VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewShould the front (existing) turnaround area be formalised, my recommended dimensions are shown on the swept paths (diagram).Accordingly,

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P1346/2015

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/43395

CATCHWORDSSection 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone – Schedule 2; Road Zone

Category 1; retention of existing dwelling; interface with a main road; car parking; neighbourhood character; private open space, landscaping.

APPLICANT Bingzhi Benjamin Li and Mei Gao

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council

REFERRAL AUTHORITY Roads Corporation (VicRoads)

SUBJECT LAND 606 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverley

WHERE HELD Melbourne

BEFORE Frank Dawson, Member

HEARING TYPE Hearing

DATE OF HEARING 28 January 2016

DATE OF ORDER 19 April 2016

CITATION

ORDER1 The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.

2 In permit application TPA/43395 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 606 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverley in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in the Appendix to this order. The permit allows the development of two or more dwellings on a lot in the General Residential Zone.

Frank DawsonMember

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Mr Peter Barber, town planner of Planning Appeals Pty Ltd. He called evidence from Ms Jo Garretty, traffic engineer of SALT Pty Ltd.

For Responsible Authority Mr Paul Beatty, town planner of Planisphere Pty Ltd.

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal Construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling with associated car parking and landscaping. Dwelling 1 is the existing single storey dwelling on the subject land and contains three bedrooms. An existing open carport is located adjacent to the front entrance, extending forward of the building façade by approximately 2.3 metres. A further car parking space is located behind the existing dwelling. Private open space is located along the northern side of the dwelling, extending from the front of the site (behind a front fence 2 metres high) through to the rear of Dwelling 1.Dwelling 2 is a proposed new double storey dwelling containing three bedrooms and a study, with a double garage attached on the south side. The private open space for proposed Dwelling 2 is located on the northern and eastern sides of the dwelling. The driveway serving both dwellings is located along the southern side of the land, and includes turning areas in front of Dwelling 2 and within the front setback of Dwelling1. The external finishes are face brickwork on the ground floor and fibre cement cladding on the first floor of Dwelling 2 in the form of weatherboard and rendered surfaces. Both dwellings have a tiled roof.The plans indicate the total building site coverage is 36.6% and the total impervious surface area is 59.63% of the subject land.

VCAT Reference No. P1346/2015 Page 2 of 17

Nature of Proceeding Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Zone and Overlays General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 (GRZ2), adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1).

Permit Requirements Clause 32.08-4 (a permit is required to extend or construct two or more dwellings on lot).

Land Description The subject land is on the eastern side of Blackburn Road, approximately 400 metres south of the Monash Freeway and 200 north of Ferntree Gully Road. The land is rectangular, with a frontage to Blackburn Road of 16.76 metres, a depth of 43.28 metres and a site area of 725.6 Square metres. The land is generally flat and contains a single storey detached brick dwelling set back 10.75 metres from the frontage. A recently constructed carport is located slightly forward and south of the dwelling and adjacent to a driveway that runs along the southern side of the land. There is also a garage at the rear of the site at the end of the driveway. There is little vegetation on the site except for a dense screen of vegetation along the inside of the front fence, which is a timber paling fence constructed to an estimated height of 1.8 metres.The land to the north is occupied by a detached dwelling, single storey at the front with a double storey section towards the rear. The land to the south is occupied by a single storey detached dwelling in front of a newly constructed double storey dwelling at the rear1. The adjoining dwellings to the north and the south are set back from street a similar distance to the dwelling on the subject land. The land to the rear, facing Norfolk Street, is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling. Land on the western side of Blackburn Road is occupied by large office uses in a Special Use Zone –Schedule 6.Blackburn Road is a busy arterial road that functions as a ‘conduit’ for commuter traffic. Many of the properties along this road use the front garden space for vehicle turning to enable vehicles to enter the road in a forward direction. The land is very well located for access to transport, education and shopping.


Tribunal Inspection The Tribunal inspected the subject land on the 18 March 2016.

Cases Referred To Gardencity Australia Pty Ltd v Monash CC & Anor [2013] VCAT 1282.Pettinato v Monash CC [2014] VCAT 48.

1 The development at 608 Blackburn Road is the result of a Tribunal decision (Pettinato v Monash CC [2014] VCAT 48) that set aside a decision by Monash CC to refuse the proposal.


REASONS2

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 In May 2015, the Monash City Council determined to refuse a planning

application for a second dwelling behind an existing dwelling at 606 Blackburn Road, Glen Waverley. The permit applicant requests the Tribunal to review the Council decision.

2 Council’s reasons for refusing the application are broad. In summary, they refer to;

an inadequate response to objectives and standards at Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme (ResCode),

inconsistency with the residential development and character policies at Clauses 21.04 and 22.01,

the proposal being out of character with existing and preferred neighbourhood character due to the dominance of car parking at the front of the property,

insufficient private open space, and

the car parking design does not provide for satisfactory vehicle movement.

3 The applicant has submitted a Statement of Grounds rebutting Council’s reasons for refusing the application. Mr Barber submits the issues associated with vehicle access and car parking are addressed and:

The proposal is considered to meet all relevant planning policy tests, is consistent with planning provisions and the zone objectives, and provides a development outcome that is worthy of approval.

In the broader context of State policy at 11.04-4 – Liveable Communities and Neighbourhoods, Mr Barber submits:

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objective of this clause as it will contribute and additional dwelling in an established residential area that is close to existing services and transport corridors. The proposal will assist in reducing pressure for new dwellings in Greenfield areas, and will work to widen housing choices within the local area.

Interim Order joining VicRoads as a party4 At the commencement of the hearing, Council raised an issue concerning

input from VicRoads regarding access to Blackburn Road, which as indicated earlier, is a Road Zone Category 1.

2 I 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. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.


5 I find it appropriate at this point to reproduce an extract of remarks from my Interim Order issued by the Tribunal on the 28 January 2016, joining VicRoads as a party to this proceeding.

1 At the hearing, Council informed the Tribunal that the application was not referred to VicRoads and consequently, VicRoads is not a party to the proceeding.

2 In view of the proximity of the subject land to a Road Zone Category 1, Council wrote to VicRoads on 21 January 2016 requesting comments on the application in this proceeding.

3 On 22 January 2016, VicRoads replied to Council expressing concern at the access arrangements for the proposed development. Specifically, VicRoads does not support the proposal for the reason;

“the proposed layout of the building will not allow vehicles to enter/exit the site in a forward direction.”

4 Subsequently, correspondence from VicRoads to the Tribunal on 28 January 2016 (following the hearing) expressed the view that the application should have been referred to VicRoads pursuant to Clause 52.29 of the planning scheme, citing the Tribunal’s decision in Peninsula Blue Developments Pty Ltd v Frankston CC (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 571. VicRoads submits Clause 52.29 of the planning scheme is invoked on the basis that the proposed development;

“may result in changes to the opportunity for traffic to approach or enter a road in the Road Zone Category 1 in terms of volume, frequency or type of traffic whether this is more or less than the existing situation.”

5 I find it appropriate that the Roads Corporation (VicRoads) be included as a party to this proceeding.

6 At the hearing, Ms Garretty gave evidence that included a ‘swept path’ analysis demonstrating that vehicles in all the nominated parking spaces can achieve a reversal in one manoeuvre to effect an egress from the site in a forward direction. The parties agreed that the traffic evidence should be referred to VicRoads for comment.

7 The Tribunal will consider comments from the parties, including VicRoads, in determining this matter.

6 As a consequence of the Tribunal’s Interim Order, the Tribunal received a submission from VicRoads on 23 February 2016, reproduced in part as follows:

I refer to the Tribunal's orders of 28 January 2016 providing VicRoads an opportunity to comment on the traffic evidence presented by Ms Jo Garretty.

VicRoads has reviewed the evidence and considers that the proposal provides for acceptable access to Blackburn Road, being a road in a


Road Zone Category 1, providing that the turning area to be provided at the front of Dwelling 1 is always available for turning and is not used as a parking space.

Consequently, in relation to the proposed site plan (Ground Floor, Job number 1206C – GW), VicRoads has considered the plans and does not object to the proposed development.

7 The VicRoads consent is conditional upon the inclusion of a planning permit condition requiring a reduction in the length of the turning bay for Dwelling 1 “to the minimum length practicable to fulfil its function.” The purpose of this condition is to remove the ability for the turning bay to be occupied as a parking space.

Planning history8 In December 2012, Monash City Council refused application TPA/40670

for a second dwelling behind the existing dwelling, primarily on grounds that the parking proposal did not allow vehicles to exit from the subject land to Blackburn Road in a forward direction and the design did not provide sufficient private open space. On review in July 2013, the Tribunal in Gardencity Australia Pty Ltd v Monash CC & Anor [2013] VCAT 1282, upheld the Council decision due to unsatisfactory vehicle access. In that decision, Member Fong also commented that the deficiency in the amount of private open space;

..should not be fatal. It can be reviewed in a new design.

Matters for determination9 The submissions in this proposal refer to matters of local planning policy

and to specific issues of private open space and vehicle access. In this context, my determination requires consideration of the following questions:

Does the proposed design provide and acceptable response to the design standards at Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme?

Is the proposal consistent with the local residential development and character policies at Clauses 21.04 and 22.01?

Is the proposed vehicle access acceptable?

10 Having heard the submission and evidence from the parties, considered the relevant policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme and viewed the subject site, I have decided to set aside the Council decision and grant a planning permit subject to conditions. My reasons follow.


DOES THE PROPOSED DESIGN PROVIDE AND ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS AT CLAUSE 55 OF THE MONASH PLANNING SCHEME?11 The General Residential Zone (GRZ) relies on Clause 55 of the planning

scheme to guide the design of development within the zone. Schedule 2 to the General Residential Zone contains variations to some of the design standards within Clause 55. These variations are; Standard B6 (front setback), Standard B28 (private open space), and Standard B32 (front fence height).

12 The GRZ contains the purpose to respect neighbourhood character while providing for a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

13 In this case the proposed development is well located for access to services and transport, but has the constraint of being located adjacent to a busy road.

14 Council’s submission in response to the relevant objectives and standards at Clause 55 makes specific reference to the variation of Standard B28 in Schedule 2, which states in part:

A dwelling or residential building should have private open space consisting of:

An area of 75 square metres, with one part of the private open space at the side or the rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 35 square metres, a minimum width of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room.

15 The proposed second dwelling meets all aspects of this design guideline, with the advantage of a northern and eastern aspect for the main secluded private open space off the living area.

16 The existing dwelling has a lounge room facing south, adjacent to the existing driveway however, the kitchen/dining area is on the eastern side of the dwelling, providing direct access to a secluded private open space area of 36.3 square metres, which also achieves a minimum dimension of 5 metres. This area has a northern aspect on the eastern side of the dwelling.

17 To achieve a total area of 75 Square metres of private open space for the existing Dwelling 1, an area of 54.81 square metres is proposed to be used in the northern part of the front garden, defined by the existing high front fence and a new southern paling fence, separating this space from the remainder of the front garden. The area is relatively large, but the use of this space as a secluded private open space area is diminished by the location within the front setback, which does not accord with the varied B28 policy requirement.


18 Nevertheless, I find the provision of private open space for both dwellings is acceptable, for the reason that the secluded private open space areas (both more than 35 square metres) satisfy the B28 Standard.

19 The use of the front setback for open space and vehicle movement reflects the circumstance of many properties that line Blackburn Road. During my inspection, I noted that it is common for detached dwellings to utilise their front gardens to achieve a vehicle turning movement to facilitate exiting to Blackburn Road in a forward direction. Blackburn Road appears to have evolved into a ‘commuter conduit’. Local residents need good visibility of the traffic stream when entering the road in peak periods.

20 This may not have always been the case, on the evidence that many older existing dwellings have a single driveway, indicating that vehicles could reverse onto the road. As this is no longer an easy (or safe) manoeuvre, front gardens have been appropriated for parking and turning. The subject site is one example.

21 I also noted some residential properties in Blackburn Road have constructed solid high front fences, providing both security and some noise protection. This has the effect of giving the front setback areas a ‘defensive’ role rather than a transition to the street. In the case of the subject land, protection is currently provided by established trees behind a high fence, both of which are proposed to be retained.

22 The proposal before me allocates approximately 30% of the front setback to private open space, providing scope for more planting. This area is proposed to be fenced off, which protects the private open space area from incursion by vehicles using the front setback area for turning. Later in my reasons, I discuss the design of the proposed turning bay, which may provide scope to increase the area available for open space and landscaping.

23 I consider the retention of the existing dwelling, the front fence and the existing front vegetation will largely retain the status quo when the subject site is viewed from the street. I find the use of part of the front setback for private open space improves the ability to establish a more substantial front garden, which in the context of Blackburn Road, is an acceptable streetscape outcome.

24 Broadly, I find the general technical compliance with the design standards at Clause 55 is acceptable, particularly in the areas of building height and scale. Aspects of the design response also noted are:

There is good separation between buildings and the building setback from the rear boundary for Dwelling 2 is between 3.0 and 5.1 metres.

The upper level of Dwelling 2 is well articulated to the north and east, with variable setbacks of approximately 2.7 metres to the north, 5.2 to 7.0 metres to the east and 5.8 metres to the south.


Overlooking is controlled with a combination high sill windows and obscure glazing.

There is no unacceptable overshadowing of adjoining secluded private open space areas at the equinox.

25 These attributes lead me to conclude the proposed development provides an acceptable response to the design objectives and standards at Clause 55.

IS THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTER POLICIES AT CLAUSES 21.04 AND 22.01?

Residential development26 The local Residential Development policy at Clause 21.04 of the Monash

Planning Scheme notes that lot sizes in the municipality tend to be greater than 650 square metres, which

..facilitates development of dual occupancy and sometimes more intensive development. Accordingly, there is considerable scope for change of housing stock and style.

27 The local policy also states:Council’s goal is for residential development in the City to be balanced in providing a variety of housing styles whilst remaining sympathetic to existing neighbourhood character.

28 Referring specifically to the subject site, Mr Barber notes:The subject site is not located within immediate proximity of an activity centre or transport hub, however it is located on the principal public transport network and is well served by community and commercial services. It is considered that the proposed development can best be described as low to medium density infill housing, and is of a density that is considered to be appropriate throughout the metropolitan area provided that the site specific controls and interfaces are responded to.

29 I consider Mr Barber’s statement encapsulates the circumstance of this proposal. I find the retention of the existing dwelling and the addition of a second double storey dwelling behind can be satisfactorily accommodated on this site.

30 However, it must be acknowledged that in a conventional residential context, the position of the existing front carport and the associated turning bay at the front of the existing dwelling is not a preferred outcome. In a less intensive residential street, the policy preference is to recess garages, or ideally, locate them out of sight.

31 In the context of Blackburn Road, integration with the street is difficult to achieve if the priority is protection from traffic noise. Therefore, on balance I find the dual use of the frontage for landscaping, parking and a turning


bay is acceptable for the reason that it retains a separation space between the two dwellings in the centre of the site and retains land for secluded private open space in a more ‘protected’ location.

Neighbourhood character32 Some objectives of the Neighbourhood Character policy at Clause 22.01 are

difficult to realise, given the circumstance of the subject site in Blackburn Road. To draw on Mr Barber’s observation:

The section of Blackburn Road where the subject site is located is not considered to be accurately described as a streetscape which has an open, vegetated garden character. Parking spaces, turning bays and high front princes are a common feature in the streetscape and form part of the existing neighbourhood character.

33 Nevertheless, there are elements of the neighbourhood character policy that need to be assessed in relation to the proposed development. The elements I find contribute to an acceptable outcome are:

The front building set back is retained.

The upper level floor area of dwelling two is modest (50 square metres) and adequately recessed.

The height of Dwelling 2 is less than 7 metres.

The total building footprint is less than 40%.

There is ‘realistic’ space available for canopy trees.

34 Therefore, in the context of this Blackburn Road location, I find the proposed development will sit comfortably with the character of the surrounding development.

IS THE PROPOSED VEHICLE ACCESS ACCEPTABLE?35 The proposed development offers four on-site car parking spaces in

accordance with the planning scheme requirement of two spaces per dwelling. The spaces are accommodated as follows;

a double garage at the rear of the site at the south-east corner of Dwelling 2,

an existing car port adjacent to the front of Dwelling 1, and

an open car space at the rear of Dwelling 1.

36 Separate turning bays are provided between Dwellings 1 and 2, and in the front setback of Dwelling 1. The space for a driveway between Dwelling 1 and the southern side boundary is a minimum of 4.15 metres and provides adequate space for a paved driveway of 3 metres plus landscaping.

37 In traffic evidence to the Tribunal, Ms Garretty explains:


Swept the path diagrams have been prepared by my firm demonstrating that the development will ensure that all cars can enter and exit the site in a forward direction with on-site turnaround areas provided for each dwelling. As shown on the swept paths, the only minor modification I recommend is widening of the double garage opening by 200 mm. Should the front (existing) turnaround area be formalised, my recommended dimensions are shown on the swept paths (diagram).Accordingly, it is my opinion that access arrangements are in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 1 – Access Ways at Clause 52.06 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

38 I accept Ms Garretty’s evidence in this matter and agree that the movement of vehicles will be improved by increasing the width of the Dwelling 2 garage opening by 200mm. This requirement is included in the permit conditions.

39 In response to my Interim Order of the 28th January 2016, Ms Garretty provided detailed information (dated 8th March 2016) concerning the design of the front turning bay to demonstrate that a turning movement from the existing front car port can be executed to allow a vehicle to exit the site in a forward direction.

40 In correspondence of 23rd February 2016 (cited earlier), VicRoads confirms that

..the proposal provides acceptable access to Blackburn Road, being a Road Zone Category 1, providing that the turning area to be provided at the front of Dwelling 1 is always available for turning and is not used as a parking space.

41 The turning bay shown on the plan of the 8th March 2016 is different from the plan discussed at the hearing. In that plan, the existing turning area marks the existing gravelled area and demonstrates that a turning movement can be achieved in that space. The more recent plan referred to above defines a more restricted turning bay, truncated to reduce its attraction as a parking space in line with the VicRoads requirement.

42 At the hearing, Mr Barber suggested the turning area could be constructed using a permeable ‘Gravel bond’ compound surface. Given the reduced area of the turning bay, I have decided to require the turning bay to be included as part of the concrete/sealed driveway, integral with a requirement to concrete the floor of the Dwelling 1 carport.

43 The revised turning bay for Dwelling 1 establishes a dedicated turning area for the front car port. The modified design also creates more garden space and allows the private open space at the front of Dwelling 1 to be enlarged. By moving the fence south, the prospect of the turning bay being used for parking is further reduced. In the modified plan, the length of the turning bay is reduced by approximately 600mm. I find it appropriate that the


proposed fence dividing the front private open space from the turning bay area be moved an equivalent distance (600mm) to the south.

44 The plan shows the fence to be a timber paling fence 2 metres high, in the same style as the front fence. As the front private open space and the turning bay are both dedicated to Dwelling 1, I find it also appropriate that the dividing fence be constructed with timber or metal pickets or slats to a height of 1.8 metres, allowing at least 50% visual permeability. This will allow the landscaping in the private open space to improve the visual amenity of the front entrance. The above requirements are included in the permit conditions.

WHAT CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?45 In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit the Tribunal has had

regard to the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from these reasons.

46 The permit conditions are amended to reflect the changes resulting from my consideration of the submissions from the parties and my on-site observations in relation to landscape, parking and vehicle movement.

CONCLUSION47 For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority

is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.

Frank DawsonMember

Permit Notes

Although my order does not include the ‘Notes’ suggested by the Council, such advisory information may be included in the permit that the Council is directed to issue.


APPENDIX

PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/43395LAND: 606 Blackburn Road, Glen WaverleyWHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS:

Development of two or more dwellings on a lot in the General Residential Zone in accordance with the endorsed plans.

CONDITIONS

Amended Plans1. Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to

scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. 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, but modified to show:

a. The turning bay for the proposed dwelling modified to enable vehicles to turn and leave the site in a forward direction generally in accordance with the Ingress/Egress Movement Drawing 15143 SK004 Rev3, prepared by Salt Traffic Engineers and dated 8/3/2016. The length of the Dwelling 1 at the front of Dwelling 1 to be reduced to the minimum length practicable to fulfil its function and diminish the appeal of the turning bay to be used as a parking space.

b. A corner splay or area at least 50% clear of 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, designed to accord with the turning bay alignment shown on the plan labelled Ingress/Egress Movement Drawing 15143 SK004 Rev3, prepared by Salt Traffic Engineers and dated 8/3/2016 on the north side of the vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of Blackburn Road.

c. A double door (minimum width 1.8 metres) is to be installed on the rear of the Dwelling 2 garage to allow for easement access for drainage maintenance requests.

d. 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”.

e. The location of all gas and water meters.

f. The east-west fence marking the southern boundary of the front private open space for Dwelling 1 moved 600mm to the south. This fence to be constructed with timber or metal pickets or slats to a height of 1.8 metres, allowing at least 50% visual permeability.

g. The existing Dwelling 1 carport provided with a concrete floor.

h. The turning bay area for Dwelling 1 to be included as part of the concrete/sealed driveway, integral with the Dwelling 1 carport.

i. The widening of the Dwelling 2 double garage opening by 200mm.

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

Landscaping3. 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:

The location of all existing trees and other vegetation to be retained on site.

Provision of at least one suitable canopy tree with a spreading crown in each of the secluded private open space areas to the east of Dwellings 1 and 2 and in the front private open space area for Dwelling 1.

Planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways and other paved areas.

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.

The location and details of all fencing.

The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site.

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.


4. Landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed within number months from the date of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Fencing5. 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 3 metres of the fence line.

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

Construction Management Plan7. 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 implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must address the following issues:

a. Measures to control noise, dust and water runoff.

b. Prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the 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 site during the construction phase.

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:

i. Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00am to 6.00pm;

ii. Saturday – 9.00am to 1.00pm;

iii. Saturday – 1.00pm to 5.00pm (Only activities associated with the erection of buildings. This does not include excavation or the use of heavy machinery.)


Drainage8. All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and

must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties.

9. 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.

10. Direct the entire site’s stormwater drainage to the south-east corner of the property where it must be collected and free drained via pipe to a 225mm Council drain via a 900mm x 600mm junction pit to be constructed to Council Standards.

11. Any new drainage work within the road reserve requires the approval of the Council’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Three copies of the plans (A3-A1 size) for the drainage works must be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division prior to the commencement of works. The plans are to show sufficient information to determine that the drainage works will meet all drainage conditions of the permit.

12. Engineering permits must be obtained for new connections to the Council drains and these works are to be inspected by Council.

Permit expiry13. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two years of the issued date of this permit.

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

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

--- End of Conditions ---


Documents

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewShould the front (existing) turnaround area be formalised, my recommended dimensions are shown on the swept paths (diagram).Accordingly,