VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P2473/2017
Permit Application no. TPA-47526	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 79 Planning and Environment Act 1987 – General Residential Zone Schedule 2 – five,  three storey townhouses – legal right of access – neighbourhood character – off-site amenity impacts – car parking and access	

APPLICANT	Grow P2 Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Monash City Council	
RESPONDENTs	Owners Corporation of 580 Neerim Road -
Owners Corporation 405891D and Owners Corporation 327361T
Deganit Shapira 	
SUBJECT LAND	570 Neerim Road
HUGHESDALE VIC 3166	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member		
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATEs OF HEARING	3 and 4 April 2018	
DATE OF ORDER	24 May 2018	
date of correction	7 June 2018	
CITATION	Grow P2 Pty Ltd v Monash CC (Corrected) [2018] VCAT 800	
Order
Permit granted
1	In application P2473/2017 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application TPA-47526 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 570 Neerim Road, Hughesdale in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of five attached three storey dwellings in a General Residential Zone Schedule 2;
•	Reduction in one visitor car parking space as required under Clause 52.06.

Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member				

Appearances
For applicant	Mr J Cicero, Solicitor, Best Hooper
He called the following witnesses:
•	Mr D Crowder, Town Planner, Ratio Consultants
•	Mr R Thomson, Landscape Architect, Habitat
•	Mr L Furness, Traffic Engineer, Traffic Group 	
For responsible authority	Ms N Luketic, Solicitor, Harwood Andrews	
For respondents	Mr H Algie, Solicitor, Kellehers Australia on behalf of Owners Corporation of 580 Neerim Road - Owners Corporation 405891D and Owners Corporation 327361T	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of five dwellings	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.	
Planning scheme	Monash 	
Zone and overlays	General Residential Zone Schedule 2
Environmental Audit Overlay	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.08-6 – construct two or more dwellings on a lot
Clause 52.06 – reduction in number of car spaces provided including visitor parking	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 21.02, 21.04, 21.08, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 52.06, 55 and 65	
Land description	The subject site is located on the north side of Neerim Road approximately 50m from Poath Road in Hughesdale. 
The subject site has a frontage of 15.41m to Neerim Road with a depth of 39.82m and a total area of 600m². The site is currently used as a car park for a larger site which contains a Telstra Exchange.  
Access to the site is from Neerim Road. The site has a direct abuttal to Federation Walk to the east.
To the north and west is the remainder of the lot containing the Telstra Exchange, a single storey brick building with a pitched roof. A higher gabled wall is located adjacent to the boundary with Federation Walk. No. 574 Neerim Road is located to the east of Federation Walk and has a frontage to Neerim Road. To its rear and on the east side of Federation Walk is 27 Federation Walk.

Further to the north a number of dwellings are located along Federation Walk.
Further to the west of the Telstra site at 568 Neerim Road and 34 Poath Road, Permit 45126   allows for the construction of 25 townhouses being two and three storeys in height. Two rows of townhouses were approved running north-south with a central vehicle accessway off Neerim Road.	
Tribunal inspection	5 April 2018	

Reasons
What are the key issues?
1	The applicant seeks review of the failure of Monash City Council (the Council) to determine to grant a permit for the construction of five dwellings at 570 Neerim Road, Hughesdale. 
2	Following the lodging of the appeal the Council indicated that it would have refused the application on several grounds. These included neighbourhood character, streetscape, on and off-site amenity impacts, car parking and vehicle access. 
3	The applicant intends to access the subject land via Federation Walk, a right of way that abuts the eastern boundary of the subject land. Prior to the hearing Council had raised an issue regarding the applicant’s right of access to Federation Walk.  Following the provision of further information by the applicant, the Council indicated at the hearing that whilst it remained concerned regarding the proposed access arrangements “it now accepts the Land benefits from Easement E-1 (as shown on Certificate of Title Volume 10359 Folio 390 Plan of Subdivision PS405891D) (Easement). Further the Council accepts the Easement includes the right to ‘pass and repass’ irrespective of the current condition of the land benefiting from the Easement”. 
4	Mr Algie on behalf of two Owners Corporations relating to 580 and 580A Neerim Road questioned the extent of the applicant’s right of access. Federation Walk is part of the Owners Corporation land. Mr Algie questions the applicant’s intention to access the proposed development from Federation Walk as it currently only provides one-way egress from properties within the Owners Corporations.  
5	I consider the following issues are required to be determined by the Tribunal:
•	Does the proposed development have a legal right of access and if so is it restricted to ‘one way’?
•	Is the proposed development consistent with the prevailing neighbourhood character?
•	Does the proposal give rise to any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
•	Are the proposed access and car parking arrangements acceptable?
The proposal 
6	Amended plans were substituted at the commencement of the hearing. The amended plans indicate five, three storey attached townhouses are proposed to be constructed on the subject land. The dwellings are to extend along the length of the site from the south to the north. Dwelling 1 is to have a frontage to Neerim Road with Dwellings 2 to 5 having a frontage to Federation Walk. Vehicle access to all dwellings is to be via Federation Walk. 
7	The dwellings are to have an overall height of 10.1m. The dwellings are to consist of a basement level which will contain a cinema room, office, laundry, powder room and courtyard. Car parking and pedestrian access is proposed at the ground floor. Each dwelling is provided with two car spaces.  The first floor level is to contain an open space kitchen, dining and living area and western facing balcony. The second floor level is to contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms. 
8	The dwellings are designed in a contemporary manner incorporating skillion roof forms and are proposed to be constructed with a mixture of brickwork, cement finish and feature timber cladding.  
Does the proposed development have a legal right of access and if so is it restricted to ‘one way’?  
9	Two Owners Corporations make up the properties known as 580 and 580A Neerim Road. The properties have a separate entry and exit from and to Neerim Road. Mr Algie very succinctly summed up the background as to the establishment of the Owners Corporations and the separate entry and exit.
10	The parties all agree to the background information regarding the establishment of the ‘right of way’ carriageway easement known as Federation Walk, but do not all agree that the subject land is bound by the ‘one way’ restriction along the area of Federation Walk that abuts the subject land.
11	On 18 December 1997, Plan of Subdivision PS405891D was registered. This plan created the current Certificate of Title Volume 10359 Folio 390. Carriageway Easements were created and shown on the plan as E-1 and E-2 described as Federation Walk. The relevant easement for the purposes of this proceeding is E-1. 
12	Mr Algie submits a restriction was created on the Plan of Subdivision PS405891D which provides:
The registered proprietor or proprietors for the time being of any lot on this plan of subdivision shall not:
1.	Construct a building or works other than in accordance with the City of Monash Planning Permit TPA/… [23312] and the plans endorsed with that permit or in accordance with any other planning permit and endorsed plans for development of dwellings on the land.  
13	Planning Permit TPA/23312 was granted by the Council to Australand Properties. The permit allowed for the development of the lots contained in PS405891D. Amended plans in relation to Permit TPA/23312 were endorsed on 4 April 1997. The endorsed plans show an arrow marked within the relevant easement pointing in a southerly direction and with the word ‘1-way’. 
14	Mr Algie submits the restriction contained within PS405891D and the endorsed plans for Permit TPA/23312 should be read together to conclude that the easement is restricted to one way and does not permit the subject land to enter and exit the easement, but only to exit the easement. 
15	Mr Algie submits that if the current permit application is allowed then it would result in a variation or alteration of the access arrangements for the easement. Therefore, the endorsed plans of Permit TPA/23312 would be breached. He also submitted that the variation in movement along the easement would be a breach of the Special Owners Corporation Rules registered on 4 July 1997.
16	The Special Rules are recorded on the Certificate of Title of the Owners Corporation of Plan of Subdivision PS327361T. The Special Rules require:
That a member must not, and must ensure that the occupier of a member’s lot does not:
(i)	After the registration by the Land Titles Office of the Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2 on PS403236Y into Residential Lots [and showing as common property the land subject to the easements marked E1 and E2 on the Plan attached hereto marked “A” (the re-subdivided Lot 2 Plan), drive or ride any vehicle or cycle:
(i)	In a southerly direction on those parts of the Common Property on Plan of Subdivision 327361T which are shown as E1, E2 & E3 on the plan attached hereto marked “B” or;
(ii)	in a northerly direction over that part of the Common Property on the re-subdivided Lot 2 Plan which is shown as E1 on the Plan marked “A”;
(iii)	in an easterly direction over that part of the Common Property on the re-subdivided Lot 2 Plan which is shown as E2 on the Plan marked “A”.
17	The applicant submits ‘the owner of the subject land has rights granted to travel with or without vehicles in any direction over any part of the land within the easement for the purposes of a carriageway’.
18	The applicant submits it has not been able to locate any instrument that would restrict the scope of the easement.  Section 72(3) Transfer of Land Act 1958 provides:
(3)	When in any folio of the Register or instrument an easement is referred to or created or reserved by the use of the words "Together with [or Reserving] a right of carriage-way over" [specifying the roads subject to the easement and referring to a map or plan of subdivision] such words shall have the same effect and shall be construed as if the words contained in the Twelfth Schedule had been inserted in the folio of the Register or instrument.
Twelfth Schedule—Right of carriage-way
Together with full and free right and liberty to and for the registered proprietor for the time being of the land herein described [or hereby transferred or as the case may be] or any part thereof and his tenants servants agents workmen and visitors to go pass and repass at all times hereafter and for all purposes and either with or without horses or other animals carts or other carriages into and out of and from the said land or any part thereof through over and along the road or way or several roads or ways delineated [and coloured brown] on the said map [or plan of subdivision]. [Tribunal underlining]
19	On face value there is nothing to indicate that the subject land does not have a right to use the easement to enter or exit the land. The subject land has the benefit of a carriageway easement over the easement marked E1 otherwise known as Federation Walk on Plan of Subdivision 405891D. There is no indication that the right to use this carriageway easement by the applicant is restricted in any way. 
20	In reliance upon the decision in Mantec Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd v Batur the use of the word ‘carriageway’ to create E1 in PS403236Y supports the applicant’s reliance on Schedule 12. 
The Twelfth Schedule defines what is meant by a “right of carriageway”, which is a right for the registered proprietor, his or her “tenants servants agents workmen and visitors to go and repass at all times … for all purposes” over the easement, whether by foot, horse, cart or carriage. However, the word used in the Plan of subdivision was “way” not “carriageway”, and whilst the words might be interchangeable in meaning, the wording of the Plan of Subdivision did not, in my opinion, meet the statutory requirement.   
21	The carriageway easement provides to the applicant a right of passing over the land. As there is nothing identified as restricting this right the provisions of section 72 (3) Transfer of Land Act 1958 and the Twelfth Schedule apply. 
22	Whilst the Special Rules of the Owners Corporations bind the members of the Owners Corporations, the subject land is not part of the property covered by the Owners Corporations. It is therefore difficult to see how the subject land could be bound by the Special Rules.  
23	The endorsed plans do not reflect any intention in relation to the easement. The endorsed plans relate to the development on the land known as 580 and 580A Neerim Road. The easement E1 forms part of the common property of the land known as 580 and 580A Neerim Road. The easement is shown as part of the common property of Plan of Subdivision PS405891D.  
24	The endorsed plans are part of the permit that allows for the development to occur at 580 and 580A Neerim Road. This permit does not relate to the subject land.  Council indicated it accepted the applicant has a right to ‘pass and repass’ over the easement. 
25	As stated by the Tribunal in Richards v Hobsons Bay CC :
It is not the function of this Tribunal to enforce private real property rights or to make declarations in relation to them, at least not unless such a question has to be determined in the course of making a decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Other than that, such rights must be asserted and defended in the courts.
26	There has been no application to vary the easement and any determination of the Tribunal in this application will not vary the easement as it relates to the subject land. 
27	For the purposes of considering the planning merits of the application it is considered the applicant has a right to pass and repass over the easement known as Federation Walk. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal is not determining any property rights which if questioned would need to be determined elsewhere.   
Is the proposed development consistent with the prevailing neighbourhood character?
28	The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2). Amendment C125 was adopted by the Council on 28 February 2017. The amendment proposes to include the site within the General Residential Zone Schedule 3. Amendment C125 includes the Monash Housing Strategy 2014 as a reference document.
29	The amendment was submitted to the Minister for approval on 22 June 2017. On 25 February 2018 the Minister advised the Council that he would approve only part of Amendment C125 (Part 1). He indicated that the part of Amendment C125 which involves the application of the GRZ and changes to clauses 21.04 and 22.01 would be referred to as Amendment C125 (Part 2) and further strategic work would be required.
30	One of the purposes under the GRZ2 is ‘to encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area’. 
31	The subject land is near the Hughesdale Neighbourhood Activity Centre and is located in Category 2 – Accessible Areas under the Monash Housing Strategy 2014. Moderate housing change and diversification is envisaged. 
32	Whilst the area is described as consisting of single and double storey dwellings it is undergoing some changes, evident from the recent approval for 25 three storey townhouses on the corner of Poath and Neerim Roads, one lot from the subject land. 
33	I am unable to agree with the Council’s comments that the proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred residential character partly due to the three storey nature of the proposal with the attached dwellings extending down the site. This is exactly what has been approved on the nearby corner, one lot away from the subject land. 
34	I consider that the location of the subject land with its immediate interface to the Telstra Exchange and being on the corner of Neerim Road and Federation Walk provides an excellent opportunity for a more robust design response. It reflects the changing character of the immediate area.   
35	Dwelling 1 is to present to Neerim Road and is to be sufficiently setback allowing for an improvement to the streetscape in this location with increased landscaping. Although there was some planting within the south western corner of the site, the crossover and open carparking area did not make a great contribution to the streetscape. The crossover is to be removed allowing for a garden presentation to the street.  Mr Thomson has recommended two canopy trees with lower plantings to offset the presentation to the street.  I would agree with Mr Thomson that the fence proposed to the Neerim Road frontage should be only 1.2m in height. 
36	The applicant identified that the design of the proposal seeks to ensure an acceptable streetscape response to Federation Walk at the ground and upper levels by increasing the trafficable shared zone; offsetting the ground floor plane to create articulation at the middle level; providing opportunities for landscaping along Federation Walk; minimising the extent of garaging by introducing tandem spaces; and orienting the townhouses to Federation Walk, improving surveillance. 
Does the proposal give rise to any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
37	There is a lack of sensitive abuttals given the subject land abuts the Telstra Exchange on its northern and western boundaries. The proposal is separated from the single storey dwellings to the east by Federation Walk and it is the side of these properties that present to Federation Walk with a well vegetated screen running along the eastern boundary of Federation Walk.
38	There is no indication that this screening along the eastern boundary will be removed although there was a suggestion that a small section may be required to allow for a car to park allowing for another vehicle to pass. This could occur with a car from the Owners Corporations’ properties exiting Federation Walk at the same time as a vehicle was seeking to access one of the proposed dwellings. Given there is a 2.6m fence along the eastern boundary that abuts Federation Walk the removal of a small section of planting will not have an amenity impact on the dwelling to the east. However it may not be necessary to remove any vegetation if the existing vegetation was cut back closer to the fence enabling a car to pull to one side.    
39	I am unable to conclude the three storey built form will have an impact on the area. The subject site is separated by the Telstra Exchange and dwellings to the north include single and double storey, as well as a proposed three storey development to the west. The site is separated by Federation Walk to the east and the dwellings fronting Neerim Road which are a mix of single and double storey. 
40	The Owners Corporations have raised concerns regarding the impact on Federation Walk but this is in relation to increased traffic and vehicle access which is addressed below.     
Are the proposed access and car parking arrangements acceptable?
41	As identified above the current vehicle access from Neerim Road is to be removed with all vehicle access proposed from Federation Walk.
42	The Owners Corporations considers this will have a detrimental impact on vehicles from both 580 and 580A Neerim Road exiting via Federation Walk and the likely conflict that will occur with vehicles entering Federation Walk as well as exiting when vehicles from 580 and 580A Neerim Road are only able to go one way. 
43	Mr Furness expects six vehicle trips per day will be generated by the proposed five dwellings equating to 30 vehicle trip ends per day with 10% of the traffic expected to be generated in the commuter peak hours.
44	The traffic survey undertaken by Mr Furness indicated there are one and two vehicles currently using the section of Federation Walk adjacent to the subject site in the AM and PM peaks. Post the proposed development he expected this section of Federation Walk to carry four to five vehicle trips per peak hour or one vehicle trip every 12-15 minutes. 
45	I accept the figures provided by Mr Furness indicate the level of traffic generated because of the proposed development is low and can readily be accommodated within Federation Walk. There is no reason for vehicles from the proposed development to go north east further along Federation Walk so vehicle movements in relation to the proposed development will be confined to the section of Federation Walk adjacent to the subject site. For vehicles coming from 580 and 580A Neerim Road the existing one-way arrangement will not be changed.    
46	In relation to potential vehicle conflict within the section of Federation Walk raised by the Owners Corporations I accept the view expressed by Mr Furness that there are sufficient passing opportunities available at the entrance to Neerim Road and adjacent to Dwellings 3 and 4.
47	There is no separate pedestrian walkway at present within Federation Walk. The low traffic volumes and the 5.5m width of Federation Walk will in my view provide an acceptable outcome regarding pedestrian safety.  A section of approximately 1m is to be provided from Neerim Road beside the subject site that will accommodate pedestrians as well as the indented sections in front of each garage and entries to the dwellings that will allow for pedestrians to move out of the way of a vehicle entering or exiting Federation Walk. The residential nature of this section and the slow speed vehicles will be travelling will not result in pedestrian/vehicle conflict.
48	Clause 52.06-5 requires the provision of one on-site visitor car space. I agree with Mr Furness that a waiver of one visitor car space is acceptable. Mr Furness noted that with the removal of the crossover to Neerim Road there is the potential to gain two on-street parking spaces within the front of the site.              
What conditions are appropriate?
49	The parties were given additional time to prepare written comments regarding conditions. 
50	As indicated above I do not consider an on-site visitor car space is necessary and there is no requirement for the provision of two on-site visitor car spaces as sought by Mr Algie.
51	I have considered there is unlikely to be any conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and therefore do not consider the condition proposed by Mr Algie for a dedicated footpath is necessary. 
52	Nor do I consider there is a need for the installation of bollards separating the two-way and one-way sections of Federation Walk. I however consider that a sign indicating ‘no entry’ located to the north of the Telstra Exchange gate where Federation Walk goes from two-way to one-way will discourage any vehicles wishing to enter this section of Federation Walk. 
53	The applicant has indicated it could provide additional lighting within its development to assist in lighting Federation Walk and I will include such a condition.   
54	Proposed condition 21 requires a construction management plan; it is therefore unnecessary, as proposed by Mr Algie, to require such a plan to be incorporated within a section 173 agreement. Construction of the proposed development is for a very limited timeframe and embodying such requirements in a section 173 agreement would have no more force than being embodied in a condition. 
55	The approval of, and any ongoing enforcement of, a construction management plan is a matter for the Council and I consider it is inappropriate and unnecessary to require consultation with the Owners Corporations.  I do however agree that within condition 21 there should be a reference to ensuring that Federation Walk remains accessible for the Owners Corporations and I will incorporate such a condition.  
56	As indicated by the applicant the Tribunal has no power to impose maintenance or any other costs in relation to the upkeep or otherwise of Federation Walk. This is a matter between the owner and the beneficiary of the easement. 
57	I agree with the parties that in the condition relating to landscaping the plan prepared by Habitat Landscape Architects should be referenced. 
Conclusion
58	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member				

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No:	TPA-47526	
Land:	570 Neerim Road, Hughesdale	

What the permit allows	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of five attached three storey dwellings in a General Residential Zone Schedule 2;
•	Reduction in one visitor car parking space as required under clause 52.06.	
Conditions:
Amended Plans
1.	Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority 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 drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show: 
(a)	a ‘no entry sign’ at the northern end of Federation Walk (E-1) where it turns to the east at the Telstra Exchange Gate;
(b)	the front fence to be 1.2m in height; 
(c)	external lighting to Federation Walk.   
No Alteration or Changes
2.	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Environmental Audit Overlay
3.	Prior to commencement of buildings and works a certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or an environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use, and must be submitted to and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Common Boundary Fences
4.	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.
Wall on boundary
5.	The walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Landscaping
6.	Before the commencement of buildings and works, a landscape plan generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Habitat Landscape Architects dated March 2018, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works.  The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including: 
(a)	the location of all existing trees and other vegetation to be retained on site;
(b)	provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located throughout the site including the major open space areas of the development;
(c)	planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways and other paved areas;
(d)	a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the size of all plants (at planting and at maturity), their location, botanical names and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn, mulch or other surface material;
(e)	the location and details of all fencing;
(f)	the extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site;
(g)	details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas.
When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
Landscaping Prior to Occupation
7.	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.
Drainage
8.	Before the development starts, ahttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/66.html?context=1;query=%22Drainage%20plan%22%20and%20%22monash%22%20;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VCAT - disp13 drainage planhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/66.html?context=1;query=%22Drainage%20plan%22%20and%20%22monash%22%20;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VCAT - disp15 drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to approved by the Responsible Authority to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9.	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 the/each driveway onto the footpath.  Such a system may include either:
(a)	a trench grate (150mm minimum internal width) located within the property; and/or
(b)	shaping the driveway so that water is collected in a grated pit on the property; and/or 
(c)	another Council approved equivalent. 
10.	Stormwater discharge is to be detained on-site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge.  Approval of any detention system is required from Council prior to works commencing. Please refer to the notes section of this permit for additional details. 
11.	The nominated point of stormwater connection for the site is to the south of the property where the entire site's stormwater drainage must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the kerb and channel Council pit in the nature strip to be constructed to Council Standards.   (A new pit is to be constructed if a pit does not exist or is not a standard Council pit).  Note: If the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council's Engineering Division immediately. 
12.	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 the notes section of this permit for additional details. A refundable security deposit of $500 is to be paid prior to the drainage works commencing. 
13.	Engineering permits must be obtained for new or altered vehicle crossings and for new connections to the kerb and channel Council drains/pits and these works are to be inspected by Council (telephone 9518 3555).
Traffic 
14.	The existing redundant crossing on Neerim Road is to be removed and replaced with kerb and channel. The footpath and nature strip are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.
15.	Vehicle access must be provided in accordance with clause 52.06 of the Monash Planning Scheme and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
16.	Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Waste Management Plan
17.	Prior to the plans being endorsed, the owner shall prepare a Waste Management Plan for the collection and disposal of garbage and recyclables for all uses on the site by private contractor.  The Waste Management Plan shall provide for:
(a)	the method of collection of garbage and recyclables for uses;
(b)	designation of methods of collection by private services;
(c)	appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas for bin storage on collection days;
(d)	dimensions of waste areas;
(e)	the number of bins to be provided and capacity;
(f)	details on method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of waste areas;
(g)	details of ventilation;
(h)	a bin washing facility;
(i)	hours of waste and recyclables collection;
(j)	measures to minimise the impact upon local amenity and on the operation, management and maintenance of car parking areas;
(k)	litter management.
A copy of this plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  Once approved the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit.
Construction Management Plan
18.	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 ensure Federation Walk remain in a one-way access arrangement and accessible to the members of OC327361T and OC405891D at all times during construction;
(b)	measures to control noise, dust and water runoff;
(c)	prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’s underground drainage system or road network;
(d)	the location of where building materials are to be kept during construction;
(e)	site security;
(f)	maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site during the construction phase;
(g)	on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the development;
(h)	wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction activities;
(i)	cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces;
(j)	a requirement that construction works must only be carried out during the following hours:
•	Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00am to 6.00pm;
•	Saturday – 9.00am to 1.00pm;
•	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.)
Expiry of Permit
19.	This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

- End of conditions -