VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL  
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST  
VCAT REFERENCE NO. P204/2022  
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. PLN20/0213  
APPLICANT  
Peet Limited Pty Ltd  
Greater Dandenong City Council  
APA Group (Gas)  
CFA  
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY  
REFERRAL AUTHORITIES  
Comdain Infrastructure / Multinet Gas  
Melbourne Water  
South East Water  
The Head, Transport for Victoria  
United Energy Ltd  
SUBJECT LAND  
182 Chapel Road  
KEYSBOROUGH VIC 3173  
HEARING TYPE  
Hearing  
DATE OF HEARING  
DATE OF ORAL REASONS  
DATE OF ORDER  
CITATION  
1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 August 2022  
15 August 2022  
23 August 2022  
Peet Limited Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2022]  
VCAT 960  
ORDER  
1
Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998,  
the permit application is amended by:  
(a) substituting for the permit application plans, the plans filed with the Tribunal as listed in  
Appendix A; and  
(b) inclusion of tree 40 Acacia mearnsii (Black Wattle) as part of the native vegetation to be  
removed.  
2
3
In application P204/2922 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  
In planning permit application PLN20/0213 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the  
land at 182 Chapel Road, Keysborough in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions  
set out in Appendix B. The permit allows:  
Subdivision of land, multi dwelling development and removal of native vegetation  
Cindy Wilson  
Member  
APPEARANCES  
For Applicant  
Mr Paul Connor, QC and Mr Matthew Townsend, of  
counsel instructed by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers  
Evidence was called from:  
Mr Warwick Bishop, engineer of Water Technology Pty Ltd  
Mr Tim McBride-Burgess, town planner of Contour  
Consultants Aust Pty Ltd  
Ms Julia Bell, urban designer of Kinetica  
Mr Darrell Mcleod, arborist of Landscapes by Design  
Mr Andrew Hill, ecologist of Ecology & Heritage Partners  
Mr John-Paul Maina, traffic engineer from Impact Traffic  
Engineering Pty Ltd  
Mr John Patrick, landscape architect of John Patrick  
Landscape Architects Pty Ltd  
For responsible authority  
For referral authorities  
Mr Jeremy Wilson, solicitor of Maddocks  
No appearance  
P204/2022  
Page 2 of 43  
INFORMATION  
Description of proposal  
Nature of proceeding  
A subdivision to create 101 lots, development of 64 dwellings  
and removal of native vegetation.  
Application under section 77 of the Planning and  
Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a  
permit.  
Planning scheme  
Zone and overlays  
Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme  
General Residential Zone, Schedule 2  
Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 5  
Development Contributions Plan Overlay, Schedule 1  
Environmental Audit Overlay  
Permit requirements  
Clause 32.08-2 A permit is required to subdivide land in the  
General Residential Zone, Schedule 2.  
Clause 32.08-6 A permit is required to construct two or more  
dwellings on a lot in the General Residential Zone, Schedule  
2.  
Clause 43.04-2 A permit granted must be generally in  
accordance with the development plan and include any  
conditions or requirements specified in the schedule to the  
overlay.  
Clause 45.06-1 A permit granted must be consistent with the  
provisions of the relevant development contributions plan and  
give effect to any contributions or levies imposed, conditions  
or requirements set out in the relevant schedule.  
Land description  
The review site is irregular in shape. It is located on the west  
side of Chapel Road, Keysborough, north of Orlando  
Crescent. It has a frontage of 120.7 metres and a site area of  
4.078 hectares. The site is vacant, relatively flat and contains  
some trees near the western and northern boundaries.  
Tribunal inspection  
Unaccompanied prior to the hearing  
P204/2022  
Page 3 of 43  
REASONS1  
1
2
Oral reasons for the decision of the Tribunal were given to the parties on 15 August 2022. Council  
subsequently requested written reasons. In accordance with that request, following are the oral  
reasons in written form, with minor editing.  
Greater Dandenong City Council (Council) refused to grant a permit for a 101 lot subdivision,  
development of 64 dwellings and removal of native vegetation at 182 Chapel Road, Keysborough.  
This decision was made contrary to the recommendation of its officers. The Applicant seeks a  
review of the Council’s refusal.  
3
Amended plans of the proposal were circulated prior to the hearing. During the hearing some  
additional plans were provided as part of the amended set to address omissions and correct errors.  
In addition, an amendment to the application was sought to include removal of an additional tree  
from the site. At the hearing, I allowed the amendments to the application, as sought.  
4
5
The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should  
apply.  
Having heard the submissions and evidence of parties, inspected the site and surrounds and had  
regard to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme (Planning Scheme), I have decided a permit  
should be granted subject to conditions. I have reached this decision based on my findings on a  
number of key issues which I set out in these reasons.  
6
A description of the site and surrounds, including numerous photos, details of the proposal, the  
history of the application, the applicable policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme were set  
out in submissions and in evidence. I do not repeat this information here but have taken it into  
account in making my decision.  
7
8
Before turning to the issues, I record comments I made at the hearing regarding the plans,  
additional material presented in evidence and the ‘discussion’ documents in the Tribunal Book.  
The plans of the proposal included multiple pages including 99 that contained individual floor  
plans and elevations. It became clear during the hearing that there were multiple missing pages and  
streetscape elevations that were not accurate. The presentation of the amended plan package made  
it difficult and time consuming to understand the details of the proposal and to identify errors and  
omissions. Although ultimately, I allowed substitution of the final set of amended plans, I find the  
approach to plan presentation poor.  
9
Mr Mcleod, in his oral evidence, referred to a document he had prepared that explained the results  
of a root investigation undertaken on the review site. This document had not been circulated to the  
parties prior to the hearing nor was it referred to prior to Mr Mcleod being called to give evidence.  
There were several documents included in the Tribunal Book as ‘discussion documents’. These  
included recently prepared plans. I acknowledge there are circumstances when it is appropriate to  
provide additional material that has not been part of amended plans or original documentation and  
where it may assist the Tribunal. However, this should always be brought to the attention of the  
parties as soon as possible and permission sought by the Tribunal to ensure all parties are afforded  
procedural fairness.  
1
The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing, 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.  
P204/2022  
Page 4 of 43  
10 I now turn to the issues.  
INTERNAL LAYOUT OF MEDIUM DENSITY DWELLINGS 47 TO 81  
11 The proposal includes development of 35 medium density dwellings in the northwest portion of  
the review site. The layout comprises two rows of dwellings either side of a road designated as  
Lane A. These are described as ‘rear loaded’ dwellings, presenting with garages to Lane A. The 18  
dwellings on the west side of Lane A face the adjoining golf course. This outlook is to over an 8  
metre wide setback that will contain a pedestrian path and front doors to the dwellings will  
accessed via that path. The 17 dwellings on the east side of Lane A have frontage to a proposed  
reserve that extends north-south and includes a pedestrian path.  
12 Council makes the following criticisms of these dwellings:  
Lack of detached and semi-detached dwellings in these two rows results in the appearance of  
building bulk when viewed from the public realm.  
Limited opportunities for landscaping.  
An absence of variation in the roof and form of the garages facing Lane A, noting no  
streetscape elevations of Lane A are provided.  
The breaks in the rows of dwellings are inadequate and include accommodation for visitor  
car parking.  
Garages will visually dominate Lane A creating a poor sense of place, an unattractive  
streetscape with inadequate passive surveillance and a limited sense of address.  
The front door location for dwellings 47 to 64, facing a pedestrian path, is isolated and  
obscured and will be difficult to identify and access.  
13 Submissions of the Applicant and the evidence of Ms Bell supported the layout of dwellings in  
this part of the site for the amenity and safety benefits of outlook to a park or the golf course and  
the pedestrian access to dwelling entries unbroken by vehicle crossings. It was said that Lane A  
should be treated as a functional laneway and there would be adequate passive surveillance  
provided by activity in the laneway.  
Tribunal findings  
14 There is considerable emphasis in the Planning Scheme on achieving a built environment which  
contributes positively to local character and sense of place and enhances the amenity and safety of  
the public realm. Local policy includes design principles that encourage the provision of safer  
residential neighbourhoods where development is to enable passive surveillance through  
appropriate design, including provision of active frontages. Various provisions in clause 55 seek  
development that integrates with the street, achieves safety and security for residents and provides  
clear identification of dwelling entries. The Development Plan2 (DP) approved pursuant to the  
Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 (DPO5) includes objectives to provide safe and attractive  
living environments and to promote visibility and legibility in design.  
15 On balance, and in the particular circumstances of this site, I find the arrangement acceptable  
subject to some changes which can be addressed by permit condition. I reach this view for the  
following reasons:  
2
Approved by Council on 27 June 2011 and revised on 29 August 2018.  
P204/2022  
Page 5 of 43  
I agree with Ms Bell that there are very positive amenity and public realm benefits arising  
from the layout including:  
o Excellent outlook and associated amenity benefits arising from a frontage facing either  
a public park or a golf course.  
o The provision of this outlook to the medium density component of the development  
which provides benefit to more residents compared to vacant lot subdivision in this  
arrangement.  
o A pedestrian path at the frontage of both rows of dwellings unbroken by vehicle  
crossings creates a positive public realm response that gives priority to pedestrians and  
provides safe access with excellent passive surveillance.  
The provision of breaks between dwellings along Lane A avoids the appearance of a  
continuous row of garages. This is achieved through an 11 metre wide gap centrally, which  
although accommodating visitor car spaces, also has considerable capacity for landscaping.  
The side elevations of the dwellings facing the 11 metre gap and to the northern and southern  
end of each row provide some passive surveillance to Lane A and to pedestrian paths through  
windows and sections of low, permeable fencing.  
The rear loaded arrangement is not a foreign concept in this area, presumably an indication  
that Council does not oppose the design approach in principle. I observed similar  
arrangements in Orlando Crescent, a recent development to the south of the review site and  
subject to the same planning controls. Other examples are evident in the wider area.  
16 I do not share Council’s concern about the appearance of the rows of dwellings when viewed from  
vantage points outside Lane A. I consider the grouping of four to five dwellings between a  
centrally placed 11 metre wide gap and four smaller 2 metre wide separations avoids the  
appearance of a continuous built form. The mix of external materials and colours, the slight  
variations in building height and the skillion roof forms for end dwellings combine to create an  
articulated form. I am satisfied there is opportunity for some landscaping in the front setback of  
each dwelling that will, in time, contribute positively to the public realm.  
17 I agree with Council that the location of entries to dwellings 47 to 64, which face the pedestrian  
path adjacent to the golf course, could be difficult and confusing to locate for non-regular visitors.  
I find this can be addressed by signage that includes the pedestrian path to the west of these  
dwellings being allocated a street name and appropriate way finding signage being provided at  
various points near this part of the development.  
18 I share Council’s concerns about the repetitive appearance of garages, unattractive streetscape,  
lack of passive surveillance and poor activation to Lane A. I consider these issues can be addressed  
to a degree that makes the layout acceptable through the following changes:  
Inclusion of larger habitable room windows to the rear upper levels of dwellings 47-81,  
replacing the highlight windows shown. This will create the perception of surveillance even  
though some treatment through the use of external screening to limit overlooking of adjacent  
secluded private open spaces will be necessary.  
Inclusion of highlight windows, visible above side fencing, in the side elevations of the  
garages to dwellings 47, 54, 55, 64, 65, 73, 74 and 81. This will add to the sense of  
surveillance to Lane A, the adjacent open space and the pedestrian paths.  
P204/2022  
Page 6 of 43  
Alternating garage door and roof designs to break up the repetitive nature of the garage  
presentation. Streetscape elevations to Lane A will be required to demonstrate the overall  
presentation.  
The inclusion of permeable pedestrian gates or fencing to the gaps between dwellings 50 and  
51, 58 and 59, 69 and 70 and 77 and 78.  
Provision of a section of alternative paving across Lane A adjacent to the 11 metre open  
space to break up the road surface, a suggestion put by Mr Patrick.  
At least eight small areas for low level landscaping within Lane A adjacent to the attached  
garages. These to be provided in a design that does not compromise vehicle access, noting  
Mr Maina’s evidence that the width of Lane A is relatively generous and allows for more  
space than required for vehicle access.  
OTHER BUILT FORM ISSUES  
19 In addition to the 35 dwellings adjacent to Lane A addressed above, there are 29 dwellings  
proposed on other lots in the proposal. All lots with an area of less than 300 square metres include  
a development proposal.  
20 Council raised concerns about the continuous attached built form presentation of dwellings 2-14  
on the east side of the site, particularly in relation to the sensitive interface with the heritage  
church.  
Tribunal findings  
21 There are thirteen dwellings proposed in an attached row adjacent to the eastern boundary. Six of  
these adjoin the western boundary of the heritage church site and seven adjoin the rear of a  
townhouse development at 172 Chapel Road. Subject to changes recommended in the evidence of  
Ms Bell regarding some upper level separations, I find the layout an acceptable response to the  
east.  
22 Dwellings 2-8, comprising seven attached dwellings interface with the rear yards of eight two  
storey dwellings on the adjoining site. I find the design an acceptable response to that interface  
given:  
There are gaps of 2.4 metres between the upper levels of dwellings 3 & 4: 5 & 6; 7 & 8 as  
well as a recessed upper level for dwelling 2. I agree with Ms Bell these gaps provide visual  
relief, avoid the appearance of continuous built form and generally respond to the spacing of  
the townhouses to the east.  
The placement of secluded private open space, with minimum depth of 5.7 metres, to the rear  
of these dwellings is similar to the layout of the townhouses to the east and creates a  
separation of built form that will avoid the appearance of visual bulk.  
The inclusion of skillion and flat roof forms provide variation in height and form that  
together with varied external materials will create visual interest.  
23 Dwellings 9-14 are on land that adjoins 176 Chapel Road. This property is within a heritage  
overlay and contains two church buildings, one of which dates from 1877. Council advised there is  
no statement of significance for this site. I am unclear whether both church buildings on the site  
have heritage significance. In these circumstances, I assess the proposal for its impact on the  
adjoining heritage site as a whole.  
P204/2022  
Page 7 of 43  
24 I find the attached upper levels of this row of six dwellings will create a continuous and intrusive  
built form when viewed from the east. I agree with the evidence of Ms Bell that there should be  
two gaps between upper levels in this row. These gaps are to be 1.5 metres wide between the upper  
levels of dwellings 10 & 11 and 12 & 13. This can be achieved by permit condition and will  
provide visual relief to the form assisted by the rear setbacks of at least 9 metres and the variations  
in building height, roof forms and external finishes. Important to my finding the interface with the  
heritage site an acceptable response is the significant setback (over 40 metres) of the church  
buildings from the common boundary with the review site, a distance that will limit impact to the  
heritage values.  
25 The presentation of dwellings 2-14 internally to the site is appropriate with front setbacks that will  
allow for planting and a mix of single and double garages that creates some variation in  
appearance. There are some habitable room windows at ground level in this row of dwellings that  
together with upper level windows will activate the street and provide passive surveillance to the  
parkland opposite.  
26 Dwellings 16-23 comprises four pairs of semi-detached dwellings on the south side of the heritage  
property at 176 Chapel Road. The combination of setbacks from the common boundary (at least 5  
metres) and the gaps between pairs of dwellings at both ground and upper level will avoid these  
dwellings appearing visually intrusive when viewed from the adjoining heritage property.  
27 I do not share Council’s criticism of the proposed solid fencing to the interface with 176 Chapel  
Road. There is existing similar fencing to the north and south boundaries of that site and I consider  
additional sections of such fencing will not adversely impact the significance of the heritage place.  
28 Overall I am satisfied that the development will have no adverse impact on the significance of the  
heritage place.  
29 Dwellings 16-23 face the north side of the main section of Street A. Although each dwelling  
includes a double garage, the gaps between the pairs of dwellings, the varied external finishes, the  
ground level window facing the street and the opportunity for landscaping in the front setback,  
combine to present an appropriate streetscape appearance.  
30 There are a further eight dwellings proposed in the southern section of the site with interfaces  
internally to the site. These are laid out in two rows of four attached dwellings. The streetscape  
elevation of these two groups of four show an articulated form, gaps between upper levels and  
inclusion of habitable room windows at ground and upper floor facing the frontage. These design  
elements will present an active interface to the frontages and contribute to the creation of  
neighbourhood character.  
31 I consider an upper level habitable room window to the side elevations of each of the corner  
dwellings (82, 100, 90 and 93) should be required as a condition of permit to add to passive  
surveillance opportunities.  
32 In finding the proposed built form acceptable, I have had regard to the guidance provided in the  
DP and in clause 22.09 of the Planning Scheme. Although there are aspects of the latter that are  
not applicable due to the ‘greenfield’ nature of the site, I nevertheless consider the general design  
principles and those that provide guidance for the incremental change areas are relevant. In  
assessing the proposal against these matters, I find:  
The medium density housing proposed responds to the preferred housing type specified.  
The height does not exceed two storeys and the built form reflects recent development in the  
nearby area which commonly includes two storey, attached townhouse style development.  
P204/2022  
Page 8 of 43  
Upper level gaps are provided or will be required by permit condition.  
Spines of open space are provided to the rear allowing for secluded private open space and  
providing building setbacks from adjoining sensitive interfaces.  
Setbacks and garage placement allow for landscaping to individual lots and to the subdivision  
as a whole.  
Active interfaces, for the most part, respond to the safer residential neighbourhoods sought.  
In the case of Lane A, additional features to improve surveillance will be required.  
Where dwellings interface with residentially zoned land, I am satisfied the setbacks, building  
heights and overall layout avoids unacceptable amenity impacts to adjoining properties.  
33 I agree with Ms Bell’s evidence that the front boundary of each dwelling should be provided in a  
low, semi-transparent front fence to create a clear demarcation between the public and private  
realm.  
VACANT LOTS  
34 Thirty seven vacant lots are to be created in the proposal in addition to the 64 lots that include  
development as part of the permission sought. The vacant lots range in size from 301 to 475 square  
metres. Future development of these lots will be subject to a building permit.  
35 ‘Without prejudice’ permit conditions circulated by Council include requirements for development  
of the vacant lots relating to building envelopes, building height, front setbacks, boundary  
construction, side setbacks, site cover, crossovers, window placement, private open space, fencing  
and number of dwellings per lot (one). A condition is also included requiring an alternative layout  
for Street A to be adjacent to the western boundary to limit the dual fronted lots at 40-46.  
36 It is the evidence of Mr McBride-Burgess that these restrictions are unnecessary where the matters  
are addressed by a building approval, acknowledging restrictions relating to character may be  
justified.  
37 Ms Bell supports the retention of conditions controlling development of vacant lots to ensure the  
emerging built form character is respected. She suggests additional restrictions in the form of  
detailed design guidelines, prepared by the Applicant , to be implemented via a s173 agreement or  
similar with other requirements to ensure development of the vacant lots with outlook to the golf  
course addresses both frontages.  
Tribunal findings  
38 I am not persuaded it is appropriate to include restrictions on the plan of subdivision that impose  
requirements addressed through the building approval. Nor do I support the imposition of the  
design guidelines that address multiple issues including some that are not appropriately  
implemented through a planning permit such as window furnishing, sheds and maintenance.  
39 I will maintain the restrictions that relate to matters that are not addressed in a building approval  
and that are necessary to achieve character outcomes including front setbacks, garages and front  
fencing. Specific requirements for the dual fronted lots (40-46) I consider necessary to ensure  
development addresses both frontages for the activation and passive surveillance of the pedestrian  
path to the west. This will include requirements for sections of low, permeable fencing and  
habitable room windows facing west. Subject to these requirements, I do not support a redesigned  
layout that places a road adjacent to the western boundary.  
P204/2022  
Page 9 of 43  
DWELLING AMENITY AND DIVERSITY  
40 Council submits the proposal fails to provide an adequate diversity of dwellings. Although  
acknowledging there are a range of dwelling typologies, only one of the 64 dwellings provides two  
bedrooms with all others containing three or more bedrooms. Furthermore, Council criticises:  
Provision of only one dwelling with kitchen and bathroom facilities at ground level in a  
development of this size.  
Multiple bedrooms with a minimum dimension of less than 3 metres.  
Limited northern aspect of living rooms.  
41 It is the evidence of Mr McBride-Burgess that one dwelling with ground floor kitchen and  
bathroom facilities meets the relevant standard, that northern, eastern or western aspect is provided  
to most dwellings and the bedroom sizes are fit for purpose, noting there is no applicable standard  
for bedroom size for medium density dwellings in the Planning Scheme. In relation to diversity of  
dwellings, the Applicant says the mix of dwelling sizes proposed is responding to market demand  
in the area, a relevant matter to consider in the DP. It is also submitted that the recent pandemic  
limitations where people were required to work from home has created a demand for more flexible  
arrangements with potential for separate spaces.  
Tribunal findings  
42 Policy seeks a diversity of dwellings types and sizes to provide for a range of household types as  
do the objectives of the DP. A range of lot sizes is also sought. Clause 55 includes an objective  
which encourages a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings.  
The standard set to achieve that objective is:  
Dwellings with a different number of bedrooms.  
At least one dwelling that contains a kitchen, bath or shower, and a toilet and wash basin at  
ground floor level.  
43 A high standard of design and appropriate internal amenity for future residents is supported in  
policy and there are various requirements of clause 55 that set down requirements for on-site  
amenity. There are functional layout requirements for dwellings that include standards about  
minimum room sizes but these apply to apartment developments so are not applicable to the  
assessment of this proposal.  
44 I find the standard of internal amenity for the dwellings is satisfactory given:  
Although some bedrooms are small, I consider they are functionally capable of being  
furnished and occupied as bedrooms. There is no failure to meet a standard in relation to  
room size.  
For the most part, each dwelling contains one larger bedroom.  
There is a range of dwellings sizes and a mix of layouts that provides for flexible occupation.  
All dwellings have a ground floor living room with direct access to a useable area of  
secluded private open space.  
Although a limited number of dwellings are oriented to the north, all dwellings have secluded  
private open space with some northern aspect, the majority have a dual aspect to the east and  
west and daylight is appropriately provided to habitable room windows.  
P204/2022  
Page 10 of 43  
Overlooking and overshadowing between dwellings is appropriately managed and will meet  
the relevant standards.  
Adequate storage and car accommodation are conveniently provided.  
45 Clearly the provision of only one two-bedroom dwelling limits the contribution the development  
will make to achieving dwelling diversity in respect of smaller dwelling size. Although this is not  
ideal, I am not persuaded there is sufficient basis to reject the proposal or alternatively require  
additional two-bedroom dwellings. I say this for the following reasons.  
There are multiple dwelling layouts that allow for flexibility in occupation by different  
households. There are dwellings with three or four bedrooms, three bedrooms and study,  
some with a study nook or space for a desk in a communal area, others with a second living  
room at upper level and some with a living room separate from the open plan kitchen/dining  
area.  
Both dwelling and lot sizes vary, creating a mix of housing offer.  
Although I was told there was one dwelling (64) that contains a kitchen, bath or shower,  
toilet and wash basin at ground floor level as required by standard B3 relating to dwelling  
diversity, I note there is a total of three (64, 17 & 23) with this layout. The standard is met.  
EARTHWORKS  
46 Council raises concern about the proposed earthworks in terms of impact to stormwater and to  
retained trees. Council says the unknown final levels create an unsatisfactory position on which to  
make assessment of the proposal due to unclear implications for location and design of pedestrian  
paths, height of retaining walls, potential for a link to the north and treatment of the vegetated  
buffers. Council says the ‘discussion plan’ that shows levels and associated retaining walls higher  
than anticipated by the expert witnesses has meant each witness has had to come up with solutions  
‘on the fly’. The range of options put by various witnesses and the unknown final solutions means  
implications are not known and Council says these are not matters that should be dealt with via  
conditions.  
47 The Applicant says the discussion plans, that include updated earthworks and functional layout,  
reflect potential changes in levels to facilitate a syphon drainage system that Council has only  
recently advised will be acceptable. The Applicant advises the plans are indicative only and  
acknowledges the issue of fill and level changes need to be dealt with but can be appropriately  
addressed by permit conditions.  
Tribunal findings  
48 The review site is relatively flat and appropriate drainage will require alteration to levels. I agree  
with Council that revised levels and other information shown on the discussion plans has raised  
questions about heights of retaining walls, impacts to trees, placement and design of pedestrian  
paths. Ideally the earthworks proposed would be finalised at this point in the process and  
implications for other parts of the design clear. However, I am not persuaded the absence of a  
finalised earthworks plans should result in rejection of the application. I consider the potential  
earthworks will not be to an extent that treatment of batters, placement of fill and provision of  
pathways cannot be resolved in an acceptable manner. I will include a condition that requires to  
the satisfaction of Council:  
Details of batters, retaining walls or other treatments to address level differences.  
P204/2022  
Page 11 of 43  
A Tree Management Plan (TMP) for all trees to be retained with particular reference to  
appropriate placement of fill and location and design of retaining walls.  
Details of pedestrian paths adjacent to the western and northern boundaries to be provided  
including a requirement that the path levels are no more than 300mm different to the finished  
floor levels of the adjacent dwellings. This is an outcome supported in the evidence of Ms  
Bell, Mr McBride-Burgess and Mr Patrick.  
49 I will not refer to the discussion plans in the permit conditions since they are not final and include  
material that contradicts other plans such as removal of trees that are not sought to be removed.  
DRAINAGE  
50 Council says the application contained inadequate information to demonstrate appropriate  
stormwater management, with particular concern about the proposed fill in terms of redirecting  
overland flow and potential flooding.  
51 It is Mr Bishop’ evidence that:  
The site is not within a flood zone or Special Building Overlay and there are no major  
waterways or drains that could cause the site to be severely flooded. The current site  
circumstances exhibit poor drainage characteristics reflective of flat topography rather than  
arising from the location in a catchment or from overland flows.  
The topography on the review site and surrounds means there is no external catchment flow  
across the site capable of generating a significant post development flood impact. Placement  
of fill will not alter this circumstance.  
The hydrologic regime of the review site and the wetlands to the north are independent and  
there will be no impacts on the wetland ecology due to urban stormwater discharging from  
the proposed development.  
52 Although confident that there will be no hydrological or hydraulic impacts to adjoining land  
caused by the proposed development, Mr Bishop said further checks could be undertaken as part of  
the detailed design.  
Tribunal findings  
53 Stormwater management and permeability are important considerations. Policy, objectives in  
clauses 55 and 56 and the DP include emphasis on achieving appropriate drainage and stormwater  
outcomes. I am satisfied drainage will be appropriately managed on the basis of Mr Bishop’s  
evidence and subject to the proposed permit condition that requires the drainage strategy for the  
site to be to the satisfaction of Council and Melbourne Water, noting this authority has not  
objected to the grant of a permit subject to conditions. A revised drainage condition will include  
reference to any calculations and investigations necessary to demonstrate appropriate performance  
of the drainage system.  
VEGETATION REMOVAL  
54 The permit application sought removal of one native tree (25) and the clearing of small areas of  
native vegetation. An additional native tree, (40) identified in the evidence of Mr Mcleod, is  
sought to be removed and the application has been amended to include that permission.  
55 Council submitted the vegetation removal associated with the proposal is an unacceptable response  
to the DP emphasis on retention of native vegetation and to the landscape character sought for the  
area. Council raises concerns about the following matters:  
P204/2022  
Page 12 of 43  
The late identification of tree 40 as a native tree proposed for removal.  
The loss of two native trees as proposed in the now amended application.  
Potential removal of additional native trees (26, 31 and 33) as supported in the evidence of  
Mr Mcleod.  
Unclear nature of the treatment and change of levels to the vegetated buffer area to the north  
and the west that may impact survival of trees to be retained in that area and potentially trees  
on the adjoining reserve to the north.  
The late submission of a root investigation of impacts to trees located on adjoining land to  
the east.  
The absence of root investigation to confirm trees on adjoining land to the south will not be  
adversely impacted by alterations in levels and potential retaining walls along the southern  
boundary.  
The removal of 11 trees from the site during the permit application process, including two  
identified as high value.  
56 The Applicant submits that the removal of 11 trees from the site are not the subject of any  
enforcement action and there is no suggestion a permit was required for their removal. It was  
indicated that verbal authority from Council officers to remove these trees was obtained. The  
Applicant advises that permission is not sought to remove the additional trees referred to in Mr  
Mcleod’s evidence, noting Mr Hill supports retention of all the River Red Gums for the  
contribution they make to habitat and ecological values. It is said the alterations required to levels  
near the trees to be retained, including those on adjoining land, can be controlled by permit  
condition to ensure damage to the trees is avoided.  
57 It is the evidence of Mr Hill that the proposed development is primarily located within areas  
dominated by pasture grasses and weeds and only small areas of highly modified Plains Grassy  
Woodland and two small areas of highly modified Aquatic Herbland are proposed to be cleared  
with the majority of the more significant remnants of native vegetation retained. Mr Hill says the  
proposed development will not have any impact on any significant flora and fauna species. He says  
the extent of proposed native vegetation removal for the proposed development means that the  
application falls under the Intermediate Assessment Pathway3 and the proposed removal does not  
trigger the requirement for a species offset (i.e. Species Habitat Units). In the context of the nature  
of the development and the quality of the native vegetation proposed to be impacted and retained,  
he says the avoid and minimisation measures are acceptable.  
Tribunal findings  
58 A permit is required to remove native vegetation pursuant to clause 52.17 of the Planning Scheme.  
The purpose of that clause is to ensure there is no net loss to biodiversity through the removal,  
destruction or lopping of native vegetation. A proposal to remove native vegetation must  
demonstrate the three-step approach of avoid, minimise and offset. The DP places considerable  
emphasis on the protection and reintroduction of indigenous vegetation.  
59 In relation to the native vegetation on the site, I find as follows.  
3
Established under clause 52.17 of the Planning Scheme and Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native  
vegetation, DELWP, 2017.  
P204/2022  
Page 13 of 43  
60 There are seven River Red Gums (25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36) on the land (although 33 may be  
in the adjoining land to the north) all of which are located in the area to be included as a vegetation  
buffer. It is the evidence of Mr Hill that all of these trees contribute to the ecological values of the  
site providing habitat value for fauna species.  
61 Although Mr Mcleod recommended removal of four of these trees, it was on the basis of poor  
form, the advantages of new planting and providing more space for other trees to flourish. It is his  
evidence that there is adequate area within the buffer areas to allow retention of the trees and there  
is no safety reasons to remove the trees. I find the evidence of Mr Hill preferable for its emphasis  
on the ecological values of the trees and given the trees to be retained will be in vegetation buffers  
where retention will cause no safety concerns. This retention implements the direction to avoid  
removal of native vegetation in clause 52.17 and the objective in the DP which seeks to retain as  
many indigenous trees as possible within public open space.  
62 On the basis of the evidence, I support retention of these seven trees.  
63 I acknowledge Council’s concerns about potential impact on the trees due to earthworks,  
placement of retaining walls or other treatments in and adjacent to the vegetation buffers. As I  
have referred to in addressing the issue of earthworks, I accept the final levels are not set due to  
additional investigations relating to drainage. I am satisfied, however, that there is adequate area to  
allow for a variety of treatments and a permit condition can require the final form of these works to  
be submitted for approval to Council. The final approved treatment will need to demonstrate to  
Council that the trees to be retained within the vegetation buffers and trees on adjoining land are  
protected.  
64 Any future link to Hidden Reserve, located to the north of the review site, will need to be the  
subject of careful placement and design to ensure protection of retained trees and will need to be  
the subject of future detail and approval. I consider the plans endorsed for the permit should  
indicate the placement of this link is to be the subject of further approval.  
65 Tree 40 is a Black Wattle located near the western boundary. It is a species native to Victoria and  
requires a permit for removal. It was identified in Mr Mcleod’s evidence rather than in earlier  
arborist assessments or in the ecological assessment of the land. I find removal of this tree  
acceptable given Mr Mcleod’s evidence that the tree is of average health and form and it is not a  
long living tree. Offset requirements referred to in Council’s draft permit conditions will remain  
appropriate based on removal of this tree but retention of tree 25. I reach that view on the basis  
that neither tree is a large tree and both are included in the general habitat patch meaning the  
general habitat offset does not need to change.  
66 There are trees on adjoining land to the east and a retaining wall and works are proposed to this  
boundary. I am satisfied that the non-destructive root investigation (NDRI) undertaken by Mr  
Mcleod4 demonstrates that, subject to appropriate permit conditions including supervision of  
works by an arborist, trees on the adjoining land can be protected.  
67 There are trees on adjoining land to the south and a retaining wall and works are proposed adjacent  
to that boundary. No NDRI has been undertaken adjacent to these trees and such investigation is  
recommended by Mr Mcleod if the trees are to remain. As these trees belong to the neighbour,  
they must be protected. Appropriate conditions on the permit will ensure protection of these trees,  
noting that root investigations might result in the need to modify the treatment of the southern  
boundary of the review site. I do not agree with Council that this makes the proposal unacceptable.  
4
Dated 1 August 2022 and provided at the hearing.  
P204/2022  
Page 14 of 43  
68 A group of 11 trees existed towards the frontage of the review site, located around a dwelling that  
has since been demolished. An arborist report,5 prepared as part of the permit application material,  
identified two of these trees as high value and two trees with moderate value. I do not condone an  
approach whereby notable vegetation on the land is identified, as required in clause 55.01-1 and  
56.01-1, and instead of the design responding to that vegetation, it is removed. In addition to a  
failure to achieve a design that responds to site features, such an approach is contrary to the  
landscape provisions in clauses 55.03-8 and 56.05-1 that seek to maintain significant vegetation  
and have regard to whether a tree was removed to gain a development advantage.  
69 In the circumstances described by the Applicant , I do not reject the application for reasons relating  
to removal of this vegetation. Important to reaching that view, is that no permit was required for  
the removal of the trees, native vegetation on the review site, for the most part, is to be retained  
and the proposed landscaping, based on implementation of the recommendations in Mr Patrick’s  
evidence, will be extensive and contribute positively to the landscape character of the area.  
PROVISON OF OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING  
70 It is Council’s submission that the provision of open space on the site fails to satisfy the  
requirements of the DP in terms of location, design and integration. In particular, Council says the  
open space:  
Is poorly laid out in terms of its frontage to dwellings, outlook from dwellings, accessibility  
and useability.  
Is laid out in a manner that means significant portions make little contribution to  
neighbourhood character.  
Has inadequate reserve and boundary tree planting along the western boundary.  
Does not perform a ‘linking’ function as contemplated by the DP.  
Does not provide adequate access for maintenance along the western boundary in the event  
that this area is to be vested in Council.  
Tribunal findings  
71 I do not agree with Council’s criticism about the open space provision.  
72 The inclusion of a 4 metre wide vegetation buffer on the eastern boundary adjacent to the Chapel  
Road frontage accords with the DP that shows this on the Open Space Concept Plan and the  
Landscape Concept Masterplan. It will continue the line of treed reserve that has been provided  
elsewhere adjacent to Chapel Road and contribute to the treed visual corridors sought in the DP. I  
agree with Mr Patrick’s evidence that planting in this area should include the Water Gum that has  
been successfully used in the landscaped setback elsewhere along this road.  
73 The Development Plan Map shows a ‘tree reserve where required’ on the western side of the  
review site. The Open Space Concept Plan and the Landscape Concept Masterplan show a tree  
reserve along this boundary. The 8 metre wide vegetation buffer proposed for the entire western  
boundary accords with the DP. This buffer allows retention of two remnant River Red Gums,  
limits encroachment to trees on the adjoining golf course and provides a vegetated separation from  
land in the Green Wedge Zone. A path is proposed along the entire length of this buffer and allows  
5
Preliminary Arboricultural Report Draft April, 2020 by Sian Bloom, Landscape Design, Consulting Horticulture and  
Arboriculture.  
P204/2022  
Page 15 of 43  
for a future connection to the land to the south. This is an appropriate response to the DP emphasis  
on providing links to the wider area.  
74 In addition to responding to the specific locations designated in the DP for open space, the layout  
provides other open spaces that I consider combine to create attractive, useable spaces for future  
residents, are well linked and respond to the broader open space network.  
75 A 0.13 hectare linear park is shown in the northern section of the development west of Street B  
and east of dwellings 65-81. With a length of approximately 120 metres and a varying width up to  
15 metres, I agree with Mr Patrick that this space is useable and will offer opportunity for  
community gathering. It provides excellent outlook to multiple dwellings, is provided with a high  
degree of surveillance and provides a sense of openness and space in the section of the review site  
where the most intensive dwelling density is proposed. Planting of this space will result in a  
significant contribution to the landscape appearance of the site overall.  
76 A vegetation buffer is proposed along the northern boundary (where it adjoins Hidden Reserve)  
that varies in width with a minimum of 6 metres. It does not extend to the northeast corner where  
proposed lot 1 will adjoin the northern boundary. Although not a designated area for a tree reserve  
on the DP, I consider this is an appropriate element of the design that responds to site features and  
context. It allows for retention of five remnant River Red Gums on the review site, it allows space  
for protecting trees on the adjoining reserve and provides an appropriate separation of  
development from the adjoining wetland reserve.  
77 A pedestrian link to the reserve to the north is shown. The location of this link varies between  
plans. It is clear that there is potential for a link and that is an appropriate outcome that accords  
with DP. As referred to elsewhere, the final location and design will be subject to later consultation  
and detail.  
78 There is a 10 metre wide pedestrian link at the western end of Street A and an 11 metre wide  
owners corporation open space provided between rows of townhouses. These spaces are generous  
in width, include a pedestrian path and will allow legibility and connectivity through the site, an  
outcome the DP seeks. In addition to the opportunity for planting in these areas, the nature strips  
provided to both sides of Street A in the southern portion of the site will allow creation of a  
positive and attractive landscaped setting.  
79 Clause 10.2 of the DP includes a paragraph that reads:  
Generous tree reserves will be provided adjacent to existing main roads (north-south and east-  
west) through and adjacent to the site. These reserves will provide shared paths with a canopy  
of native trees planted in copses.  
80 Interpretation of this paragraph was the subject of varying submissions at the hearing. Arguably,  
the paragraph is only referring to tree reserves adjacent to main roads. If this is the case, I see no  
reason to include a shared path in the tree reserve at the frontage of the review site since it would  
duplicate the adjacent public footpath. A copse, generally considered a small group of trees  
growing close to each other, could be required as part of the landscape plan, as required by  
Council.  
81 Even if the paragraph is referring to the tree reserves to the west and north of the site, as put by  
Council, I find there is opportunity in the 6-8 metre wide reserves to include copse-like planting, to  
be the subject of approval through a landscape plan, and a footpath is proposed adjacent to both  
those reserves.  
82 In the context of the DP where public open space is strategically planned at a broad level, it is  
important that development of individual sites generally accord with that plan. I consider the  
P204/2022  
Page 16 of 43  
proposal delivers the open space specified in the DP by providing tree reserves as indicated and  
complying with the 10.2% land component, noting that a permit condition will require a monetary  
contribution to achieve the overall open space requirements of the DP. In addition to meeting the  
specific open space requirements of the DP, the layout provides potential for linked open space,  
integrates landscape and open space with the residential development and provides generous  
opportunities for planting that accord with the principles set out for open space in the DP. The  
open space and landscaping allows respond appropriately to outcomes sought in clause 55 and 56  
of the Planning Scheme.  
83 The landscaping concept design plans, substituted as part of the amended plans, are schematic. Mr  
Patrick made multiple suggestions in his evidence as to additional information, altered species  
selection and appropriate maintenance. It is my view that a permit condition should be included  
that requires preparation of a detailed landscape plan which will include reference to some of the  
detail suggested by Mr Patrick, include clear designation of areas to be vested in Council and how  
these are to be accessed for maintenance. This plan will be subject to final approval by Council.  
ACCESS AND PARKING  
84 Council says the safety and functionality of access is inadequate with the following elements  
criticised:  
The lack of logical, integrated and well designed pedestrian and cycling connections between  
Hidden Grove reserve and the proposed open space, an outcome contrary to the DP  
aspirations.  
The capacity to provide safe and efficient access to Lane A for waste collection.  
Tribunal findings  
85 Provision of safe, functional and legible vehicle, cycling and pedestrian access together with  
appropriate provision for car parking is sought in various Planning Scheme policies and  
provisions. The DP places particular emphasis on providing attractive and safe walking and  
cycling routes.  
86 I do not share Council’s concerns about access and connectivity.  
87 I consider the provision of paths to both sides of Street A and to one side of Street B together with  
the extensive pathways within and adjacent to open spaces and vegetation buffers provide  
excellent and connected pedestrian access within the site and to Chapel Road. Importantly, the  
paths are located in a manner that allows for future connection to Hidden Reserve to the north and  
to a future development of the land to the south.  
88 I accept the evidence of Mr Maina that the proposed roads will be low speed, low volume  
environments and safe for shared use by cyclists.  
89 It is the evidence of Mr Maina that the road geometry of Lane A and the onstreet parking layout in  
the northern part of the site will allow efficient and safe accommodation of a typical waste  
collection vehicle. Having regard to that evidence and a swept path analysis using an 8.8 metre  
service vehicle, I am satisfied waste can be collected in Lane A. I acknowledge there may be times  
when bins are poorly placed and limit mechanical collection, as occurs in many small roads in  
Melbourne, I consider these circumstances can be managed by the owners corporation that will be  
required for the medium density part of the proposal.  
90 I have referred to small areas of low level landscaping along Lane A being required by permit  
condition. Although I did not ask Mr Maina about this option, based on his evidence about road  
P204/2022  
Page 17 of 43  
dimensions and swept paths, I am satisfied these areas can be accommodated without impeding  
traffic movement.  
91 Council seeks a permit condition that requires private waste collection and the imposition of a  
s173 agreement to enforce a waste management plan (WMP). On the basis of Mr Maina’s  
evidence, I consider Council waste collection could be possible and will include that as an option  
in the WMP, noting that ultimately it will be up to Council to make that decision. A permit  
condition that requires preparation and approval of a WMP ensures waste management to the  
satisfaction of Council. I do not see the need for that to be additionally required via a s173  
agreement.  
92 I do not support Council’s proposed condition that requires an indented visitor space for every five  
dwellings along Street B since parking can occur onstreet.  
93 Other factors relevant to my support of the proposal include Mr Maina’s evidence about the  
following, noting Council’s transport section did not raise concerns about these matters:  
Appropriate single intersection with Chapel Road,  
An appropriate internal street network that satisfies the relevant requirements of clauses 55  
and 56 and allows a future connection to the land to the south.  
Provision of off and onstreet parking that meets the relevant standards in terms of quantity,  
convenient location and design.  
Anticipated traffic volumes generated by the proposal (and potential future development of  
198 Chapel Road to the south and baseline traffic growth on Chapel Road) is capable of  
being accommodated at the Chapel Road/site access intersection.  
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN  
94 It is Council’s position that although the proposal is generally in accordance with the DP, it is an  
overdevelopment of the site and has failed to achieve key outcomes anticipated by the DP .  
Council says there has been inadequate attention to the outcomes sought in the DP.  
Tribunal findings  
95 The DPO requires that a permit must be generally in accordance with the development plan.  
Schedule 5 applies to the Keysborough South Development Plan, Stages 2 & 3 and includes a  
series of development principles:  
Create a network of wetlands, flora and fauna habitat corridors and generous areas of linked  
open space.  
Integrate the landscape/open space with the design and layout of the residential development.  
Create a sense of entry to the adjacent non-urban area.  
Protect and reintroduce indigenous vegetation.  
Enhance flood storage capacity.  
Improve urban storm water quality.  
96 The DP pursuant to this overlay has been approved by Council.6 The above principles are repeated  
in part 5.0 of the approved document. Part 6.0 contains objectives relating to physical design,  
environmental design, visual and social design, lot layout and subdivision and physical  
6
On 27 June 2011 and revised on 29 August 2018.  
P204/2022  
Page 18 of 43  
infrastructure. The document contains a Development Plan Map, an Open Space Concept Plan, a  
Landscape Concept Masterplan and a Transport Plan.  
97 I find that the proposal generally accords with the approved DP and it is important to note that  
Council did not dispute this position.  
98 I have identified in this decision where the proposal accords with the outcomes sought in the DP.  
In summary I record the following.:  
99 The living environments created by the proposal will be functional, safe and attractive with  
provision of treed reserves and internal open space, the outlook to open spaces and the high degree  
passive surveillance of the public realm, enhanced by permit conditions that address this issue.  
100 The well connected pedestrian paths and the well laid out vehicle access creates legible  
connections. Together with the proximity of the site to the activity centre, schools, the bus route  
and larger public open spaces, a compact neighbourhood will be achieved that allows for  
walkability and choice of transport mode and route.  
101 The proposal provides tree reserves to the west and east of the site as specifically designated for  
the review site in the DP. An additional tree reserve to the north and internal area of open space is  
provided. The design allows for connections to the reserve to the north and to future development  
to the south, thus contributing to the walkable connectivity to the wider DP area.  
102 The tree reserves provide space for the retention of the seven indigenous trees on the site and are  
adequate in dimensions to allow for reintroduction of indigenous vegetation.  
103 The layout of the development provides the opportunity for creation of a sense of place with the  
larger area of open space providing a focal point. I agree with Mr Patrick that the space is well  
placed and designed to offer the opportunity for community gathering, a social design objective of  
the DP.  
104 The landscape opportunities offer the ability to create amenity, comfort and aesthetics, subject to  
further detail. I agree with Mr Patrick that there is opportunity to create boulevard streets with  
larger canopy trees, planting to the Chapel Road tree reserve that links with other roadside  
planting, additional indigenous planting to the western and northern tree reserves and appropriate  
planting to the pedestrian links and internal open space area that together can create an attractive  
landscaped setting and allow for recruitment of additional indigenous trees.  
105 Although there is only one two-bedroom dwelling, I consider the range of dwelling layouts and  
sizes and the varied lot sizes will contribute to the mix of housing stock sought in the DP. It  
provides medium density housing in different configurations and vacant lots above 300 square  
metres. The provision of medium density housing on this site accords with the DP direction to  
locate this development with proximity to main roads and the activity centre. In finding the mix  
acceptable, I have had regard to the context of the entire DPO area where there has been provision  
of some two-bedroom dwellings and where there is further opportunity in future development.  
106 Stormwater, drainage and flood storage are referenced extensively in the DP with an integrated  
approach envisaged whereby retarding basins and wetlands are to be provided as part of linear  
open space network with three main north-south connections. The review site is not included in  
this network. I am satisfied on the basis of Mr Bishop’s evidence and the referral comments of  
Melbourne Water that these matters will be satisfactorily addressed on the review site, subject to  
permit conditions.  
107 The road layout is legible, provides for adequate capacity for safe and efficient traffic movement  
and allows a future connection to the south.  
P204/2022  
Page 19 of 43  
108 Finally in relation to the DP, I note that Council has included a permit condition that requires a  
minimum average lot size of 250 square metres. Although this is achieved (with a range between  
127 to 437 square metres) in the current plan, Council says design changes may result in the figure  
not being achieved. I am not persuaded it is necessary to include this condition given this is not a  
requirement of the DP. The DP clearly identifies (section 9.0) that the number, size, densities and  
distribution of lots may vary through assessment of development applications. In any event, design  
changes to layout will need to be approved by Council.  
STRATEGIC SUPPORT  
109 Although it is undisputed by Council that the review site can and should accommodate residential  
development, it is relevant to my decision that there is significant strategic support for the proposal  
in the Planning Scheme based on the following:  
The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary.  
The General Residential Zone that applies to the land includes a purpose which encourages  
housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.  
The site has excellent proximity to an activity centre that contains a supermarket and other  
shops, to a primary school, to parkland and to a recently commenced bus route along Chapel  
Road. Increased residential densities and dwelling diversity are encouraged in such locations  
by local and state policies which promote the consolidation of existing urban areas, seek to  
make efficient use of existing infrastructure and encourage walkability whereby services and  
facilities are within a 20 minute walk or cycle trip.  
Local policy designates the review site as part of an ‘Incremental Change Area’ where  
housing change is anticipated and the preferred housing type is medium density.  
The inclusion of the land in an area designated as ‘proposed residential development’ in the  
approved DP, noting that plan encourages medium density housing within proximity to the  
proposed (now built) activity centre, main roads and public transport routes.  
PERMIT CONDITIONS  
110 I have referred to matters to be addressed by permit condition in dealing with various issues and  
indicated where I support or oppose the conditions proposed by Council and the Applicant . The  
final conditions will reflect these findings.  
CONCLUSION  
111 For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is  
granted subject to conditions,  
Cindy Wilson  
Member  
P204/2022  
Page 20 of 43  
P204/2022  
Page 21 of 43  
APPENDIX A – SCHEDULE OF PLANS TO BE SUBSTITUTED  
Subdivision Plans  
1
The following plans are all contained within the plans booklet titled ‘Revised Plan Set’ prepared  
by Human Habitats Urban Planning and Design Studio dated June 2022:  
(a) Concept Plan of Subdivision, Drawing No 001, Version 32, dated 20 June 2022;  
(b) Statement of Changes Plan (Subdivision), Drawing No 008, Version 32 dated 20 June 2022;  
(c) Land Budget Plan, Drawing No 002, Version 32, dated 20 June 2022;  
(d) Lot Mix by Area Plan, Drawing No 003, Version 32, dated 20 June 2022;  
(e) Building Envelope Plan (Lots above 300m2), Drawing No 005, Version 32, dated 20 June  
2022;  
(f) Design Response Plan, Drawing No 004, Version 32, dated 16 June 2022;  
(g) Public Open Space Plan, Drawing No 003, Version 32, dated 16 June 2022;  
(h) Street Typology Plan, Drawing No 006, Version 32, dated 16 June 2022;  
(i) Street sections, Local Access St - ST1 - 16.0m-7.3m, Body Corporate St – ST2 – 9.7m –  
5.5m;  
(j) Street sections, Body Corporate Lane - LA1 - 7.0m, Body Corporate Lane - LA2 - 8.8m -  
5.5m.  
Building Plans  
2
Building Typology Legend and Key Plan, Revision 31, dated 2 August 2022 titled ‘Peet 182  
Chapel Road, Keysborough’.  
3
4
Lot number and house typology table, undated and titled ‘182 Chapel Road Keysborough’.  
House typology floor plans, site plans and elevations by Peet and identified as follows:  
(a) Design 45RT27-1 (Lot 66), 3 sheets – dated 15 June 2022, 15 June 2022, and 14 June 2022  
respectively;  
(b) Design 60RT24-1 (Lots 48, 49, 62, 63, 67, 68, 79 and 80), 6 sheets – dated 14 June 2022, 14  
June 2022, 12 May 2022, 12 May 2022, 12 May 2022, and 20 May 2022 respectively;  
(c) Design 60RT24-3 (Lots 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 71, 72, 75, 76), 7 sheets – dated 14 June 2022,  
14 June 2022, 12 May 2022, 12 May 2022, 12 May 2022, 12 May 2022, and 12 May 2022  
respectively;  
(d) Design 60RT24-4 (Lots 50, 51, 58, 59, 69, 70, 77, 78), 4 sheets – all dated 15 June 2022;  
(e) Design 60RT24-1 (CNR) (Lots 47, 54, 55, 65, 73, 74, 81), 9 sheets – dated 14 June 2022, 14  
June 2022, 14 June 2022, 14 June 2022, 14 June 2022, 14 June 2022, 9 June 2022, 9 June  
2022, and 9 June 2022 respectively;  
(f) Design 75FT30-1 (Lots 11, 13), 6 sheets – dated 12 May 2022, 23 May 2022, 12 May 2022,  
23 May 2022, 12 May 2022, and 20 May 2022 respectively;  
(g) Design 75FT30-2 (Lots 10, 12), 6 sheets – dated 12 May 2022, 23 May 2022, 12 May 2022,  
23 May 2022, 12 May 2022, and 12 May 2022 respectively  
P204/2022  
Page 22 of 43  
(h) Design 75RT27-1 (CNR) (Lot 64), 3 sheets – dated 20 May 2022, 23 May 2022, and 12 May  
2022 respectively;  
(i) Design 80FT25-1 (Lots 2, 4, 6, 8), total of 4 sheets – 2 sheets dated 9 June 2022 (TB 2579 –  
2580), 2 sheets dated 17 July 2022;  
(j) Design 80FT25-2 (Lots 3, 5, 7), total of 4 sheets – 2 sheets dated 9 June 2022 (TB 2581 –  
2582), 2 sheets dated 17 July 2022;  
(k) Design 85FT25-1 (Lot 9), 3 sheets – all dated 9 June 2022;  
(l) Design 85FT25-2 (Lot 14), 3 sheets – dated 12 May 2022, 23 May 2022, and 12 May 2022  
respectively;  
(m) Design 10FT25-1 (Lots 83, 91, 92, 101), 4 sheets – dated 14 June 2022, 14 June 2022, 12  
May 2022, 12 May 2022 respectively;  
(n) Design 11FT25-1 (Lots 18, 19), 6 sheets – dated 23 May 2022, 23 May 2022, 23 May 2022,  
23 May 2022, 12 May 2022, 12 May 2022 respectively;  
(o) Design 125FT25-1 (Lots 16, 20, 21, 22), total of 11 sheets – 10 sheets dated 12 May 2022, 23  
May 2022, 12 May 2022, 23 May 2022, 12 May 2022, 23 May 2022, 23 May 2022, 23 May  
2022, 12 May 2022, and 12 May 2022 respectively, 1 sheet dated 4 August 2022;  
(p) Design 125FT25-2 (Lots 17, 23), 5 sheets – dated 12 May 2022, 23 May 2022, 23 May 2022,  
23 May 2022, and 12 May 2022 respectively;  
(q) Design 125FT21-1 (CNR) (Lots 82, 90), total of 6 sheets – 5 sheets dated 14 June 2022, 14  
June 2022, 14 June 2022, 14 June 2022, and 20 May 2022 respectively, 1 sheet dated 4  
August 2022;  
(r) Design 125FT21-2 (CNR) (Lots 93, 100), total of 6 sheets – 5 sheets dated 14 June 2022, 14  
June 2022, 14 June 2022, 14 June 2022, 10 June 2022 respectively, 1 sheet dated 4 August  
2022.  
5
Streetscape elevations, Version 31, all dated 14 June 2022, titled ‘Peet 182 Chapel Road  
Keysborough’:  
(a) East Streetscape Elevation, Lots 2-14;  
(b) North Streetscape Elevation, Lots 16-23;  
(c) East Streetscape Elevation, Lots 47-54;  
(d) North Elevation of buildings proposed for lots 54 and 74;  
(e) East Streetscape Elevation, Lots 55-64;  
(f) South Elevation of buildings proposed for Lots 55 and 73;  
(g) West Streetscape Elevation, Lots 65-81;  
(h) East Streetscape Elevation, Lots 82, 83, 100 and 101;  
(i) West Streetscape Elevation, Lots 90 – 93.  
6
Exterior Colour Schedule (Colours and materials) titled ‘Peet 182 Chapel Road Keysborough’  
undated.  
P204/2022  
Page 23 of 43  
Landscape Master Plan  
7
Landscape Master Plan, Version 4, Human Habitats Urban Planning and Design Studio, dated June  
2022 (Booklet containing 10 pages).  
P204/2022  
Page 24 of 43  
APPENDIX B – PERMIT CONDITIONS  
PERMIT APPLICATION NO:  
LAND:  
PLN20/0213  
182 Chapel Road  
KEYSBOROUGH VIC 3173  
WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS  
Subdivision of land, multi dwelling development and removal of native  
vegetation in accordance with the endorsed plans  
CONDITIONS:  
1.  
Before the development starts and before the certification of the plan of subdivision, amended  
plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the  
Responsible Authority. The amended plans must be generally in accordance with the plans  
substituted by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal by order dated 23 August 2022  
(listed in Appendix A of that order) but modified to show:  
1.1 Deletion of the path on the eastern side of the reserve adjacent to Street B.  
1.2 Trees to be retained and trees to be removed with trees identified in the Arborist  
Report/evidence prepared by Landscape by Design dated July 2022 as trees 25, 26, 31, 32,  
33, 34 & 36 all shown as retained and tree 40 shown to be removed.  
1.3 Location of the Tree Protection Zone of all trees to be retained in accordance with the Tree  
Management Plan required by Condition 10 of this permit.  
1.4 All car parking designed in accordance with Design Standard 2 of clause 52.06-9 of the  
Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
1.5 A notation that the pedestrian path on the western side of lots 47 to 64 is to be named to  
provide an address to those lots with street and wayfinding signage to be provided in a  
form and in locations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
1.6 An interface and pedestrian path plan, inclusive of sections, including:  
i.  
details of the pedestrian paths in the northern and western vegetation buffers  
including any boardwalks or elevated paths;  
ii.  
details of any batters, retaining walls, or other treatments to address level  
differences;  
iii.  
confirmation that the levels of the path to the north and west of the site are to be  
no more than 300mm above or below the finished floor levels of the adjacent  
dwellings; and  
P204/2022  
Page 25 of 43  
iv.  
details showing the interface between filled areas of the site and site boundaries,  
including any relevant notations to the tree management plan, to ensure  
preservation and protection of the trees to be retained.  
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
1.7 Dwellings 47-64 and 65-81 (inclusive) redesigned to provide an alternative garage door  
design and garage roof form.  
1.8 Streetscape elevations of both sides of Lane A.  
1.9 The location of mailboxes for each dwelling. The mailboxes must be located wholly within  
the lot boundaries and if located within splay areas must comply with Design Standard 1 of  
Clause 52.06-9 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.  
1.10 Sustainability measures as per the Sustainability Management Plan required by Condition 3  
of this permit including (but not limited to):  
i.  
Location of the rooftop solar hot water heating panels;  
ii.  
Storage space that includes provision for garden/organic collection bins.  
1.11 Any changes associated with the Drainage drawings required by the Condition 5 of this  
permit (if applicable).  
1.12 An Earthworks Plan that shows final levels, proposed retaining walls or other treatments and  
trees to be retained to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water and the Responsible Authority.  
1.13 Any changes to the site layout associated with the earthworks plan (if applicable).  
1.14 Any changes associated with the revised Waste Management Plan required by Condition 12  
of this permit (if applicable).  
1.15 All footpath junctions on the western side of the site to incorporate corner splays.  
1.16 A semi-transparent front fence of no greater height than 1.2 metres for all townhouses,  
dwellings and vacant lots.  
1.17 The rear facing upper level windows of dwellings on lots 47 - 81 enlarged and provided with  
lower sill heights. External screens or similar treatment (excluding the use of opaque glazing)  
to be provided to these windows to limit overlooking to secluded private open space in  
compliance with standard B22 at clause 55.04-6 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.  
1.18 Inclusion of highlight windows, visible above side fencing, to the side elevations of garages  
to dwellings 47, 54, 55, 64, 65, 73, 74 and 81.  
1.19 Provision of permeable gates or fencing to the gaps between dwellings 50 & 51, 58 & 59, 69  
& 70 and 77 & 78.  
1.20 Feature paving on Lane A adjacent to the open space marked as ‘owners corp’.  
P204/2022  
Page 26 of 43  
1.21 At least eight small areas of low level landscaping beds in Lane A in locations and with  
dimensions that will not compromise vehicle access.  
1.22 Gaps of at least 1.5 metres between the upper levels of dwellings 10 & 11 and 12 & 13 with  
associated alterations to floor layouts and elevations.  
1.23 At least one upper level habitable room window to the side elevations (where facing a street)  
of the corner dwellings 82, 100, 90 and 93.  
1.24 Location of a pedestrian link to the north and south of the site with a notation that states “To  
be located, designed and provided subject to further approval.”  
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
When approved, these plans will be endorsed and will form part of this permit.  
2.  
Before the plan of subdivision is certified, 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 substituted by the Victorian Civil and  
Administrative Tribunal by Order dated 23August 2022 (listed in Appendix A of that Order)  
but modified to show:  
2.1 A layout to accord with condition 1.  
2.2 Locations of substations.  
2.3 All bearings, distances, levels, street names, lot numbers, common property, lot sizes,  
reserves and easements.  
2.4 An area set aside as a public open space reserve equivalent to 10.2% of all land in the  
subdivision.  
2.5 Easements and open space areas in favour of any relevant authority.  
2.6 Any changes required by South East Water in Conditions 64 to 69 (inclusive) of this  
permit.  
2.7 Restrictions through building envelopes and a Memorandum of Common Provisions  
applying to all vacant lots, providing for:  
2.7.1 A front setback of at least 4 metres, with the exception of the garage, which  
must be setback at least 5 metres. Any encroachment into that setback limited  
to permeable structures such as pergolas, window hooding, decks, terraces,  
which can encroach no more than 2 metres and be no higher than 3.6 metres;  
2.7.2 No garage wall to exceed 7 metres along any boundary;  
2.7.3 No more than a double garage is to be provided for each lot facing the street;  
P204/2022  
Page 27 of 43  
2.7.4 At least one ground level and one upper level habitable room window facing  
the street;  
2.7.5 Any front fencing to be visually permeable and a maximum of 1.2 metres in  
height. For corner lots, 50% of the length of fencing along the secondary street  
frontage must be no higher than 1.2 metres and visually permeable;  
2.7.6 Each dwelling to be provided with a minimum of 40 square metres private open  
space at ground floor level, with one part of the private open space to consist of  
secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum  
area of 25 square metres and a minimum dimension of 5 metres.  
2.7.7 Detail the beneficiaries of the restrictions for each lot;  
2.7.8 In the case of lots 40 to 46, the western boundary of each lot to include a  
section of low permeable fencing and the dwellings on each lot to include at  
least one ground level and one upper level habitable room window facing west;  
2.7.9 The requirements of this restriction may only be varied by the written consent  
of the Responsible Authority; and  
2.7.10 The Restrictions and Memorandum of Common Provisions in force until 31  
December 2032.  
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
3.  
Prior to the endorsement of plans under condition 1, the applicant is to submit a revised  
Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The  
revised SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP (Prepared by EcoResults ref  
2404, dated 17 June 2022) but modified to include:  
3.1  
3.2  
Changes to accord with condition 1;  
Revised water section (including BESS water calculator) that:  
3.2.1 Confirms the availability and connection to recycled mains water supply (if  
applicable); and  
3.2.2 Confirms the star rating of home appliances, including washing machines.  
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
4.  
5.  
The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Sustainability  
Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the  
Responsible Authority. The documentation must not be altered without the prior written  
consent of the Responsible Authority.  
Before plans are endorsed under Condition 1, drainage drawings setting out the drainage  
strategy for the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and  
approved by the Responsible Authority. The drainage drawings must show:  
5.1  
All drainage (including surface drainage) directed to a suitable location on the land;  
P204/2022  
Page 28 of 43  
5.2  
5.3  
5.4  
Detail of the required outfall drain connection to stormwater infrastructure;  
Cross sections including details of retaining walls;  
Measures to ensure the discharge of water from the property is controlled around its  
limits to prevent any discharge onto any adjacent property;  
5.5  
5.6  
All retaining walls built with durable materials; and  
Any calculations and investigations necessary to demonstrate the performance of the  
drainage system.  
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
6.  
Concurrent with the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1 of this permit and before  
any trees or vegetation are removed, a landscape plan for the lots under 300 square metres  
and all common property/ public open space must be submitted to and approved by the  
Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must be prepared by a person or firm with  
suitable qualifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, drawn to scale with  
dimensions provided. The landscape plan must show:  
6.1  
6.2  
Plans to accord with condition 1 above, including location of trees to be retained and  
to be removed;  
The site at a scale of 1:100/200, including site boundaries, existing and proposed  
buildings, neighbouring buildings, car parking, access and exit points, indicative  
topography and spot levels at the site corners, existing and proposed vegetation, nature  
strip trees, easements and landscape setbacks;  
6.3  
6.4  
6.5  
Details of the proposed layout, type and height of fencing, including open style mesh  
fencing in green or black finish to the north and western boundaries of the site;  
Legend of all plant types, surfaces, materials and landscape items to be used including  
the total areas of garden and lawn;  
A plant schedule giving a description of botanical name, common name, mature  
height and spread, pot size, purchase height (if a tree) and individual plant quantities  
including a mix of canopy and lower storey trees;  
6.6  
6.7  
6.8  
Any paving or deck areas within the secluded open space area of the proposed  
dwelling on a permeable base;  
At least one (1) canopy tree within the rear secluded private open space areas of all  
dwellings;  
Street trees in common property/ public open space areas to be a minimum of 2 metre  
high when planted, except in the northern and western vegetation buffers, when  
tubestock of local provenance to be used;  
6.9  
Tree selection for street trees to be a species that will create a boulevard effect with  
repetition of a clear trunked medium scaled tree;  
P204/2022  
Page 29 of 43  
6.10 All common property/ public open space areas to be accessible to all maintenance  
vehicles and equipment to undertake all necessary functions;  
6.11 Provision of canopy trees, shrubs and ground covers within the vegetation buffer to  
the west of the site with plant selection informed by advice from a qualified ecologist  
and generally as appropriate in the EVC55: Plains Grassy Woodlands;  
6.12 Inclusion of Water Gum (Tristaniopsis laurina) in planting of vegetation buffer  
adjacent to Chapel Road;  
6.13 Any open space facilities including BBQs, seating, playground or other open space  
improvements;  
6.14 Planting in the pedestrian link and area marked ‘owners corp open space’ to include  
smaller canopy vegetation ;  
6.15 Inclusion of areas of native grasses or tufting plants, where appropriate, including, for  
example Eskdale Tussock Grass (Poa labillardieri ‘Eskdale’) or Mat Rushes  
(Lomandra cvs);  
6.16 Details of proposed soil type where fill is proposed in planting areas; and  
6.17 Details of soil preparation and maintenance regime for planting on common  
property/public open spaces.  
When approved, the Landscape Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit.  
7.  
8.  
Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the layout of the  
buildings and works, subdivision and vegetation removal permitted must always accord with  
the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified.  
Before any works commence, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the  
Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The  
Construction Management Plan must address, but is not limited to:  
8.1  
8.2  
Hours of construction, control of noise and airborne matter, deliveries, vehicle access,  
worker car parking, damage to public assets, and contact numbers for complaints;  
All Traffic Management Plans for the site demolition, excavation, deliveries and other  
construction related activities that will affect vehicle and pedestrian traffic;  
8.3  
8.4  
8.5  
8.6  
The location of all areas on-site and off-site to be used for construction staff parking;  
A Parking Management Plan for all associated construction vehicles;  
All site sheds, portable toilet, storage and materials, etc. must be confined to the land;  
The covering and maintenance of all roads/storage areas/external stockpiles/or vacant  
areas to avoid dust nuisance to any residential and commercial premises;  
8.7  
A truck wheel-wash must be installed and used so vehicles leaving the site do not  
deposit mud or other materials on roadways;  
P204/2022  
Page 30 of 43  
8.8  
8.9  
No water containing oil, foam, grease, scum or litter will be discharged to the  
stormwater drainage system from the land;  
All stored wastes are kept in designated areas or covered containers that prevent  
escape into the stormwater system;  
8.10 he amount of mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones deposited by vehicles on the abutting  
roads is minimised when vehicles are leaving the land; and  
8.11 No mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay or stones are washed into, or are allowed to enter the  
stormwater drainage system.  
When approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of  
this permit.  
The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Construction  
Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the  
Responsible Authority.  
9.  
Prior to the commencement of any works, including roadworks, a Site Environmental  
Management Plan (SEMP) for each stage of the subdivision must be prepared in accordance  
with the Council Specification Series, Construction, in particular Section 211 Control of  
Erosion and Sedimentation; 212 Clearing and Grubbing and 213 Earthworks and submitted  
to the Responsible Authority. Once approved the plans will be endorsed and will form part of  
the Permit and then must be adhered to, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
The SEMP must show as appropriate:  
9.1  
9.2  
The goals and objectives of the SEMP;  
A Vegetation Management Plan that provides the details of management, protection  
and rehabilitation of vegetation to be retained;  
9.3  
Measures to be taken to ensure minimal disturbance to native flora and fauna,  
including the provision of buffers;  
9.4  
9.5  
Erosion, siltration, dust, run-off and litter controls during construction;  
Indicate all provisions into and throughout the site by vehicles, including waste  
collection vehicles;  
9.6  
9.7  
9.8  
Detail methods of restricting site access to pedestrians and vehicles not related to  
works permitted under this permit.;  
Detail the method of protecting the reserve areas to be vested in the Council until such  
time as the reserve is developed; and  
Any other matters as required by the Responsible Authority.  
10. Concurrent with the submission of amended plans in accordance with Condition 1 of this  
Permit and prior to any demolition or site works, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) must be  
submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be  
endorsed and will then form part of the Permit.  
P204/2022  
Page 31 of 43  
The TMP must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist and include the  
recommendations and requirements referred to in the Arborist Report/evidence prepared by  
Landscape by Design dated July 2022 as set out in pages 21 to 25 of that report. The TMP  
must set out recommendations and requirements in relation to the management and  
maintenance of trees to be retained and all trees on adjoining land where any part of the tree  
protection zone falls within the land, make specific recommendations in accordance with the  
Australian Standard AS4970: 2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites, be consistent  
with the requirements of conditions 44, 45 and 4 of this permit relating to native vegetation  
and detail the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority ensuring the trees to  
be retained on the land and on adjoining land remain healthy and viable during construction:  
10.1 a Tree Protection Plan drawn to scale that shows:  
(i)  
tree protection zones and structural root zones of all trees to be retained  
including those on neighbouring land where any part of the tree protection zone  
falls within the land;  
(ii) details of tree protection fencing and identification of areas to be fenced and  
areas where ground protection systems will be used;  
(iii) restrictions on activities within any tree protection zones;  
(iv) type of works within any tree protection zone with minimal excavation within 3  
metres of the tree base;  
(v)  
any services to be located within the tree protection zone and a notation stating  
all services will either be located outside of the tree protection zone, bored  
under the tree protection zone, or installed using hydro excavation under the  
supervision of the Project Arborist; and  
(vi) a notation to refer to the TMP for specific detail on what actions are required  
within the tree protection zones;  
10.2 details of how the root system of any tree to be retained will be managed. This must  
detail any initial non-destructive trenching and pruning of any roots required to be  
undertaken by the Project Arborist;  
10.3 supervision timetable and certification of tree management activities required by the  
Project Arborist to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and  
10.4 any remedial pruning works required to be performed on tree canopies located within  
subject site. The pruning comments must reference Australian Standards 4373:2007,  
Pruning of Amenity Trees and a detailed photographic diagram specifying what  
pruning will occur,  
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
11. The recommendations contained in the approved Tree Management Plan must be  
implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
P204/2022  
Page 32 of 43  
12. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act and prior to the  
occupation of the development, the applicant is to submit a revised Waste Management Plan  
(WMP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The revised WMP must be generally  
in accordance with the WMP (Prepared by Impact ref IMP2104009WMP01F04, dated 20  
June 2022) but modified to include:  
12.1 Layout in accordance with requirements of Condition 1 of this permit:  
12.2 Waste collection to be serviced by private contractor or by the Greater Dandenong  
City Council waste collection service to the satisfaction of the Responsible  
Authority;  
12.3 Size and type of vehicles expected to deliver and remove materials from site;  
12.4 Amended swept paths for collection vehicles illustrating:  
i.  
Sufficient access to collection points for all vehicles required to collect  
from the development;  
ii.  
Access to/from the nearest main street to ensure access into smaller  
streets/laneways is feasible; and  
iii.  
Minimise vehicle reversing, including designing turning paths to make  
reversing easier and ensure drivers have a clear line of sight between the  
rear of their vehicle and the drop-off area.  
12.5 Plans identifying bin presentation location.  
When approved, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this  
permit.  
13. The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan  
must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
14. Before the development starts:  
14.1 Provide a functional layout plan detailing the road network including the intersection  
of Chapel Road with a typical crossing section of the proposed road within the  
development. Also provide a service offset table detailing all proposed services. The  
Functional layout plan will need to be endorsed as part of the planning permit;  
14.2 An electronic copy in DXF or AutoCAD DWG format of Subdivision Design  
Drawings must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. A set of  
Subdivision Design Drawings must include but not necessarily be limited to:  
14.2.1 A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained  
and/or removed.  
14.2.2 Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties  
within three metres of the boundary.  
14.2.3 Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.  
P204/2022  
Page 33 of 43  
14.2.4 A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,  
including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and  
quantities of each plant. All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the  
Responsible Authority.  
14.2.5 Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site. Landscaping must  
be designed to allow all relevant maintenance vehicles easy access to, and  
undertake all necessary functions throughout the areas of open space.  
14.2.6 Canopy trees (minimum two metres tall when planted) in all open space  
areas.  
14.2.7 Details of the in-ground irrigation system (where required).  
14.2.8 Details & location of any fencing required for public open space areas.  
14.2.9 Details & location of any structures & treatments such as gateway structures,  
signage, bollards etc.  
14.2.10 A 3 year landscape maintenance period will apply at the practical completion  
of the landscape works.  
14.2.11 Lighting to be designed in accordance with AS/NZS 1158.  
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
15. All public open space and drainage reserves are to be landscaped to a standard specified by  
Greater Dandenong City Council and must include:  
15.1 Drinking water fountains along routes at key junctions and major destination points;  
15.2 Local playgrounds at appropriate locations; and  
15.3 Provision of shared use paths in accordance with any plan identifying the overall park  
network.  
Landscape Management Plan  
16. Prior to the issue of the first Statement of Compliance, a Landscape Management Plan must  
be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority . The Landscape Management  
Plan must include matters such (excludes private gardens):  
16.1  
16.2  
16.3  
16.4  
16.5  
Weed management;  
Mulching of landscape beds;  
Replacement of dead or diseased plants;  
Protection of landscaping including appropriate staking of trees; and  
Watering of tube stock during the first summer period.  
P204/2022  
Page 34 of 43  
Development conditions  
17. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed in accordance with the  
endorsed plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
18. Prior to the occupation of the development, the development must be provided with external  
lighting capable of illuminating access to each garage, car parking space and pedestrian  
walkways. Lighting must be located, directed and shielded to the satisfaction of the  
Responsible Authority so as to prevent any adverse effect outside the land.  
19. Prior to the occupation of the development, all piping and ducting above the ground floor  
storey of the building, except downpipes, must be concealed to the satisfaction of the  
Responsible Authority.  
20. Prior to the occupation of the development, all landscaping shown on the endorsed landscape  
plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
21. Provision must be made for the drainage for proposed development including landscaped and  
paved areas, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
22. The connection of the internal drainage infrastructure to the Legal Point of Discharge must  
be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
23. Stormwater discharge is to be retained on site to the pre-development level of peak  
stormwater discharge, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Approval of drainage  
plan including any retention system within the property boundary is required.  
24. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, service units, including  
air conditioning/heating units, must not be located on any of the balcony areas unless visually  
and acoustically screened to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
25. Access to the site and any associated roadwork must be constructed, all to the satisfaction of  
the Responsible Authority.  
26. At all times, the landscaping must be maintained in good order in accordance with the  
endorsed landscape plan and schedule to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
Subdivision conditions  
27. Before the certification of any Plan of Subdivision, a Residents Information Kit must be  
submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The Residents Information Kit must be  
prepared in accordance with Schedule 5 of Clause 43.04  
28. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of the land must:  
28.1 Either complete the development of the land in the subdivision in accordance with  
Planning Permit No. PLN20/0213, or any amended or subsequent permit; or  
28.2 Complete all common property, including drainage retention system, landscaping,  
lighting and access provisions to each lot and enter into an agreement under Section  
173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authority to  
provide for:  
P204/2022  
Page 35 of 43  
28.2.1  
28.2.2  
The development of the land in the subdivision to be in accordance with  
Planning Permit No. PLN20/0213, or any amended or subsequent permit;  
The owner to cover all costs relating to the preparation and registration of  
the Agreement (including costs incurred by the Responsible Authority).  
29. Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance:  
29.1 All civil works, including landscaping and lighting must be completed to the  
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
29.2 Fees and Bonds to be paid to Council's satisfaction.  
29.3 Receipt of “as constructed” recorded asset information in digital format to include  
road and drainage data as per “D-Spec” and "R-Spec" (the Consultant/Developer  
Specifications for the delivery of road and drainage data to Local Governments).  
Furthermore plan details shall be provided in both PDF. and digital AutoCAD format  
(on CD).  
30. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner must enter into an agreement with  
the Responsible Authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that  
provides for:  
30.1 The owners of each residential lot created by the subdivision of the land to pay an  
annual levy to Council for parks and open space maintenance (in additional to normal  
Council rates and charges). The annual levy will be an ongoing annual levy and will  
be charged/levied as part of the annual rates collection process and is for the purpose  
of assisting Council’s maintenance of the substantial open space network being  
provided on the land. The agreement will provide that late payment will incur interest  
as per Council rates and that until paid, the annual levy will be noted as a charge on  
any particular lot. Payment of the annual levy is to commence from the first rate  
collection period after a lot is sold. The agreement or separate ‘Deed of Agreement’  
will note that Council will not assume the responsibility for maintenance of open  
spaces and the like until the end of the subdividers’ works maintenance liability  
period, which is a minimum of 3 years after completion of the required works on the  
relevant reserve. The levy as at April 2009 is $350, but may be varied by Council in  
accordance with any relevant CPI indexes that may be applied to such payment.  
30.2 The Agreement is to be applied to each subsequent lot title created from the parent  
title  
30.3 The owner to cover all costs relating to the preparation and registration of the  
Agreement (including costs incurred by the Responsible Authority);  
30.4 The agreement will provide that the levy will not be proposed unless and until Council  
commences maintaining the relevant open spaces.  
31. Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance, the owner of the land must provide a  
Public Open Space contribution, pursuant to Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988 and  
Clause 53.01 of the Planning Scheme. The provision of the Open Space contribution must be  
P204/2022  
Page 36 of 43  
consistent with the Keysborough South Development Plan – Stages 2 and 3, revised June  
2011 and associated documents, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
32. Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance, the owner of the land must provide a  
Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy (Infrastructure Levy),  
in accordance with the following:  
32.1 An Infrastructure Levy must be paid to the Responsible Authority in accordance with  
the provisions of the approved Development Contributions Plan for the land within the  
following specified time, namely after Certification of the relevant plan of subdivision  
but not more than 21 days prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance in respect  
of that plan.  
32.2 Where the subdivision is to be developed in stages the Infrastructure Levy for the  
stage to be developed may only be paid to the Responsible Authority within 21 days  
prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance in respect of that stage provided that  
a Schedule of Development Contributions is submitted with each stage of the plan of  
subdivision. This Schedule must show the amount of the development contributions  
payable for each stage and value of the contributions in respect of prior stages to  
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
32.3 If Council agrees to works in lieu of the payment of the Infrastructure Levy, the land  
owner must enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and  
Environment Act 1987 in respect of the proposed works in lieu.  
32.4 The Community Infrastructure Levy for each lot must be paid prior to the issue of the  
Statement of Compliance for the relevant stage of the subdivision, or if agreed to by  
the Responsible Authority at or before the time of obtaining a building approval.  
33. Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance, the owner of the land must enter into an  
agreement with:  
33.1 A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of  
telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with  
the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and  
33.2 A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre-ready telecommunication  
facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry  
specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media  
Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the  
National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.  
34. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of the land must provide written  
confirmation from:  
34.1 A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are  
ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s  
requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and  
34.2 A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been  
provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the  
P204/2022  
Page 37 of 43  
Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can  
demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not  
be provided by optical fibre.  
35. All works associated with the subdivision must at all times be carried out in accordance with  
the conditions and requirements set out in the endorsed documents, with the endorsed  
documents being provided to all contractors working on the site prior to commencement of  
any works on the subdivision as relevant.  
36. During construction periods and afterwards, until the land is occupied, the owner must  
provide adequate precautions to prevent the emission of dust, land vibration and storm water  
runoff from the land, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
37. The owner shall obtain and where directed install street numbers for each of the lots shown  
on the Plan of Subdivision from Council to the satisfaction of Council.  
38. All proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads must be  
set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant  
authority for which the easement or site is created.  
39. Street names to be used in the subdivision must be submitted to Council for approval prior to  
the certification of any plan of subdivision.  
40. The plan of subdivision submitted for Certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be  
referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.  
41. A copy of the Residents Information Kit, as approved by the Responsible Authority, and  
which must contain (expressed in plain English) the preferred tree planting lists, domestic  
animal responsibilities, water conservation, the role of urban wetlands, the sensitivity of re-  
constructed natural areas, energy efficient building requirements and restrictions on title to  
the land (as specified in Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 5 of the Greater Dandenong  
Planning Scheme), must be included as part of all transfer documents and be provided to the  
purchaser/s of any lot sold under the approved subdivision.  
Cultural heritage conditions  
42. Activities carried out on the subject land must comply with the approved Cultural Heritage  
Management Plan Notice of Approval for all stages on plan number 17034 dated the 22 June  
2021 and approved 12 July 2021.  
Native vegetation conditions  
43. Before works start, the permit holder must advise all persons undertaking the vegetation  
removal or works on site of all relevant permit conditions and associated statutory  
requirements or approvals.  
44. Before works start, a plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority identifying all  
vegetation to be retained (including vegetation on site and within 5.0 metres of each shared  
boundary) and describing the measures to be used to protect the identified vegetation during  
construction and in perpetuity must be prepared and submitted to and approved by the  
responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of this  
P204/2022  
Page 38 of 43  
permit. The plan must show the extent of earthworks proposed for the site and be supported  
by advice from a qualified Arborist verifying that the protection measures proposed will  
provide adequate protection of the trees to be retained. All works constructed or carried out  
must be in accordance with the endorsed plan.  
45. Before works start, a native vegetation protection fence must be erected around all patches of  
native vegetation and native scattered trees to be retained. This fence must be erected around  
the patch of native vegetation and at a radius 12 × the diameter at a height of 1.3 metres to a  
maximum of 15 metres but no less than 2 metres from the base of the trunk of the tree. The  
fence must be constructed of star pickets/ chain mesh/ or similar to the satisfaction of the  
Responsible Authority. The fence must remain in place until all works are completed to the  
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  
46. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, within the tree protection zone,  
the following are prohibited;  
46.1 vehicular or pedestrian access  
46.2 storage or dumping of any soils, materials, equipment, vehicles, machinery or waste  
products  
46.3 entry and exit pits for underground services e. any other actions or activities that may  
result in adverse impacts to retained native vegetation.  
47. To offset the removal of 0.058 hectares of native vegetation the permit holder must secure a  
native vegetation offset, in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or  
lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017) as specified below:  
47.1 A general offset of 0.024 general habitat units:  
located within the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management  
Authority (CMA) or Greater Dandenong City Council municipal district; and  
with a minimum strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.194.  
48. Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that the required offset for the project has  
been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This  
evidence is one or both of the following;  
48.1 An established first party offset site including a security agreement signed by both  
parties, and a management plan detailing the 10 year management actions and ongoing  
management of the site and/or  
48.2 Credit extract(s) allocated to the permit from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.  
49. A copy of the offset evidence will be endorsed by the responsible authority and form part of  
this permit.  
50. In the event that a security agreement is entered into as per condition 48.1, the applicant must  
provide the annual offset site report to the responsible authority by the anniversary date of the  
execution of the offset security agreement, for a period of 10 consecutive years. After the  
P204/2022  
Page 39 of 43  
tenth year, the landowner must provide a report at the reasonable request of a statutory  
authority.  
Environmental Audit Overlay conditions  
51. Prior to the Certification of the Plan of Subdivision and prior to commencement of works,  
either:  
51.1 A preliminary risk screen assessment statement in accordance with the Environment  
Protection Act 2017 must be issued stating that an environmental audit is not required  
for the use or the proposed use and development; or  
51.2 An environmental audit statement under Part 8.3 of the Environment Protection Act  
2017 must be issued stating that the land is suitable for the use or proposed use and  
development.  
52. Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land pursuant to Condition 51.2  
above, the use and development of the land must comply with all directions and conditions  
contained within the Statement.  
53. Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land pursuant to Condition 51.2  
above, prior to the occupation of the development and prior to Statement of Compliance for  
the plan of subdivision, a letter prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant or  
other suitable person acceptable to the responsible authority, must be submitted to the  
Responsible Authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the  
Statement have been satisfied. Compliance sign off must be in accordance with any  
requirements in the environmental audit statement recommendations regarding verification of  
works.  
54. Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land pursuant to Condition 51.2  
above, and any condition of that Statement requires any maintenance or monitoring of an  
ongoing nature, the owner must enter into an Agreement with Council pursuant to Section  
173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required,  
the Agreement must be executed prior to the occupation of the development and prior to  
Statement of Compliance of the Plan of Subdivision. All expenses involved in drafting,  
negotiating, lodging, registering, executing and enforcing the Agreement, including those  
incurred by the Responsible Authority, must be met by the owner.  
REFERRAL AUTHORITY CONDITIONS  
Country Fire Authority  
55. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 the following  
requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the CFA:  
55.1 Above or below ground operable hydrants must be provided. The maximum distance  
between these hydrants and the rear of all building envelopes (or in the absence of  
building envelopes, the rear of the lots) must be 120 metres and the hydrants must be  
no more than 200 metres apart. These distances must be measured around lot  
boundaries.  
P204/2022  
Page 40 of 43  
55.2 The hydrants must be identified with marker posts and road reflectors as applicable to  
the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority.  
56. Roads must be constructed to a standard so that they are accessible in all weather conditions  
and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width.  
56.1 The average grade must be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a  
maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50 meters.  
Dips must have no more than a 1 in 8 (12%) (7.1 degree) entry and exit angle.  
56.2 Curves must have a minimum inner radius of 10 metres.  
56.3 Have a minimum trafficable width of 3.5 metres and be clear of encroachments for at  
least 0.5 metres on each side and 4 metres above the access way.  
56.4 Roads more than 60m in length from the nearest intersection must have a turning  
circle with a minimum radius of 8m (including roll-over kerbs if they are provided) T  
or Y heads of dimensions specified by the CFA may be used as alternatives.  
Melbourne Water  
57. Prior to a Statement of Compliance, the Owner shall enter into and comply with an  
agreement with Melbourne Water Corporation for the acceptance of surface and storm water  
from the subject land directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drainage systems and  
waterways, the provision of drainage works and other matters in accordance with the  
statutory powers of Melbourne Water Corporation.  
58. All new lots are to be filled to a minimum of either 300mm above the 1% AEP flood level  
associated with an existing or proposed Melbourne Water storm water drainage asset, or  
600mm above the 1% AEP level associated with an existing or proposed Melbourne Water  
waterway, wetland or retarding basin, whichever is the greater.  
59. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, A Certified Survey Plan (CSP) prepared by  
or under the supervision of a licensed land surveyor, showing levels reduced to the Australian  
Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the land has been  
filled in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements. The CSP must show 1% AEP  
flood levels associated with any existing or proposed Melbourne Water’s asset.  
60. All new lots must achieve appropriate freeboard in relation to any local overland flow paths  
to Council’s satisfaction.  
61. Any road or access way intended to act as a stormwater overland flow path must be designed  
and constructed to comply with the floodway safety criteria to Council’s requirements and  
standards. Guidance can be taken form Melbourne Water's Land. Development Manual  
where appropriate.  
62. Prior to the commencement of construction, a separate application direct to Melbourne  
Water’s Asset Services team must be made for formal approval, must be made before any  
new or modified connection is made to a Melbourne Water asset.  
P204/2022  
Page 41 of 43  
63. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, Council approved engineering plans (Road  
and Drainage) of the development (in electronic format) must be submitted to Melbourne  
Water for our records. These plans must show road and drainage details for the 20% AEP  
flows and any overland flow paths for the 1% AEP storm event.  
South East Water  
64. The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with South East Water for the  
provision of drinking water supply and fulfil all requirements to its satisfaction.  
65. The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with South East Water for the  
provision of recycled water supply and fulfil all requirements to its satisfaction.  
66. The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with South East Water for the  
provision of sewerage and fulfil all requirements to its satisfaction.  
67. All lots on the Plan of Subdivision are to be provided with separate connections to our  
drinking water supply, recycled water supply and sewerage systems.  
68. Prior to certification, the Plan of Subdivision must be referred to South East Water, in  
accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.  
69. The certified Plan of Subdivision will need to show sewerage supply easements over all  
existing and/or proposed South East Water sewer mains located within the land, to be in  
favour of South East Water Corporation pursuant to Section 12(1) of the Subdivision Act  
1988.  
United Energy  
70. The applicant must:  
70.1 Enter into an agreement with United Energy Distribution Pty Ltd for the extension,  
upgrading or rearrangement of the electricity supply to lots on the plan of subdivision.  
A payment to cover the cost of such work will be required.  
70.2 Provide electricity easements internal and external to the subdivision in favour of  
United Energy Distribution Pty Ltd to service the lots on the plan of subdivision  
and/or abutting lands as required by United Energy Distribution Pty Ltd. The  
provision of reserves for electricity substations may also be required.  
71. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to United Energy  
Distribution Pty Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.  
Comdain/Multinet Gas  
72. A Statement of Compliance be obtained from Multinet Gas prior to the plan of subdivision  
being released from the Titles Office.  
Head, Transport for Victoria  
73. The construction of the development must not disrupt bus operations when operational on  
Chapel Road without the prior written consent of the Head, Transport for Victoria.  
P204/2022  
Page 42 of 43  
74. Any request for written consent to disrupt bus operations when operational on Chapel Road  
during the construction of the development must be submitted to the Head, Transport for  
Victoria not later than 8 weeks prior to the planned disruption and must detail measures that  
will occur to mitigate the impact of the planned disruption.  
End Referral Authority conditions  
Permit expiry  
75. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:  
75.1 The development or any stage of it does not start within three (3) years of the date of  
this permit, or  
75.2 The development or any stage of it is not completed within five (5) years of the date of  
this permit, or  
75.3 The Plan of Subdivision is not certified within two (2) years from the date of issue of  
this permit, or  
75.4 The tree removal if not started within one (1) year of the date of this permit, or  
75.5 The tree removal is not completed within two (2) years of the date of this permit.  
Before the permit expires or within six (6) months afterwards the owner or occupier of the  
land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.  
The owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to  
extend the expiry date to complete the development or a stage of the development if:  
(a)  
the request for the extension is made within twelve (12) months after the permit  
expires; and  
(b)  
the development or stage started lawfully before the permit expired.  
The certified plan is valid for 5 years from the date of certification.  
- End of conditions -  
P204/2022  
Page 43 of 43  
 [an error occurred while processing this directive]

© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission