<p>VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL</p><p>ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION</p><p>VCAT REFERENCE NO. P242/2016 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/44878 </p><p>CATCHWORDS</p><p>Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; Commercial 1 Zone; Design & Development Overlay Schedule 11; Seven-storey apartment building; Oakleigh major activity centre; Oakleigh structure plan; Built form</p><p>APPLICANT 855 Stanley Street Pty Ltd RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council RESPONDENTS Eddie Hackett Fethrachris Pty Ltd, Domenic & Maria D’Angelo Sean Runacres</p><p>SUBJECT LAND 89-93 Atherton Road, Oakleigh WHERE HELD Melbourne BEFORE Geoffrey Code, Member (Presiding) & Peter Gray, Member</p><p>HEARING TYPE Hearing DATE OF HEARING 30 & 31 May 2016 DATE OF ORDER 28 June 2016 CITATION 855 Stanley Street Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2016] VCAT 1085</p><p>ORDER</p><p>1 Leave is given to Goran Aleksic, Kerrie McLeish, Emma Hand, Yvonne Durbridge, Anna Piatigorsky, Daniel Paul Powning, Vanessa Weaver & Theo Zographos to withdraw each of their statements of grounds. Accordingly, each of them are removed as parties. 2 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended. For all the plans attached to the permit application, substitute the plans prepared by SJB Architects job no. 21234 drawing nos: SD01 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD02 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD03 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD04 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD05 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD06 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD07 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD08 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD09 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD11 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD12 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD13 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD14 Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016 SD20 Rev T1 dated 28 May 2016 SD21 Rev T1 dated 28 May 2016 SD22 Rev T1 dated 28 May 2016 SD23 Rev T1 dated 28 May 2016 SD24 Rev T1 dated 28 May 2016 SD25 Rev T1 dated 28 May 2016 SD26 Rev T1 dated 28 May 2016 Materials palette (no number, no date) 3 The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. 4 In permit application no. TPA/44878 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 89-93 Atherton Road, Oakleigh on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows—  Construction of buildings and works for a multi-storey building in a C ommercial 1 Zone  A reduction in the loading and unloading of vehicles requirements in c lause 52.07</p><p>Geoffrey Code Peter Gray Member (Presiding) Member</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 2 of 21 APPEARANCES For 855 Stanley Street Pty Chris Canavan QC and Emma Pepplar of Counsel, Ltd instructed by Planning & Property Partners Pty Ltd Lawyers and Consultants. They called the following witnesses:  Simon Howe, landscape architect, John Patrick Pty Ltd  Stuart McGurn, town planner, Urbis Pty Ltd  Tim Biles, urban designer, Message Consultants Australia Pty Ltd Statements of evidence prepared by Charmaine Dunstan, traffic engineer, Traffix Group and by Daniel Flood, architect and photomontage visualiser, Floodslicer Pty Ltd were also filed on behalf of 855 Stanley Street Pty Ltd but neither was called to be examined in relation to the statements For Monash City Council Mimi Marcus, Maddocks Lawyers For Fethrachris Pty Ltd Roderick Frost, consultant, Business Like Consulting Services & Chris Christadolou, director, Fethrachris Pty Ltd For Sean Runacres No appearance For Maria & Domenic Maria D’Angelo D’Angelo For Eddie Hackett No appearance</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 3 of 21 INFORMATION Brief description of Proposal Seven-storey building containing 95 apartments and one retail premises Nature of Proceeding Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review the Council’s refusal to grant a permit Zone and Overlays Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) Design & Development Overlay Schedule 11 (DDO11) (Oakleigh Major Activity Centre) Car Parking Overlay Schedule 2 (PO2) Permit Requirements Clause 34.01-4 (construction of buildings and works on land in C1Z) Clause 43.02-2 (construction of buildings and works on land in DDO11) Clause 52.07 (reduce the loading and unloading of vehicles requirements) A permit is not required under clause 34.01-1 to use the land for accommodation because the frontage at ground level for such use is only 1.98 m A permit is not required under clause 45.09-3 and clause 2.0 of PO2 because the parking requirements for dwellings and shop in PO2 are met Relevant Scheme, policies Monash Planning Scheme and provisions Clauses 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21.03, 21.04, 21.06, 21.13, 22.01, 34.01, 43.02, 45.09, 52.06, 52.07, 52.34, 52.35, 52.36 & 65 Relevant documents incorporated into or referred to in the scheme include Plan Melbourne 2014, Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development 2004, Activity Centre Guidelines 2005 & Monash Major Activity Centre Structure Plan 2012</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 4 of 21 Land Description The land is a large site inside and near the northeast edge of the Oakleigh major activity centre. It is on the north side of Atherton Road, about 60 m west of Clyde Street. It is irregular in shape in the shape of a ‘T’. The base of the ‘T’ abuts Atherton Road and has a width of 15.2 m. The depth of the land, from the bottom to the top of the ‘T’ is 65 m. The maximum width of the top of the ‘T’ is 64 m. The area of the land is 2,620 sq m. The land abuts lanes on the northeast and northern boundaries. It is generally flat with a fall of about 0.9 m from north to south. It is developed with large concrete hard stand areas, sheds and garages and disused fuel pumps associated with its former use as a bus depot from the late 1950s. There is no significant vegetation. Tribunal Inspection 31 May 2016 (accompanied by the parties)</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 5 of 21 REASONS1</p><p>WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT? 1 855 Stanley Street Pty Ltd (the Applicant) applied to Monash City Council for a permit under the Monash Planning Scheme to construct a 10-storey building containing 111 apartments and one ground level retail tenancy on the subject land in the Oakleigh major activity centre (the centre). 2 After considering objections filed by a number of affected persons, the Cou ncil decided to refuse to grant a permit on 6 grounds. The Applicant applie d to the Tribunal to review this decision. 3 At the start of the hearing, we granted the Applicant leave to amend the per mit application by substituting the plans. The amended application before u s has the following main features:  A 7-storey building comprising a 3-storey street wall to Atherton Roa d, a recessed 5-storey section behind the street wall, and two 7-storey t owers to the rear of the land.  A total of 95 apartments and one retail tenancy.  121 car spaces (including 98 resident, 19 visitor spaces and 4 retail spa ces) plus storage and other facilities in two basement levels accessed b y ramp off Atherton Road and at ground level off the laneway abutting the northern boundary of the land. 4 A number of respondents now unconditionally support the amended applica tion and, in correspondence to the Applicant’s representatives dated 19 Apri l 2016, agreed to withdraw their statements of grounds. They did not attend the hearing. We have granted leave to withdraw and removed them as parti es. 5 Four respondents did not seek to withdraw their statements of grounds. The y continue to oppose the grant of a permit. We heard submissions from two of them at the hearing. 6 The Council now conditionally supports the amended application. The mai n condition in its draft permit conditions is a requirement to remove level 6 (the seventh storey) in both of the towers. The Applicant opposes the condi tion. As between the Applicant and the Council, the hearing was largely co nducted as a review of the disputed draft condition. 7 One of the significant changes in the amended application is the removal of the main vehicle access from the surrounding rear lanes and the creation of a vehicle access via a ramp into the two-level basement from Atherton Roa</p><p>1 We have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed by the part ies and all the statements of ground filed by those persons who elected not to participate in the hear ing and are therefore not parties under clause 56 of schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administr ative Tribunal Act 1998. We do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in thes e reasons. </p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 6 of 21 d. A second vehicle access, to fewer spaces located at ground level towards the rear of the land, is from the northern laneway. Ms Dunstan supports thi s change. The Council agrees with Ms Dunstan and has decided that, althou gh not an ideal outcome for the retail frontage in Atherton Road, it offers ov erall benefits. We agree. 8 After considering submissions and evidence, all (non-withdrawn) statement s of grounds, and inspecting the land with the parties, we have decided the a mended application is a satisfactory planning outcome and we will grant a p ermit. Our reasons follow.</p><p>BUILT FORM 9 As we have stated, as between the Applicant and the Council, the only issue in dispute is whether a permit should contain a condition that level 6 (the se venth storey) be removed. This is a built form issue about whether the buil ding with level 6 responds satisfactorily to the relevant scheme provisions a nd is a satisfactory planning outcome. 10 The Council’s main submission is that the application fails to comply with t he design requirements and outcomes in DDO11 and the building should no t significantly depart from those objectives, requirements and outcomes bec ause the land adjoins sensitive residential interfaces and because adherence to those matters avoids cumulative undermining of strategic directions for t he centre. 11 DDO11 helps implement the Council’s Oakleigh Major Activity Centre Str ucture Plan 2012 (the structure plan). Under DDO11 and the structure pla n, the subject land is in a part of the ‘commercial periphery’ known as preci nct 3B (the precinct) being land on the north and south sides of Atherton R oad east of the central core. Land to the west, southwest, southeast and sout h of the subject land is also in the precinct. Land to the north of the subject land (north of the laneway) is a ‘residential periphery precinct in the centre and in a residential zone, and land to the east (east of the laneway and comp rising 35 & 37 Clyde Street) is in residential zone outside the centre. 12 The two most relevant built form requirements in the precinct relate to build ing height and building setbacks. On both these requirements, there is refer ence to ‘abutting residential uses’. We make the following findings about what are such uses: (a) The detached dwellings to the east of the eastern laneway at 35 & 37 Clyde Street are, for the purposes of the requirements, such uses even though the laneway separates them from the subject land. (b) A number of dwellings in a variety of multi-dwelling developme nts to the north of northern laneway at 6, 8, 10 & 12 Albert Street are also such uses for the same reasons.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 7 of 21 (c) A number of the apartments to the west at 79 Atherton Road are such uses because both the land and part of two of the three separate a partment buildings abut the subject land. (d) The commercial buildings at 83 & 87 Atherton Road contain ‘sh op top’ accommodation, according to submissions by Mr Frost and Mr s D’Angelo, but are not such uses for the purposes of the requirements</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 8 of 21 because the primary purpose of those uses is commercial and the acco mmodation is ancillary to the commercial use.2</p><p>Building setbacks 13 There are four preferred building setback requirements.3 14 The first and second are met because the building has a zero street setback t o Atherton Road to a maximum façade height of 12 m and has a 5 m minim um setback behind the street façade. 15 The third requirement is a 3 m minimum setback from the boundary of abut ting residential uses. The fourth is a non-quantitative requirement for a buil ding to be ‘appropriately recessed and setback from abutting residential use s providing a transition in built scale’. 16 We assess compliance with the third and fourth requirement as follows.</p><p>The 3 m requirement 17 We agree with the Council in its assessment that the preferred 3 m setbacks to the boundaries of the Clyde Street and Albert Street dwellings are met. T he nearest parts of the building wall are setback a minimum of between 4.1 m and 5.7 m at all levels from the laneway adjoining the rear of the Clyde S treet dwellings and are setback a minimum of between about 4 m and 6 m at levels 2 & 3 (closest to the laneway) from the laneway adjoining the Albert Street dwellings.4 The separation, for practical purposes, is an additional 3 m given the intervening laneways. 18 A 3 m setback is unnecessary along the northwest boundary of the land abut ting 79 Atherton Road because the apartments are virtually built to the boun dary with a 4-storey wall and and are not in a residential part of the centre.</p><p>Upper level setbacks 19 DDO11 includes a diagram showing the rear of a building with non-dimensi oned setbacks at the third and fifth storeys. A scaling of the diagram sugges ts the setbacks are about 3 m at each of these storeys. The diagram does not contemplate side setbacks. 20 We find the upper levels of the building are appropriately recessed from ab utting residential uses. 21 The DDO11 diagram makes it clear that the intended recession is from resid ential uses to the rear ie to the boundary that is directly opposite the street fr</p><p>2 Even if we were to accept (which we do not) that 83 & 87 Atherton Road are abutting resid ential uses, 83 Atherton Road is separated from the subject land by a 3 m right of way that exists o n title but has been built over in part by sheds and it is currently not accessible. The rear of 87 Ath erton Road is also separated from the subject land by a section of the same 3 m right of way. The eastern side boundary of 87 Atherton Road abuts the subject land but a 3 m setback does not need t o apply to side boundary walls in fine-grained commercial frontages. 3 Monash Planning Scheme cl 43.02 sch 11 cl 6.0 (Sub-precinct 3B, Atherton Road) items 1 t o 4. 4 These setbacks do not include some balcony intrusions.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 9 of 21 ontage. The diagram does not intend to refer to side boundaries. The north ern boundary is a rear boundary. We find the other boundaries in the unusu al T-shaped parcel are side boundaries. 22 The requirements are, as we have stated, non-dimensioned in the ‘wedding cake’ diagram. It is likely the building does not exactly correspond to the di agram and includes some smaller and greater setbacks. However, we find it is a satisfactory response because, in substance, the concept of graduated set backs from the rear boundary is met.</p><p>Building height 23 There are two separate and relevant building height requirements in DDO11. 24 The first is a preferred maximum street façade height of 12 m and a preferre d maximum building height of 17.5 m.5 25 The second is that ‘development on land … that is adjacent to a Residential Zone should be designed to achieve a transition in height and building for m’.6</p><p>Maximum building height 26 The building complies with the preferred maximum street façade height of 12 m but exceeds the preferred maximum building height of 17.5 m or 5 sto reys by 2 storeys or by about 7 m. 27 The scheme provides that the preferred maximum building height should no t be exceeded unless ‘particular site conditions warrant an alternative design response and that design response demonstrates a respect for, and significan tly contributes to, the preferred character of the Oakleigh Major Activity Ce ntre’.7 28 The Council agrees, in effect, that the site conditions warrant an alternative design response and that there is a satisfactory transition if the building is n o greater than 6 storeys. The Council therefore supports the grant of a perm it with a condition that amended plans be prepared that remove level 6 from both of the tower elements. 29 The opinions of Mr McGurn and Mr Biles are also that the site conditions w arrant an alternative design response and that there is a satisfactory transitio n in the design response (ie at 7 storeys). 30 Therefore, the difference between the Council and the Applicant’s witnesse s is whether the site conditions warrant one additional storey to 7 storeys an d whether the 7-storey proposal respects and significantly contributes to the preferred character of the centre and whether a 7-storey building achieves a n acceptable transition in height and form to adjoining residential zones.</p><p>5 Monash Planning Scheme cl 43.02 sch 11 cl 2.0 (Building Design dot point 6) & cl 6.0. 6 Monash Planning Scheme cl 43.02 sch 11 cl 2.0 (Building Design) dot point 9. 7 Monash Planning Scheme cl 43.02 sch 11 cl 2.0 (Building Design) dot point 6.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 10 of 21 31 We find the relevant site conditions and character response is met in the 7-st orey proposal for the following reasons. 32 First, at a general level, policy is seeking medium to high rise development of 4 to 8 storeys throughout the centre.8 As well, DDO11 objectives include avoiding underdevelopment of sites and encouraging a range of housing typ es and precinct objectives are for a mix of commercial and higher density re sidential uses. In addition, the vision for precinct 3 is higher density residen tial development.9 There is compliance with these higher level policies and objectives. 33 Second, the land is identified as a strategic redevelopment site (SRS) under the centre’s framework plan and in the structure plan.10 DDO11 makes no s pecific provision for how land in a SRS should be considered differently fro m land not in an SRS. We therefore give weight to State policy encouragin g ‘new housing’ and ‘higher density housing development’ on an SRS.11 Al though DDO11 identifies about 21 SRSs in the centre (including about 8 in the precinct), this does not dilute their significance. The structure plan state s they have ‘significant development potential’.12 34 Third, the land is a rare, large site and this creates opportunities for larger d evelopment provided it is designed to respect its surroundings. 35 Fourth, the land enjoys lane abuttals to the north and east and this adds to ef fective setbacks from nearby residential areas. 36 Fifth, the land has an unusual T-shape with only a small public realm interf ace to Atherton Road. The laneways to the east and north are little-used par ts of the public realm. The nearest effective public realm viewpoints to the north and east are Albert Street and Clyde Street which are about 65 m and 45 m, respectively from the land.</p><p>Transition 37 DDO11 seeks a transition in height and form on land adjoining a residential zone. The subject land is in a ‘transition area’ under the structure plan.13 D evelopment in these areas should ‘step down in built form to mostly three-st orey domestic format and scale’.14 This provision is not expressly included in the scheme as a requirement. 38 There is likely to be only modest further development of 35 & 37 Clyde Str eet, mainly due to Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Heritage Overlay (HO92) provisions affecting those two lots. Land abutting the south of 37 Clyde Street at 103A Atherton Road has been recently developed with a 4-s</p><p>8 Monash Planning Scheme cl 21.06. 9 Monash Planning Scheme cl 21.15-2. 10 Monash Planning Scheme cl 21.15-2; Structure plan, p 24. 11 Monash Planning Scheme cl 16.01-3. 12 Structure plan, p 8. 13 Structure plan, p 15. 14 Structure plan, p 16.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 11 of 21 torey apartment building.15 The first and second floors are setback about 4 m, and the third floor about 12 m, from 37 Clyde Street. While the propose d setbacks on the subject land may be more generous at the first three levels and less generous at the fourth level of the building at 103A Atherton, we ar e satisfied the sense of transition is acceptable given that 103A Atherton is c loser to the dwelling at 37 Clyde Street and closer to the public realm in the residential area from Clyde Street. 39 There is potential for more intensive residential development on the south si de of Albert Street adjoining the subject land. DDO11 prefers development to the three storeys referred to in ResCode. 40 An objective to transition in height and form on this land to land to the nort h and east should not be interpreted in isolation of other policy objectives. We are mindful that there are various sites adjoining residential zones in the structure plan area. Most are not an SRS. This one is. 41 We find the building’s massing composition is a satisfactory response to the DDO transition requirement, which is more aptly characterised as an objecti ve. There are generous setbacks, materially greater than DDO11 requireme nts, from residentially-zoned land to the north and east. The setbacks will b e landscaped to a high standard, assisted by the generous planting opportuni ties over the basement from the north boundary and a lowered basement cei ling that extends the planting area. The width and length of the top two floo rs are relatively small in relation to the land dimensions. From the north, th e relatively generous tower separation reduces any sense of a discordant tra nsition. 42 The removal of level 6, as sought by the Council, would not significantly i mpact on the sense of transition.</p><p>15 Approval was granted in 2008 before adoption of the structure plan.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 12 of 21 REAR OF LAND FRONTING ATHERTON ROAD 43 Fethrachris Pty Ltd owns 83 & 85 Atherton Road. It opposes the grant of a permit because it claims the Applicant ‘fraudulently’ acquired part of the east-west right of way at the rear of 83 to 99 Atherton Road and incorporated it into the subject land. 44 We have no jurisdiction to determine lawfulness of land possession. Our task is to decide whether or not a permit should be granted under the scheme. Recent land titles were tendered and they reveal that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of the whole of the subject land. If Fethachris Pty Ltd claims it has some right over that part of the right of way, it must pursue some action in aother forum. 45 Fethrachris Pty Ltd opposes the grant of a permit because of anticipated damage to services in the ground below the lane and the subject land along the rear of 83 to 99 Atherton Road. How services are provided to the development and how they may affect existing services is not a relevant planning consideration in the context of this proceeding. These matters are resolved at building approval stage. 46 Fethrachris Pty Ltd objects to what appears on the ground level plan as a south-facing opening from the residential wastes room into the north-south lane on the west side of 83 Atherton Road. Mr Canavan submitted at the start of the hearing that no opening was proposed and, to the extent the plans were unclear, the Applicant would accept a condition requiring deletion of any opening. 47 Finally, Fethrachris Pty Ltd opposes the grant of a permit on grounds of equitable development, unreasonable building on boundary and adverse health and noise effects. It has not made good these grounds. 48 We are satisfied that some further development of 83 or 85 Atherton Road, commensurate with the limited size of the lots may be possible if the development of the subject land takes place. 49 Any residential development is likely to have a southerly outlook. We acknowledge a 7-storey wall is proposed on the boundary of the land behind 83 & 85 Atherton Road. However, it is not built on the boundary of those 2 lots but, according to land titles, built to the northern boundary of the right of way. There is nothing in the scheme or the structure plan that suggests this is unreasonable. The right of way may be currently inaccessible, in part, by outbuildings but this does not affect its status as a right of way for planning purposes. Fethachris adduced no evidence about unreasonable health and noise effects from lift motors and exhaust extraction fans. Unreasonable noise effects from commercial plant is a matter for environment protection law. 50 Mrs D’Angelo also opposes the grant of a permit because the section of right of way at the rear of her land at 87 Atherton Road no longer has </p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 13 of 21 access to that part of the right of way to the east that is now incorporated in the subject land and to that part of the right of way to the west that is obstructed by outbuildings. She is particularly concerned about how her tenants occupying commercial and residential space in the building may safely escape in a fire. 51 We acknowledge her potential difficulty but we have no jurisdiction to consider or impose any remedy. The difficulty to which she refers exists whether or not a permit is granted or acted upon. We encourage her to discuss the issue with the Council and seek independent advice.</p><p>ACCESS 52 The structure plan seeks activation of Atherton Street frontages. The propo sal includes a two-way vehicle access into a two-level basement off Atherto n Road that occupies about half the width of the frontage. The balance is oc cupied by the pedestrian entry and a commercial tenancy. There is a second ary vehicle access to ground level parking off the northern laneway. There are two passing bays in the northern and eastern laneways and construction of the northern laneway. 53 We have already stated that we agree with Ms Dunstan’s opinion that the ac cess arrangements are, on balance, satisfactory. The Council supports the a rrangements and the respondents who attended the hearing do not oppose it. 16 It avoids a future over-taxing of the laneway system with other developm ents. Although it reduces activation in Atherton Road, we find it is a sensib le and acceptable compromise. It meets precinct 3B guidelines that develop ment address rear lanes to provide alternative frontages.17</p><p>CONDITIONS 54 We have considered the Council’s without prejudice permit conditions and t he submissions of the parties about them. We do not describe the various c hanges to those conditions that we have decided to make. They are set out i n Appendix A. 55 We briefly refer to the scheme’s minimum dimensions for the loading and u nloading area. Ms Dunstan confirms those dimensions are not met but that the area will operate satisfactorily. We accept her opinion. A permit is ther efore required to reduce the requirements. We will therefore grant that per mission.</p><p>16 In relation to the two respondents who did not attend the hearing, Sean Runacres and Eddie Hackett opposed the access arrangements because they erroneously relied on the access arrangeme nts in the original plans. 17 Monash Planning Scheme cl 43.02 sch 11 cl 6.0 (precinct guidelines).</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 14 of 21 CONCLUSION 56 For the above reasons, we will set aside the Council’s decision and grant a p ermit subject to conditions.</p><p>Geoffrey Code Peter Gray Member (Presiding) Member </p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 15 of 21 APPENDIX A</p><p>PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/44878 LAND: 89-93 Atherton Road, Oakleigh</p><p>WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS:  Construction of buildings and works for a multi-storey building in a Commercial 1 Zone  A reduction in the loading and unloading of vehicles requirements in clause 52.07</p><p>CONDITIONS 1 Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to scale and d imensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Th e submitted plans must clearly delineate and highlight any changes. When approv ed the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans mu st be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by SJB Architects, job no. 2 1234 drawings nos. SD02, SD03, SD04, SD05, SD06, SD07, SD08, SD09, SD11, SD12, SD13 & SD14 all Rev T2 dated 28 May 2016, but modified to show: (a) Removal of the door exiting onto the laneway at the southwest edge of the building. (b) Detail of the materials of the fence across the laneway behind the land at 83 to 99 Atherton Road. (c) Details of the finishes and architecturally-integrated lighting for the pedestrian entry off Atherton Road. (d) 50% transparency in glazing along east facing internal wall of the ground floor commercial tenancy. (e) Feature paving in front of shop consistent with what is shown on the landscape plan approved under condition 8. (f) A materials palette generally in accordance with materials palette drawing dated 29 April 2016 2 The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3 Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisf action of the Responsible Authority. 4 Prior to the commencement of works on the site, the owner shall prepare a Waste Management Plan for the collection and disposal of garbage and recyclables for al l uses on the site. The Waste Management Plan shall provide for:</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 16 of 21 (a) The method of collection of garbage and recyclables for uses; (b) Designation of methods of collection including the need to provide for private services or utilisation of council services; (c) Appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas for bin storage on collection days; (d) Measures to minimise the impact upon local amenity and on the operation, management and maintenance of car parking areas; (e) Litter management. A copy of this plan must be submitted to and approved by Council. Once approve d the plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit. 5 No bin or receptacle or any form of rubbish or refuse shall be allowed to remain in view of the public and no odour shall be emitted from any receptacle so as to caus e offence to persons outside the land. 6 Adequate provision shall be made for the storage and collection of garbage and ot her solid wastes and these facilities are to be located on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 7 Before the development starts, a construction management plan must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be imple mented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must address th e following issues: (a) Measures to control noise, dust and water runoff. (b) Prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into Monash City Council's underground drainage system or road network. (c) The location of where building materials are to be kept during construction. (d) Site security. (e) Maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the land during construction. (f) On-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the development. (g) Wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction activities. (h) Cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces. (i) A requirement that construction works must only be carried out during the following hours:  Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.  Saturday – 9.00 am to 1.00 pm.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 17 of 21  Saturday – 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm. Construction works must only be acti vities associated with the erection of buildings and must not include e xcavation or the use of heavy machinery. 8 A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified or exp erienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted t o and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works. The plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd dated 16 May 2016 but modified to show: (j) Planting of advanced canopy tree specimens at the time of planting having a minimum planting height of 2.5m. (k) 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. (l) The location and details of all fencing. (m) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site. (n) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas. (o) Details of an automatic sprinkler system for the watering of all soft landscaped areas. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. 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 Respo nsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Author ity. 10 Before the development permitted is completed, areas set aside for parked vehicle s and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be: (a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. (b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. (c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. (d) Drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. (e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all tim es.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 18 of 21 11 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 stormwate r within the site and for the conveying of the stormwater to the nominated point of discharge. The nominated point of discharge is the south-west corner of the property where t he entire site's stormwater must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Cou ncil pit and constructed to Council Standards. 12 All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must not be a llowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties. The on-site drainage syste m must prevent discharge from driveways onto the footpath. Such a system may i nclude either:  trench grates (150 minimum internal width) located within the property; and /or  shaping the driveway so that water is collected in a grated pit on the propert y; and/or  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 o f Monash prior to works commencing. 14 Any new drainage work within the road reserve requires the approval of Monash City Council’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Three print ed copies of the plans (A3-A1 size) for the drainage works must be submitted to a nd approved by the Engineering Division prior to the commencement of works. T he plans are to show sufficient information to determine that the drainage works w ill meet all drainage conditions of the permit. 15 Engineering permits must be obtained for new or altered vehicles crossings and fo r new connections to the kerb and channel Monash City Council drains/pits and th ese works must be inspected by Monash City Council. 16 Existing laneways abutting the northern and eastern boundaries of the land must b e re-constructed in concrete to Monash City Council standards and specifications. Detailed design of the reconstructed laneways is to be submitted to, and approved by the Monash City Council’s Engineering Division prior to works commencing. A refundable security deposit will be payable. 17 The redundant crossings are to be removed and reinstated with kerb and channel t o the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 18 On-site visitor car parking spaces are required to be clearly marked to the satisfact ion of the Responsible Authority. 19 The car parking layout and vehicle access to the development shall generally follo w the Design Standards for car parking set out in clause 52.06-8 of the Monash Pl anning Scheme to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 19 of 21 20 No less than 1 car space must be provided on the land for each one and two bedro om dwelling. No less than 2 car spaces must be provided on the land for each thre e bedroom dwelling. Visitor car parking must be provided at a rate of no less than 1 car space to each 5 dwellings. Any future subdivision of the development must provide allocation of car parking on Title in accordance with this requirement incl uding all visitor car parking located within common property. 21 Before the development is occupied, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority following consultation with Public Trans port Victoria. The Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must encourage the use of non-private vehicle transport modes by the occupiers of the l and. The Plan must: (a) Include a description of the location in the context of alternative mode s of transport and objectives for the Green Travel Plan. (b) Outline Green Travel Plan measures for the development including, b ut not limited to: (i) Household welcome packs. Tram, train and bus timetables relev ant to the local area must be included in the pack of information provi ded to purchasers upon a purchaser’s occupation of an apartment. (ii) A minimum of two Myki cards within the household welcome p ack and relevant registration information. (iii) Details of bicycle parking and facilities available on the land. (iv) Pedestrian routes to key destinations. (v) Periodic monitoring and review. (c) Include a plan showing the bicycle parking areas to be provided for us e by occupants. 22 The Green Travel Plan must not be amended without the written consent of the Re sponsible Authority, following consultation with Public Transport Victoria. 23 Once approved, the Green Travel Plan must form part of the permit and any ongoi ng Management Plan for the land to ensure the Green Travel Plan continues to be implemented by residents or owners to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authori ty. 24 The owner must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus operatio ns on Atherton Road are kept to a minimum during the construction of the develo pment. Foreseen disruption to bus operations during construction, and mitigation measures, must be communicated to Public Transport Victoria no less than 14 day s before the disruption. 25 This permit will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Enviro nment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies:  The development is not started within 2 years from the date of issue.  The development is not completed within 4 years from the date of issue.</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 20 of 21 In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Res ponsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writi ng before the permit expires, or within six months of the permit expiry date, if the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; or within 12 months of the permit expiry date, if the development has lawfully started before the permit expir es.</p><p>--- End of Conditions ---</p><p>VCAT Reference No. P242/2016 Page 21 of 21</p>