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.