Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal s11

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

VCAT REFERENCE NO. P2321/2014 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/42887

CATCHWORDS

Application under Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 to review a refusal to grant a permit; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential 2 Zone; two double storey dwellings to the rear of an existing dwelling and alterations to the existing dwelling; neighbourhood character; private open space; street tree; detailed design; noise; drainage; traffic and parking.

APPLICANT Jean-Claude Ami RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council RESPONDENT Mrs Barbara Martin SUBJECT LAND 25 Briggs Street, Mount Waverley WHERE HELD Melbourne BEFORE Chris Harty, Member HEARING TYPE Hearing DATE OF HEARING 21 July 2015 DATE OF ORDER 4 August 2015 CITATION

ORDER 1 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, permit application no. P14/0544 is amended as follows—  Change the name of the respondent and permit applicant to ‘Jean- Claude Ami’.  In the description of the proposal, add ‘and alterations to the existing dwelling’.  For all the plans attached to the permit application, substitute the plans prepared by Architekton Drawing Nos. TP01 to TP14 inclusive dated 28 May 2015. 2 The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. 3 In permit application TPA/42887 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 25 Briggs Street, Mount Waverley in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:  Development of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling and alterations to the existing dwelling on a lot in the General Residential Zone 2

Chris Harty Member

APPEARANCES For Applicants Mr Andrew Walker, barrister instructed by TP Legal For Responsible Authority Ms Sally Moser, town planner from Moser Planning Services Pty Ltd For Respondents1 Mrs Barbara Martin, in person

INFORMATION Description of Proposal Development of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling and alterations to the existing dwelling. Nature of Proceeding Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the decision to refuse to grant a permit. Zone and Overlays General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) No overlays Permit Requirements Clause 32.08-4 – Construction and extension of two or more dwellings on a lot in the GRZ.

1 Another statement of grounds was lodged by Ms Jann Gregor who did not attend the hearing and hence, pursuant to Section 56(6) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 is not a party. However, I have taken into consideration her statement of grounds.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 2 of 15 Relevant Scheme, policies Clauses 9, 10, 15, 16, 21.03, 21.04, 21.08, 22.01, and provisions 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 55 and 65. Land Description The site is located on the north-west corner of Briggs Street and Ian Grove, Mount Waverley and is rectangular in shape. It has a frontage to Briggs Street of 15.24 metres and frontage to Ian Grove of 38.26 metres. The northern boundary is 41.39 metres and 18.29 metres along the western boundary totalling an area of approximately 752m2. The site contains an existing post war single storey brick and tiled roof dwelling orientated to Briggs Street with the crossover currently off Ian Grove. A drainage and sewage easement of 1.8 metres is located along the rear (western) boundary of the site. Adjoining land is developed with a mixture of detached single and double storey dwellings with a mix of weatherboard, brick and rendered exteriors. Dwellings feature hipped or gabled tiled roofs. The site is bounded by two residential properties, one on the northern boundary comprising a large double storey dwelling (23 Briggs Street) and one on the western boundary comprising a single storey dwelling (9 Ian Grove). Opposite the site (across the road) to the east are three double storey attached dwellings, whilst to the south are two double storey and one single storey dwellings. Tribunal Inspection 22 July 2015 unaccompanied.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 3 of 15 REASONS2

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT? 1 On 29 October 2014, Monash City Council resolved to refuse the grant of a permit for two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling and alterations to the existing dwelling on the review site (the site). The permit applicant has lodged an appeal against that decision to the Tribunal. 2 Council’s refusal included the ground that the proposed development was an overdevelopment of the site squeezing two additional dwellings behind the existing dwelling which takes up most of the available land area on the site. They also considered the additional two double storey dwellings and retention of the existing dwelling would not be in keeping with both existing and preferred neighbourhood character. However, the amended plans that have been substituted now change the proposed double garage for Dwelling 2 to a single garage and include a physical break between the two additional dwellings and the existing dwelling. Ms Moser submitted that from Council’s perspective, these changes have addressed Council’s issues with regards to neighbourhood character. 3 Ms Moser, however, reiterated that Council retains concerns regarding:  The proposal’s failure to adequately satisfy the requirements under Schedule 2 to the GRZ with respect to the extent of private open space for all the dwellings;  The southern orientation of private open space for the existing dwelling; and  The loss of an existing street tree to enable access to Dwelling 2. 4 From the respondent’s perspective, neighbourhood character remains an issue, primarily with regards to the retention of the existing dwelling and the contrast between older and more contemporary architectural styles. Concerns also relate to the loss of vegetation and lack of space for landscaping and issues around noise, drainage and traffic and parking congestion. 5 In reviewing all the submissions put before me, I consider the questions to be determined are:  Is the proposed development respectful of the neighbourhood character of the area?  Is private open space appropriate? 6 The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should apply. Having considered all submissions presented

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

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 4 of 15 with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct a permit be granted in accordance with the conditions as shown in Appendix A. My reasons follow.

IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OF THE AREA? 7 The issue with respect to neighbourhood character revolves around the look and feel of the proposed development within the neighbourhood setting of the site. 8 Council now has no concern regarding neighbourhood character, based on the amended plans showing a 1.5 metre break between Dwelling 2 and the existing dwelling. 9 Ms Moser expressed concern over the detailed design treatments of the front façade of the two double storey dwellings to Ian Grove. She advised the amended plans appear to show horizontal window design and glazed front door treatments that were not in keeping with the character of the area. She stated the amended plans appear unclear in this regard and advised that Council would prefer the details of the façade treatments shown on the previous plans. The previous plans show more detailed façade treatments for the windows and front doors. Mr Walker offered no objections to this with which I agree. It is appropriate that a permit condition is included requiring clearer front façade treatment details for windows and front doors based on previous versions of the plans. 10 Mrs Martin expressed concern that the juxtaposition of retaining the existing single storey post-war dwelling and adding two new double storey dwellings creates a contrast that would not be in keeping with the neighbourhood. The proposal lacked space for landscaping and that it appeared to be squeezing in the two additional dwellings into a small rear space behind the existing dwelling.

What does policy say? 11 My task is to integrate the consideration of a range of planning policies in the Monash Planning Scheme, which are sometimes at odds with each other. State planning policy at Clause 16 of the planning scheme calls for increasing the yield for housing and a diversity of housing. Clause 22.01 calls for residential development to consider the “Garden City” character of the municipality and the preferred neighbourhood character outlined for the site, which is located in Residential Character Type C. 12 The “Garden City” character is described in the Monash Planning Scheme3 as leafy suburbs, comprising both front and rear private gardens, and its treed streetscapes and a general feeling of “greenness” created by

3 Clause 21.01-3.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 5 of 15 significant tree canopy cover contained within large, vegetated setbacks and areas of open space4. In conjunction with recognition of the importance of Monash’s “Garden City” character is the policy objective for residential development under Clause 21.04-3 that seeks: To encourage the provision of a variety of housing styles and sizes that will accommodate future housing needs and preferences of the Monash community that complement and enhance the Garden City Character of the City. 13 I also note that the same policy also includes support for the housing needs of an ageing population and that of students. One of the strategies supporting the policy for residential development is to ensure new development enhances the character of the neighbourhood having regard to the preferred character statements in Clause 22.01. 14 Policy in Clause 22.01 relating to residential development and character calls for neighbourhood character to be complemented, and respected. The “Garden City” character is to be maintained and enhanced through providing front garden setbacks and through built form height that respects that of existing dwellings in the neighbourhood. 15 The site is identified under the Monash Urban Character Study in Clause 22.01 within Residential Character Type C. The preferred future character statement for Residential Character Type C relates to a neighbourhood character with a pleasant leafy area of well planted front gardens and large canopy trees. Two storey buildings will occur where they are already present but with generous front setbacks where well planted front gardens with canopy trees can maintain the leafy nature of the streetscape.

How does the proposal respond to policy? 16 The scale and intensity of medium density residential development is governed by the suite of policy and provisions of the planning scheme. The proposal to develop the site for two additional double storey dwellings and retention of the existing single storey dwelling is not prohibited by the planning scheme. The proposal needs to demonstrate an acceptable outcome5 not a perfect outcome, and in the overall balancing of decision making favouring a net community benefit and sustainable development for present and future generations6. 17 In this regard, the proposal for two double storey dwellings comprising two bedrooms and single garages and retention of the existing single storey dwelling is not out of step with the neighbourhood. It comprises a mix of single and two-storey housing both new and old. Much of the two-storey built form comprises substantial dwellings. This proposal provides the same balance of new built form with the intention of keeping the old. The

4 Clause 21.02-2. 5 Clause 31.02. 6 Clause 10.04.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 6 of 15 difference being that it occurs on the same site and with the size of the proposed two additional double storey dwellings being smaller in size than much of the newer two storey housing stock in the neighbourhood. 18 The area is an established neighbourhood character that is in transition with low scale single storey dwellings interspersed with a variety of higher density double storey infill residential development. I note that the area is changing and with that change, new built form will become more conspicuous, but with it, also comes opportunity for new landscaping that can enhance and replenish the leafy character of the area. 19 The number of dwellings is not a reflection of overdevelopment unless the design fails to satisfy the objectives and standards of the planning scheme, particularly those relating to housing diversity and design such as setbacks, building heights, site coverage and permeability, provision of private open space, extent of overshadowing and overlooking. These elements are generally satisfactory, although I will discuss private open space more specifically later in my reasons. 20 With regards to setbacks, I note the front street setback of the existing dwelling to Briggs Street is proposed at 6.8 metres to the proposed new garage and 6.1 metres for a new porch entry which is less than the 7.6 metres required under Schedule 2 to the GRZ. I do not consider the variation unacceptable because there remains sufficient area within the existing front yard available for open space, retention of existing garden and further landscaping. The side street setbacks of the two double storey dwellings from Ian Grove are proposed at 3 metres which satisfactorily comply with the planning scheme7. 21 In Monash, the other key element is the relationship between what is proposed and the “Garden city” character represented by canopy trees. This relates to the desired future character statement in relation to neighbourhood character. Regarding the desired future neighbourhood character for this site, I consider the proposal is respectful of those characteristics I summarised in paragraph 15 above. 22 In terms of built form elements of neighbourhood character, the proposal reflects these elements including pitched roof styles, tiled roofing, face brickwork or rendering, articulation by way of recessed upper first floors and provision of secluded private open space. 23 I have addressed the street setbacks earlier and consider they provide sufficient area for landscaping that can include the planting of canopy trees. In addition, areas within the private open space areas for the two double storey dwellings are also available for planting with similar setbacks between paved areas and the northern side boundary. Landscaping is important and a condition requiring a landscape plan to be submitted for

7 Standard B6 in Clause 55.03-1.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 7 of 15 Council’s approval would be beneficial to ensure canopy trees are planted as part of the proposal. 24 Council acknowledged that the site contains no significant vegetation worthy of retention. However, Ms Moser highlighted the loss of an existing street tree in Ian Grove where it is proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed driveway for Dwelling 2. Photographs tabled in the hearing and, from my inspection, show this tree to be a young specimen. There is scope within the nature strip along the Ian Grove frontage of the site within which this tree could be relocated or, if this is not possible or unsuccessful, could be replaced by a similar species. On this basis, I do not consider the impacts on the street tree to be catastrophic to the granting of a permit for this proposal. 25 On this basis, I do not consider the proposal is out of keeping with the “Garden City” character of the area. 26 Two storey residential built forms have occurred in the area and are not uncommon. Building heights for the two double storey dwellings are around 7.2 metres which are considered reasonable. 27 Regarding site coverage and site permeability, the proposal has a site coverage of 41.67% which satisfies the 60% requirement of the planning scheme8 and a site permeability of 47% which exceeds the 20% requirement9. 28 The upper first floor levels are all recessed and allow breaks between built form facing Ian Grove helping to reduce the visual bulk of the development on the streetscape. 29 The interface between proposed Dwelling 3 and the existing dwelling to the west at 9 Ian Grove comprises a driveway, 3 metre high garage wall on the boundary for 6 metres and a 3.75 metre setback area to the rear portion of the ground floor. The first floor level is setback 1.8 metres with the only facing window being for the ensuite which will have obscure glazing to 1.7 metres. The setbacks and extent of wall on the boundary complies with the planning scheme10 and is satisfactory. 30 There are no issues with overshadowing with a portion of the south-east front yard and corner of the dwelling to the west of the site in shadow in the morning period only. There are also no overlooking issues with other first floor windows appropriately screened with obscure glazing to 1.7 metres. I also note that ground floor windows and private open spaces areas will be screened by either existing boundary fences (such as the approximately 2 metre high fence on the western boundary) or proposed new fencing. 31 Accordingly, it is not evident to me that the signs of overdevelopment are apparent in this case. I consider the proposal is respectful of the desired

8 Standard B8 in Clause 55.03-3. 9 Standard B9 in Clause 55.03-4. 10 Standard B17 in Clause 55.04-1 and Standard B18 in Clause 55.04-2.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 8 of 15 future neighbourhood character including the “Garden City” character and satisfies the housing diversity policy of the planning scheme under Clause 16 by providing a different form and size of housing than what surrounds the site.

Future policy 32 Ms Moser highlighted how the site was proposed under Amendment C125 to be rezoned under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 – Creek Environs (NRZ3) to reflect it’s located close to Scotchmans Creek to the north. She considered the proposal contradicts what the amendment anticipates in terms of future development potential and outcomes for the site. 33 Mr Walker indicated that the amendment is currently on public exhibition and seeks to implement the outcomes of the Monash Housing Strategy into the Monash Planning Scheme. He considered that, because the amendment is on exhibition it has limited weight in this matter. I agree. The amendment is yet to be reviewed by a Panel process and hence its composition may well change by the time it is finds its way into the planning scheme. I am obliged to determine this matter against what the planning scheme says now, not what it might state in the future.

IS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE APPROPRIATE? 34 The provision of private open space is considered by Council to be poor and fails to comply with the relevant requirements established under Schedule 2 to the GRZ. For this proposal, the requirements are for the provision of a private open space area of 75m2 with one part of the private open at the side or the rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 35m2, a minimum width of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. 35 The development proposes the following private open space:  Dwelling 1 (existing dwelling), an area on the south side with a total area of 66.56m2 varying in width from 3 to 5.67 metres in the central area and back to 4.21 metres11.  Dwellings 2 and 3 each with an area on the north side comprising 51.71m2 with a 5.1 metre width and a total area (including an area in the south) totalling 65.37m2. 36 Ms Moser submitted the overall extent of private open space for each dwelling fails to satisfy the GRZ2 and the southern area of Dwelling 1 does not satisfy the minimum 5 metre width. 37 She was also critical of the southern orientation of the private open space for Dwelling 1 which fails to ensure adequate solar access.

11 I note, however that Dwelling 1 also has other areas of private open space to the north with an area of 29.64m2 and a front yard area of 80.35m2.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 9 of 15 38 The objectives for private open space under Clause 55.05-4 is to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents, whilst for solar access to open space under Clause 55.05-5, it is to allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings and residential buildings. 39 For Dwellings 2 and 3, I am satisfied, that adequate secluded private open space with northern orientation and good solar access will be provided, which can satisfy the reasonable needs of future residents. These northern private open space areas exceed the requirements of the GRZ2. 40 Regarding Dwelling 1, I note that both the existing conditions plans and from my inspection, that the existing dwelling currently has its secluded private open space located to the south in a courtyard area. What is proposed merely reflects what exists and proposes to retain the status quo. On this basis, I am satisfied the private open space provided for the existing dwelling (Dwelling 1) is appropriate.

OTHER MATTERS 41 Other matters raised included noise, drainage impacts from stormwater with a sink hole issue on the abutting property to the west of the site, traffic safety and parking congestion. 42 Noise impacts from use of the garage of Dwelling 3 and the private open space areas of the proposed dwellings are not considered significant and are part of everyday life in residential areas such as Mount Waverley. I do not consider noise will be a significant issue. 43 Regarding drainage, the concern related to a sink hole on the adjoining property to the west of the site near the common boundary. Mrs Martin was concerned the extent of development and close proximity of the development may affect or be affected by a sink hole (or drainage issue) from stormwater runoff. In response, Mr Walker submitted that the matter of a sink hole and drainage was a construction related issue, that any building surveyor or engineer would need to manage. I agree, such matters relate to how building construction relates to ground conditions. I note the conditions proposed by Council with respect to drainage and stormwater management and accept that these are appropriate. 44 With respect to traffic safety and parking congestion, I am satisfied that access to the three dwellings is appropriate. The existing dwelling will be provided with a new crossover relocated from Ian Grove to the north boundary in Briggs Street. This will access a single garage and now satisfies Council with respect to traffic safety. 45 The two double storey dwellings will each be provided with an individual single garage and crossover/driveway with access to Ian Grove. Issues associated with sight distance along Ian Grove from on-street parking or

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 10 of 15 parking on the nature strip are matters relevant to Council’s enforcement of local laws and not directly tied with the proposal. 46 Although on-street parking may be lost from the Briggs Street frontage, this will be compensated by the proposed off-street tandem parking associated with the garage and driveway for the existing dwelling. Some on-street parking will remain available along Ian Grove. However, I am not convinced that traffic safety or parking congestion will be significant to warrant refusing a permit. 47 Another matter was the garage of Dwelling 3 proposed to be built over a drainage easement located on the western (rear) boundary of the site. I have included a condition requiring approval from Melbourne Water and/or Yarra Valley Water to build over the easement and for the garage to allow appropriate access to the easement.

CONCLUSION 48 For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions as shown in Appendix A.

Chris Harty Member

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 11 of 15 APPENDIX A

PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/42887 LAND: 25 Briggs Street, Mount Waverley WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS:  Development of two double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling and alterations to the existing dwelling on a lot in the General Residential Zone 2 in accordance with the endorsed plans.

CONDITIONS 4 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 plans submitted with the application (identified as plans prepared by Architekton Drawing Nos. TP01 to TP14 inclusive dated 28 May 2015), but modified to show: a) The location and design of any proposed electricity supply meter boxes. The electricity supply meter boxes must be located at a distance from the street which is at or behind the setback alignment of buildings on the site or in compliance with Council's "Guide to Electricity Supply Meter Boxes in Monash". b) The location of gas and water meters c) The development must be provided with a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstruction (or with a height of less than 1.2m) extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) on both sides of each vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road. d) The street/naturestrip tree proposed to be removed to accommodate the crossover/driveway to Dwelling 2 either relocated elsewhere on the nature strip along the Ian Grove frontage of the subject land or a new tree of the same species planted in accordance with the requirements and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) A plan of the eastern elevations provided from Briggs Street. f) Fencing on the southern boundary to Ian Grove increased to 1.8 metres with 75% non-transparency to ensure privacy for the proposed secluded private open space for Dwelling 1 (existing dwelling).

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 12 of 15 g) Clearer details and design of front façade treatments of windows and front doors of the two double storey dwellings (Dwellings 2 and 3) to Ian Grove that are similar to those shown on the previous plans submitted for the development. h) A revised floor layout for the existing dwelling (Dwelling 1) showing retention of an existing doorway linking the kitchen/dining and living rooms. i) The location of air conditioning plant and services. 5 Prior to the commencement of the development, a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed to form part of the permit. 6 No equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind, including telecommunication facilities, other than those shown on the endorsed plans shall be permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority. 7 The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 8 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 g) details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 13 of 15 9 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. 10 Before occupation all buildings and works specified in this permit must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority must be advised in writing when all construction and works are completed to enable the site to be inspected. 11 The walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 12 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 driveways onto the footpath. Such a system may include either: a) trench grates (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 13 Stormwater discharge is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required by the City of Monash, the Responsible Authority, prior to works commencing. 14 Before the development starts, a site layout plan drawn to scale and dimensioned must be approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must show a drainage scheme providing for the collection of stormwater within the site and for the conveying of the stormwater to the nominated point of discharge. The nominated point of discharge is the north-west corner of the property where the entire site's stormwater must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Council pit in the rear easement to Council Standards. (A new pit is to be constructed if a pit does not exist or is not a standard Council pit). If the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council's Engineering Division immediately. 15 Approval is to be obtained from Melbourne Water and/or Yarra Valley Water to build over the easement and a double door (minimum width 1.8 m) is to be installed on the rear of the garage of Dwelling 3 to allow for drainage maintenance requests. 16 All new crossings must be a minimum of 3.0 metres in width.

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 14 of 15 17 All new crossings are to be no closer than 1.0 metre measured at the kerb to the edge of any power pole, drainage or service pit, or other services. Approval from affected service authorities is required as part of the vehicle crossing application process. 18 The development must be provided with a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstruction (or with a height of less than 1.2m) extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) on both sides of each vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road. 19 Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, approval must be sought from Council's Horticultural Department for the removal, relocation or replacement of any street/naturestrip trees. 20 Once the development has started it must be completed and continued to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 21 This permit will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies:  The development is not started before 2 years from the date of issue.  The development is not completed before 4 years from the date of issue. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months of the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; or within 12 months of the permit expiry date, where the development has lawfully started before the permit expires. --- End of Conditions ---

VCAT Reference No. P2321/2014 Page 15 of 15