VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. P227/2018 PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/47508 CATCHWORDS Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 4; Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1; Neighbourhood character; Landscaping; Visual Bulk; Amenity Impacts. APPLICANT Charlie Paolucci RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council SUBJECT LAND 13 Mandowie Road, GLEN WAVERLEY WHERE HELD Melbourne BEFORE Joel Templar, Member HEARING TYPE Hearing DATE OF HEARING 25 July 2018 DATEOF INTERIM ORDER 31 July 2018 DATE OF ORDER 30 August 2018 CITATION Paolucci v Monash CC [2018] VCAT 1261 ORDER Amend permit application 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:
Transcript
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P227/2018
Amend permit application 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:
Prepared by: M. Di Cesare & Co Building Design and Drafting
Drawing numbers: 1-4, Revision A
Dated: July 2018.
Permit granted2 In application P227/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set
aside.
3 In planning permit application TPA/47508 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 13 Mandowie Road, Glen Waverley in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
Construction of two dwellings on a lot.
Joel TemplarMember
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 2 of 19
APPEARANCES
For Charlie Paolucci Mr Peter English, town planner of Peter English and Associates Pty LtdHe called expert evidence from Rob Thompson, landscape architect of Habitat Landscape Consultants
For Monash City Council Ms Adrianne Kellock, town planner of Kellock Town Planning.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 3 of 19
INFORMATION
Description of proposal Construction of two dwellings on a lot, in a tandem arrangement. Both dwellings would be double storey in scale and comprise four bedrooms. Each would have a double garage accessed from a common driveway located along the western boundary of the site.
Nature of proceeding Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.
Planning scheme Monash Planning Scheme
Zone and overlays Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 4Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 4
Permit requirements Clause 32.09-6 – to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Land description The subject site is located on the northern side of Mandowie Road, approximately 65 metres east of Arianne Road. The subject site has a frontage width of 16.76 metres, a length of 39.01 metres and an overall area of 654 square metres. The site falls approximately 1.98 metres from the north-west corner to the south-west corner. There is no vegetation of significance on the property.
Tribunal inspection I undertook and inspection of the site and surrounding on 24 July 2018.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 4 of 19
REASONS1
WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 The Monash City Council (the Council) has refused a planning permit for
the construction of two double storey dwellings on the subject site. The grounds of refusal address matters of neighbourhood character, including scale and visual bulk, insufficient setbacks from boundaries for landscaping and the impact on adjoining residential properties as a result of scale and bulk.
2 This is an application to the Tribunal for a review of Council’s decision.
3 Three versions of amended plans were circulated. The first incorporated a number of changes to the original design including reduced footprint of both dwellings at both levels, relocation of garages, deletion of a car turntable, increase in side setbacks and changes to materials. Some of the references to the orientation of the plans/elevations were incorrect and the Applicant corrected this by serving in-person corrected plans (the second version).
4 The third version of amended plans made minor alterations to ensure that the proposal complies with the minimum garden area requirements set out at clause 32.09-4 of the Monash Planning Scheme (the Scheme). This third version of plans was circulated the day prior to the hearing. The changes under this third version included reductions in the building envelopes at ground and first floor levels and no reductions to setbacks.
5 The Council indicated that it had prepared its submissions based on the third version of the plans and made no objection to the substitution of those plans to be the plans considered by the Tribunal. The Council also submitted that this third version of plans contain a number of improvements from the originally considered plans but that the changes made were insufficient to entirely resolve the grounds of refusal. On the basis of Council making no objection, I granted leave to substitute those plans.
6 The Council submitted that the surrounding area has already been subject to a reasonable degree of change and that this is likely to continue. It submitted that the proposal fails to respond to the site context and the desired future character of the area. This includes lack of space for landscaping, large-scale ‘box-like’ dwellings with minimal articulation and limited separation between the proposed dwellings.
7 The Applicant submitted that although the site is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), it is well located to public transport and services, with proximity to the Glen Waverley railway station, The Glen shopping
1 The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 5 of 19
centre, and bus routes running along Springvale Road, all within approximately 750 metres to the west of the subject site.
8 The Applicant also described this area in terms of its character and how the proposal responded in relation to the contribution that this site could make to the Dandenong Valley escarpment. It described the character as one with no particularly significant environmental features despite the fact the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) affects the site. It also described the area as having substantial single dwellings of a sheer nature and double storey in scale with minimal setbacks. The Applicant also acknowledged the consistent theme within policy that seeks landscaping to be the dominant feature over that of built form, but submitted that that is not the character of this area.
9 The key issues for determination in this matter are:
a. Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to existing and future desired character?
b. Will there be any unacceptable off-site impacts?
10 The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered the submissions and the evidence, with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme, I have decided to set aside Council’s decision. My reasons follow.
INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT VC14811 On 31 July 2018, following the hearing, planning scheme amendment
VC148 was introduced into all Victorian planning schemes. As this followed the hearing, I issued an order on 31 July 2018 affording the parties an opportunity to provide any further submissions as to how this amendment affected the Application.
12 Only the Applicant made submissions which I have considered in my determination of this matter. Those submissions were essentially that as far as this proposal is concerned, the effect of VC148 is policy neutral.
DOES THE PROPOSAL PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO EXISTING AND FUTURE DESIRED CHARACTER?
Physical context13 The subject site is located in an area where original housing stock appears
to be from the 1960s. A significant amount of new development is emerging, which largely comprises substantial double storey dwellings with sheer walls and facades, minimal side setbacks and large expanses of hard paving in frontage setbacks. Newer single dwellings also have a distinct absence of vegetation and landscaping.
14 There is some evidence of multi-dwelling development, however this is minimal in proportion to the extent of new single dwelling developments.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 6 of 19
15 Although the subject site is affected by the VPO, canopy trees are not the dominant character element evident in this area, particularly within private property. Although there are some canopy trees in private property visible from the public realm, the greater contribution comes from the street trees. What I find is the dominant character in this area is the built form of existing dwellings and with an emerging character of substantial double storey dwellings with minimal landscaping.
16 The newer single dwellings have minimal articulation both in the horizontal and vertical plane which emphasises the presence of these dwellings in the surrounding area and which is exacerbated by the lack of landscaping, presentation of garages, often flush with the front façade of the dwelling.
17 Older housing stock is typically single storey, modest dwellings with generous setbacks to all boundaries. There are a number of buildings at the rear of properties, either close to or constructed to rear boundaries. However, where these do exist, they are not constructed along the full length of the boundary.
18 Although there is a future desired character, I find that this must also be balanced with the existing and emerging character in the area.
19 Although the subject site is zoned NRZ4, it is reasonably well located to services and facilities.
20 ‘The Glen’ Shopping Centre, Glen Waverley Shopping Centre and the Glen Waverley railway station are located between 750 metres and 900 metres from the subject site. There are numerous bus routes2 within these distances from the subject site, along Springvale Road, High Street Road as well as others that use the bus terminal at the Glen Waverley railway station.
21 There is also a small activity centre with limited offerings approximately 400 metres to the north-east of the subject site, on the corner of High Street Road and Kerrie Road.
22 Glen Waverley Primary School is also located approximately 600 metres to the north-west of the subject site.
2 Including 734, 736, 737, 742, 754 and 902
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 7 of 19
23 I find that the site has good access to a range of services and facilities, including shops and public transport and which are all within a 20 minute walk of the subject site. It therefore follows that this supports the redevelopment of the subject site.
Planning context24 The purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone includes:
To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development
To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics. (Tribunal emphasis)
25 The neighbourhood character objectives of Schedule 4 to the NRZ are:To ensure new development maintains the important view lines to the Dandenong Ranges, along the streets and between buildings.
To ensure development is defined by its spacious and generous garden settings, tall canopy trees and consistent built form and setbacks.
To encourage open gardens to the street, and the planting and retention of significant trees
26 The Decision Guidelines of the NRZ also require consideration of the purpose of the zone and objectives of the Schedule.
27 Schedule 4 also varies a number of Clause 55 Standards with minimum street setback distance of 7.6 metres, reduced site coverage of 50%, increased permeability of 30% and a variation to the rear setback requiring a minimum of 5.0 metres and increased private and secluded private open space of 75m2 and 35m2 with a minimum dimension of 5.0 metres respectively.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 8 of 19
28 There are also specific decision guidelines in the NRZ4 to ensure that development contributes to the Dandenong Valley Escarpment and complements that landscape setting through designing and siting buildings to ensure that landscaping is the dominant element.
29 Policy at clause 21 seeks to continue the ‘Garden City’ theme across the municipality but with slightly differing outcomes sought, dependent on each specific location. This includes the maintenance and enhancement of residential areas through well design proposals that enable adequate landscaping to be incorporated to achieve outcomes sought.
30 Clause 22.01 of the Scheme requires that consideration of a proposal must be made against the preferred future character as set out in that clause for precincts which apply to different areas of the municipality. This clause also seeks development that complements the current character and satisfies the intent of the desired future character.
31 The preferred character for this area is:The neighbourhood character of the area will develop within a pleasant leafy framework of well planted front gardens and large canopy trees.
Architecture, including new buildings and extensions, will, in the majority of cases, be secondary in visual significance to the landscape of the Character Type from the street. However in neighbourhoods that currently have a large proportion of two storey houses the architecture will gradually become more dominant although it will always be buffered from the street by a well planted front garden that will ensuring that the soft leafy nature of the street will be perpetuated.
Setbacks will be generous and consistent within individual streets.
Building heights will vary between neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods where the diverse topography and well developed mature tree canopy provides a framework within which redevelopment can occur will have a larger proportion of two storey houses. In the lower, less wooded areas, buildings will be mainly low rise unless existing vegetation or a gradation in height softens the scale contrasts between buildings.
The built-form will be visually unified by well planted front gardens that contain large trees and shrubs and street tree planting. Neighbourhoods that are influenced by the naturalistic landscape of the creek valleys, or on highpoints, and ridges will have a predominance of native trees in both the public and private realm. Trees within lots to be redeveloped will be retained wherever possible in order to maintain the established leafy character.
Streets which have a majority of gardens currently lacking fences will continue to do so. Walls and fences in other streets will be low to allow plants in the front garden to be visible from the street. Colours and materials will be sympathetic to the architecture of the house.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 9 of 19
The soft quality of streets derived from the nature strips will be protected by ensuring that each lot frontage has only one single crossover. Landscape elements such as remnant indigenous vegetation and the large old coniferous wind-rows will be retained until horticulturally unstable.
The character of existing public open spaces within the Character Type, particularly those 'Naturalistic corridors such as Damper Creek and Valley Reserve, will be protected by ensuring that buildings directly adjacent to such areas are setback and buffered with planting that complements that within the public open space.
(My emphasis).
32 The emerging character of large single dwellings with large areas of hard paving in frontage setbacks and minimal landscaping/landscaping opportunities is acknowledged by the preferred character as one which is legitimate and where the design response of new proposals in this context can be acceptable, subject to suitable landscaping.
Findings
Response to existing and preferred character
33 The Council submitted that the proposal fails to provide adequate space for landscaping and canopy trees in order to meet the preferred future character. It also submitted that the proposed dwellings are large, with minimal articulation and a mass that presents sheer walls to the streetscape. It also submitted that there is a level of building mass proposed that is not in line with the preferred character and the amount of hard surfaced area at the front of the site leaves little area for the planting of canopy trees to help soften the impact of the development on the streetscape.
34 As I have outlined above, this area is changing in terms of built form. There are numerous contemporary single dwellings which present a significant amount of sheer, double storey built form and hard paving to the public realm, with little, if any, landscaping. There is certainly an absence of canopy trees in frontage setbacks of newer single dwellings.
35 Based on the Scheme, this emerging character cannot be ignored, and in fact is contemplated in the preferred character statement.
36 Except for the Standard B17 rear setback (which I deal with separately below), all other Standards of clause 55 have been met, including the varied Standards in the NRZ4.
37 Whilst the double storey scale of the proposal differs somewhat from the original housing stock in the area, it is not dissimilar to more recent single dwelling development, yet is somewhat smaller in breadth. The proposed upper floor of dwelling 1 displays some level of vertical and horizontal articulation, with a recess to the (westernmost) bedroom 3 from the ground
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 10 of 19
floor façade and change in horizontal plane between the two bedrooms fronting Mandowie Road.
38 This level of articulation could be said to be minimal, however it does provide some difference from some of the more sheer double storey built form evident in the street, which has no articulation horizontally or vertically when viewed from Mandowie Road.
39 The presentation of the proposed front dwelling to Mandowie Road will provide a contrast to the adjoining property to the east, which retains a single storey brick dwelling which appears to be original housing stock and which is setback over 9.0 metres from the frontage. However, on balance, I find this is acceptable as it will not be dissimilar to development opposite and adjacent to the subject site to the west. There is some level of articulation as well as a setback of 1.31 metres at ground floor and 1.90 metres at first floor from the side boundary.
40 The front façade also includes various materials and colours which also help to break up the level of mass to some degree, although not significantly.
41 I find that the proposed landscaping plan by Mr Thompson provides an acceptable response to the preferred and existing character, and will provide a greater level of landscaping in the frontage of the subject site than exists on other nearby sites.
42 The proposed landscaping plan shows there will be three canopy trees located in the frontage setback, with a Brushbox that can grow to 10 metres in height and with a 7 metre spread adjacent to the eastern boundary.
43 The Brushbox will provide a significant landscaping feature, adjacent to the adjoining property which currently supports a modest single storey dwelling well setback from the street. The inclusion of this tree will also provide a screening element that will help with the transition between that adjoining dwelling and the proposal.
44 The vegetation character that does exist in the surrounding area is weighted towards larger canopy trees to the rear of properties, although I do not regard this as a significant feature of the surrounding area.
45 However, the landscaping response has provided a greater level of canopy landscaping towards the front of the site, which is not necessarily reflective of the existing landscape character. I find no issues with providing landscaping as proposed at the front of the site, however, there is a greater need to provide more canopy vegetation to the rear of the site. I discuss the setback of dwelling 2 from the rear boundary in more detail below, however, suffice to say that a greater landscaping response is required at the rear than what is shown on Mt Thompson’s landscape plan.
46 I find that the combination of these three factors, being some level of articulation and side setbacks, varied materials & colours and an amended landscaping response will ensure that the proposal finds a balance between
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 11 of 19
the existing and preferred character when viewed from the streetscape and also where visible from the rear.
47 In terms of the lack of separation between the proposed dwellings, I do not find that this is fatal to the application. The Council submitted that this lack of separation would not allow landscaping to be incorporated between the dwellings to respond to the existing and preferred character.
48 When assessing the existing character, as I observed earlier, canopy trees are not a significant feature of the surrounding area, but they do exist. Where they do exist, they are generally confined to the front or rear of sites and there is very little evidence canopy vegetation ‘mid block’.
49 The proposal will be consistent with this character and with the combination of vegetation elsewhere throughout the site as per Mr Thompson’s evidence and an amended response as I discussed above, I find that this will be an acceptable outcome.
Rear setback
50 The Council submitted that the proposal did not comply with varied Standard B17, given the north elevation kitchen wall of unit 2 is setback 2.834 metres from the rear boundary instead of the minimum 5.0 metres required. It submitted that this would not enable the proposal to respond to the preferred character as this would not enable the planting of landscaping, including canopy trees to achieve the preferred future character.
51 The Applicant submitted that the purpose behind this minimum setback was in order to provide adequate landscaping and recreation area for future occupants. The Applicant referred me to the Panel Report3 for Amendment C125 which was then used as the basis for the approval of C125 (part 1) which introduced the NRZ4, including this varied Standard.
52 The variation to Standard B17 for an increased rear setback forms part of the NRZ4 which has recently been introduced into the Scheme and is supported by policy and strategic work that has been undertaken and independently reviewed by a Panel in recent times
53 The Panel, at page 115 of the Panel Report, noted the following:More generous rear setbacks can provide for both recreation and planting (particularly if aligned with adjoining rear space). It is noted that the 5‐metre setback that was exhibited for the NRZ1, NRZ4 and GRZ3 aligns with the minimum dimension specified for secluded private open space.
54 It also then went on to say:Site orientation, topography, views and adjoining development are considerations and site analysis/design response should inform the exercise of discretion to provide sound outcomes, which may depart
3
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 12 of 19
from standards. The exercise of discretion should take account of circumstances such as:
where a creek abuttal is a side‐age and on very shallow lots
where small lots with poor rear solar orientation may warrant side or internal courtyards to attain good solar access
irregular shaped lots, particularly where lots are wider at the rear (in court bowls).
55 And then concluded: In other areas (except in the Monash NEC), the Panel is satisfied that a
5‐metre rear setback – as originally exhibited for NRZ1, NRZ4 and GRZ3 – is appropriate to provide consolidated areas for planting and to achieve good interface opportunities with adjoining sites, and will not unreasonably limit site layout or design flexibility.
56 Whilst I am not bound by the conclusions of a panel report, the rationale behind the introduction of the 5.0 metre rear setback appears to relate to the retention of adequate private open space for landscaping and to ensure the interface with adjoining properties is appropriately managed.
57 The Applicant submitted that the proposal complies with the minimum varied Standard B28, including area and dimensions and that the proposed landscape plan prepared by Mr Thompson was an appropriate outcome that provided an acceptable landscaping response.
58 I am not persuaded by the evidence of Mr Thompson or the submissions of the Applicant with regard to why this rear setback distance should not be provided. Whilst some landscaping is proposed in this area, it is insufficient to meet the preferred character outcomes and to provide an acceptable interface with properties to the rear.
59 I find that in this circumstance, a greater extent of the site at the rear must be given to landscaping opportunities in order to respond to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. A landscape response will need to address this and I have accommodated this in conditions.
60 Whilst the minimum Standard B28 area and dimension has been provided, I find that in order to give a great response to the existing and preferred character, the rear of unit 2 must be setback a minimum of 5.0 metres from the rear boundary, in accordance with varied Standard B17.
61 This will likely have design implications for dwelling 2 and may ultimately result in the loss of a bedroom, or even more. However, without this alteration, I find that the proposal would not provide an acceptable response.
62 If the Applicant wishes to pursue the proposal, that alteration must be otherwise accommodated within the footprint of the proposed dwelling 2, including window locations.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 13 of 19
WILL THERE BE ANY UNACCEPTABLE OFF-SITE IMPACTS?63 The Council submitted that there would be adverse amenity impacts upon
the adjoining properties with respect to visual bulk as a result of the proposed built form and lack of opportunity for landscaping.
64 The increased rear setback will provide both the minimum required rear setback under varied Standard B17 and increased area for landscaping which I find will address any concerns with respect to impacts to the properties at the rear.
65 This increased rear setback will also reduce the length of wall that will be visible from 15 Mandowie Road. In addition, the reduction of the upper floor of dwelling 2 will be more confined to be screened or offset from the private open space of 15 Mandowie Road, given it has an existing garage abutting the common boundary. The setbacks to this boundary of the upper floor ensure compliance with Standard B17 of clause 55 and there is both vertical and horizontal articulation of this dwelling’s east elevation which will provide acceptable setbacks.
66 The same effect occurs to the west elevation, where the upper floor includes various setbacks from the western boundary and private open space of 11 Mandowie Road. This adjoining property is also somewhat higher in elevation given the fall of the land which further reduces the built form impact.
67 I am satisfied that the combination of setbacks, articulation and height differences will not result in any unacceptable impacts to any adjoining property.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MATTERS?68 The Council raised concerns with the level of planting proposed within the
easement at the rear of the site, and made reference to Schedule 4 of the NRZ which states the following:
Provides sufficient and well located open space, primarily unencumbered easements, to provide for a large trees to be retained or planted within the front, side and rear setbacks, and secluded open space areas. Environmental weeds and artificial grass should not be used.
69 I find that the majority of the private open space for dwelling 2 is unencumbered and the proposed vegetation throughout the site is planted outside of the easement. Although there is some proposed within the easement to the rear, I do not find that this would be unacceptable or be at odds with the abovementioned decision guideline. An increase in the setback of dwelling 2 from the rear boundary would also enable greater landscaping, some of which could be located outside the easement.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 14 of 19
WHAT CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?70 A number of the draft ‘Without Prejudice’ conditions circulated by the
Council were disputed by the Applicant. I do not recite in full all of these, however, summarise them as follows:
a. Dwelling 2 north facing window to remain and be screened in accordance with Standard B22 of clause 55.
b. Delete condition 1(c) which requires screening to a non-habitable room window.
c. Amend condition 1(e) to require that the Applicant demonstrate that vehicles can enter and exit in a forwards motion.
d. The Landscape Plan to make reference to Mr Thompson’s plan and with additional canopy planting at the rear of dwelling 2 and delete reference to the easement.
71 The conditions in Appendix A reflect this.
CONCLUSION72 For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set
aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.
Joel TemplarMember
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 15 of 19
APPENDIX A – PERMIT CONDITIONS
PERMIT APPLICATION NO TPA/47508
LAND 13 Mandowie Road, GLEN WAVERLEY
WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWSIn accordance with the endorsed plans:
Construction of two dwellings on a lot.
CONDITIONS:
1 Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The submitted plans must clearly delineate and highlight any changes. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The plans must be generally in accordance with the “Garden Area Plans” circulated by the permit applicant on 24 July 2018 (prepared by M Di Cesare & Co Building Design and Drafting, labelled sheet No’s 1 to 4 inclusive Issue A and dated July 2018) , but modified to show:
(a) A minimum setback of 5.0 metres from the rear boundary for dwelling 2 at ground and first floor level without altering any other setbacks or window locations. Consequential internal changes are allowed.
(b) An amended landscape plan in accordance with condition 1(a) and include an additional canopy tree in the rear, north-eastern corner of the site.
(c) Calculations that clearly demonstrate the mandatory minimum garden area of 35% has been met in accordance with the definition in the Monash Planning Scheme (e.g. including any eave overhang).
(d) Deletion of Dwelling 2’s first floor north facing bathroom window.
(e) Obscure fixed glazing to Dwelling 2’s first floor south facing stairwell window.
(f) Notations on the elevations that the following first floor windows are highlight windows with minimum sill heights of 1.7 metres above finished floor level:
i Dwelling 1: West facing windows serving ensuite and Bedroom 1.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 16 of 19
ii Dwelling 2: north facing windows serving Bedroom 1 and the WIR.
iii Dwelling 2: South facing window serving Bedroom 2.
(g) Alterations to the porch/verandah/entry of Dwelling 2 to provide an internal radius of at least 4 metres at change of direction of the accessway, as required by Design standard 1 of Clause 52.06-9.
(h) A notation that the crossover is to be reconstructed to a minimum width of 3 metres to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
(i) A corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2 metres), which may include adjacent landscaping areas with a height of less than 0.9 metres, extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) or from the edge of the exit lane of the vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the road frontage.
2 The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Completion of Buildings and Works3 Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Landscaping 4 A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified
or experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including: -
(a) the location of all existing trees and other vegetation to be retained on site;
(b) provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located throughout the site including the major open space areas of the development;
(c) planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways and other paved areas;
(d) a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the size of all plants (at planting and at maturity), their location, botanical names and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn, mulch or other surface material;
(e) the location and details of all fencing;
(f) the extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site;
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 17 of 19
(g) details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas.
Tree planting should be kept clear of the easement.
When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
5 Before the occupation of the buildings allowed by this permit, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Common Boundary Fences6 All common boundary fences (excluding parts at the front of the land
within sight line splays) are to be a minimum of 1.8 metres above the finished ground level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fence heights must be measured above the highest point on the subject or adjoining site, within 3 metres of the fence line.
Boundary walls7 The walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and
finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Engineering 8 All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must
not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into 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.
9 Stormwater discharge is to be detained on-site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required from Council prior to works commencing. Please refer to the notes section of this permit for additional details.
10 The nominated point of stormwater connection for the site is to the south-east corner of the property where the entire site's stormwater drainage must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the kerb and channel to be constructed to Council Standards.
11 New crossings must be a minimum of 3.0 metres in width to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
VCAT Reference No. P227/2018 Page 18 of 19
12 All new crossings are to be no closer than 1.0 metre measured at the kerb to the edge of an power pole, drainage or service pit, or other services to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Approval from affected service authorities is required as part of the vehicle crossing application process.
Expiry of permit for development13 This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if
one of the following circumstances applies:
(a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
