1 The order of the Tribunal is that the application for review is allowed and the following modifications to the permit are made:

(i) The Responsible Authority should also amend the section of the permit 'The Permit Allows:' to reflect the 90 places.

(ii) Condition 1a) is deleted and replaced by 'The number of children proposed on the site at any one time must not exceed ninety(90)'.

(iii) Condition 7 delete 'seventy five (75)' and insert 'ninety (90)'

2 The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a modified permit in accordance with this order pursuant to Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

For the Applicant for Review: Ms S Brennan Barrister appeared on behalf Akchi Holdings P/L. She called Mr Carr Traffic Engineer of Grogan Richards to give evidence.

For the Responsible Authority: Mr P Connell, Town Planner, on behalf of Kingston City Council

Respondent/objectors Ms N Unwin, appeared in person

1. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal gave oral reasons for its decision in this matter. Below is a summary of those reasons

2. This was an application under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the Council's imposition of Condition 1a) and Condition 7 on permit No KP842/02 reducing the number of childcare places on the site from 90 to 75.

3. The permit application seeks permission for the part demolition and to carry out building and works to use the land for the purpose of a childcare facility at 2 Jellicoe St, Cheltenham.

4. In giving these reasons for my decision, I do not propose to set out the details of:

* the background to the Council's consideration of the permit application and decision.

5 Essentially, the relevant background facts in relation to these matters were comprehensively set out in the written submissions presented by Mr Connell on behalf of the Council. I note that the other parties did not dispute the correctness of the relevant background facts in any significant way. I have also had the benefit of an array of photographs, plans, diagrams and other material which have given me a very good understanding of the land, its context and the proposal.

6. In coming to my decision I have considered the matters raised in the submissions and evidence, the relevant matters under the planning scheme and legislation together with the details of the proposal for which a permit is being sought.

7. This matter is centered around the key issue of the what impact on the surrounding and nearby area a 90 place childcare facility would have, compared to, that of a 75 place childcare facility as approved by Council.

8. After having considered these, it seems to me that the key issues in this matter are:

* (i) is there adequate parking on site to service the 90 place childcare facility(or an additional 15 places)?

Both the Responsible Authority and the Applicant for Review did not dispute the appropriateness of this site for the for the purpose of a Child Care facility. The retention of the existing interim listed heritage building on the site was a positive outcome in this proposal..

Mr Connell on behalf of the Responsible Authority argued that the reduction from 90 to 75 places was justified on the basis that discussion with Councils traffic engineers and concerns expressed by objectors highlight parking issues in the area. Mr Connell was not able to provide the Tribunal with any analysis on how or why such a reduction was justified. Indeed when questioned Mr Connell indicated that the standard parking rate applied in such cases was 0.16 spaces per child, which would result in a parking requirement of 15 spaces for a 90 place facility..

Mr Carr, Traffic Engineer, on behalf of the applicant for review undertook a detailed analysis to determine the empirical demand for such a center as required by clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The evidence and analysis provided by Mr Carr is preferred and accepted by the Tribunal and the Tribunal finds that the 19 car spaces provided on site together with the potential three spaces in front of the site to be adequate to service this proposal.

Indeed the suggestion or restricted parking times for the three on-street spaces would appear a sensible action for Council to implement.

* (ii) is the traffic impact of an addition 15 places unacceptable in the context of the existing road network?

The additional traffic that would be generated by the additional 15 spaces would in my view be insignificant and could not reasonably lead to the reduction in child places.

There is no doubt there will be a change in the traffic volumes experienced along Jellicoe St but such a situation is not an unusual outcome in urban areas and well within the capacity of the street to absorb.

While traffic volumes along Wilson Street are high, these levels already exist and traffic measures to control this level of traffic are already in place and may require further attention in the future. However the volumes are unlikely to be adversely affected by the increase in capacity of the Child Care centre by a further 15 places.

8. Ms Unwin expressed concern in respect of both traffic and car parking. These are legitimate concerns for residents to be concerned with however on the information submitted l am satisfied that the facility can operate without unreasonable affecting the amenity of nearby residents. I have no concerns in respect of the impact of parking or traffic for the Pine St residents.

9. Ms Brennan tabled an number of Tribunal decisions supporting the position that childcare facilities are appropriate developments and uses within residential areas and the level of parking demand accepted as reasonable in those cases. While relevant, it was unnecessary for me to refer to these in coming to my decision

10. In summary I find that the land has all the attributes which make it suitable for a well designed Childcare facility/development; and that adequate parking provision is made to accommodate a 90 place childcare facility and that the local area will not be adversely affected in terms of any increase in Traffic as a consequence of the additional 15 places.

Having regard to my findings, I will amend the Council's decision. A permit is granted for a 90 place child care facility and condition 1 a) and condition 7 are amended accordingly. The Responsible Authority should also amend the section 'The permit allows" to reflect the 90 places.