1. Before the use and/or development starts, amended plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans filed with the Tribunal but modified to show:

(a) all wall heights above existing ground level and altered finished ground level (if applicable) to be nominated on the plans;

(b) the location of all footpaths and driveways; to be properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans; to be drained and surfaced with a non-slip material and suitably sealed and laid;

(c) a schedule of all external materials and finishes showing the materials, colour and finish of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames and paving (including car park surfacing); the roof material must not be corrugated iron;

(d) the finished surface levels of the driveway and car parking areas and within 2 metres of the perimeter of the nursing home building to demonstrate suitable grades. (Spot levels to be provided at suitable intervals);

(e) details of the location of cut and fill batters, (top and toe of batters to be clearly shown) and retaining walls including the height of such walls;

(f) identification of the trees to be removed as a result of the cut and fill across part of the site; any service requirements; or for any other reason;

(g) proposed finished batter grades including cross-sections demonstrating how main cut and fill batters are to be landscaped and details of retaining walls and drainage;

(h) plan notations indicating the treatment of all north and west facing windows with appropriate shading and solar control devices;

(i) the screening of the two decks shown or the upper level plan to a height of at least 1.6m;

(j) the provision of a ramp suitable for disabled persons between the car park adjacent to the lower level building entry and the upper level building entry.

(k) installation of a lift in a convenient location in the entrance lobby of the lower level;

(l) the provision of a bin storage enclosure and details of its construction with elevations;

(m) details of service vehicle access to the bin enclosure for waste/rubbish collection;

(n) fencing details to all boundaries including provision of a 1.8m high timber paling fence along the northern boundary of the subject land;

(o) fencing details throughout the site, including at the top of cut and fill batters;

(p) plan notations indicating that excess fill resulting from excavation works shall be removed from the site;

(q) the toe of the retaining wall protecting the embankment adjacent to rooms 1 to 10 on the lower level plan shall be set back at least two metres from the wall face of the nursing home building;

(r) at least 40 square metres of additional `at-grade' outdoor activity area as an extension of the paved area shown on the north side of the nursing home building on the lower level plan;

(s) an accurate depiction of the location and details of air-conditioning and any other mechanical equipment visible above the roof line;

(t) provision of fly wire screening for all habitable room windows;

(u) the details of a sign for identification purposes only, at the Chivers Road entrance;

(v) details of all external lighting proposed, including the entry to the site; the car parking areas and the upper and lower entry to the nursing home building;

(w) changes to all elevations of the building to create visual interest and lessen the institutional appearance of the building. Architectural techniques that may be suitable include horizontal brick banding in a contrasting colour; a suitable mix of face brickwork and render; painting the window frames a contrasting colour to the walls or providing projections to the windows or walls of the building;

(x) provision of a pedestrian path with a surface material suitable for wheelchairs on the south side of the building connecting the `sheltered south court' and the north garden terrace outdoor activity area shown on the lower site plan; seating should be provided at regular intervals along the path.

2. The layout of the site and the size of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plan must not be modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Ramps, walkways, pedestrian paths and entrance doors must be constructed to accord with the Australian Standards for Disabled Access. This access must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the use allowed by this permit commencing.

4. All engineering works shall be carried out in accordance with a detailed construction plan approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of works.

5. The developer is required to construct outfall drainage works between the site and the existing Council drain, in accordance with construction plans approved by the Responsible Authority.

6. The developer is required to provide on-site stormwater detention storage, to limit the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to that applicable to the site coverage of 35% of hard surface or the pre-existing hard surface if it is greater than 35%. The PSD must be designed for 1 in 5 year storm and the storage must be designed for 1 in 10 year storm. The detention system must be maintained by the owner thereafter in accordance with construction plans. Construction plans for the detention storage works described above shall be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any buildings or works authorised by this permit.

7. Before the use and/or development starts, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a) constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(b) constructed with dark coloured concrete or bitumen, coloured patterned concrete, interlocking paving blocks or brick paving to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(c) properly formed to such levels and properly drained so that they can be used in accordance with the endorsed plans;

(d) surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(e) linemarked to indicate each car space and the direction of traffic flow to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and

(f) drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

9. Vehicles under the control of the operator of the use and/or the operator's staff must not be parked in Chivers Road, Templestowe.

10. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

11. Low intensity lighting must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure that car park areas and pedestrian accessways are illuminated during evening periods.

12. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse impact on adjoining land.

13. Before the use or development starts, a plan depicting finished surface levels across the site and the trees to be retained and the trees to be removed must be approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This plan must also identify trees to be removed (if any) in order for the sewer and other services to be provided to the nursing home.

14. Before the use or development starts, a landscape plan based on the finished surface levels across the site and the trees to be retained must be prepared by a landscape architect or person of approved competence showing species, locations, approximate height and spread of proposed planting and the retention of existing trees and shrubs, paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill, shall be approved by the Responsible Authority.

The landscape plan must provide effective screening around the perimeter of the land, particularly the car park area, and include canopy trees with an understorey of plant species that grow to approximately two metres. Additional planting in the western area of the subject land should be undertaken.

15. Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before occupation of the development and/or commencement of the use.

16. Prior to the release of the endorsed plan, a $3,000.00 cash bond or bank guarantee shall be lodged with the Responsible Authority to ensure the completion and maintenance of landscaped areas and such bond or bank guarantee shall only be refunded or discharged after a period of twelve (12) months from the completion of all works, provided the landscaped areas are being maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. Buildings, engineering works, fences and landscaped areas shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Before the use commences, the site and the nursing home must be connected to the reticulated sewerage system to the satisfaction of Yarra Valley Water and the Responsible Authority.

19. All basic services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage and telephone shall be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. Provision shall be made within the site for letterbox facilities and garbage bin collection and storage points designed and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21. No external amplified public address system shall be installed or operated on the subject site.

22. Service and storage areas shall be kept in a tidy, rubbish-free condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

23. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of garbage, bottles and other solid wastes in bins or receptacles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

24. All bins and receptacles used for the collection and storage of garbage, bottles and other solid wastes shall be kept in a storage area screened from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

25. All bins and receptacles shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition and free from offensive odour.

26. Deliveries and collection shall not cause any disturbance to nearby residential properties and may only occur between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am to 7.00pm Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays.

27. Any cooking system in the building shall be provided with filters to minimise cooking odours, and in the event of an external exhaust chimney being used, such structure shall be designed or screened to minimise visual impact and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

28. Mechanical noise emanating from the premises (air-conditioners etc) must comply with the State Environment Protection Policy N-1 `Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade'.

29. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units, heating units, hot water systems etc) are to be shown on the endorsed plans, and if necessary, screened to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

30. All pipes (except downpipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

31. Any security alarm system installed on the subject premises shall be of a silent type approved by the Standards Association of Australia and shall be connected to a registered security firm.

32. The maximum number of residents of the nursing home shall not exceed 50 persons at any given time.

(a) the development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the development is not completed within four (4) years of the 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 three (3) months afterwards.

_____________________________

Mr R Appudurai, instructed by Maddock Lonie and Chisholm, appeared for the Responsible Authority.

Mr S Morris QC, instructed by Williams, Winter and Higgs, appeared for the Applicant/ Applicant for Review. Mr Morris called two witnesses - Andrew John Rodda, Town Planner, and Stephen Hunt, Traffic Engineer. Both witnesses gave oral evidence and presented written reports.

Ms R O'Neill, Town Planner, appeared for 39 objectors, whose names and addresses are set out in the attachment to her submission.

Dr G Estaugh appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of J Bergin and E Sedran.

Various plans, photographs and other documents were tendered, either as attachments to written submissions and reports, or as separate exhibits. The evidence submitted in documentary form, together with the written submissions, have been retained on the file of the Tribunal.

All parties, except Mr Morris, tendered a written submission.

I have inspected the land and locality on two occasions.

1. This was an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by Altostruct Pty Ltd against the Responsible Authority's decision to refuse the grant of a permit with respect to Permit Application No. TP11246.

The permit application seeks permission for the use and development of a 50 bed aged care facility/nursing home at 1 Chivers Road, Templestowe.

2. The Responsible Authority refused the permit application on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development is out of character with the area.

2. The proposed development will cause unreasonable detriment to the amenity of the existing streetscape.

3. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site.

4. The proposed development does not allow for adequate landscaping opportunities.

5. The proposed development will result in excessive visual bulk.

6. The proposed development will result in reduced amenity for future inhabitants including the absence of a mechanical lift.

7. The proposed development is located in a secluded area and provides inadequate access to transport, cultural and community facilities.

8. The proposed development is located in an unsuitable area with regard to the topography of the site and area.

9. The proposal provides inadequate infrastructure including drainage, footpaths and lighting.

1. The proposed development has been designed in a manner which respects and sympathises with the surrounding area.

2. The proposed development will not cause unreasonable detriment to the amenity of the existing streetscape. The nature of the development being an aged care facility will not cause unreasonable detriment to the amenity and the development has been designed to be sympathetic with the existing streetscape.

3. The proposed development is not an overdevelopment of the site. At the request of the Responsible Authority the Applicant has reduced the size of the development.

4. The proposed development does allow for adequate landscaping opportunities and the Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable level of landscaping to be provided on site. The Applicant proposes to retain the existing vegetation and enhance site with further landscaping.

5. The proposed development will not result in excessive visual bulk. The site is naturally well screened with a large number of mature trees existing around its perimeter and the development is a two storey design which will have a minimal visual impact on the area.

6. The proposed development will not result in reduced amenity for future inhabitants. The building has been designed to consider the occupants amenity.

7. The proposed development is located in a suitable area. A Residential D Zone is appropriate for an aged care facility and the development is consistent with the zone objectives.

8. The proposal does provide adequate infrastructure and will not put an adverse strain on the existing infrastructure.

9. The Applicant addressed all concerns of the Responsible Authority in preparing the Application for the development and the Application is an appropriate development in accordance with the orderly and proper planning of the area.

10. The Applicant reserves the right to lodge further grounds as may be appropriate after the perusal of the Application file of the Responsible Authority.

4. The application was advertised and 46 objections were received. The Planning Officer's report to Council dated 30 May 2000 summarised and categorised the grounds of objection in the following way:

* The majority of objectors feel that the proposed development will provide an unacceptable strain on existing services and infrastructure. Drainage, run-off and demand on natural resources are highlighted as areas of major concern.

Zoning of the Land under Doncaster & Templestowe Planning Scheme

* Many objectors feel that the use of the site for an aged care facility contravenes the planning scheme and is prohibited.

* Nearly all objectors believe that the proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding area. It is felt that the proposal will impact on neighbours due to increased visual bulk, noise and poor design.

* It is feared that the development will result in traffic congestion in and around the site.

* Objectors feel the number of car spaces provided is not enough and visitors visiting the site will park along Chivers Road and further congest what many believe is an already busy street.

* The site is considered too small for use of the type of use applied for.

* A number of residents feel that the proposal would result in a dramatic loss in privacy due to the nature of the development.

5. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Morris requested an amendment to the permit application form be made to identify Altostruct Pty Ltd, being the registered proprietor of the land, as the permit applicant, in place of the architect, Bradbury Dicker Whitnall. There being no objection to the amendment, I so amended the permit application form.

6. Mr Morris tabled a landscape plan prepared by Collie Landscape and Design Pty Ltd (Ref S0638-200) for the information of the Tribunal and requested that the plan not be formally considered as part of the application.

7. Mr Morris also tabled a feature survey existing conditions plan prepared by Head and Humphreys Land Consultants for the information of the Tribunal.

8. The amended plans before the Tribunal showing details of the development are as follows:

* Lower level site plan, dated September 2000, Sheet No. A001, Rev B.

* Upper level site plan, dated September 2000, Sheet No. A002, Rev B.

* Elevations, Sections dated February 2000, Sheet No. A501, Rev A.

9. These plans were circulated to all parties on 9 October 2000; and the Tribunal was formally requested to amend the permit application to substitute these plans for the plans submitted with the application.

10. There being no objection to the amendment, I so amended the application.

11. The subject land is located on the north-west corner of Reynolds Road and Chivers Road, Templestowe.

12. It is a rectangular shaped parcel of land with a dimension of about 105m to Reynolds Road and a dimension of about 38m to Chivers Road. The site area is 4560sq m.

13. The site is accessed via a 2.5m wide crossover from Chivers Road; the cutting along Reynolds Road prevents vehicle access from this road to the subject land. There is also a tree reserve on the plan of subdivision along the Reynolds Road frontage which prevents direct access.

14. The site is occupied by a substantial dwelling and swimming pool, located centrally on the property in an area that has been excavated/levelled to accommodate the building.

15. The Feature Survey Plan prepared by Head and Humpreys indicates that the site has a very good cover of trees and shrubs. The site also has a significant slope generally from the south-east corner (Reynolds Road/Chivers Road) with a spot level of 102.5 to the north-west corner with a spot level of 90.8 and 96.5 (south west corner/Reynolds Road).

16. The feature survey plan shows the extent of excavation/levelling carried out to accommodate the existing dwelling and the location of associated retaining walls and areas of steep slope falling towards the northern boundary of the subject land.

17. Mr Morris advised that the topography of the site and the previous excavation/levelling influenced the design response and the plans submitted for the proposal.

18. Along the northern boundary of the subject land is a 10m wide driveway that provides access to 1A Chivers Road. This property is located to the west of the subject land and was originally on the same title. Following subdivision of the subject land, a `battle axe' lot was created and this has been developed with a substantial 2 storey dwelling set in an extensive garden, with a dense tree cover around the perimeter of the property.

19. This property is owned and occupied by A & E Sedran who are objectors to the nursing home application. The driveway to the Sedran's property is attractively landscaped with an open post and wire fence along most of the common boundary with the subject land and the Bergin's property to the north.

20. Land to the north of the Sedran's driveway is also heavily treed and is owned by Mr & Mrs J Bergin, who are also objectors to the proposed nursing home application. The Bergin's dwelling is located toward the Chivers Road frontage of their property. Land opposite the site at 2 Chivers Road contains a substantial dwelling, and land to the south across Reynolds Road is also occupied by a substantial dwelling that sits high above the Reynolds Road cutting.

21. My inspection confirms that the area surrounding the subject land is generally characterised by large lots occupied by large brick dwellings, in extensive garden settings. Tennis courts and swimming pools are also common features of the neighbourhood.

22. The mature eucalyptus trees on the subject land, make an important contribution to the character of the southern end of Chivers Road. The existing buildings do not dominate the streetscape; however further to the north along Chivers Road and particularly in Merna Drive and Church Road, the tree canopy has been lost. More formal style gardens have been established with extensive areas of lawn and buildings are a more dominant element in the streetscape.

23. Chivers Road is a no-through road. It is sealed with a gravel shoulder along most of its length. The opportunity for on-street parking in Chivers Road is limited; although I observed at least one vehicle parked on the gravel shoulder on the days of my inspection. It is therefore essential that sufficient car parking spaces are provided on the subject land for staff and visitors to the nursing home.

24. The subject land is located in an established suburban residential area; with access by car to the usual range of urban services including The Pines Shopping Centre and the Templestowe Village Shopping Centre, and attractive areas of local and regional open space. The site and general area could not reasonably be described as `secluded', `remote' or `isolated'.

25. Reynolds Road is part of the metropolitan arterial road network. The National Bus Company operates bus route 309 and 364 along Reynolds Road. This information about the bus services was taken from the timetables provided at the bus stops on Reynolds Road, on the first day that I inspected the site (17 October 2000). Route 309 is the Donvale-City bus and Route 364 runs between Doncaster Shoppingtown and the Pines Shopping Centre. It runs every half hour.

26. In his submission on behalf of the Responsible Authority, Mr Appudurai advised that the development will comprise of:

* 50 bed-sitter rooms, 20 on the ground floor (for residents requiring a higher level of care) and 30 on the first floor; each with ensuite bathroom facilities.

- communal dining, lounge room and day room facilities;

- staff and public toilets (including disabled facilities);

* Main kitchen on ground floor with server on first floor.

* Internal courtyard (ground floor)/void (first floor), for light access only.

* 20 car parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaces), ambulance and service vehicle parking and vehicular access/egress via cross-over on Chivers Road (widened to allow two-way traffic); and

Each bed-sitter room is proposed to be 3.3m by 3.7m (approximately 13.5sq m, with ensuite bathroom of approximately 4.5sq m). Rooms 1-10 on each floor face south, the ground floor wall setback 2m from the retaining wall to the south. Three rooms on each floor are `internal' with light from the internal courtyard/void to the south. Seven rooms on the ground floor and eleven on the first floor have a northerly aspect. A further four rooms on the first floor have western windows and three face east.

The building is proposed to be setback a minium of 22m from Chivers Road frontage and a minimum (western end) of 7m from Reynolds Road. The wall heights vary along each elevation, the highest point being 8.25m along part of the north elevation.

The roof is proposed to be constructed of corrugated iron. Brick walls are proposed with the windows being aluminium-framed. The plans show a 1.8m paling fence the full length of the northern and western boundaries of the land, a 1.2m aluminium pool fence along the southern boundary and 1.2m picket fence along the Chivers Road frontage to replace the existing post and rail fences.

27. Mr Rodda advised that the building had been sited to take advantage of the levelling/excavation already carried out on the site, so that further earthworks are minimised and any tree removal required is also kept to a minimum.

28. The building has a total floor area of 2,075sq m over two levels and a site coverage of 22 per cent, based on a footprint of 1,015sq m. The first floor building footprint is larger than the ground floor.

29. At-grade access to both the ground and upper level building entries is provided directly off the car parking/driveway areas.

30. The plans do not include a lift between the floors of the nursing home. This was a major concern to the Responsible Authority and to the objectors because internal access between the floors was restricted to two, one metre wide stairwells.

31. At the hearing, Mr Morris on behalf of the permit applicant, indicated that his advice was that a lift was not considered to be necessary because the floors of the nursing home would be operated and managed independently and provide a different level of care for residents. Following discussion at the hearing, Mr Morris advised that his client was prepared to install a chair inclinator in one of the stairwells as an alternative to a lift.

32. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal received a letter dated 30 October 2000 from the Applicant's Solicitors, Williams Winter and Higgs advising that the applicant was agreeable to providing a lift to improve the operational capacity of the development. I think it is unreasonable for residents and staff to rely on the one metre wide stairwells for internal access between the floors. I consider that a lift between the two floors of the nursing home is essential and I have included a permit condition accordingly.

33. The residents of the proposed aged care facility cannot be described as active, independent retirees. They will be frail and elderly and in a poor state of health such that they have been assessed to qualify for a nursing home bed and require the level of care and medical attention that will be provided in the nursing home. Residents of the lower level of the nursing home will have been assessed to require a higher level of care compared to the residents who are placed in the upper level.

34. The residents of the nursing home will not own or drive cars. In his statement of evidence, Mr Rodda described the proposal as "an Aged Care Accommodation Facility (nursing home). The facility is to provide specialised accommodation for elderly persons requiring supported care".

35. Given the small size of the single bedrooms (3.3m x 3.7m) and ensuite bathrooms (4.5sq m); the internal floor plan, the shared dining facilities and the provision of the assisted bathroom and nurses station on each floor, I am satisfied that the facility will operate as a nursing home and will therefore provide accommodation and care for elderly people who are likely to have restricted mobility due to their age and poor health.

36. Sadly, the reality for many nursing home residents is that they do not drive and they are unable to access external facilities such as nearby shopping centres, local parks and public transport on foot and without assistance. Due to their age and state of health, they are likely to be restricted to the nursing home building and its immediate garden setting.

37. Therefore, the internal amenity of the nursing home and the quality of the garden setting are very important, and will help to ensure that the residents have a reasonable quality of life.

38. Having considered the different views put to me from the various parties, I have formed the view that safe, convenient pedestrian access to external facilities such as shops, public transport and local parks is not an essential requirement for nursing home residents. It follows that this application should not be refused outright because of the general area's `hilly' topography, and the difficulties residents of the nursing home would experience accessing on foot the public bus service along Reynolds Road and other facilities such as shops and local open space. The reasons for my view are discussed later in this decision.

39. The subject land is zoned `Low Density Residential'; the provisions for which are found at Clause 32.03 in the Manningham Planning Scheme. The use `Nursing Home' is included in the term `Accommodation' which is a Section 2 use in the zone. A permit is therefore required to use the subject land for the purpose of a nursing home. A permit is also required to construct the building and carry out works associated with the construction of the nursing home. However, a permit is not required to remove trees. There are no overlays affecting the subject land. Reynolds Road is in a Road Zone Category 1.

40. The Low Density Residential Zone extends approximately 800m north and south of the subject land. Lot sizes within the LDRZ are generally a minimum of about 4000sq m as this is the lot size required to accommodate on-site effluent disposal, in the absence of reticulated sewerage. Historically, land that could not be sewered economically, but was otherwise suitable for residential development, was included in the Residential D Zone. These areas are included in the Low Density Residential Zone in the `new format' Manningham Planning Scheme.

41. In my experience, it was the usual practice for land in the Residential D Zone to be rezoned to the Residential C Zone when sewerage was available.

42. The purpose of the Low Density Residential Zone is:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for low-density residential development on lots which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater.

43. Mr Morris, on behalf of the applicant for permit, confirmed that the site will be connected to the reticulated sewerage system. I have included a permit condition requiring that this be done. If the nursing home was not able to be connected to the reticulated sewerage system, I would have decided that the application was premature and that no permit should be granted until sewerage was available. However, I am assured that sewerage is available and the nursing home will be connected to the reticulated sewerage system.

44. Having considered all the submissions, and the expert planning evidence provided by Mr Rodda, I have formed the view that proposed nursing home is not inconsistent with the purpose of the Low Density Zone for the following reasons:

* The subject land is able to be connected to the reticulated sewerage system and the approval and development of the nursing is subject to this connection being achieved.

* The zone provides for a range of non-residential uses in Section 2 including car park, car wash, convenience restaurant, food and drink premises, medical centre, place of assembly, etc. It is clear that uses other than "low density residential development" are contemplated in the zone; are subject to the grant of a permit and must be considered having regard to the extent to which they implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

45. The decision guidelines for the Low Density Residential Zone require me to consider:

* The availability and provision of utility services, including sewerage, water, drainage, electricity, gas and telecommunications.

* The protection and enhancement of the natural environment and character of the area including the retention of vegetation and fauna habitat and the need to plant vegetation along waterways, gullies, ridgelines and property boundaries.

* The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

46. I have thought carefully about the character of the area and how this will change if the permit for the nursing home is granted. I find that I do not agree with Mr Rodda when he says that "the structure is akin to a large single dwelling and is low density from the perspective of built form" (p7 of Mr Rhodda's report). Under cross-examination, he further clarified this comment by saying it was relative to the size of the property and the trees to be retained.

47. I think the building can fairly be described as a large barrack style structure with a distinct and unattractive institutional appearance. The upper floor footprint is much large than the existing dwelling even if the swimming pool and adjacent garden is included as part of the existing building footprint. The building is of no architectural interest at all.

48. However, the design and layout is typical of a nursing home, which, by its very nature, comprises a series of small bed-sitter rooms along straight corridors, with communal facilities, entry foyer and a nurses station and car parking areas close to the building entrances.

49. The main question to be considered is whether or not the building is visually intrusive given the character of the area.

50. I consider that the impact of the proposal on the character of the area is acceptable for the reasons discussed below.

51. According to the landscape `concept' plan prepared by Collie Landscape and Design Pty Ltd, most of the trees along the Reynolds Road frontage will be able to be retained; and the building is set back 6m at its closest point from the property boundary line along Reynolds Road. The building will be visible from Reynolds Road, although part of it will be behind the cutting/embankment along the Reynolds Road frontage. The building is setback 27m from the western boundary, and about 18m from the eastern property boundary. These setbacks, combined with tree retention and additional landscaping adequately address concerns about visual intrusion and the Reynolds Road frontage. The existing trees at the south end of Chivers Road contribute to the streetscape character of Chivers Road, which is the more sensitive interface of the subject lands two road frontages. The dwellings at the southern end of Chivers Road are less dominant in the streetscape because of the trees (the existing dwelling on the subject land cannot be seen from the Chivers Road frontage) compared to the dwellings at the northern end of Chivers Road, where the dwellings are surrounded by more formal gardens with lawn areas. The nursing home building will be visible from Chivers Road. Although most of the trees at this end of the subject land will have to be removed to accommodate the nursing home building and car park, I do not consider that the nursing home building will be unreasonably intrusive because it is setback between 18 and 24 metres from the eastern property boundary/Chivers Road frontage and there are opportunities for new landscaping along this frontage.

52. The elevation to Chivers Road also steps in and out to help to break up the mass of the building. All the building elevations are `functional' rather than attractive. The elevation to Chivers Road is particularly unattractive with its concealed building entry at the lower level and projecting upper level with a blank wall presented to the car park.

53. I have included a condition requiring changes to the elevations to create visual interest, and improve the architectural merit of the building. Brick banding; contrasting colours for the upper and lower level; contrasting colours for the window frames or screens or shades over the windows or other projections, are techniques that the architects could consider to improve the bland appearance of the building and reduce its institutional appearance. Corrugated iron is not an appropriate roof material and should be replaced with concrete tiles of appropriate colour.

54. The treatment of the 5 metre wide landscape area long the subject lands frontage to Chivers Road and its contribution to the maintenance of the streetscape character is a critical consideration.

55. The aspect of the proposal most likely to have a detrimental impact on the streetscape character is the area of car parking and paving between the nursing home building and the Chivers Road frontage.

56. It seems to me that just about all the vegetation including the canopy trees that contribute to the character of the area and could provide an established setting for the nursing home building, will have to be removed to allow for the construction of the car park and the paved access ways. I accept that this is the appropriate location for the car park, which needs to be adjacent to the entrances to the nursing home building.

57. The landscape concept plan submitted at the hearing shows a 5m wide landscape area from the property boundary along the Chivers Road frontage. I consider that this width is acceptable, but the minimum required to accommodate an appropriate landscaping screen. As many existing trees as possible should be retained in the area to be landscaped; new trees with spreading crowns and appropriate understorey species (to at least 2m height), should be planted to create an effective screen for the car parking area.

58. I have included appropriate landscape conditions on the permit, and have increased the landscaping bond suggested by the Responsible Authority to $3,000 to ensure that the landscaping is installed and maintained to Council's satisfaction.

59. Turning to the policy framework relevant to the consideration of the application, Mr Appudurai, in his detailed submission, described the relevant policy context and objectives. I do not intend to repeat all this information, however I have re-read his submission carefully, and I consider that in summary and collectively the policies and strategies:

* Recognise that Manningham's population is ageing - one quarter of the population will be aged 60 years and over by 2011 and that there will be an increase in demand for all types of accommodation suitable for elderly people.

* Promote high quality built form outcomes that complement surrounding developments and contribute positively to the neighbourhood character.

* Require nursing homes to be located, designed and operated to provide a safe and pleasant living environment for residents and to maintain the amenity of the neighbourhood setting.

* Require adequate on-site car parking and safe site access to be provided.

60. The City of Manningham Character Study, March 1999 (draft) is a Local Reference Document and is also relevant to the consideration of the application. The subject site is included within the Larger Lot: Natural Landscape Areas Character Statement. The precincts within this extensive area are described as "Generally densely treed areas with informally constructed roads and undulating topography giving a rustic, park-like character".

61. The desired future character for these areas is:

* Retain and enhance low density natural landscape character.

* Low horizontal built form in muted colours, at significant setback from roads. Indigenous vegetation to be retained and enhanced.

62. The Accommodation Premises Policy at Clause 22.04 is directly relevant to the assessment of this application.

Group accommodation and Residential buildings should be located, designed and operated with consideration to user characteristics by providing safe and pleasant environments while maintaining the amenity of the neighbourhood setting.

The Municipal Strategic Statement encourages the provision of accommodation uses which provide a diverse range of housing choice to meet the changing needs of residents in Manningham. It also supports Group accommodation and Residential building uses in appropriate locations which reduce pressure for development in more sensitive areas. The Municipal Strategic Statement encourages accommodation uses which increase housing opportunities for older people in locations where there is convenient access to public transport, other services and facilities and on sites which are physically suited to the capacity of aged persons.

* To ensure that Group accommodation and Residential building uses are appropriately located having regard to:

Ø The location of safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access points to and from the site.

Ø Traffic generated being appropriate to the street and locality and not adversely affecting traffic flow or road safety.

* To ensure that the amenity of the locality is not detrimentally affected by way of the operation of Group accommodation and Residential building uses including the effects of noise, car parking and traffic.

* To ensure that the location and design of Group accommodation or Residential buildings promotes a high level of amenity for users of the facility.

* To ensure adequate access is provided for people with limited mobility.

* Group accommodation and Residential building uses preferably be located:

Ø Where there is convenient access to public transport, community and retail facilities and services.

Ø Close to or adjoining existing community activities to provide a focal point for community services and to create opportunities for interaction.

Ø On sites and in neighbourhoods which are physically suited to the capacity of aged persons.

Ø On sites which reduce pressure for development in more sensitive areas.

Ø Where extensive earthworks to create uniform site and floor levels are not required.

Ø Where they are readily and safely accessible by road and by pedestrians.

* The layout of buildings and design of outdoor areas meet the needs of persons with limited mobility.

* Car parking be provided at the ratio of at least:

Ø 1 car space per 3 beds including at least 2 disabled parking spaces;

In assessing applications for Group accommodation premises and Residential buildings, the Responsible Authority will consider, as appropriate:

* Extent to which the application meets the objectives and directions of this policy.

* Need to locate these uses in non-isolated locations and where there is convenient access to public transport, community and retail facilities and services.

* Whether the location of the site promotes safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access.

* Whether there is adequate and efficient car parking, vehicle and pedestrian movement.

* Amenity, outlook and ease of access of indoor and outdoor areas.

64. Mr Appudurai and Ms O'Neill sought to convince me that the proposal failed to meet the `preferred' location criteria nominated in the policy and that the application should therefore be refused. Mr Rodda expressed the view that the proposed development is a reasonable and appropriate response to the objectives and outcomes sought by the policy. Mr Morris, on behalf of the permit applicant, said that the policy indicates a preference for locations with certain attributes but does not lay down absolute rules. I think that the policy is of general application to a range of accommodation types located and designed for different age groups and lifestyles. It is not specifically directed to nursing homes. For example, the `ideal' location for a backpackers hostel and a nursing home are quite different but both could be covered by the Accommodation Premises Policy.

65. I agree with Mr Morris that some of the location criteria in the policy might be more relevant or applicable than others because of the nature of the accommodation to be provided and the requirements of the residents and therefore some flexibility and common sense in the assessment of any proposal against the policy should prevail.

66. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Morris advised that the proposal aged care facility will operate as a nursing home. Residents of the lower level will need and be provided with a higher standard of care compared to the residents of the upper level. The residents of the nursing home will be the `frail aged' who have been assessed as needing the standard of care to be provided on each level of the nursing home.

67. For this reason, I am satisfied that, for this facility, pedestrian access to external services such as shops, public transport and local parks is not as important as Mr Appudurai, Ms O'Neill and Dr Estaugh suggested. It follows that the application should not fail because safe, convenient pedestrian access to public transport and other facilities is not available to residents of the nursing home.

68. I am satisfied that the nursing home is not located in a `remote', `secluded' or `isolated' location, that would disadvantage residents, discourage visitors and staff or limit excursions by car available for residents. The site is located on a main road and in an urban/suburban environment. Facilities such as shopping centres and local and regional parks are readily accessible by car.

69. Mr Appudurai considered that the site and neighbourhood were not physically suited to the capacity of aged persons because of the topography and absence of a concrete footpath on the west side of Chivers Road.

70. I agree that both Chivers Road and Reynolds Road have a grade that is unsuitable and that aged pedestrians would have difficulty with the slope and surface conditions. However, I think it is most unlikely that the nursing home residents will be strolling unaccompanied along Chivers Road or Reynolds Road.

71. It is more important that the immediate surroundings of the nursing home that would be available for the residents to use are of a suitable grade for safe and convenient access/use, and provide more than just an attractive outlook from within the nursing home.

72. The south lawn area shown on the upper level site plan is unlikely to be used by the residents of the nursing home because of its slope and proximity to Reynolds Road and traffic noise. This area is also difficult to access from the open space adjacent to the lower level/north side of the nursing home.

73. The only outdoor areas identified on the plans for use by the residents are as follows:

* South court (40sq m) at the lower level. (This area is south facing and has poor amenity due to lack of sunlight and proximity to retaining walls.)

* Paved entertainment deck (60sq m) on the upper level, called the `south entertainment court' on the south elevation plan. It seems to me that this area is incorrectly located on the upper level site plan, and it is not shown on the landscape plan submitted at the hearing. Furthermore, there is a difference in levels between the upper floor of the nursing home at 101.5 and the sport level of 100.66 where the entertainment court is proposed to be located (as shown on the south elevation). The plans do not show how this change of level is to be addressed. However, "some earthworks" in this area of the site are noted on the landscape plan and may affect the health of a tree shown to be retained on the landscape plan. (This area has poor amenity - it is south facing and may be difficult to access and be exposed to Reynolds Road depending upon final levels.)

* North garden terrace outdoor activity area at the lower level, of about 250sq m. About 40sq metres of this area is paved. The practical useability of much of the 250sq m outdoor activity area is severely limited because of the topography. Laying the landscape concept plan over the feature survey plan confirms that the grassed area north of Rooms 11 and 17 on the lower level and the area to the west of the paved area is unsuitable for any activity because the land falls sharply to the northern property boundary. The spot levels show a fall from 98 to 95.5 over a distance of about 4 metres. This gradient is clearly unsafe for elderly people with limited mobility. The useable area for outdoor activity is therefore restricted to the 40sq m paved area; the balance of the area provides an attractive outlook from the nursing home and the opportunity for landscaping to screen the nursing home building from its neighbours to the north and west.

* A north facing deck (9m x 4m) is shown on the upper level site plan. This is accessed from the upper level of the nursing home and overhangs the paved outdoor area below it.

74. I am not satisfied that the proposal provides sufficient useable outdoor activity space for the residents of the nursing home and that the landscape concept plan has taken account of the gradient of the site and the extent of cut/fill/levelling required to provide safe/attractive/practical/useable open space for the residents. However, I do not consider that this failure warrants a refusal of the application, and can be addressed with appropriate conditions.

75. I have formed the view that the outdoor activity area available for residents that is practical and useable should be increased by at least 40sq m. The best way of doing this is to increase the paved area on the lower level plan to the north or west.

76. This extended area should be provided with comfortable seating, shade in summer and shelter in winter. It should also have a surface that is `non-slip' and suitable for wheel chairs and walking frames. Given the land slope conditions it will be difficult to extend the paved area in the manner recommended. However, the alternatives are cut/fill and retaining wall construction to support an extended filled area or the construction of an elevated timber deck out from the paved area that extends at grade to the north and west of the paved area and office. This extended area should also be available to the residents of the upper level of the nursing home.

77. I have included appropriate conditions on the permit, to ensure that the area of useable/practical/attractive open space is increased by at least 40sq m at the lower level, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

78. Given the slope conditions, it will be difficult to provide a level pathway for residents to use that enables them to stroll right around the building. However, there is an opportunity to provide a path on the lower level from the south court past rooms 1 to 10 to connect with the extended paved or deck area on the north and west side of the building. The surface of the path will have to be `non-slip', and suitable for wheelchairs and residents with walking frames, and of course a level grade will be required. This will provide residents with a gentle strolling opportunity within the grounds of the nursing home.

79. Mr Rodda advised that the building has been sited to take advantage of the levelling/site excavation that has occurred to accommodate the existing building on the site. Additional excavation will be required to create an enlarged useable outdoor activity area on the north side of the nursing home (in accordance with conditions on the permit); to improve daylight access to the south side of the building and for the car park/upper level building entry.

80. While the details of the cut/fill/levelling have not been provided to the Tribunal, a comparison of the finished floor levels in the nursing home with the spot levels shown on the feature survey confirms my view that the earthworks required are not extensive in the context of the earthworks already undertaken and the size of the site as a whole. However, substantial earthworks in those parts of the site where the levels are too high or too low will be required.

81. It is also policy that residential buildings preferably be located on sites which reduce pressure for development in more sensitive areas. Its not clear what a "sensitive" area means for the purpose of this Policy. However, the Responsible Authority and the objector's representatives argued that the site itself was "sensitive" because it was zoned `Low Density Residential' and that the proposal should therefore be rejected.

82. On the other hand, Mr Morris argued that a proposal for a nursing home should not be rejected, just because it was located in the Low Density/Residential D Zone. He drew my attention to several appeal decisions relating to nursing homes in this zone.

* Bruce Baade Architects v Manningham CC, 1996/33276

* Domaine Ramsay Group Pty Ltd v Manningham CC, 1999/26186

84. In these cases, the bulk and scale of the building, the site coverage and the extent of earthworks required were among the considerations in deciding whether or not the purposed development was consistent with the purpose of the Residential D Zone.

85. I think that the proposed nursing home has been designed in a way that is sensitive to the character of the Low Density Residential Zone for the following reasons:

* The building has been sited to take advantage of the site's excavation and the topography of the land.

* While the nursing home building is a large building - the site coverage is only 22%.

* Most of the trees in the western part of the site and along the Reynolds Road frontage will be retained.

* Generous setbacks from all boundaries are provided, and these areas will be landscaped further to improve their screening effect.

* The car parking area along the Chivers Road frontage will be screened by a 5m wide landscape strip.

86. The properties that have the potential to be directly affected by the nursing home are the Bergin's property to the north at 3 Chivers Road and the Sedran's property to the west at 1A Chivers Road.

87. Having considered Dr Estaugh's submission and inspected the site and locality, I have formed the view that the impact of the proposed nursing home on the amenity of the Bergin's property is acceptable for the following reasons:

* The subject land and the Bergin's property are separated by a 10m wide landscaped driveway that provides access to the Sedran's property.

* The Bergin's dwelling is located at least 6 metres further north of the edge of the driveway, so the distance between the northern boundary of the subject land and the Bergin's dwelling is in the order of 16m.

* The Bergin's house faces north, with an outdoor north facing patio on the northern side of the house. The nursing home is located to the south of the Bergin's property.

* The driveway to the Sedran's property is attractively landscaped. This landscaping combined with the mature trees on the south of the Bergins dwelling provides an effective visual screen between the nursing home/car park and the Bergin's property.

* The nursing home building is setback 4m from the northern boundary at its closes point. This increases to 22m towards the west along the Sedran's driveway. I appreciate that the land falls steeply to the north, and that the nursing home building is two storey. However, I think that the landscaping combined with the setbacks is an effective treatment that avoids unreasonable visual bulk being presented to the Bergin property.

* The one metre landscape strip for the car park is at the margin of acceptable width. However this width of landscaping combined with the landscaping/ driveway on the Sedran's property, achieves an acceptable outcome for the Bergin's.

* There are windows in the north facing rooms on the upper level of the nursing home. The setback distance between the windows and the property boundary increases from 5m to 14m. This setback distance combined with the width of the Sedran's driveway and the landscaping and trees on the south side of the Bergin's property avoids a loss of privacy and an unreasonable degree of overlooking between the nursing home and the Bergin's property. However, suitable solar protection/shading devices for the north facing windows of the nursing home will be required and should be shown on the plans submitted for approval, pursuant to Condition 1 of the permit.

* The north elevation shows that the so-called `smokers deck' accessed off the upper level staff room is screened to a height of about 1m. However, this screening is not shown on the upper level site plan. I agree with Dr Estaugh that the deck should be screened on all sides to a height of 1.6m and I have included a condition on the permit to that effect.

88. The Sedran's property is a `battleaxe' allotment located to the north and west of the subject land. I appreciate that the land falls to the north and to the west. The land fall means that the nursing home building's lower level and upper level sits above the level of the Sedran's property at the common boundary. The upper level deck of the nursing home, for example, has an RL of 101.5 compared to a spot level of 90 at the north west corner of the subject land. The impact of the nursing home on the Sedran's property is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

* The car parking area, vehicle access, building entries and service areas are located on the Chivers Road/eastern frontage of the subject land, as far away as possible from the Sedran's dwelling.

* The western end of the nursing home building is setback about 27m from the Sedran's eastern property boundary at its closest point; the existing vegetation (trees) to be retained in this setback area is shown on the landscape plan. I have included a permit condition requiring the existing vegetation in this area to be retained and augmented with suitable tree species, once the old timber sheds and weeds have been removed. I am satisfied that his generous setback and the retention of the existing vegetation combine to avoid unreasonable visual bulk or loss of amenity to the Sedran's.

* There are no windows in the western elevation, and even if there were, they would not result in an unreasonable degree of overlooking, given the setback distance and tree cover.

* The upper level deck should be screened to a height of at least 1.6m to protect the privacy and safety of the occupants of the nursing home.

* The nursing home building is setback between 4m and 14m from the edge of the Sedran's driveway which runs along the northern boundary of the subject land. This increasing setback distance combined with the tree retention and landscaping proposed, avoids unreasonable visual bulk from this direction.

89. I think that the internal amenity is acceptable for a nursing home. The communal lounge, day room and outdoor activity areas are north facing.

90. Within the constraints of the topography, as many rooms as possible face north. They will require some form of solar protection during the summer months.

91. Access to natural light for the south facing rooms, particularly on the lower level is at the margin between what is acceptable and what is not because of the embankment/retaining wall shown on the south elevation.

92. The applicant has indicated that a 2m wide clearance between the windows of the south facing rooms and the retaining wall can be provided, with additional excavation. I have included this as a permit condition.

93. In a letter dated 30 October, 2000 under cover of Williams, Winter and Higgs, the Tribunal was advised that the permit applicant is agreeable to having a condition requiring an elevator to be installed. I consider that an elevator between the floors of the nursing home is essential, and I considered that the access arrangements between the floors (two, one-metre wide stairwells) was totally inadequate. I have included a condition requiring an elevator to be located in the main building entry foyer on the lower level of the nursing home.

94. Mr Morris acknowledged the grade between the lower and upper level entrances to the nursing home is not sufficient for disabled or elderly persons. The lower level has an RL of 98.3 and the upper level has an RL of 101.50. From the material provided to the Tribunal, it is not clear exactly how this change of grade is to be accommodated and what the final levels of the car parking areas will be. While the intention is that vehicle `drop-off' points will be available adjacent to each entry, I think that a pedestrian ramp at a suitable grade from the lower level car park to the upper level building entry is required, and I have included a condition to this effect. I think its important that pedestrians and vehicles are separated in the car park area.

95. In his submission, on behalf of the Responsible Authority, Mr Appudurai advised that "there is concern that some increase in vehicular access/egress from, and to, the north via Merna Drive and Church Road will be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbourhood".

96. He said that the Responsible Authority was flagging this concern. I noted that none of the grounds of refusal relate directly to traffic and parking issues, however changes to traffic patterns and volumes in Chivers Road and Merna Drive and the safety of the intersection of Reynolds Road and Chivers Road were of great concern to the objectors.

97. A traffic engineering assessment report was prepared by Stephen Hunt, Director, Grogran Richards Pty Ltd.

98. At the hearing, Mr Hunt presented his report and was cross-examined by the other parties, in particular extensive cross-examination by Dr Estaugh.

99. Mr Hunt advised that the proposal involves provision of 20 on-site car spaces, including two 4.9 x 3.2m disabled spaces. Each disabled space is located close to each of the entries into the nursing home building. A further space located adjacent to the lower level main entry is set aside for an ambulance.

100. I accept Mr Hunt's evidence that the number of car parking spaces provided is appropriate and that the layout of the car park is functional. In evidence, he said that demand at staff changeover time can be accommodated on the site and there are sufficient spaces to ensure that cars will not park along Chivers Road.

101. I accept Mr Hunt's evidence that the number of vehicle movements generated by the 50 bed nursing home will be 125 per day; and that the peak hour traffic generation will be 20 vehicles. I accept his expert opinion and conclusion that the development will not generate a dramatic increase in traffic flow along Chivers Road and the surrounding streets. Data collected on behalf of Grogan Richards confirm that the estimated daily traffic volumes on both Chivers Road and Merna Drive range between 240 and 300 vehicles for both a Friday and a Saturday. Mr Hunt considered that most vehicles would use Reynolds Road, despite the interesection with Chivers Road being left in and left out only, with no break in the centre median. He anticipated that only four vehicles during peak periods will access the nursing home via Church Road, Merna Drive and Chivers Road North. In the context of existing traffic volumes in Merna Drive/Chivers Road, this level of additional traffic can be accommodated with no material change to the existing operating conditions or accessibility for neighbouring residents.

102. Under cross-examination by Dr Estaugh, Mr Hunt re-affirmed his conclusions in relation to traffic volumes and likely distribution patterns. He said that traffic associated with the nursing home would not result in a safety problem in Merna Drive or for the Templestowe Park Primary School.

103. He further stated that, in his professional opinion, the intersection of Reynolds Road and Chivers Road could not be described as dangerous and staff and visitors to the nursing home would not be reluctant to use it.

104. It follows from the foregoing discussion, that I have come to the conclusion that the use and development of the subject land for the purpose of a nursing home is appropriate, subject to the changes to the plans identified in the discussion and included as permit conditions. I think the changes to the plans are necessary to address some of the concerns expressed by the Responsible Authority and the objectors, and to ensure that the nursing home provides a reasonable standard of accommodation for residents. Necessary improvements to the plans before the Tribunal include:

* A lift between the two levels of the nursing home;

* A safe pedestrian ramp between the lower car park and the entry to the upper level of the nursing home;

* Additional, useable outdoor activity space on the north or west side of the nursing home; and a path connecting this area to the south court.

* Extensive understorey planting along the 5m landscaped frontage to Chivers Road;

* The screening to a height of 1.6m of the `smokers deck' adjacent to the staff room on the upper level and the upper level "north deck";

* Changes to all building elevations to create visual interest.

105. I am not satisfied that the landscape plan submitted for my information at the hearing takes into account the land slope conditions, and the trees to be lost (particularly in the car park area along the Chivers Road frontage) once a proper assessment of the levels and the cut and fill required has been done.

106. The retention of as many trees as possible on the site is a factor in favour of the application because retention of the trees combined with new plantings in the generous setbacks from the sensitive boundaries to the north and west will help to screen what is a "barrack" style building of no architectural interest all.

107. In these circumstances, the applicant's case would have been strengthened if a landscape plan responding to post construction levels and professional arborist's advice about trees to be retained was prepared as part of the planning application documentation.

108. For the reasons discussed, I think the site is suitable for the proposed nursing home and that the impacts on neighbours, particularly the Sedran's at 1A Chivers Road and the Bergins at 3 Chivers Road will be acceptable. The nursing home building will be visible from all boundaries and many of the trees in the eastern part of the site will have to be removed to accommodate the car park. However, I am confident that the low site coverage, and generous setbacks, together with the additional landscaping and planting will address the concerns of neighbours.

109. It therefore follows that the reasons for the Responsible Authority's decision to refuse this application are not supported. The decision of the Tribunal is that the Application for Review is allowed, and the Responsible Authority's decision to refuse to grant a permit with respect to Permit Application No. 11246 is set aside.

110. A permit is granted for the use and development of 1 Chivers Road, Templestowe for the purpose of a 50 bed nursing home, subject to conditions specified in this order.

_____________________________