levels, that is no cantilevering of balconies over the recesses below.

1. The proposal provides a break of over 5m to the High Street frontage. The Council officer considered a further break of 6.27m could be achieved at the first and second floor. It was also considered that the projection of the canopy over the common entrance could be reduced, and this would further assist in accentuating the break.
2. Mr Crowder referred to what is now contained in the amended plans the subject of this application which include the introduction of additional cladding to the front façade, the introduction of darker tones to the central recessed area and a deletion of a portion of the balcony to dwelling 1.01 that contributes to a further increase in the width of the 'break' in the building. The reduction in the size of the parapet of the uppermost level fronting High Street and an increased setback to the canopy of the front entry area.
3. The height of the proposal at 9.94m is the same as previously considered by the Tribunal. The contemporary three-storey built form is consistent with the evolving character of the area, particularly along High Street and in close proximity to the Ashburton Activity Centre. This proposal now acknowledges its built form extends over two lots with a break provided in the centre of the building as it presents to High Street. This ensures the building presentation to High Street is more tempered.

Will the proposal result in unreasonable impacts to the adjoining properties?

1. The subject site has four interfaces to residential properties, 320 High Street to the west, 326 High Street to the east and 2 and 3 Mustang Court to the south. In the previous determination the Tribunal expressed particular concern regarding the setbacks to 320 High Street and 3 Mustang Court.
2. The setback of the building to the common boundary with 326 High Street at its closest points at ground level is 1m, 2.4m and 3 m with the building stepping in 5m in two locations. At first floor level the building setback varies between 3m and 3.235m with a balcony protruding to 1.8m from the common boundary. The upper level setback varies between 6.15 to 9.87m.
3. The setback of 5.3m to the building towards the rear is directly opposite the rear private open space of 326 High Street. This setback reduces any perception of bulk when viewed from this area. Although the balcony to dwelling 1.03 sits 1.8m off the common boundary with 326 High Street this is located opposite the side of the dwelling and is at a distance of approximately 8m. With screening to the balcony this will not result in any impact on the amenity of this dwelling.
4. The rear private open space of 2 Mustang Court abuts the common boundary of the subject site. Mature vegetation is located in close proximity to the boundary. The closest setback at the ground floor of the building in relation to this property is 3m to bedroom 2 in dwelling G.08, at the first floor the setback is increased to 3.9 - 4.3m and at the upper level the building is setback 8.4m. The proposal will have minimal impact on 2 Mustang Court. There is sufficient area within the ground level setback to include landscaping that will assist in tempering views to the building from this property's rear private open space.
5. In relation to 3 Mustang Court, the Tribunal in its previous determination stated at paragraph 19:

The built form when viewed from the rear and particularly from the rear private open space of 3 Mustang Court would also benefit from a separation in the built form to break up the extent of the building over the two lots. As proposed the building extends at ground level for approximately 33 metres and at first floor level approximately 31 metres across the 39.62 metre rear boundary of the two lots. The common boundary with 3 Mustang Court is approximately 25 metres. The area between bedroom 2 of G.07, G.06, 1.06 and 1.05 could be the location for the visual break of the built form, provided in my view, there is a setback to the building of at least 7 metres, with no balconies to intrude into the recess area. At present the distance between bedroom 2 of the dwellings is approximately 8 metres, such width of a break in built form, as well as a reasonable setback, would provide for a significant visual break when viewing the building from the rear private open space of 3 Mustang Court.

1. The proposal provides for a 7.71m break between G.06 and G.07 and 1.04 and 1.05, setback 7m from the rear southern boundary. Mr Crowder was of the view that whilst the 7.71m break was less than the 8m suggestion of the Tribunal, the proposal meets the intent . The Council officer was of the view an 8m break should be provided whilst maintaining the 7m depth.
2. Whilst the suggested 8m break has not been provided, the proposed break of 7.71m is in my view sufficient to achieve the outcome of separation sought by the Tribunal. To require the break to be brought out to 8m would be imperceptible and with the proposed landscaping to the rear boundary this area will be an improvement when viewed from the rear private open space of 3 Mustang Court.
3. The 7.71m break between the ground and first floor level has resulted in an increased area of private open space for the two, one bedroom ground floor dwellings to 44m² which in my view although to the south will provide added amenity for future residents. At the first floor level the break has resulted in dwellings 1.04 and 1.05 having their balcony open space provided to the east and west respectively. The removal of the wrap around of the balconies towards the south for these two dwellings reduces further any concern regarding overlooking to the rear private open space of 3 Mustang Court, particularly in relation to the swimming pool located on that property. The wrap around terrace balconies for dwellings 2.03 and 2.04 are with screening to the south of sufficient distance that there will be no unreasonable overlooking towards the rear of either 2 or 3 Mustang Court.
4. In relation to 320 High Street, the Tribunal in its previous determination indicated an increased setback of the building at first floor level, as well as to the balconies along the western elevation, could assist in reducing any impact of overlooking to this property.
5. The plans show the balconies at the first floor level on the western elevation are setback 3m from the common boundary with 320 High Street with the building being setback between 3.68m in the north western corner, to between 4 and 5.25m further south. This has achieved sufficient separation of the built form from the two decks located on the eastern side and at the rear of 320 High Street.
6. In relation to overshadowing the Tribunal in its previous determination stated:
   1. Overshadowing to 3 Mustang Court does not occur between 9 am and 3pm at the equinox. I acknowledge that there will be some additional shadowing to the rear private open space of 3 Mustang Court during winter but I am unable to conclude this is unreasonable.
   2. Additional overshadowing will occur to the eastern deck and the rear of 320 High Street at 9 am at the equinox with the majority of this additional shadow clearing the rear private open space area and a small portion of the eastern deck remaining in shadow at 10 am. This shadow will no longer be impacting on both these areas of 320 High Street by 11am.
   3. A small section along the fence line of 326 High Street will be shadowed from 3pm. This additional shadow however does not extend over the majority of the rear private open space area.
7. A small portion of the eastern deck and section of the rear of 326 High Street will experience additional shadowing until just after 10am and by 11am the additional shadow to this property will be gone.
8. There is a small increase to the shadow along the fence line of 326 High Street and this occurs from 3pm. This shadow does not impact on the remainder of the rear private open space of 326 High Street.
9. No shadowing from the proposal occurs to 2 and 3 Mustang Court. There will be no unreasonable impacts to the adjoining dwellings due to overshadowing.
10. The proposal now incorporates greater setbacks to the adjoining properties ensuring there is sufficient separation with the built form and reducing the impact of visual bulk that may have previously been evident. Overlooking concerns have been addressed by the relocation of or removal of balconies and ensuring that appropriate screening of balconies occurs.

Does the proposal provide sufficient landscaping opportunities?

1. Precinct 67 guidelines seek to 'maintain and enhance the landscaped setting of dwellings'. As stated in the previous determination 'I accept sufficient landscaping, including canopy trees can be provided, as demonstrated by the landscape plan prepared by Mr Patrick'. The subject site is relatively devoid of meaningful vegetation.
2. Mr Patrick has again provided a landscape plan. As a result of the architectural changes from the previous application a further amount of landscaping can be provided. As the basement is setback approximately 7m at the front of the site there is sufficient area to incorporate a large Pin Oak in the centre of the site. Mr Patrick has also provided trees in the front setback commonly found in the gardens in the area, namely Chanticleer Pears and three evergreen Blueberry Ash.
3. To the western boundary Mr Patrick proposes the upright Pinnacle Lilly Pilly which has a dense foliage growth and fastigiated form. I accept that this will be an excellent screen plant along this boundary.
4. Mr Patrick has provided a Chinese Elm in the south western corner of the site with Chanticleer Pears to the south western boundary. Along the southern boundary he has provided Greenback Magnolia, which has an upright form and can be clipped to reduce its width and height. The reconfiguration has also resulted in an additional area of soft landscaping to the centre at the rear.
5. To the eastern boundary Mr Patrick has provided an evergreen screen with Blueberry Ash with an evergreen screen to the south east supplemented by Bush Christmas Lilly Pilly. He has also included at the mid point a deciduous Fantasy Crepe Myrtle.
6. As previously stated sufficient landscaping can be provided for the subject site which will in my view contribute to the streetscape and to the outlook from adjoining properties. Mr Patrick has also addressed the concerns previously raised by the owner of 3 Mustang Court and has now provided for an evergreen planting along the southern boundary that can also be clipped.

Do any other matters warrant rejection of the proposal?

1. Several other matters were raised in submissions including the height of the front fences. In the previous Tribunal determination it was suggested the front fences be reduced to 1.5m, rather than the proposed 2m. Mr Crowder noted that the fence to dwelling G.03 is to be 1.5m high, while the fence to dwelling G.01 is to be 2m. The provision of the higher fence is said to assist in minimising noise from the entry ramp to the basement.
2. I would agree that the 2m high wall be provided along the western side of the private open space of dwelling G.01, as well as its eastern side, but as with dwelling G.03 the northern parts of the fence should be 1.5m in height. This would also apply to the 2m height at the front of G.02 which could also be reduced to 1.5m.
3. No issues were raised by the Council's traffic engineers in relation to the basement car park and Vic Roads has also indicated it has no objection to the proposal in terms of access from High Street. I have therefore not addressed car parking or vehicle access.

1. Draft conditions were provided by the Council. These conditions were discussed at the hearing. Taking account of the submissions put to me I have either amended, deleted or added conditions as I have considered appropriate.

1. Having considered the earlier application in relation to the subject land I have reassessed this application in the light of the Tribunal's earlier determination and consider this proposal warrants the granting of a permit.
2. The proposal incorporates a contemporary design that will sit comfortably within High Street and make a positive contribution to the existing and evolving character of the area. The proposal now ensures that there will be minimal impact to adjoining properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk by an increase to setbacks and relocation of balconies.
3. The decision of the responsible authority will be set aside. A permit will be directed to be issued in accordance with the plans presented to the Tribunal but subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A.

• Construction of nineteen (19) dwellings on two (2) lots and
• alter access to a Category 1 Road Zone

1. Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided, substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to VCAT prepared by Stoll Long Architecture, dated 16 June 2014 (received by Council 23 June 2014) but modified to show:

a) Notation on the ground floor plans that the fencing between the courtyards of the ground floor units is timber paling fencing with a minimum height of I .7m above natural ground level;

c) Notation on the site plans and elevation plans that all habitable room windows associated with Units G.01, G.02, G.03 (ground floor) 1.01, 10.2 and G.03 (first floor) and 2.01 and 2.02 (second floor) on the northern side of the building (facing High Street) are to be constructed of double glazing or noise reducing glass;

d) Notation on the site plans and elevation plans that all balcony screening devices are to be fixed and a maximum transparency of 25% in accordance with Standard B22 of ResCode;

e) Modifications to plans required by Vic Roads as referred to by Conditions 6 and 7 of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

f) Reduction in the height of the front fencing to the north fronting High Street, have a maximum height of 1.5 metres; and

g) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the plans required by Condition 1, a Landscape Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is endorsed, it will then form part of the Permit. The Landscape Plan is to be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd, dated February 2015 (Drawing labelled "Landscape Plan for VCAT", but modified to show:

a) The footprint of the building to be consistent with the plans referred to in Condition I of this permit;

b) All canopy trees are to be planted at a minimum height of 2m;

c) All canopy trees to be planted adjacent to the southern boundary are to be an Evergreen species to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and

d) The planting of trees and plants within the easement must be limited to species with shallow root systems.

e) The use of external climbing plants on masonry walls adjacent to the ramp to the basement.

4. Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

5. All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plants replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a functional layout drawing, generally in accordance with drawing TPO4 revision 2 - Ground Floor Plan, by Stoll Long Architecture, must be submitted to and approved by Vic Roads showing:

a) A two way sealed vehicle crossover at least 5.5 metres wide as measured at the property boundary. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary.

b) Appropriate regulatory signage enforcing the left in and left out access arrangement to the site.

c) Swept path analysis of appropriate design vehicles entering and exiting the site. The swept path analysis should demonstrate that appropriate design vehicles can enter and exit the site concurrently.

d) The redundant crossover on High Street removed and kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated.

7. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, works as shown on the approved functional layout drawing must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The landscaping works must not obstruct sight lines for motorists and pedestrians to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Car parking spaces shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Visitor parking spaces within the development must be:

a) Clearly identified by appropriate signage having an area no greater than 0.3m2

12. Before the use starts or any building is occupied, details of any car park control equipment (controlling access to and egress from the internal/basement car park/s) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. These details must include a car park control device which can be accessed by visitors to the development including clear instructions on how to operate any security system.

13. Before the use starts or any building is occupied:

a) Traffic signals must be installed on or near the basement access ramp. Such traffic control measures must include appropriate hold points and detector loops; and

b) A convex mirror must be installed at the top of the access ramp

14. Any new vehicle crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. All disused or redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the area reinstated with footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. Concurrent with the plans required by Condition 1, a Waste Management Plan generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Leigh Design, dated 15 February 2014, is to be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Waste Management Plan is endorsed, it will then form part of the Permit. The requirements and recommendations contained within the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. All waste material not required for further on-site processing 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 satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Prior to the commencement of buildings and works (including demolition and excavation), a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must provide details of the following:

a) hours for construction activity in accordance with the requirements of any other condition of this permit;

b) measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff;

c) the location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site;

d) the location of parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles on the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows with any basement car park on the land being made available without delay for use by sub- contractors/tradespersons upon completion of such basement car park areas;

e) measures to ensure that employees and subcontractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan;

h) the location of any site sheds, hoarding and the like; and

i) any other relevant matters, including Vic Roads requirements.

19. All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated with the approved development must take place only during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:

a) The development does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit; or

b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:

(i) within six (6) months afterwards if the development has not commenced; or

(ii) within twelve (12) months afterwards if the development has not been completed.

Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal are unable to approve requests outside of the relevant time frame.

[1] Extract from Expert Witness Statement of David Crowder dated March 2015

[2] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[3] Zolynda Projects Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2013] VCAT 2153

[4] Reid v Nillumbik SC (No 3) [2011] VCAT 925 at [10]; Sprut Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1675 at [15 - 16]

[6] Clause 9 'Where relevant, planning and responsible authorities must consider and apply the strategy

Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Department of Transport, Planning and