Before the development starts three copies of revised plans must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. Such plans are to be drawn to scale with dimensions. When approved the plans will be endorsed as evidence of their approval and will then be the endorsed plans in relation to this permit. The plans are to be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified as follows:

a.

one parking space for disabled motorists to have a minimum width of 3.3 metres;

b.

dimensions of car parking spaces and vehicle access aisles to be specified;

c.

a pedestrian walkway, suitable for disabled persons, from the carpark to the hockey pitch;

d.

fencing and lockable gate to Dendy Street to prevent unauthorised entry of vehicles and persons to the carpark area;

e.

lights in bollards sufficient to provide suitable illumination of the carpark and the pathway from the hockey field to the carpark after nightfall when the floodlights enabling play on the hockey field are not illuminated;

f.

a landscape plan showing proposed landscape treatment and supporting information to a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 showing:

i. accurate location of boundaries, existing and proposed built elements, neighbouring buildings and/or vegetation that may affect or be affected by the proposed development and landscape,

ii. accurate location and identification (botanical name) of existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed,

iii. tree protection zones as required by the responsible authority,

iv. clear identification of the followings elements:

iv.i areas proposed to be lawn, pavement, garden beds, other landscape features,

iv.ii proposed tree locations, shrub and ground cover groupings, climber locations,

iv.iii coded identification for these groupings and the numbers proposed, and

iv.iv a plant schedule which consists of an itemised list of all proposed species. The schedule must include the following headings:

• plant code (to indicate botanical names of plants),

• botanical and common name,

• height and width at maturity,

• installation height (for trees only),

• container size (for all other plant groups) and

• total quantities for each species;

g.

supporting notes on the plan that elaborate on specific requirements for the proposed landscaping (including site preparation, protection during construction of existing vegetation, use of a suitable mulching material and proposed depth) and

h.

a legend that explains any graphic symbols used on the plan.

Except with the consent of the responsible authority, and apart from use for purposes related to the Brighton Secondary College as a school, the carpark hereby permitted is to be used only in relation to the minor sports facility allowed by planning permit 99/4617 and, except for use associated with the said college as a school, access to the carpark is to be restricted except for times of utilisation of the minor sports facility for the playing of hockey and 30 minutes thereafter.

The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any statute, statutory rule or for any other reason) without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

4a. The responsible authority is to be given notice in writing when the works hereby permitted are completed (note, this is to enable the site to be inspected).

b. Before use of the carpark as a carpark commences the works hereby permitted must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The alterations of soil levels involving an increased or decreased level at the boundaries must be retained by the provision of an adequate retaining wall, constructed of brick or masonry or other suitable alternative approved by the responsible authority, to buttress the soil against the possibility of shift. The construction of this retaining wall must be the sole responsibility of the owner/developer.

6. Any tree removal associated with the development hereby permitted is to be in accordance with the endorsed plans.

7a. Any tree pruning associated with the development hereby permitted is to be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

b. Any such pruning must be carried out by a qualified arborist and in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373 in relation to pruning of amenity trees.

Any replacement planting required in accordance with the landscape plan being part of the endorsed plans must take place within six months of the date of approval thereof.

The existing street trees must not be removed or damaged.

Except with the written consent of the responsible authority, existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans as being to retain is not to be removed, destroyed, pruned or lopped.

Prior to the commencement of any development or demolition works a Tree Protection Zone Fence of cyclone wire or similar construction must be erected to a height of at least 1.8 metres at a minimum distance (metres) in radius from the centre of the following trees:

• Barrier fences must stop access by persons, vehicles or machinery to the area it encloses and be maintained throughout the entire construction period and must have a sign attached stating 'tree protection zone fence'. (Access may be permitted only with the consent of the Site Manager or the Consultant Arborist.)

• There is to be no excavation in the area enclosed by this fence and a layer of organic mulch (woodchips) to a depth of not less than 100mm, must be laid and receive at least 1 litre of water for every 10mm of trunk diameter on a weekly basis to assist moisture retention and reduce the impact of soil compaction.

• No materials, chemicals, paints, equipment, temporary building or otherwise, may be dumped, stored or erected within this fence.

• A qualified arborist must be on site during any excavation or trenching works adjacent to the Tree Protection Zone fence to inspect, document and advise on possible damage to the root system.

12a. Open trenching is to be avoided in relation to the installation of utilities services and generally within the root zones and root systems of trees with boring under root systems to be preferred.

b. The following precautions are to be observed in relation to landscaping:

i.

supplementary watering must be provided to all trees during dry periods, during and after the construction process including deep soaking at least twice a week during summer and daily in extreme heat conditions,

ii.

nothing whatsoever must be attached to any tree including temporary services, wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device,

iii.

all root zones must be bridged using timber planks, to assist in reducing soil compaction and consequent root damage,

iv.

a qualified arborist must attend the site during site cut and excavation to ensure that all affected tree roots are managed correctly and to ensure any damaged or exposed tree roots are pruned cleanly and the cut ends sprayed with a root hormone solution before covering with soil, and

v.

any backfill material must be a mixture of quality topsoil and organic composted material and the trees must be monitored on a regular basis during and after construction, by the consultant arborist.

13. Crossings are to be designed and constructed subject to the oversight of a qualified arborist so as to avoid damage to the root systems of mature street trees.

Before the use of the carpark hereby permitted commences areas set aside for parking, access lanes and associated access ramps as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a.

constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

b.

properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

c.

surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

d.

drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

e.

line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

f.

generally in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard for car parking facilities; and

g.

directional signage indicating car parking areas to be erected as required by the responsible authority and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The surface of the carpark area must be treated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent dust-causing loss of amenity to the neighbourhood.

Concrete kerbs or other barriers must be constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent direct vehicle access to the adjoining road other than by a vehicle crossing.

A sign to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be provided directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be located and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres in area.

Before the use of the carpark hereby permitted commences, landscape works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

All disturbed surfaces on the land resulting from the development and works authorised or required by the permit must be revegetated and stabilised to the satisfaction of the responsible authority so as to prevent any erosion or saltation either on or adjacent to the land.

Before the use and/or development starts, a site layout plan drawn to scale and dimensioned must be approved by a Building Practitioner registered under the Building Act 1993 and submitted to the responsible authority.

• a drainage scheme providing for the collection of storm water within the site, and showing how it is to be disposed of.

Adequate pedestrian visibility must be provided at the driveway's intersection with the footpath (along Dendy Street) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

This permit does not come into effect unless permit 99/4617 issued by the responsible authority on 21 December 1999 (as amended) is further amended to delete the expression ", with entry and exit from Marriage Road" from paragraph (a) of Condition 10.

This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a. the development and use is/are not started within two years of the date of this permit; or

b. the development is not completed within two years of the date of the commencement of the works.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three 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.

_________________ ___________________

Mr. Egils Stokans, solicitor of the firm of Russell Kennedy, Solicitors, appeared for the responsible authority. He presented written and oral submissions.

Mr. Dan Curtis, respondent/objector, appeared in person. He made oral submissions.

Mr. Alan Swindon, town planner of David Goodwin & Co. Town Planners, appeared for Mr. Fred Sharp. He made written and oral submissions.

Mr. Geoff Currie, respondent/objector, appeared in person. He made written and oral submissions.

Ms. S. Brennan, barrister, appeared on the instructions of her client for the Brighton Secondary College. She presented written and oral submissions and called three expert witnesses. They were Shayne Kenneth Linke, town planner; Robert Burton, acoustic consultant; and Simon James Davies, traffic engineer. Each of these witnesses presented a written report and gave oral evidence.

Various plans, photographs and other documents were tendered in evidence. The evidence and submissions in documentary form have been retained on the file of the Tribunal.

We have heard several cases in relation to the Brighton Secondary College with reference to the hockey ground near its Dendy Street frontage and various proposals for car parking in relation thereto. We have previously inspected and are familiar with the land and locality.

Application under s.79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for review of the failure of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit within the prescribed time.

Construction of a 47 space carpark in the south-western corner of the secondary college site between the existing hockey field and the western boundary of the land and having access to the north side of Dendy Street.

Public Use Zone 2 and subject to a Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 2) under the Bayside Planning Scheme.

1 Brighton Secondary College has made an application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("PE Act") for review of the failure of the Bayside City Council ("the Council") to determine a permit application 04/0737 within the prescribed time. The proposal is for the construction of a car park in association with the existing use of the land for a minor sports ground ("the hockey ground"). Since the application was lodged, the Council has resolved to support the proposal, subject to conditions.

2 The review site is located between Marriage Road and Dendy Street, East Brighton, and forms part of the land occupied by the Brighton Secondary College ("the School"). The hockey ground is sited to the southern portion of the review site and is operated under a joint management agreement between the School, Council and a local hockey association. The pitch is line-marked for other uses such as tennis and is floodlit for night use. The ground is surrounded by a low cyclone wire fence as well as additional noise attenuation works. A high cyclone wire fence extends along the western portion of the School land about 3.7 to 4.2 metres inside the boundary fence. This fenced off area is partly planted and is not accessible to students. The area proposed for the car park is currently grassed. Residential properties are located to the west of this part of the review site with dwellings fronting Dendy Street and Sara Avenue. Those closest to the area proposed for the car park are at No. 213 Dendy Street, No. 10 Sara Avenue (also referred to as 2/8 Sara Avenue on the plans) and No. 7 Sara Avenue. Sara Avenue terminates at the western boundary of the School and is a cul-de-sac. A public golf course is immediately opposite the area proposed for the car park.

3 The hockey ground has been the subject of multiple Tribunal proceedings. The facility operates under Permit 99/4617 ("the current Permit") and includes evening and weekend use. The most recent proceeding was a proposal to provide car parking for the hockey ground to the south-east of the review site using existing paved multi-purpose courts. That matter (Brighton Secondary College v Bayside CC [2003] VCAT 1667) was heard and determined by ourselves. We directed that no permit issue for that car park. There have been other proceedings relating to the use of a gymnasium for basketball but we find no need to detail those. We directed amendments to the current Permit in Bayside CC v Brighton Secondary College & Synthi-Grass Aust Pty Ltd [2000] VCAT 2432 but no amended permit document has yet issued. We noted this failure for the first time in Brighton Secondary College v Bayside CC [2003] VCAT 1667 and it concerns us that this administrative action is still incomplete some 4½ years later.

4 The Applicant now seeks approval to construct a 47 space car park to the west of the hockey ground. That would be to the south-west corner of the School property. The aim of the proposal is to replace the car parking that is required to be provided on the subject land by the current Permit in the form of 46 spaces shown on endorsed plans. Those spaces were originally in locations that are now mainly inaccessible as a result of building works undertaken by the School over recent years. The location shown on the endorsed plans to the Permit differs from the original approval and was allowed by the Council in early 2001. [Additional history is set out in our decision in Brighton Secondary College v Bayside CC [2003] VCAT 1667].

5 The current permit application is to access the proposed sealed car park from Dendy Street using a new 6 metre wide crossover. The proposal includes an acoustic fence several metres to the west of the car park area following the alignment of the existing high cyclone wire fence. That acoustic fence would extend about 12 metres past the northern end of the car park and some additional acoustic mounding is proposed adjacent to the western side of the new accessway. A landscape plan tendered with the proposal shows the retention of all trees except one smaller tree. The landscape plan also shows proposed planting and a new short pedestrian pathway linking the car park to the existing path abutting the southern side of the sports ground. We understand that only new bollard lighting would be required as the light from the hockey ground would otherwise suffice. We were advised that the car park would not be used for parking by staff or others when not required in association with the non-School use of the sports grounds and instead would be secured by a lockable gate and available to students as a paved play area. However, we note that, so far as the planning laws are concerned, there is nothing to prevent the used any part of the school property for school purposes. School purposes here includes activities that are ancillary to school purposes.

6 The following provisions of the Bayside Planning Scheme ("the Scheme") and associated material are relevant to our consideration of the Application:

•

The subject site is zoned Public Use 2 (Education). A permit is not required to use the hockey ground for School-related activities but a permit is required to use and develop land for non-School minor sports facility. Decision guidelines are set out at Clause 36.01. We have taken them into account.

•

A Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 2) applies to the site. A permit is not required for buildings and works in this case.

•

Other Clauses including 11, 15, 16, 18.02, 18.07, 19, 21, 52.06 (Car parking) and Clause 65 (general decision guidelines).

•

Melbourne 2030 has also been taken into consideration.

•

Residences surrounding the review site are within a Residential 1 Zone and Dendy Road is in a Road Zone, Category 2.

7 We have considered the submissions presented and are very familiar with the subject site, its immediate environs and the wider locality. We do not recite all of the material presented to us. Evidence in documentary form and the written submissions tendered by the parties are retained on file. We set out our findings in relation to the key issues in this Application having regard to the policies, objectives and decision guidelines of the Scheme.

8 We first refer to the nature of the activities associated with the car park which drew criticism from local residents. A number of the submissions made by local residents expressed concern about commercial use of School land and the increasing non-School activities occurring on the School site into evenings and on weekends. On this point, we do not intend reviewing the acceptability of the minor sports ground use, that is non-School use of the hockey ground, as that matter was decided some years ago. The hockey ground is an established facility operating under Permit 99/4617. As we understand it, the sports ground is used by local not for profit organisations, as well as for school purposes. Use by a non-profit sporting association is hardly "commercial" use. In previous decisions we have referred to state and local policies that encourage the use of school assets for the benefit of the wider community and the proposed car park seeks to provide supporting infrastructure to replace that lost by other works on the School land. On that basis, we find the car park acceptable in principle and we do not accept Mr Swindon's submissions that the proposal is at odds with the educational role of the land as set out by the provisions of the Public Use 2 Zone. Furthermore, it is hardly our role to take over the administration of the School or its discretion in relation to the running of its School activities. The same applies to its discretions as to the interrelationship between School activities and other sporting or community activities the School may be able and willing to accommodate. If some such activity requires planning permission then, of course, it becomes the concern of the Council as responsible authority for the administration of the scheme, and the Tribunal on review. However, those concerns are confined to relevant planning considerations.

9 There was also a concern that the proposal would take away "green space" and usable play area to the detriment of the School and an increasing number of students enrolled at the premises. We do not accept submissions on this point as a reason to reject the permit application. The question of the allocation and use of available recreational space is again a matter for the School. The proposed car park would remain available for School activities like informal recreation or other activities associated with the educational use of the land. We understand from Ms Brennan's submission that the car park would be used as paved recreational space as some of the existing paved areas to the east of the hockey ground may be removed. Moreover, the area between the existing high cyclone wire fence and School's western site boundary is not accessible to students and the proposal would not change that as it would simply replace part of the cyclone wire fence with an acoustic fence.

10 We next refer to the details of the car park and first refer to submissions by Respondent Objectors that there is no need for on-site parking given available parking on-street in Brighton Road and other off-site options that have not been explored such as use of parking within the golf course.

11 At the outset, in relation to this question of need, it is relevant to remember that lack of need is seldom, if ever, a consideration against the grant of a permit, and the establishment of need is not to be regarded as an essential requirement. We say "seldom if ever" in deference to the wording used by the Planning Appeals Board in its reasons in relation to the leading authority on this point that has been consistently followed by the Tribunal and its predecessors for over 20 years. We refer to the Shell Company Ltd. v. City of Frankston and Amoco Australia Ltd (P82/1527) noted and quoted at 1 PABR 170. The quotation includes the following sentence:

However lack of a need will rarely, if ever, be a ground for refusing to grant a permit.

Although "really, if ever" leaves open a possibility, we are not aware of instances where lack of need has been relied upon by this Tribunal or its predecessors as a valid reason for refusing a permit. Conversely, the presence of a genuine need may be a significant factor in outweighing other considerations, including amenity considerations, and thus may be an important factor in favour of the grant of a permit. This was recognised in the Shell case mentioned above and in Church of England Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne v. City of Brighton, Osborne and ors. (1983) 1 PABR 332. Both these cases are leading authorities on that point and have been followed since their determination by the Planning Appeals Board.

12 The submission that a use such as the hockey ground should not provide any on-site parking is unusual. More often, there is an argument that on-site parking proposed for a facility is inadequate and would have the undesirable impact of causing an overflow onto the public streets and result in parking outside houses. That was the basis of some submissions in the original proceeding that sought review of the Council's decision to allow the hockey ground [Application for Review No. 1999/072086 EB Bandaid v Bayside CC and Brighton Secondary College] and the parking required by the permit that then issued sought to ensure that accessible on-site parking was available while mindful that parking on Dendy Street would be likely to occur as it would be convenient to the hockey ground. Subsequent proceedings have demonstrated that on-street parking is a concern to some residents and it is clear that the Council seeks on-site parking. We are not persuaded that, in principle, there should be no on-site parking provided for the hockey grounds because there is an obligation under the current Permit for on-site parking for 46 vehicles and nothing presented to us during the course of the hearing would persuade us that this number of spaces is unreasonable or that the public resource available along Dendy Street some distance to the east and west of the School frontage should be fully devoted to this single user. Mr Davies' evidence confirms that 46 spaces, supplemented by parking on Dendy Street, is reasonable to service most of the needs at peak change-over times. There is also the issue that parking outside dwellings can be a matter of sensitivity to some residents and, without parking restrictions being introduced by the Council, the consequence of accepting the principle that no on-site parking be provided would lead to users of the hockey ground parking on-street affecting residential properties. That could occur as there is no guarantee ensuring on-street parking would occur only where there is a non-residential frontage. Further, should the golf course be relied upon for a substantial amount of parking to service the hockey ground there is another problem in relation to what would occur if, for some reason, that parking could no longer be relied upon or became unavailable.

13 On the issue of alternatives, we record that a number of submissions were made raising concerns about the consultation process that was undertaken in relation to parking options for the hockey ground. While some residents may feel aggrieved in relation to aspects of that process, it is not the role of the Tribunal to review the procedure adopted for an informal public consultation process. The role of the Tribunal in an Application for Review is to assess the application for a permit de novo, that is afresh and on its planning merits, rather than to conduct an investigation into informal public consultation procedures. Moreover, our role is to consider whether the proposal before us would achieve an acceptable outcome having regard to the applicable policies, decision guidelines and related provisions of the Bayside Planning Scheme. Using the words at Clauses 31 and 65 of the Scheme:

Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The responsible authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the State Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Policy Framework, the purpose and decision guidelines of the overlay and any other decision guidelines in clause 65. [Tribunal emphasis]

14 It is not necessary to find a better or the best solution.

15 We find that the location for the proposed car park has the benefit of having no residential properties directly opposite or close by to the south thereby avoiding issues such as headlight glare from vehicles departing the review site. The layout allows for drivers to see into the space to ascertain if there are vacancies and to turn within the car park and depart in a forward movement. Existing homes to the west will not be troubled by headlights because intervening fencing will screen them. The position also maximises the retention of existing canopy trees that are desirable for screening and amenity purposes. The presence of high fencing was a concern raised by Mr Swindon in relation to neighbourhood character considerations and other comments were made about the visual impact where there is currently a relatively open vista to the end of Sara Avenue. The proposal would bring a change to the open grassland that exists but in time with landscaping to the west side of the acoustic fence the visual impact of the car park and fence would be masked to a considerable extent. We do not think that the degree of change represented by the proposal is such that the permit application should be rejected and the ambience of the cul-de-sac may be visually improved in time as landscaping required by a permit establishes.

16 The key issues are ones relating to off-site impacts for the two residential properties that directly abut the western boundary of the School land where the car park is proposed (No. 213 Dendy Street and No. 10 Sara Avenue) and a third (No. 7 Sara Avenue) that would have the acoustic fence partly opposite its eastern boundary. Issues requiring consideration arising from submissions relate to the potential for noise, light disturbance, headlight glare and visual impact that were submitted by Mr Swindon and Mr Curtis to impact on their amenity and potentially on No. 213 Dendy Street. We address in turn.

17 In relation to noise, we accept that a car park could have the potential to transmit noise to the dwellings and their open spaces. The proposal involves a 2.7 metre high acoustic fence above the height of the finished level of the car park. Given the slope, that would be higher at the position the fence would be erected, being approximately 3.7 - 4.2 metres relative to the levels at the western boundary (the highest being at the northern end of the fence). The fence is proposed to be timber in accordance with the specifications set out by Mr Burton in his evidence although a part transparent fence would be possible. Mr Burton's evidence was that noise from the car park would reduced to a level that would meet the criteria for avoidance of sleep disturbance. Although noise associated with the car park would not been inaudible to adjacent residents, that is not the test. We are satisfied that the acoustic attenuation works proposed (that also include some mounding to the south-west end) should ensure a reasonable level of amenity is retained for dwellings within close proximity to the land and we also note that the acoustic fence might have some additional benefit in relation to further noise reduction from the hockey ground.

18 There was an added concern by Mr Curtis that late night noise in the car park might give rise to the disturbance of dogs and that can lead to residents also being disturbed. It is not uncommon for other dogs to bark when they hear other dogs barking but that does not persuade us to vary the proposal or reject the permit application. In any event, conditions prevent activities associated with non-school hocky after 9.30pm and require closure of the carpark by 10.00pm.

19 The visual impact of a solid fence and car park would bring a change compared with the existing grassed area. However, at a setback of 7-8 metres from the closest residential boundaries to the acoustic fence and more than 12 metres to the edge of the car park we are not persuaded that the outcome is unacceptable when also placing weight on the retention of existing trees, the visual impact associated with the existing cyclone fencing, and the fairly dense landscaping that is proposed in the 7-8 metre inaccessible setback area. The same fence on a boundary may be unacceptable in relation to its appearance and shading effect on adjoining residential properties, but at the proposed setback it is acceptable.

20 Given the nature of the land use, in a Public Use 2 Zone, it cannot be guaranteed that no development would occur or that the existing areas of grass would remain in perpetuity even though we appreciate that existing residents enjoy the amenity presented by the open green aspect to their east or south-east. We say this because it was submitted on behalf of Mr. Sharp that he anticipated that his current outlook onto a grassed but otherwise vacant expanse would continue indefinitely. In fact, it was said on his behalf, that he would not have purchased his property if he had anticipated a change in that circumstance. If Mr. Sharp had such an expectation, it was an unrealistic one. He has purchased a property that has its eastern side boundary common with the grounds of a large secondary school. It is unreasonable to expect that underutilised parts of the school campus will remain in their current state indefinitely. If one purchases next to a school, one must expect school activities next door, and cannot expect that relatively undeveloped or unused portions of the adjoining premises will remain in that state.

21 The form and position of the acoustic fence would prevent headlight glare to residences to the west of the car park.

22 Additional matters raised in submissions focussed on resident concerns about the safety for patrons and residents by introducing a new crossing point and congestion near to the car park entry where sports ground users may be dropped off. There is also the location of the crossing close to the golf course entry opposite. We have considered these matters having regard to the evidence of Mr Davies. The new crossover would bring a change as would the introduction of any new crossing point and it creates a situation where people walking or driving must exercise care. The sightlines are good and we find no reason to conclude that the arrangement proposed would be unusual or unsafe.

23 Finally, we refer to two other matters raised in submissions and summarise our views on them.

24 First, a number of queries were raised in relation to hours of operation and facilities such as lighting. We are satisfied that the details are now clear as we have set out in these reasons. In addition, a lockable gate is desirable so that after hockey use, the facility is not accessible to members of the public either as pedestrians or by car. Having said that, the facility is on School land and it does not preclude use of the car park for School activities that can lawfully be conducted in accordance with the Public Use Zone 2. The hours for the car park in relation to non-School hockey should accord with the hockey ground use as set out in Permit 99/4617 with the same half hour grace for people to pack-up and depart once matches are complete.

25 Second, Mr Swindon said that there is "no guarantee that this type of development will stop at this point" noting a pending application relating to basketball use. Several parties referred to the desirability of a masterplan, a proposition Ms Brennan strongly opposed on the basis that the zoning of the land as Public Use gives rise to no reasonable expectations that a masterplan is necessary to address matters under the PE Act. We understand from previous proceedings that there is a masterplan for Department of Education purposes. While use and development that is allowed as-of-right by the provisions of the Zone cannot be restricted we do not accept that there is no benefit or reason for a masterplan that addresses and plans for any additional non-School based activities that are sought to utilise School facilities out of school hours. It is the lack of such forward planning that has led to multiple proceedings before this Tribunal and it may be appropriate, and in its own interests, for the School to set in place a proper plan that deals with parking and related issues if there are to be several activities conducted on the land even if those activities do not overlap temporally. The case for such a plan is stronger if there is likely to be overlap. However, it has to be appreciated that such a plan does not become part of the planning laws in relation to the school site. There would be no legal obligation to follow it and it may need to change or evolve to meet changing circumstances. As to Mr. Swindon's claim that there is no guarantee that development will stop at this point, of course he is right. Nor should there be such a guarantee. If future proposals are brought forward they will have to be considered on their merits. The possibility of them arising is not a reason to refuse this one.

26 In conclusion, for the above reasons we are satisfied that the proposal before us would achieve an acceptable outcome in terms of the relevant decision guidelines of the Bayside Planning Scheme. We will direct that a permit issue, subject to conditions.

27 In relation to conditions, we have adopted some of the conditions proposed by the Council as adjusted by us to reduce repetitions and redundancies. The permit we are directing to be issued is for the development of the car park in association with the minor sports ground. Permit 99/4617 stands in relation to the use of the hockey ground for non-School activities however it will be necessary to make amendments to the current Permit to reflect the now approved car parking arrangements, notably Condition 10. We propose to include a condition that this new permit is not to come into affect until the existing one is suitably amended. That is a matter that the Applicant should pursue. In our view, the issue of Permit 2004/0737 can be regarded as a material change in circumstances since the grant of the current Permit sufficient to provide a ground under s.87(1) of the PE Act. If such an application is lodged with the Tribunal for an amendment it might be appropriate for its to be considered under Section 100(2) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 whereby the matter can be determined without a hearing with the consent of the parties.

_________________ ___________________