victorian civil and administrative tribunal · web viewsa1.0, dr1.0, tp1, tp2, tp3, tp4, tp5,...

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P2305/2016

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/45446

CATCHWORDSSection 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Monash Planning Scheme, DDO11, changing built form character, policy support for change in an Activity Centre

APPLICANT Lettieri Investments Pty Ltd & EGA Investments Pty Ltd

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council

SUBJECT LAND 2 Mill Road, Oakleigh

WHERE HELD Melbourne

BEFORE K Birtwistle, Member

HEARING TYPE Hearing

DATE OF HEARING 5 July 2017

DATE OF ORDER 7 August 2017

CITATION Lettieri Investments Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2017] VCAT 1194

ORDER

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

Lettieri Investments Pty Ltd & EGA Investments Pty Ltd

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

Lettieri Investments Pty Ltd & EGA Investments Pty Ltd

3 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and 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: Archsign

Drawing numbers: SA1.0, DR1.0, TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP6 (All Revision D)

Dated: 22/05/2017

4 In application P2305/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

5 In planning permit application TPA/45446 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 2 Mill Road, Oakleigh in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Construction of five (5) dwellings comprising four (4), three storey dwellings and one two storey dwelling in the General Residential Zone

Waiver of one visitor car space under Clause 52.06

K Birtwistle Member

APPEARANCES

For applicants Mr David Song, town planner of Song Bowden Pty Ltd. He called the following witness: Mr John Patrick, landscape architect of

John Patrick Pty Ltd Mr Carlo Morello, traffic engineer of

Traffix Group

For responsible authority Ms Adrianne Kellock, town planner of Kellock Town Planning Pty Ltd

VCAT Reference No. P2305/2016 of 17

INFORMATION

Description of proposal Construction of five dwellings, comprising four, three storey dwellings, one, two storey dwelling and the waiver of one on-site visitor car space. The dwellings are provided in an attached, reverse living format.

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 General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 (GRZ2)

Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 11 (DDO11)

Permit requirements Clause 32.08-6 - Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in GRZ

Clause 52.06-3 - Waiver of one on-site visitor car space

Land description The review site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 15.2 metres, a depth of 36.6 metres, and an overall area of 557sqm. The site is generally flat with no easements. The land is currently developed with a single storey weatherboard dwelling set back six metres from the site frontage.

To the east, at No. 4 Mill Road is a single storey dwelling set back six metres from the street frontage and 4.7 metres from the review site. One habitable room window of this dwelling faces the review site. Vehicle access is provided via a crossover located at the western side of the land. This crossover is double width and also serves the review site.

To the west, the site adjoins three properties. No. 16 Mill Road (corner Johnson Street) is developed with a single storey dwelling that faces Johnson Street. Vehicle access to the land is from Mill Road via a crossover located adjacent the review site.


No. 18 Mill Road is developed with a single storey attached dwelling set back 1.6 metres from the boundary with the review site. The rear yard contains a number of outbuildings in proximity to the review site.

Tribunal inspection An unaccompanied inspection of the site and surrounding area was undertaken following the hearing.


REASONS1

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 The applicants seek a review under Section 77 of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987 (the Act) of the refusal by Monash City Council to grant a planning permit to construct five dwellings and waive one visitor car parking space at No. 2 Mill Road, Oakleigh. The Council’s grounds of refusal generally relate to neighbourhood character, off-site amenity impacts, non-compliance with Clause 55 and DDO matters, together with Clauses 22.01 and 22.05.

2 The applicant asserts that the site has strong policy support for its redevelopment at a higher level of density than current neighbourhood character would suggest, and the proposed development represents a high quality response to its policy settings.

3 Prior to the hearing, the applicant circulated amended plans in accordance with VCAT Practice Note PNPE9, and there being no objections, I allowed these to be substituted. The amended plans do not address the substantive concerns of the Council.

4 Having considered all the submissions and evidence and inspected the subject land and its locality, I am of the opinion that the key issues in this proceeding are:

Does the development respond to its built form and policy contexts?

Is the proposal respectful of the preferred built form character?

Does the development provide an appropriate degree of landscaping?

Does the proposal provide adequate carparking?

5 I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions presented 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 that a permit be issued. My reasons follow.

DOES THE DEVELOPMENT RESPOND TO ITS PHYSICAL AND PLANNING CONTEXTS?6 State policy, including Plan Melbourne, encourages new and higher density

housing at locations with good access to jobs, services and public transport. The purpose of the GRZ is to encourage housing growth and diversity, especially in locations with good access to services and transport.

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.


7 Three local variations to the GRZ2 apply. These vary the front setback provisions of Standard B6 of Clause 55, the private open space requirements of Standard B28 of Clause 55 and the front fence heights of Standard B32 of Clause 55.

8 The site is identified as being within the Oakleigh Major Activity Centre2 on the periphery of the retail core. It is well located with respect to public transport, being within 140 metres of the Oakleigh train station, and 250 metres from a modal interchange which provides access to 10 bus routes.

9 Clause 22.01 is Monash’s Residential Development and Character Policy. It defines seven residential character types across the municipality. New development is required to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that positively contribute to neighbourhood character having regard to the desired future character statement for the applicable residential character type.

10 The review site is identified as being within Residential Character Type A. The desired future character statement for this area is:

The neighbourhood character of this area will evolve to retain evidence of its origins in the middle of the last century and of other eras of development by protecting buildings and precincts of identified heritage significance along with associated streetscape elements.

The built-form will be unified by consistency in building setback. New dwellings will address the street and complement the scale and form of adjacent buildings. Development that is inappropriate and out of scale with adjoining dwellings will not be supported.

Sympathetically designed architecture is encouraged in preference to imitations of historic styles.

Extensions or alterations to existing buildings will be sympathetic to the historic integrity of the building. Development that reinforces and promotes the heritage status of the Oakleigh area will be encouraged.

Front fences will be low. This enables vegetation to be visible from the street, allows clear views of buildings and gives the street an open and transparent quality. Fencing will complement the architecture of the building in design, colour and materials.

Existing mature trees and shrubs within properties will be retained and additional tree planting proposed to gradually create a tree canopy in the private domain.

The soft quality of the street that is derived from the wide nature strips will be maintained by ensuring that there is only one crossover per lot frontage.

The character of existing public open space within the Character Type will be protected by ensuring that buildings directly adjacent to such

2 Monash Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.03-4


areas are set back and buffered with planting that complements that within the public open space.

11 The sites strategic location is recognised by Council who have applied a DDO (DDO11) to the land and its surrounds.

12 The DDO identifies six precincts where change will occur. The review site is located within Precinct 3C (Commercial Periphery).

13 The Design Objectives within the DDO are:To ensure that the Oakleigh Major Activity Centre is developed in accordance with preferred built form outcomes.

To avoid underdevelopment of sites.

To maintain the prevailing streetscape rhythm and building scale of the Oakleigh Village.

To develop the centre in a way that conserves and enhances its valued urban character and heritage places.

To encourage a range of housing types and forms.

To encourage environmentally sustainable design in the Oakleigh Major Activity Centre.

To protect the economic viability of businesses by designing and constructing commercial premises to prevent unreasonable off-site amenity impacts on adjoining and nearby residential uses.

To ensure new housing provides a high level of on-site amenity for residents.

To improve pedestrian and access between key destination points.

To ensure public spaces including key pedestrian streets have good solar access and weather protection.

To ensure that new development contributes to safe and active streets.

14 The DDO Schedule provides preferred building heights for each precinct. The review site is designated for a preferred building height of four storeys. To the rear of the review site, as the land moves further from the core commercial area of the Activity Centre, the preferred building height reduces to three storeys. The Schedule requires that:

A building should be setback in accordance with the Setback requirements as specified in the built form precinct provisions of this Schedule.

Setbacks from rear and side boundaries should have regard to the nature of abutting uses and in particular respond to the potential impact on any sensitive use, including residential uses.

Development on land in a Business Zone that is adjacent to a Residential Zone should be designed to achieve a transition in height and building form.


Mechanical plant and/or equipment must be screened from view from the front street frontages and abutting properties.

Material and finishes should reinforce vertical articulation, stepped built form and the distinction between podium and upper levels.

Building with long continuous facades should be broken into smaller vertical sections using variation in wall articulation, window sizes, blank wall areas, materials, colours and textures.

15 Specific Precinct objectives for Development within Precinct 3 – Commercial Periphery are:

To encourage the development of an appropriate mix of commercial and higher density residential uses in the Precinct, including the redevelopment of existing railway commuter car parks and the area above the railway line.

To encourage high quality, contemporary architecture that promotes the Oakleigh MAC.

To encourage urban design improvements that enhance the existing built form and the public realm.

To encourage an enhanced pedestrian environment within the Precinct that integrates with the surrounding Precincts, particularly Precinct 1 and the Oakleigh Railway Station and Bus Interchange area.

To preserve the southward view from the Warrigal Road overpass to the Sacred Heart Church.

16 With respect to the review site, the DDO then provides specific design outcomes, being:

A six metre landscaped front setback.

Upper levels set back from the facade, two metres for every one metre of building height above the façade limit until the building height for the site is reached.

Upper levels should be appropriately recessed and stepped back from abutting residential uses providing a transition in built scale.

Street facades of 10 metres at the street alignment and a building height up to 14.0 metres (four storeys).

17 Within Precinct 3C, new development adjoining residential areas is required to be sensitively designed so as to be compatible with those residential areas, including the provision of landscape setbacks along street frontages (my italics) which face those residential areas. Development should be contemporary in design, with wall and roof forms modulated to break down the sense of bulk and to provide visual interest at the pedestrian level.

18 The location of the review site responds to State and local policy with respect to higher density housing in appropriate locations. There is no


dispute between the parties that the land is suitably located for additional housing.

19 However, the Council asserts that whilst the planning policy framework envisages increased, more intensive development, it also identifies the need to respect the prevailing built form at the interface of this Activity Centre.

20 The applicant says that despite the site’s location within Residential Character Type A (at Clause 22.01), this if of limited relevance given the sites location and the specific built form aspirations of the DDO11. The applicant asserts that the DDO11 in fact directs that a new character will emerge, as evidenced by the preferred height and setback requirements specified in the Schedule.

21 It is to the issue of preferred built form character that I now turn my consideration.

IS THE PROPOSAL RESPECTFUL OF THE PREFERRED BUILT FORM CHARACTER?22 The Council says that the proposal does not satisfy the design requirements

of the DDO with respect to the impact on abutting residential uses. They acknowledge that the 6 metre landscaped front setback as sought is achieved, that the upper level setbacks from the façade comply and that the maximum 14 metre (four storey) height is also met. The main issue identified with respect to the DDO is that the upper levels should be appropriately recessed and stepped back from abutting residential uses providing a transition in built scale.

23 Neighbouring properties to the east and west contain single storey dwellings. The Council asserts that while these properties have the potential to be redeveloped, it cannot be assumed that this will occur and the current site conditions therefore also need to be considered.

24 They say that the small size of the site exacerbates the building out to the preferred limits as there is minimal opportunity to incorporate setbacks from either side boundary to facilitate a transition to adjoining residential properties.

25 The DDO requires that development should be contemporary in design, with wall and roof forms modulated to break down the sense of bulk and to provide visual interest at the pedestrian level.

26 The front four dwellings are three storeys, with the rear dwelling being two storey. The dwellings are attached at all levels, in a reverse living format.

27 The plans detail a contemporary attached form comprising cantilevered overhang of the first floor over the common driveway. As Dwelling 1 presents to Mill Road, a 15sqm terrace at the first floor level modulates the facade.

28 Along the eastern elevation, at ground level the dwellings are set back 1.9 metres from the boundary with No. 4 Mill Road at ground level (aside from


Dwelling 5 which is built to the boundary), 2.1 metres at first floor level and 2.6 metres at second floor level.

29 Along the western elevation, at ground level the dwellings are set back 5.7 metres from the boundary with the dwellings fronting Johnson Street, between 2.2 metres and 3.5 metres at first floor level and between 2.9 metres and four metres at second floor level.

30 A variety of materials is proposed across all façades, including face brickwork, applied render finish, weatherboard and painted cladding. The material choice, staggered setbacks and use of cantilevering of the first floor over the shared driveway provide a contemporary, well-modulated design response as sought by policy.

31 Council asserts that the three storey form extends along much of the site length and will be imposing when viewed from the rear yards of neighbouring properties to the east and west. They argue that a more appropriate transition in scale between these single storey dwellings and the review site would be a more appropriate outcome.

32 I do not accept the position of Council that the single storey nature of the adjacent housing should be used to drive the scale of development that should be supported on the review site. I accept the applicant’s argument that if this were so, it would undermine Council’s policy intent in applying a DDO with specific built form outcomes, including increased height.

33 The GRZ now allows a building height up to 11 metres. The DDO supports a height of up to 14 metres (and four storeys). I am conscious that this may be the first example of redevelopment within the DDO area. For this reason, I am satisfied that the proposal provides a measured design response of three storeys at 9.1 metres and will be an appropriate first incursion into this precinct.

34 I also note that the DDO seeks to limit underdevelopment of sites. I find that a lesser height (or transition in scale as sought by Council) would constitute the underdevelopment of a site that has strong strategic support for increased residential density.

35 The final issue to be considered is whether the proposed development results in unreasonable levels of visual bulk to surrounding properties.

36 At three storeys in height, there is no doubt that the proposed development will be visible from surrounding properties, including nearby areas of secluded private open space. That is to be an expected outcome within the boundaries of a higher order activity centre. The landscape plan presented as part of the proposal demonstrates that an appropriate level of landscaping can be achieved at the interfaces to surrounding residential properties. I also note that the architectural design incorporates a “step down” at the rear to two storeys, to a scale similar to the existing low rise residential development adjacent. For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposed development will not result in unreasonable levels of visual bulk when


viewed from surrounding properties even if the present built form on those surrounding properties is retained.

37 In a future development context, the scale presented by the proposed development to the surrounding properties becomes even more reasonable. Further, having regard to the setbacks provided within the review site to the proposed built form, I am satisfied that the proposed development provides for equitable development opportunities for the surrounding properties.

DOES THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE DEGREE OF LANDSCAPING?38 Council asserts that there is minimal space along the side and rear

boundaries for deep rooted landscaping to establish. They say that the building mass and extent of paved surface area severely restrict opportunities to plant screening shrubs along the common driveway, the common pathway and along the rear boundary. They say this is not consistent with Clauses 22.01 and 22.05 (Tree Conservation Policy).

39 Adjoining properties that face Johnson Street have rear yards abutting the review site. At No. 16 Johnson Street, there is a driveway leading to a metal garage constructed to the boundary with the review site. At No. 18 Johnson Street the rear garden is generally concreted with a row of shrubs providing a degree of screening. No. 20 Johnson Street is generally grassed with a metal garage in the southern corner of the site.

40 The adjoining property at No. 4 Mill Road has a driveway that runs along the common boundary with the review site. A mature cypress is located within the front setback, between the driveway and the shared fenceline. A large part of the canopy extends over the review site. Other landscaping exists along the shared fenceline.

41 No. 1 Mora Avenue, at the rear, has a yard comprising artificial turf.

42 Mr Patrick’s evidence was that from a landscape perspective, the immediate area does not evidence a strong presence of either private or street planting. My inspection confirms that there is not a high degree of landscaping evident within Mill Road or Johnson Street.

43 At ground level, along the eastern side boundary the development proposes pedestrian access to front door entries for each dwelling. The pedestrian path is proposed to be a mix of exposed aggregate concrete with brick paving at the front door to each dwelling to delineate its entry point.

44 Along the western side boundaries, a driveway provides access to double garages for Dwellings 1-4 and a single car garage for Dwelling 5. The front setback contains an area of private open space associated with Dwelling 1.

45 Mr Patrick’s landscape plan details that along the eastern side boundary, a hedge of Bush Christmas Lilly Pilly is proposed, along with four fastigiated trees, three Oakville Crimson Spire plums opposite Dwellings 1 and 2 and a single fastigiated Pin Oak opposite Dwelling 4. Low plantings of Sacred


Bamboo and self clinging Boston Ivy climber along the western edge of the path on the face of the proposed building and the wall of the front garden are also proposed.

46 Along the western side property boundary, adjacent the common driveway, it is proposed to plant Slim Bottlebrush which will provide an evergreen screen to the height of the cantilevered balcony above. Finally at the termination of the driveway, a Spartan Juniper is proposed (mature height five metres) together with ground cover of Turf Lilly.

47 Mr Patrick’s evidence was that the extent of landscaping proposed exceeds the level of tree planting in neighbouring properties. I agree that this will be the case. Further, I am satisfied that the design demonstrates an appropriate degree of landscaping as sought by Clauses 22.01 and 22.05. Unlike other residential hinterland sites, the site context in this case supports an intensification of built form (including up to 14 metres in height). In achieving this built form outcome, a degree of tempering of landscape expectations should be anticipated.

48 I am also persuaded that despite Council’s concerns, the adjoining sites enjoy the same policy support for intensification provided by the DDO, suggesting the likely change over time to a similar built form outcome. The DDO requires a front setback of six metres, which is provided. This setback provides sufficient space for canopy tree planting within the front setback. The landscape plan provides for a generous landscaped space in the front garden, with an area of gravel and informal planting.

49 I am also satisfied that the side setbacks provide meaningful landscape elements including tree planting and hedging to adjoining properties.

DOES THE PROPOSAL PROVIDE ADEQUATE CARPARKING?50 The development satisfies the resident parking requirements for each

dwelling but provides no on-site visitor carparking; one space is required under Clause 52.06. The Council assert that the waiver of one on-site visitor car parking space is inappropriate as on-street parking is in high demand as evidenced by the parking restrictions in Mill Road.

51 Mr Morello’s evidence was that there is sufficient parking in the surrounding area to accommodate the modest demand for one visitor car parking space.

52 I find that the waiver of one on-site visitor car parking space is appropriate as:

The site is located within a Major Activity Centre, which has access to a wide range of public transport options.

The parking survey indicated that even at peak occupancy (at Thursday lunchtime), at least eight on-street unrestricted spaces were available within 150 metres walking distance of the site.


The peak time for any visitor demands will typically be in the evening and on weekends. The parking survey indicated that on Friday at 8pm and Saturday at 8pm that only five out of the seven available spaces in Mill Road immediate to the site were occupied.

Support for reduced dependence on car use and increased use of walking and cycling is extensive in the Planning Scheme including at Clause 18. Clause 21.08 Traffic and Transport identifies that there is considerable scope to increase transport efficiency including measures to reduce car dependency and encourage the use of environmentally friendly forms of transport such as walking, cycling, and public transport.

WHAT CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?

53 Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.

CONCLUSION

54 For the reasons explained above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

K Birtwistle Member


APPENDIX A – PERMIT CONDITIONS

PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/45446

LAND: 2 Mill Road, Oakleigh

WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWSIn accordance with the endorsed plans:

Construction of five (5) dwellings comprising four (4) three storey dwellings and one two storey dwelling in the General Residential Zone

Waiver of one visitor car space under Clause 52.06

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 amended plans circulated by the permit applicant prior to the VCAT hearing (prepared by Archsign and labelled Drawing Nos. TP1 to TP4 Revision D dated 22/05/2017), but modified to show:

a The entry to dwelling 1 to be accessed from the common entry path rather than from the public footpath, and this area then converted to soft landscaping.

b A minimum height clearance of 2.2 metres to garage doors.

c The aluminium louvred sections of the privacy screens provided to balconies 2, 3, 4 and 5 to have a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level, a maximum transparency of 25 percent and an upright form (ie rather than angled out towards neighbouring property boundaries).

d Fixed (non openable) obscure glass to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level to the following:

i the west facing window serving bedroom 2 of dwelling 5

ii the west facing windows serving bedrooms 2 and 3 of dwellings 2, 3 and 4

iii the east facing windows serving bedroom 1 of dwellings 2, 3 and 4.


e Provision of a privacy screen that has a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level and a maximum transparency of 25 percent to the following parts of dwelling 1’s balcony:

i the southern edge

ii the part of the eastern edge that is located between the front wall of the dwelling and the southern edge.

f Screening treatment of the eastern part of the corner window serving bedroom 3 of dwelling 1 in accordance with the requirements of Standard B22 of Clause 55, unless it can be demonstrated that this is not required to maintain the privacy of the neighbouring habitable room window that faces the subject site.

g A combined electricity supply meter box behind the front facade of dwelling 1.

h The location of gas and water meters.

2 The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.

3 All common boundary fences 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 three metres of the fence line.

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.

g Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas.


h Details of the drip irrigation system to provide irrigation to all planted areas from the underground rainwater tank.

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.

6 The walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

7 Approval of each proposed crossing, and a permit for installation or modification of any vehicle crossing is required from Council’s Engineering Department.

8 The proposed crossing is to be constructed in accordance with the City of Monash standards.

9 All new crossings must be a minimum of three metres in width.

10 The existing redundant crossing is to be removed and replaced with kerb and channel. The footpath and nature strip are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.

11 The crossing is within 1.50 metres of an adjoining crossing and shall be converted to a double crossing with No. 16 Johnson Street.

12 Provide a corner splay or area at least 50 percent 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) on the eastern side of the vehicle crossing to provide clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road.

13 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 (150 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.

14 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 prior to works commencing.


15 Direct the entire site’s stormwater drainage to the north of the property where it must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the 300mm Council drain in the nature strip via a Council approved saddle adaptor to be constructed to Council Standards. Note: If the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council’s Engineering Department immediately.

16 Any new drainage work within the road reserve requires the approval of the Council’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Please refer to notes section of this permit for additional details. A refundable security deposit of $500 amount is to be paid prior to the drainage works commencing.

17 Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

18 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 within three years from the date of issue.

The development is not completed within five 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 twelve months of the permit expiry date, where the development has lawfully started before the permit expires.

- End of conditions -


victorian civil and administrative tribunal · web viewsa1.0, dr1.0, tp1, tp2, tp3, tp4, tp5,...

Documents