Plan of Consolidation 150313 being the land in Certificate of Title Volume 9376 Folio 848

Rectangle of land with a frontage of 28.65m to the east side of Mangan Street, a depth of 50.29m and an area of 1440.81m2

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2003] VCAT 1934

A. This application for review is granted together with a permit for the use and development of the land as an aged persons accommodation in accordance with the endorsed plans hereafter provided for and subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved these plans will be endorsed as evidence of their approval. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies must be provided. The plans are to be in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a. Provision of screening measures on the first floor south elevation habitable room windows to a minimum height of 1700mm above finished floor level.

b. Amendment to the basement layout and headroom to ensure that an ambulance is able to enter and depart the ambulance bay in a forward manner.

c. Location of the refuse area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d. Modification to the roof in the front elevation between the two forward parts of the building on either side of the recessed centre section above the entry to the basement carpark, so its revised roof design gives a less pronounced visual link between the two forward portions of the building and generally in accordance with the roofs structure in this location as shown on the plan "Amended Revision C dated 13 May 2003".

e. Indication of how natural light is to be allowed into the kitchen.

f. Lattice on top of the northern side boundary fence between the south side of unit 4, 14 Jurang Street and the two western most north facing ground floor windows to ensure the combined height of the fence and lattice is not less than 2.2m.

g. The minimum setback of the building from the rear boundary to be increased to 3.5m with the interspersed further recesses to be setback at 4.5m.

i. an accurate survey of all existing vegetation to be removed and retained and other natural features;

iii. a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the location, number, height and spread at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified;

iv. retention of trees opposite No. 4/14 Jurang Street, within the front setback and along the rear boundary;

v. planting required by any other condition of this permit;

vi. paving, retaining walls, fence design details, and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill and finished site levels.

vii. terraced planting beds leading to the retaining wall between the rear boundary and the eastern wall of the building.

viii measures to protect trees identified as being retained.

2. Not more than 49 residents in the aged care facility, without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. No fewer than 17 car parking spaces are to be provided on the land, including 1 space clearly marked and set aside for the disabled, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Before the use starts or any building is occupied, area/s set aside for car parking access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must be:

b. Formed to such levels and properly drained so that they can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans;

d. Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and driveways;

5. Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

6. All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plans must be maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, all trees on the land must be retained, unless otherwise shown as a tree to be removed on the endorsed plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. Temporary barricades to protect trees to be retained must be erected, to the satisfaction of the Council prior to the commencement of any works. Such barriers must be of solid materials (such as temporary cyclone wire fencing securely positioned on the site) and must be maintained during construction operations, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. All works within 6 metres of any tree to be retained must be supervised by a qualified arborist to ensure that the works are done in a manner which protects and minimises and damage to those trees during construction activities, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and all drainage works must be completed prior to the occupation of the building.

11. Stormwater drains must be connected to a legal point of discharge approved by the Responsible Authority.

12. Any new crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover, must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Prior to the completion of the development, the developer must remove all disused or redundant vehicle crossovers and re-instate kerb and channelling and the affected nature strip, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. The areas set aside for car parking shown on the endorsed plans must be made available for use free of charge to employees and visitors at all times and must not be used for any other purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Sufficient on-site spaces must be allocated to serve visitors to the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. Prior to the commencement of the use, details of any car park control equipment (controlling access to and egress from the internal/basement car parks) must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. These details must include a car park control device which can be accessed by visitors to the development including clear instructions on how to operate any security system, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. All loading and unloading of vehicles must be carried out within the boundaries of the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. The amenity of the area must not be adversely affected by the use or development as a result of:

a. transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

b. appearance of any building, works, stored goods or materials;

c. emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products or oil; or

18. Noise from the premises must not exceed limits prescribed by the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.

19. All outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent light from the site causing any detriment to the locality.

20. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type approved by the Standards Association of Australia and must be connected to a registered security service.

21. All bins and receptacles used for the collection and storage of garbage, bottles and other wastes must be kept in a storage area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This storage area must be:

a. properly paved and drained to a legal point of discharge;

b. screened from view with a suitable designed enclosure;

d. maintained in a clean and tidy condition free from offensive odours;

22. Prior to the endorsement of the plans in Condition 1, a waste management plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Such plan must provide details of a regular garbage collection service to each of the uses on the subject land, including information regarding the type of refuse bins, type/size of trucks, means of accessing bins and frequency of refuse collection, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, such plans must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

23. Prior to the occupation of the permitted buildings, access for disabled persons must be provided to the site and buildings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

a. The development and use does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit; or

b. The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within the three (3) months afterwards.

B. The Responsible Authority is directed pursuant to Section 85(1)(b)(ii) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to issue a permit in accordance with Order A above.

_________________ ___________________

Application under s.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) against the failure to determine a permit application within the prescribed time.

Use and develop the land for the purpose of aged persons accommodation (32 rooms with a total of 49 beds).

Residential 1 Zone under the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

Mr D Crowder of Ratio Consultants appeared for the Responsible Authority.

Mr N Tweedie of Counsel appeared on the instructions of the Applicant for Review, Complete Aged Care Services Pty Ltd.

Ms K Gilmour appeared in person and on behalf of N McConchie, R McConchie, S Monaco, S Payne-Croston, D Zogopoulos and Mr Bradburn. She also tendered a written submission by M & J Conway.

Ms E Duggan appeared in person and on behalf of D Dooley, P Dooley, K Dooley and A F Brown.

Ms A Werner appeared in person and on behalf of M Johnson.

1. This is an Application pursuant to Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("PE Act") brought by Aged Care Accommodation Services ("the Applicant") against the failure of the Boroondara City Council ("the Council") to determine permit application no. PP02/00487 within the prescribed time. An Application for Review was lodged on 26 June 2003.

2. The Responsible Authority advised the Registrar of the Tribunal and parties by letter dated 29 July 2003 that it had determined not to support the Application on the grounds set out in that letter.

3. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Tweedie sought leave to amend the name of the permit applicant and Applicant for Review to "Complete Aged Care Services Pty Ltd". There being no objection, we granted leave to make this amendment to the application.

4. The subject site is located on the east side of Mangan Street and is currently occupied by a single storey building. The building is used for aged persons care, comprising 12 beds. The subject site has a frontage of 28.65 metres, a depth of 50.29 metres and an area of some 1,440 square metres. The land slopes from east to west by around 1.8 metres. The existing building is setback by approximately 9.5 metres from the street with setbacks from the north, east and south boundaries in the order of 3-4 metres. There is a large central courtyard and the building is excavated by up to 1.14 metres to the rear of the land. There is a car park to the northern portion of the site, and access is from a driveway to the north-west corner of the land. There are mature trees within the frontage and to the north and rear boundaries.

5. The review site abuts three properties to its north. They are located at Nos. 14 - 18 Jurang Street. Nos. 16 and 18 Jurang Street have private open space to their rear, abutting the review site. These are each single storey dwellings. A unit at No. 14 Jurang Street is one of four on that lot and is setback by around 3 metres from the common boundary with the review site. It has its main entry and two habitable room windows facing toward the review site. The floor level is slightly elevated above the ground.

6. To the south of the subject land are two units, one behind the other, at No. 16 Mangan Street. They are both double storey with private open space to the north, facing the review site. A driveway also extends along their northern boundary.

7. To the east are two properties with frontage to Yerrin Street. Nos. 13-15 Yerrin Street comprises two storey units with rear private open space. No. 17 Yerrin Street is a detached dwelling with rear private open space.

8. The area comprises a mix of dwelling styles with a strong landscaped presence, notably by street trees. The site is proximate to the Balwyn shopping centre on Whitehorse Road and an entry to Safeway is provided via Mangan Street.

9. Based on the plans marked as Revision B, it is proposed to expand the existing aged care facility on the site to a total of 32 rooms providing 49 beds. There is a total of 17 double and 15 single rooms.

10. The development involves the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a two storey building with a basement car park. A lift is proposed. The basement would provide 17 car spaces as well as ambulance parking, loading bay and storage. The lift is accessible from this level. The main entrance would be from Mangan Street with a redundant existing crossover to the south-west to be removed.

11. The building is proposed to be setback by a minimum of 1.8 metres from the northern (side) boundary, 2.5 metres from the eastern (rear) boundary and 1.8 metres from the southern (side) boundary. The second storey is proposed to be setback by a minimum of 1.83 metres from the northern boundary, 2.8 metres from the eastern boundary and 1.8 metres from the southern boundary.

12. Excavation to around 1.8 metres is proposed toward the rear of the site.

13. The design includes a pitched tiled roof with face brickwork and render banding to the first floor. Gabled roof elements are shown to the Mangan Street frontage, with a separate gabled portico entrance.

14. A landscape plan is included in the proposal. It does not show trees to be retained on the site, although Mr Tweedie stated that trees along the northern site boundary and some trees within the frontage can be retained.

15. The review site is located in a Residential 1 Zone. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 32.01, a planning permit is required to use and develop the land for the purpose of an aged care facility. The use can be described as a residential building for the purposes of the planning scheme.

17. We have considered a number of other Clauses to which our attention was directed including:

s State Planning Policy Framework - Clauses 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19.

s Local Planning Policy Framework - Clauses 21 (Municipal Strategic Statement), 22.03 (Car Parking), Clause 22.04 (Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas) and 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character).

s Particular provisions - Clause 52.06 (car parking) and 52.07 (loading).

s General provisions - Clause 65 (general decision guidelines).

18. The planning document known as Melbourne 2030 has also been taken into account.

19. We have considered the written and oral submissions presented, reviewed the relevant provisions of the Boroondara Planning Scheme and inspected the site and surrounding area.

20. We have also considered the evidence called on behalf of the Applicant from Mr J Govenlock (town planner).

21. We have considered but will not here recite the comprehensive submissions tendered by the parties at the hearing. The key issues raised in submissions and evidence which we address in turn are:

b) is the proposed development acceptable in terms of streetscape and neighbourhood character considerations?

c) would the proposed development have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjacent residents in terms of noise, overlooking, overshadowing or any other considerations?

d) is an acceptable level of internal amenity achieved?

e) would the proposal cause unreasonable impacts in terms of car parking and traffic in the immediate area?

22. We refer first to the relevant planning policies in the planning scheme that assist with our consideration of the first question above.

23. When considering the policies of the Planning Scheme as a whole, there is a policy objective to ensure that suitable accommodation is available to meet the community's changing housing needs. That is a strategic direction reinforced by Melbourne 2030. Among the most crucial are the needs associated with an ageing population. For example, at Clause 21.09-2, when referring a wide range of community facilities and services many of which are in residential areas, the following issues are identified:

The location of community facilities and services need to be distributed on an equitable basis according to need.

The development and use of community facilities needs to be encouraged, but also needs to be managed so as to support the amenity or character of the surrounding residential areas.

s To ensure that all members of the Boroondara community have appropriate and equitable access to community facilities according to their need.

s To ensure that community facilities complement and enhance residential areas.

s To retain the City of Boroondara as a regional centre for education and health services.

s To ensure that community facilities are used to their full potential and provide a range of services to all user groups.

25. At Clause 21.07, changes in the make up of resident household structures and changes in housing needs are recognised. It is stated that some 29% of households in the municipality are single person, "partly explained by the large proportion of elderly people residing here". Objectives set out at Clause 21.07-3 consequently seek to provide for a mix and range of housing types and forms while also "maintaining and enhancing the City's present degree of residential amenity and high standard of residential development". Strategies include to increase housing choice and diversity within existing residential areas, increase residential development opportunities including higher density development in (amongst other things) strategic locations, encourage a high standard of residential development, and minimise the impact of commercial and non-residential uses on their surrounding areas.

26. Clause 22.04 sets out a policy relating to discretionary uses in residential areas and includes a policy that the proposed discretionary use should provide services that respond to local need. It also states that sites previously used or constructed for non-residential purposes are favoured for such discretionary uses.

27. Having regard to these policies, we find the proposed use to be acceptable and to respond to an identified need. That is consistent with the findings of a number of divisions of the Tribunal that have reviewed proposals for aged care facilities in the City of Boroondara, such as Zig Inge Retirement Villages v Boroondara City Council and Others [2000] VCAT 2330, Retirement Services Australia Pty Ltd v Boroondara City Council (Application for Review No. 1999/022775) and Primelife Corporation Limited v Boroondara City Council and Others (Application for Review No. P448/2003)

28. As was the case in other applications before the Tribunal, local residents in these proceedings criticised the proposal given the number of aged care facilities in the area and the commercial orientation of the venture.

29. Consistent with previous Tribunal findings, we find no basis to reject the proposal or reduce the amount of floor area, and number of units, within the development for reasons relating to the extent of aged accommodation in the wider area at present or inconsistency with the policy direction of the Planning Scheme.

30. That the use may be a commercial enterprise is, in our view, not relevant. Rather, it should be recognised that the proposal would allow a site that has been used for aged care to remain in that use involving supported accommodation for a segment of the population that requires or would benefit from additional accommodation. There are many types and forms of aged persons care and this proposal would add to the mix available or being planned. Moreover, the redevelopment of a site that is presently used for aged care is positive and logical. It would enable the use to be more viable, or at least more efficient organisationally and in terms of land use.

31. This proposal is a good one, and an improvement on the present arrangement. It is not just a more efficient use of the land, staff and other facilities. Twelve is a poor number economically and socially for the inhabitants. A larger, yet manageable, number affords better opportunities for social contact, and also for shared activities.

32. The proposal removes the present expanse of car parking at ground floor level in front of the existing building, and relocates it into an unobtrusive underground car park. This advantage is not obtained without some cost. There is the additional expense of excavation, and the need to provide a lift. Some increase in numbers is necessary to cover those costs. The overall result is an improvement.

33. It is a suitable and convenient site in terms of size, topography and location. It is within a convenient distance of good public transport, shopping and other facilities. It is in a residential zone. Residential zones have long been recognised as a suitable location for such uses, and rightly so.

34. We next refer to streetscape and neighbourhood character considerations.

35. It is worth first stating that the proposed facility is one that is specialised and has specific functional requirements. The most obvious is that it contain few stairs and level changes as possible on a single floor, for reasons relating to the limited mobility of many residents. Furthermore, these facilities are usually larger than the average dwelling or multi-unit development. One cannot expect them to necessarily replicate the form and mass of other housing forms just as in the same way a school, milk bar or church may be appropriately located in a residential area without resembling houses.

36. The review site is in an established residential area with abuttals to numerous private open spaces. The existing building scale is of modest single detached dwellings and some villa units. Recent two storey residences and units are a more prominent form. Pitched roof forms dominate. The review site is essentially concealed by vegetation.

37. Landscaping is strongly evident in the public domain as well as in front gardens. The street trees are quite heavily pruned as a result of powerlines.

38. The main issues raised by those opposing the Application related to the mass and scale of the proposed building down the site, the alleged insufficiency of setbacks from boundaries, lack of opportunities for planting, and the building bulk to the upper level maintained throughout the site. These submissions were challenged through the evidence of Mr Govenlock.

39. We first state that we have no difficulty in principle with the front setback at ground level, which provides a reasonable transition between the dwellings to the north and south. The upper level of the proposed development is broken into two prominent forms, separated by a recessed central section. The two forward elements are linked by a continuous ridged roof form associated with the central section of the building. We consider that a more responsive outcome would be achieved by a modified roof form over the recessed central section. A different design such as a flat roof section shown in the plans marked as Revision C would be an improvement. Revision C was a set of plans tabled and considered in the course of the hearing. It had been prepared for the applicant company, although the applicant had decided that it did not wish to proceed on the basis of those plans. However, a less pronounced visual tie at roof level between the two front elements as shown in the Revision C plans would be an improvement. That would assist in relieving the visual bulk of this development and respond to the rhythm of development in the street; albeit that the building would still present as a large structure compared with many of its more modest neighbours.

40. The proposed side and rear setbacks are modest compared with most adjoining development (whether units or detached houses). This is an important consideration as the physical form of the proposed building is mainly two storey though with some articulation between levels and limited opportunities for planting when taking into account the presence of retaining walls. We gave particular consideration to these matters in the course of our inspection because of doubts we entertained when considering the proposal merely on the basis of plans. A consideration of the actual topography and the inter-relationship between the proposed site and its development with the adjoining properties is of significance. Apart from 14 Jurang Street the adjoining properties to the north and east have their rear boundaries to the review site and they, together with the adjoining property to the south, are elevated compared to the review site. We have noted existing fences, vegetation and outbuildings, and come to the conclusion that these setbacks are, after all, acceptable in the particular circumstances of this case, so far as the adjoining properties are concerned.

41. However, we have a different concern about the rear setback. We are concerned that, inside this boundary, the building will be cut fairly deeply into the site and to a greater extent than exists at present. There will need to be retaining facilities to hold back, and in place, the higher land to the east. There are east facing windows proposed at ground floor level. Some better prospect than a view onto a nearby retaining wall is warranted. An increased rear setback can provide for some terraced planting areas between retaining segments and should enable some greater retention in established trees inside this boundary, or at least at the corners, whilst still affording space for a pathway around the back of the building. We consider that the minimum setback at both levels across the rear of the building should be not less than 3.5 metres with the indents at ground floor going back a further metre.

42. We have also given attention to the setback from the northern boundary at the front of the site where it is opposite 14 Jurang Street. At ground floor this setback is 3 metres, but it is somewhat reduced at first floor level by an overhang effect. We are concerned that as much as possible of the attractive trees in the front of the site, and along this boundary should be retained. We are conscious that some trimming in this front north boundary area will be required. We also wish to maximise the retention of trees at the rear of the site. We think that a new landscape plan is called for in these circumstances. Protection and any trimming of existing trees should be undertaken in a manner to maximise their chances of survival in the presence of the proposed development.

43. We next refer to potential off-site amenity impacts. The main concerns relate to overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk. There are some other issues also referred to in submissions.

44. Our main concern in relation to the interface with adjacent residential properties was in terms of visual bulk, which we have addressed above and will refer to further below. We are satisfied in relation to overshadowing, as shadows are mainly cast over the driveway to the south. Overlooking that can be adequately restricted by screening.

45. Visual bulk was a concern expressed in relation to most abutting properties. We have considered them individually as well as collectively.

46. No. 4/14 Jurang Street has its main entry and several habitable room windows facing the review site. The floor level of the dwelling is partly elevated above ground level. Given the raised floor level of the proposed development toward the front of the site, there is quite limited potential for overlooking from the front ground level north-facing windows, but views at ground floor level are not normally regarded as a problem, especially with the intervention of normal suburban fencing. The bulk of the proposed development would be significant but articulated. The retention of trees can assist.

47. Ms Gilmore proposed a number of changes to this north-west section of the building. We do not consider that the changes she proposes are necessary.

48. Further along the northern boundary, a break is provided in the building form by the position of the courtyard. That is opposite the rear of No. 16 Jurang Street. However, there would still be a two storey form over the rear boundary of both Nos. 16 and 18 Jurang Street, albeit that the form would be perceived as lowering to the east as the excavation increases. Nevertheless, two storeys cannot be regarded in itself as an inappropriate building height in an ordinary residential zone, whether adjoining developments are of one or two storeys. The mass is significantly broken up by the existence of the courtyard area and, as we have already observed, the fall in the topography from north to south is significant. The site is, in fact, in the floor of a gentle gully. The land rises around it to north and south and east. The only adjoining land that falls from the site is to the west. The invert of the original gully falls in that direction.

49. We reach a similar conclusion in relation to the rear abuttal, most particularly with No. 17 Yerrin Street. Although the building would be set down to a greater extent at this part of the site, so that only part of the lower level and the upper level would be visible, with a 2.8 metre setback and the retaining wall, the area for planting is limited.

50. To the south, there has been a significant attempt to reduce the visual mass and shadowing to the residence at Unit 2/16 Mangan Street by including a single storey component. That is desirable. There is a more solid and unrelieved section of two storey wall further west along this southern elevation that abuts a driveway. As we have said having regard to the topography and the situation of adjoining developments, we regard this as acceptable.

51. Another matter alluded to in some submissions concerned the areas of open space on the site. There was a suggestion that more open space for residents would be desirable. That, of course, can always be said. It does not mean an increase is justified or necessary. We understand from Mr Govenlock's evidence and Mr Tweedie's submission that the proposal has been designed based on Commonwealth standards that deal with a range of issues including necessary and appropriate open space. One would expect areas of communal open space are required with less need for private secluded open space attached to each bedroom. We consider it better to provide a substantial and useable open space area like the proposed courtyard with northern aspect rather than providing less useable "penny packets" around the site.

52. There was some discussion of informal design, a topic also dealt with in Commonwealth standard requirements for facilities of this sort. As noted by Mr Marsden, when addressing this same issue in Appeal No. 1998/12268 Lineus May Nominees Pty Ltd v City of Stonnington and Ors (22 AATR 254):

The internal design of facilities such as this is a very specialised matter and, in the Tribunal's view, planners should be hesitant to interfere unless there is a very sound town planning reason for so doing.

53. There was some criticism in the submission of the Responsible Authority in relation to a lack of cupboards (a matter that can be dealt with outside of this process) and informal internal recreational areas. For the reasons outlined above, we find no basis to direct changes to the plans to address these matters.

54. We do remark on the absence of any windows in the kitchen, a matter that would be desirable to address.

55. Next we refer to traffic and parking considerations.

56. A major concern of local residents is the potential for the proposed use to result in increased traffic and car parking in the immediate area. Concerns include additional traffic in Mangan Street and the potential for overflow car parking into that street and others nearby, particularly given that on-site car parking is proposed in what they contend is a less convenient basement.

57. The Responsible Authority did not base its opposition to the proposal on any matters related to access and car parking.

58. Mangan Street is a local road that carries traffic associated with the activities of the shopping centre. That appears to cause some inconvenience to existing residents, as does overflow car parking. Parking restrictions apply.

59. While we recognise the concerns held by local residents, we accept the submissions presented by the Responsible Authority and Applicant that adequate on-site parking is provided for the proposed use. The proposal is projected to result in a peak demand of between 9 and 20 car spaces, based on a report submitted with the permit application and accepted by the Council's traffic engineers.

60. We find that the reduction in car parking sought pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Scheme is, therefore, acceptable. The proposal provides for 17 on-site spaces. The rate adopted is consistent with other cases (see discussion in Power and Others v Darebin City Council and Anor Application for Review No. 1999/52229). There is no reliance on on-street car parking to satisfy the demand generated by the expanded facility.

61. Of course, that does not mean that there will never be any on-street parking associated with the proposed development. Despite concerns by local residents about the amount of on-street parking that occurs at present, we find no reason to conclude that the proposal would unreasonably exacerbate an existing parking problem.

62. Traffic in the area is an added concern to existing residents. Based on a traffic report submitted with the permit application, the proposal can be expected to result in minimal additional vehicle movements each day. These would be concentrated to daytime/early evening hours and staff changeovers, with little overnight activity. We are satisfied that the local street network is able to cope with any additional traffic and that the change to volumes in Mangan Street would be within acceptable limits of change.

63. We are satisfied that acceptable provision can be made for garbage collection (by a private contractor) and for loading and deliveries. Arrangements for access by emergency vehicles are acceptable. Although clearance heights for an ambulance in the basement may need to be confirmed the need for ambulances is infrequent and entry to the basement is not essential to pick up or deliver a patient.

64. In conclusion, the proposal is a meritorious one and is in principle consistent with planning policy. We find it to be acceptable subject to certain modifications in relation to which we intend to impose conditions.

_________________ ___________________