Taliouridis Nominees Pty Ltd v City of Onkaparinga No ERD-02-537 [2003] SAERDC 3 (8 January 2003)

Last Updated: 2 March 2003

Court

ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT

Memorandum of Commissioner Hodgson

Hearing

18/11/2002 to 19/11/2002, 06/12/2002.

Representation

Appellant: TALIOURIDIS NOMINEES PTY LTD
Counsel: MR S HENRY - Solicitors: JOHNSON LAWYERS

Respondent: CITY OF ONKAPARINGA
Counsel: MR G MANOS - Solicitors: MANOS & ASSOCIATES

ERD-02-537

Judgment No. [2003] SAERDC 3

8 January 2003

TALIOURIDIS NOMINEES PTY LTD

v

CITY OF ONKAPARINGA

(ERDC No. 537 of 2002)

[2003] SAERDC 3

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the City of Onkaparinga ("the Council") made on 18 July 2002, to refuse provisional development plan consent to an application by Taliouridis Nominees Pty Ltd ("the Appellant"), which application was for the erection of six two-storey detached dwellings with associated garages and landscaping on land lying between East Way and Brookside Drive, Darlington.

2. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the decision of the Council, appealed to this Court against it. No compromise was achieved at a conference conducted pursuant to Section 16 of the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, and the matter then proceeded to a hearing, at which the appellant was represented by Mr S Henry, of counsel, and the Council by Mr G Manos, of counsel. The Court, in the company of the parties, conducted a view of the subject land and its locality, received a number of exhibits, and heard evidence from Mr G Hill, an expert in revegetation, Mr A Short and Mr P Weaver, both qualified and experienced traffic engineers, Ms L Dubiniecka, a qualified and experienced architect and designer of the subject proposal, and Mr A Rumsby and Mr D Hutchison, both qualified and experienced town planning consultants.

The Subject Land

3. The subject land is situated at the eastern end of East Way, Darlington. It has a total area of 6,718m2 and currently forms part of Allotment 21 Community Plan 20799. That allotment was previously created by an approved Community Title land division (145/C007/98), which division also created 17 residential allotments immediately to the east. The land has an extremely steep gradient, falling away significantly from East Way to newly-created allotments at the bottom of the western side of the Sturt River Valley, those allotments fronting onto Brookside Drive. The site overlooks the Sturt River which lies beyond Brookside Drive. There is scattered vegetation on the land including gums, olive trees and grasses. No "significant" trees, as defined in the Development Act 1993, occur on the site.

4. The land is roughly rectangular in shape, with a public road frontage of some 10m to East Way and 21.3m to Scenique Way, each of which is a short section of road serving some three to four dwellings. The land has a consistent gradient of between 1:2 and 1:2.5 in an easterly direction. The approved Community Plan, to which earlier reference has been made, provided for the division of the subject land (Lot 21) into a maximum of four additional community lots, with vehicular access from Scenique Way or East Way. It was common ground between the parties that an amendment to that scheme description and the associated development contract had been signed off by the City of Onkaparinga, such that a maximum of six additional community lots could now be created over the subject land.

The Locality

5. The locality comprises predominantly detached dwellings on generally large allotments. The majority of dwellings are two-storey, and appear to have been built around the 1960's to 1970's. Most are oriented to gain views of the Sturt River Valley below. Beyond the Sturt River, to the east of the subject land, is the City of Mitcham, with similar dwellings oriented to take advantage of views looking west from the eastern slope of the Sturt River Valley.

6. Both East Way and Scenique Way have a road pavement approximately 6m in width, measured kerb to kerb. Neither road has been designed with a formed turning area, the road pavement of East Way stopping some 11m short of the boundary of the subject land. There is a fall of approximately 2m between the level of the road and that of the approximate western boundary of the subject land.

7. Dwellings flanking the subject land are set up, with living levels elevated some 2m to 3m above natural ground level at the boundary of the subject land, and with elevated outdoor living spaces also built up on the 1 in 5 crossfall on these sites to take advantage of the views over residential Bedford Park, on the opposite side of the Sturt River Valley, and of the lower Mount Lofty Ranges.

8. Recent residential development along the lower slopes of the Sturt River Valley is set on smaller allotments of between 300m2 and 450m2 in area. These dwellings comprise a mixture of single and two-storey dwelling types. Immediately abutting the subject land, on the upslope of the western valley face, are residential sites which have been extensively cut and prepared for future residential development. These allotments comprise Lots 4 - 11 in the Community Plan Division to which reference has already been made. These allotments range from 490m2 to 560m2 in area.

The Proposal

9. It is proposed to construct six lightweight, steel-framed, sheetmetal and fibre-cement clad dwellings containing two living levels and a lower undercover courtyard, the dwellings being of identical design and situated on sites ranging from 744m2 up to 868m2 in area, all sites being located on the lower side of a private access road with a minimum width of 5.5m.

10. Each dwelling would comprise 3 bedrooms, a bathroom, toilet, laundry and deck at the first level, with living, dining and kitchen together with a double garage at the upper level. The balconies would extend forward of the building line from the main bedroom and the living and dining areas on the upper floor.

11. An area of private open space would be located on an excavated platform beneath and around the dwelling, access to that space being obtained from a stairway leading from the first floor deck. Access to garages would be by way of an elevated platform connecting each dwelling to the common driveway, that platform also serving as a visitor parking area.

12. A report by Kimseed Environmental Pty Ltd dated October 2001, submitted with the application, sets out a proposed rehabilitation program to follow completion of earthworks on the subject land, measures proposed including development staging, erosion control and silt management and the utilisation of a spray seed approach to stabilise the cleared areas around each dwelling.

13. Each dwelling would have an angled flat roof and, because of its siting relative to the access road, would have a one-storey appearance when viewed from that road. Viewed from the east, each dwelling would have a maximum vertical profile some 9.5m above the finished, filled gravelled courtyard.

14. Because of the 2m fall from the existing roadway to the boundary of the subject land, it is proposed to commence the driveway grade some 7m into the public road, the latter being reinstated for portion of its length at its existing width of 6m, that width being largely maintained for the first portion of the access driveway, which then reduces to 5.5m for the remainder of its length.

15. An offset Y-shaped turnaround area would be provided at the southern end of the access driveway, and offset visitor carparking spaces provided in excavated bays in three locations along the length of the access driveway, these providing five carparking spaces.

16. An 1800mm high galvanised chain mesh fence is proposed for the eastern boundary of the subject land.

17. Significant cut-and-fill would be required in the course of undertaking the development, with a maximum build-up of approximately 2.5m, and a maximum cutting of up to 3m. Retaining walls are proposed for the areas surrounding the parking bays on the high side of the access road only.

The Issues

18. In its Decision Notification Form, Council cited the following provisions of the Development Plan as being those with which, in its opinion, the proposed development was at variance:

"Metropolitan Adelaide

Form of Development

Objective 2: A proper distribution and segregation of living, working and recreational activities by the allocation of suitable areas of land for those purposes.

Residential Development

Objective 9: Safe, pleasant, convenient and efficient residential zones.

Appearance of Land and Buildings

Objective 43: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and objects.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Residential Development

Principle 4: Residential development should efficiently use infrastructure and services.

Principle 8: Residential development should not create conditions which are likely to exceed the capacity of existing roads, public utilities, and other community services and facilities.

Principle 9: Development in a residential zone should not impair its character or the amenity of the locality as a place in which to live.

COUNCIL WIDE

Living Areas - Residential Development

Objective 4: Containment of housing costs through the practical and efficient use of land and infrastructure.

Form of Development

Principle 10: Land, particularly steeply-sloping land used for the erection of buildings, should be stable.

Living Areas - Residential Development

Principle 17: All forms of residential development should:

(e) ensure that the privacy of adjoining residential sites is not detrimentally affected by way of overlooking.

Principle 19: Within established residential areas, new development which is divergent from the pattern of existing development by virtue of:

(c) the configuration of land, or the scale and positioning of buildings, should be designed within the following context:

(i) the character and amenity elements of surrounding land relating to principal streetscape features and the privacy or use of land should be identified as part of the initial design process; and

(ii) the resultant development should be designed to maintain or enhance the identified character and amenity elements notwithstanding the manner in which the development is divergent from that featured on surrounding land.

Principle 21: Each dwelling occupying its own site (whether it be part or whole of an allotment or allotments) should be provided with private open-space which:

(a) is not less than 50 square metres in area for a dwelling featuring one or two bedrooms;

(b) is not less than 80 square metres in area for a dwelling featuring three or more bedrooms;

(c) has a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres; and

(d) incorporates an area of at least 25 square metres with a minimum dimension of four metres which is directly accessible from the dwelling and has a gradient not exceeding 1-in-8.

Principle 25: The design of buildings associated with residential use and the establishment of finished levels on residential sites should:

(a) minimise the need for retaining walls as far as practicable; and

(b) generally ensure that the vertical depth or height of cut or fill does not exceed 1.2 metres when measured from the natural ground-line within a horizontal distance of one metre from the site boundary.

Principle 26: Driveways to service the site of a dwelling having frontage to a road carriageway should maintain the profile of the verge flanking the road carriageway within that area wherever practicable and not exceed a gradient of 1-in-4 anywhere within the site of the dwelling."

19. Mr Hutchison, in evidence, provided a useful summary of the issues to be resolved in these proceedings:

"• The degree of disturbance to the land arising from the construction of the driveway access and building platforms, and the impact of this disturbance on the visual quality of the site and locality.

• The impact on and loss of existing vegetation on the site and the adequacy and feasibility of proposed landscaping given the slope of the land.

• The impact of the proposed development on the visual and scenic qualities of the site when viewed from the residential areas to the east.

• The adequacy of the proposed driveway in terms of its entry gradient, curvature and width.

• The adequacy and suitability of the open space proposed to be provided with each dwelling.

• The potential for overlooking of the open space of the dwellings now under construction to the immediate east of the subject land.

• The impact of the access from East Way on the development of Lot 2 to the north.

• The desirability of development 6 dwellings on very steep land."

Assessment

20. The subject land is located within the Residential Zone as depicted on Map HaV/3 in the Development Plan for the City of Happy Valley dated 26 July 2001. The objectives for that zone are as follows:

Residential Zone

"Objective 1: A zone primarily comprising low-density and medium-density housing of varied form to accommodate a wide range of life-style needs."

"Objective 2: Exploitation of remaining development opportunities in suitable locations to achieve greater alignment in the overall profile of housing stock with the projected demands anticipated by demographic trends."

"Objective 3: The co-ordination of development in specified locations where access and terrain or the pattern of land ownership would otherwise limit the achievement of cohesive, orderly and economic development."

21. Relevant zone principles are:

"Principle 1: Development within the Residential Zone should be primarily low-density and medium-density housing of varied form to accommodate a wide range of life-style needs."

"Principle 2: Development should be in accordance with Structure Plan Map HaV/1 (Overlay 1) and in particular comprising Figs. R/1, 2 and 3 within the areas so depicted."

22. Other Development Plan provisions of particular relevance are:

Metropolitan Adelaide

Objectives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24, 43.

Principles 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 73

Council Wide

Objectives 1, 2, 4.

Principles 2, 3, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 66, 67, 102, 103, 121, and 125.

23. The evidence of Mr Rumsby was that:

(a) the proposal was an appropriate form of development within a living area;

(b) the proposal was consistent with the intent expressed in the Development Plan to optimise development opportunities within remaining infill and broadacre sites;

(c) the subject land, while steeply-sloping, was relatively stable, and consistent with slopes encountered on adjoining community division sites further to the east;

(d) the proposed co-ordination of civil construction and building works, rather than the creation of individual dwelling sites developed separately, suitably met the pertinent Development Plan provisions concerning residential development;

(e) proposals for site remediation and enhancement would moderate the visual impact of the required earthworks to an acceptable degree, having regard to the proposed pole frame construction techniques and to the fact that earthworks would not impinge on nearby residential properties;

(f) parking, manoeuvring and site development considerations were suitably met on the subject land, and for each dwelling site; and

(g) the proposal complied with the pertinent Residential Zone objectives and substantially complied with relevant wider Development Plan provisions.

24. Mr Hutchison disagreed. In his opinion, the proposal conflicted, to a significant degree, with a number of relevant provisions of the Development Plan, as a consequence of:

(a) the extent of site disturbance (Metropolitan Adelaide Objective 33 and Council Wide Principles 102, 103, 121 and 125(b) and (d));

(b) the excessive slope of the land (Council Wide Principles 17, 18 and 19);

(c) the resultant adverse visual impact of the development given the prominence of the land (Metropolitan Adelaide Objective 43 and Principle 9, and Council Wide Principles 121 and 125(b) and (d));

(d) the impact on existing vegetation and problems with maintaining landscaping on such a steep slope (Metropolitan Adelaide Principles 1 and 73);

(e) the inadequacies of the driveway access, particularly for service and emergency vehicles (Metropolitan Adelaide Objective 24(d) and Principle 14(d) and Council Wide Principle 67); and

(f) the lack of accessible or useable open space (Council Wide Principle 21).

25. Mr Hutchison's concerns about the adequacy of the proposed driveway were shared by Mr Weaver, who considered that the proposed development would result in potentially unsafe access, creating hazards both for existing residents of East Way and of the proposed development, difficulties for emergency service vehicles in exiting from the proposed driveway given the size of the proposed turnaround at its southern end, and sight distance problems for motorists entering and exiting the proposed development.

26. In assessing the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, it has to be borne in mind that the subject land lies within a Residential Zone, the objectives for which encourage housing "of varied form" and "exploitation of remaining development opportunities in suitable locations". I note also that residential development has occurred and is occurring within the locality on land with a slope comparable to that of the subject land. The land is highly visible from the other side of the Sturt River Valley, but no more so than the now largely-developed eastern flank of that valley. Inasmuch as the subject land, despite its visibility, is zoned Residential, it has to be expected that development for residential purposes will result eventually in site disturbance. With reference to the first of Mr Hutchison's concerns, it seems to me the issue is whether that disturbance is unnecessarily extensive, and whether appropriate measures are proposed to stabilise and revegetate disturbed areas. Having regard to the nature of available access to the land, I am satisfied that a roadway connection to East Way, parallelling the land's contours, and subject to resolution of safety issues, is an acceptable option for providing access to the dwelling sites proposed, and further, is the form of access contemplated by the approved community plan, which envisaged vehicular access being obtained either from East Way or Scenique Way.

27. Having regard to the evidence of Mr Hill, who has expertise and extensive experience in revegetation, and who provided to the Court details of the staging and manner of revegetation proposed, I am further satisfied that the areas to be disturbed in the process of implementing the proposed development will be satisfactorily stabilised and revegetated if the programme detailed by Mr Hill is implemented.

28. I also note that the pole frame method of construction proposed will result in a level of disturbance significantly lower than that required for a split level method of construction, which would necessitate the excavation of footings for the entire lower levels of any dwellings.

29. With reference to the second of Mr Hutchison's concerns, I accept that the subject land is steep, but that is a characteristic of much of the land in the locality, and is not such as to have caused the Council to include the land in a "coordinated Development Area", such areas being described, under the objectives for the Residential Zone, as being:

"locations where orderly development is complicated by virtue of access requirements, terrain characteristics, fragmented land ownership patterns or other factors."

30. Furthermore, in approving the original community lot scheme of four allotments, and signing off an amendment to the scheme description to provide for a maximum of six community allotments, Council must have been satisfied that the subject land was not so steep as to be intrinsically unsuitable for residential development. Nothing that was put before me persuades me that that is the case.

31. With reference to the third of Mr Hutchison's concerns, it seems to me that the zoning of the sides of the Sturt River Valley for residential development necessarily results in such development being highly visible. That said, the revegetation measures proposed by Mr Hill, taken together with the colours and materials to be used in the proposed dwellings, will, in my assessment, serve to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development to a level considerably lower than that typical of the locality.

32. I turn now to the fourth of Mr Hutchison's concerns, that being the impact of the proposal on existing vegetation and the feasibility and adequacy of proposed landscaping.

33. The only expert evidence on this question was that of Mr Hill, who proposed a revegetation programme using species generally endemic to the area. The vegetation to be removed, on the evidence, was primarily olive trees and other exotics, together with a semi-mature eucalypt. None of the trees to be removed falls within the definition of a "significant tree" under the Development Regulations. The evidence of Mr Hill was that, with the use of a technique know as "hydromulching" for revegetation of areas of cut and fill, it would be possible to stabilise and revegetate all disturbed areas such that no area remained exposed for more than 14 days after earthworks were completed. I accept the evidence of Mr Hill that the measures proposed for stabilising and landscaping earthworks necessitated by the proposed development will, if implemented, satisfy those Development Plan provisions directed towards revegetation and screening of such earthworks.

34. The fifth of Mr Hutchison's concerns was the adequacy and suitability of the open space associated with each dwelling. Council Wide Principle 21 addresses the provision of private open space for residential development, and is in the following terms:

"Principle 21: Each dwelling occupying its own site (whether it be part or whole of an allotment or allotments) should be provided with private open-space which:

(a) is not less than 50 square metres in area for a dwelling featuring one to two bedrooms;

(b) is not less than 80 squares in area for a dwelling featuring three or more bedrooms;

(c) has a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres; and

(d) incorporates an area of at least 25 square metres with a minimum dimension of four metres which is directly accessible from the dwelling and has a gradient not exceeding 1-in-8."

35. Mr Rumsby, in evidence, declared himself satisfied that the proposal met the requirements of Council Wide Principle 21. Mr Hutchison conceded that there was "technical compliance" with Principle 21, although he questioned the designation of balconies and decks as "private" given the extent to which they would be open to viewing from dwellings on the lower slopes of the Sturt River Valley.

36. When residential development occurs on steeply-sloping land, it is inevitable that a degree of overlooking will occur. This Court has consistently held that total avoidance of overlooking is generally impracticable and that it is "unreasonable" overlooking which should be prevented. In this instance, any overlooking of decks and balconies which may occur from development further to the east will occur from a considerable distance, as will any overlooking of that development from the subject land. Overlooking from the decks of dwellings on the subject land to properties below will be over a distance of more than 25 metres, and screened to some extent by existing vegetation which will not be removed in the course of implementing the subject proposal. That being the case, I am satisfied that no unreasonable overlooking of or from the subject land will occur, and that the requirements of Principle 21, as well as those of Council Wide Principle 17(e), which seeks to prevent overlooking of adjoining residential sites, will be met.

37. Mr Hutchison's final concern, a concern shared by Mr Weaver, was the adequacy of the proposed driveway access, particularly for service and emergency vehicles. A considerable part of the evidence was directed towards this issue. At the conclusion of all the evidence in this matter, it was necessary to adjourn the proceedings for some weeks as insufficient time remained for final addresses. On the resumption of proceedings Mr Henry tendered an amended engineering plan showing the sight lines from the access ramp onto the driveway and a further plan incorporating a number of changes to the dimensions and layout of the access ramp and driveway, which changes responded to specific concerns raised in evidence by Mr Weaver. Mr Henry made it clear, however, that the latter plan was not tendered in substitution for that originally before the Court, but as indicative of changes the appellant was willing to make should the Court conclude that the evidence of Mr Weaver was to be preferred to that of Mr Short.

38. Mr Weaver was subsequently recalled by Mr Manos to give evidence concerning the changes foreshadowed by the plan referred to above. At the conclusion of his evidence I asked him whether the suggested changes, comprising, inter alia, widening of the access way to six metres back to the existing bitumen surface of East Way, provision of centre-line marking, provision of a traffic mirror at the point at which the driveway changes direction, and realignment of the outer end of the crash barrier, would render vehicular access acceptable, in his view. Mr Weaver advised me that it would. Mr Henry subsequently sought and obtained leave to substitute the amended driveway plan (A14) for that originally tendered.

39. Mr Weaver, at the completion of his evidence, remained concerned about the form of access proposed for pedestrians, that being a stairway from the subject land up to Scenique Way, and expressed a preference for that access being to East Way, although he conceded that the nature of the site and surrounding locality, including its remoteness from shops and other community facilities, rendered it likely that the demand for pedestrian access would be quite limited.

40. Mr Manos submitted that satisfactory access for CFS or MFS vehicles remained unresolved, and sought the opportunity to make submissions on conditions of consent in relation to this issue, should I be minded to approve the proposal.

41. Having regard to all the above, I have concluded that, subject to satisfactory resolution of a number of engineering issues, the subject proposal, as amended in the course of the hearing, warrants Provisional Development Plan consent. The engineering issues remaining to be resolved, in no particular order of importance, are as follows:

(a) provision on the subject land of an adequate turn-around for emergency service vehicles;

(b) provision of pedestrian access from the subject land to Scenique Way by means of a stairway capable of meeting Building Code of Australia requirements; and

(c) provision of safety balustrading on the eastern side of the area marked "paved sidewalk" on the amended driveway plan (A14).

42. Satisfactory resolution of these issues may require further discussion between the parties, and, in the case of (a), with the CFS.

43. Additionally, there remains the question of appropriate conditions of consent, an issue on which Mr Manos sought the opportunity to address the Court should I be minded to approve the proposed development.

44. I intimated to the parties that, subject to resolution of the issues referred to above, and to the imposition of appropriate conditions, I would approve the proposal.

45. On the resumption of proceedings, Mr Henry tendered an amended proposal plan (A15) and amended engineering drawings (A16) which incorporated, inter alia, a reconfigured stairway providing pedestrian access to Scenique Way and capable of meeting Building Code of Australia requirements, and steel balustrading abutting of the footpath area in front of each dwelling (incorrectly shown on the plan as on the western rather than eastern side of the footpath).

46. With reference to the question of a turn around area for emergency services vehicles, Mr Henry submitted that revisions to the turn around area, depicted on A16, were sufficient to accommodate an 8.3m vehicle. He tendered written advice from the Metropolitan Fire Service (A18 and A19) to the effect that the subject land lay within the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service Fire District and that that service was satisfied with the proposal on the basis that it now incorporated a fire hydrant adjacent to the access roadway and provided an external stairway to provide emergency egress from each proposed dwelling.

47. Mr Manos tendered written advice from the Country Fire Service (R4 and R5) postdating the original hearing of this matter indicating that "dependent on which maps are used", the subject land could be a CFS or MFS responsibility. R4 set out a range of requirements for access, siting and design, landscape and vegetation management and compliance with bushfire planning and building requirements, based on the premise that the land lay within the area of jurisdiction of the CFS.

48. The Development Plan for the City of Happy Valley contains a number of Objectives and Principles which address the issue of bushfire protection. They apply to the Mount Lofty Ranges Bushfire Prone Area. Reference to Map HaV/1 (Overlay 4) which depicts the Mt Lofty Ranges Bushfire Prone Policy Area confirms that the subject land does not fall within that area. That is not to say that it is in a location not susceptible to bushfire threat - I accept the CFS advice that it is in an area subject to "extreme" fire hazard - but it is an urban location and one in which it is the MFS, rather than the CFS, which would be the responsible fire-fighting authority, and whose advice should be taken into consideration in assessing the proposed development.

49. It was common ground between the parties, however, that vegetation management to minimize the risk of bushfires should be a consideration in any landscaping plan for the subject proposal.

50. With the exception of fire safety conditions, the parties were agreed as to the conditions which should apply to the proposed development, these being primarily those recommended by the Council's planning staff when the application, the subject of these proceedings, was considered by the Council. I am satisfied that the proposal falls within the jurisdiction of the MFS, and therefore do not consider it appropriate to impose the conditions sought by the CFS.

51. The order of the Court is that Provisional Development Plan consent is granted for the subject proposed development, subject to the following conditions:

1. All development shall be completed in accordance with the amended plans and documents - comprising Exhibits A15 and A16 in these proceedings and the Siteworks and Stormwater Plans - 11401-C1/C and 11401-C2/D (dated 13 December 2001) submitted with and forming part of the Development Application except where varied by the following conditions.

2. A detailed landscaping plan shall be prepared, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, prior to commencement of the proposed development. The approved plan shall be implemented within six months of the substantial completion of the development hereby approved, or at such later time as may be approved in writing by the Council. The plan shall detail the location and type of all trees, shrubs and groundcovers to be planted, and those existing trees to be retained, and the method for watering landscaping. No existing native vegetation shall be removed other than in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.

3. Landscaping and erosion control measures shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with the 'Kimseed Environmental - Darlington Housing Development Landscape Rehabilitation Plan' dated October 2001.

4. All stormwater discharge from the development shall be connected to the Council underground stormwater drainage system in the north-eastern corner of the site via pipes. The design and construction of the stormwater system and connection to the Council drain is to be approved by Council.

5. All stormwater drainage shall discharge so that it does not flow or discharge onto land of adjoining owners or in the opinion of Council detrimentally affect structures on this site or any adjoining land.

6. All driveways to properties on the low side of the private access road shall be designed and constructed so that the driveway is a minimum of 75mm above the top of the adjoining kerb and any road water is channelled back into the gutter.

7. A Soil Erosion and Drainage Management Plan (SEDMP) prepared in accordance with the "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry", issued by the EPA shall be prepared and put in place prior to the commencement of any site works and shall include but not be restricted to a temporary construction exit and silt fences. The measures are to prevent silt from being washed from the site to the road and mud from being transported onto the road on the wheels of vehicles. These silt control measures shall be maintained in good working order during construction.

8. The "Crossover-fall out kerb and invert" shown on Ginos Engineering Plan Drawing Number 11402-C1/C in East Way shall be located at a point minimum of 2.0 metres east of the concrete driveway to No.1 East Way.

9. No construction shall commence until the stormwater infrastructure as required by Land Division 145/C007/98 is completed to the satisfaction of Council.

10. Domestic waste (with the exception of recyclable material eg. paper and bottles) shall be collected on a weekly basis from the private service road as per 'Collex' letter dated 14 June 2002, and shall be arranged as a private service to a standard in accordance with the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987. The provision of a private domestic waste collection service and the obligation for the property owners to pay for this service shall be reflected in the event of a community title being sought for the land.

11. Effective measures shall be implemented during the construction of the development and ongoing use of the land in accordance with this consent to:

• prevent silt run-off from the land to adjoining properties, roads and drains;

• control dust arising from the construction and other activities, so as not to be, in the opinion of Council, a nuisance to residents or occupiers of adjacent land;

• ensure that soil or mud is not transferred onto the adjacent roadways by vehicles leaving the site;

• ensure that all litter and building waste is contained on the subject site in a suitable bin or enclosure; and

• ensure that no sound is emitted from any device, plant or equipment or from any source or activity to become an unreasonable nuisance, in the opinion of Council, to the occupiers of adjacent land.

NOTES:

1. The road verge and driveway crossover between the back of kerb and the boundary shall be shaped to provide a minimum width of 2.0 metres on local roads measured from behind the back of kerb with a 2.5 percent fall towards the road suitable for pedestrian traffic.

2. Any site works commenced prior to the formal approval of all engineering details by Council shall be at the applicant's own risk. However, no works shall commence prior to silt control measures being placed.

3. Retaining walls constructed to retain a difference in ground levels exceeding (1) metre in height require development approval. Provisional Building Rules Consent will be required.

4. The applicant should ensure that any required approvals are obtained from the Native Vegetation Management Branch of the Department of Environment and Heritage prior to any native remnant vegetation being cleared on the site.

5. You are further advised that Provisional Building Rules consent is required for the application pursuant to the Development Act.

6. Collection of waste material shall be detailed in the Scheme Description for future Community Title Land Division.