in which case the term has the meaning given to it in those Acts unless it is defined differently in this scheme.

1. Therefore, we must have regard to the ordinary meaning of such words. The Macquarie Dictionary[5] defines the words as follows:

Community - a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and have a cultural and historical heritage.

Benefit - an act of kindness; anything that is for the good of the person or kindness; anything that is for the good of the person or thing to do good to; be of service to; to gain advantage; make improvement.

1. The applicants' submission refers to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of significant as meaning 'sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention'.
2. Having regard to the dictionary definitions, the Tribunal agrees with the submissions of the respondent that the term significant is not to be equated with 'substantial' or 'large' but rather that the benefit is to be important or of consequence. This necessarily involves a subjective analysis of what is significant to a particular community. In other words, a benefit that is significant in one context may not be significant in another. On that basis, notwithstanding that the parties provided factors that the Tribunal ought to have regard to when assessing whether the community benefit is significant, given its contextual nature it is difficult to formulate criteria for any decision maker.
3. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has had regard to the following factors:
   • The identified need for a MCHC facility as articulated in the officer's report and Ms Peterson's evidence (given the increasing population);
   • Its size, notwithstanding that it may not have been an optimum location being located to the south with a west facing window;
   • The dedicated car spaces adjacent to the lift particularly having regard to the locality;
   • Direct access from Chapel Street to the lift; and
   • Its location in the activity centre which allows for parents to undertake other activities such as shopping for daily needs in the nearby supermarket.
4. We agree that the provision of the MCHC facility will provide a significant community benefit. However, we do not agree with Ms Peterson that the provision of the space for any community activity would necessarily be appropriate and result in a significant community benefit.

To be clear, the Tribunal has assessed this proposal and the specific community benefit as provided for by the MCHC and not some unspecified community use. We have reached this conclusion on the evidence before us and to some degree by Council's support.

There was debate amongst the parties as to the value of the MCHC to the community. We were advised that in effect a 'shell' was being transferred to be later fitted out and for the service to be provided by the Council. In our view, regardless of any monetary value attributed to the 'shell', the receipt of land in this locality for a MCHC is a benefit to the community. Further, it is one that is said by Council to be needed in the particular community.

The applicants also submit that the degree of public benefit is to be commensurate to the level of private benefit obtained. Whilst that may be one way of assessing the community benefit, such an analysis is not found in the words of the ACZ1 and thus does not have any support in the planning scheme.

1. The Tribunal had the benefit of evidence from two expert witnesses. The evidence of both witnesses was generally consistent having regard to traffic, road network and public transport. There were two exceptions, one relatively minor relating to the overall statutory car parking requirement and the other related to conclusions in respect of the appropriate number of car spaces for the proposal.
2. The minor inconsistency relates to the number of overall car parking spaces required for the office use. The proposed overall size of the office areas is 1,70m2. The respondent's evidence sets out that forty-nine car spaces are required having regard to the leasable floor area. The applicant's witness contends that fifty-one car spaces are required having regard to the net floor area. We note that the car parking rates set out at column B of table 1 to clause 52.06 - 5 provides for three car spaces to each 100m² of net floor area. On that basis, the evidence of the applicant is to be preferred. However, even if we are wrong in respect of the overall spaces required under clause 52.06-5, it is inconsequential having regard to our ultimate decision.
3. Most of the reduction in car parking spaces relates to the commercial uses on the subject land. A reduction of three spaces is sought in respect of the residential use of the subject land and more particularly in respect of the one-bedroom apartments. The overall shortfall having regard to the applicants' evidence is fifty-eight car spaces.
4. The applicants submit that having regard to the totality of the relevant planning policy framework including the ACZ1 that the number of car spaces proposed is excessive and is contrary to the policy matrix.

The respondent submits that the proposed number of car spaces strikes a reasonable balance and further, that the applicant would not require a permit if it sought to provide parking at the standard rates.

The Council submits that the proposal meets the transport objectives set out in the ACZ1 and no further reduction in the number of car spaces is necessary.

The respondent further says that clause 52.06 provides an opportunity to reduce the statutory car parking rate and that it is not under any obligation to do so.

In support of a further reduction, the evidence on behalf of the applicant relies in part upon planning scheme Amendment C139 which was prepared by the Council, released for comments and submissions but not ultimately adopted by the Council. The respondent's witness was highly critical of the study that underpinned Amendment C139. However, the applicant's witness did not solely rely on that as a basis for seeking a further reduction in car parking spaces. The witness also relied upon a number of policy documents such as Melbourne Refresh, clause 18, Chapel ReVision transport strategy, Forest Hill Structure Plan and the ACZ1. All these documents provide strong policy support for reducing private vehicle use.

Given our ultimate findings on the merits in respect of the built form we do not need to come to any concluded view in respect of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a car parking rate that is lower than what is proposed or indeed, an acceptable number of car parking spaces for this proposal.

Rather, we simply observe that it is unusual for a proposal such as is being considered in this application, having regard to the locational attributes, the excellent level of access to public transport and the strong policy support for modal shift away from private vehicle use to only require a reduction of three spaces for the residential use. The Tribunal is cognisant of the fact that the proposal provides a high proportion of three-bedroom dwellings and that from a commercial perspective there is an imperative to provide the two car spaces as set out at clause 52.06. However, there are several one-bedroom apartments which are smaller in size which, when coupled with this location, could readily support fewer car parking spaces.

We reiterate that we have not come to any final conclusions in respect of this matter and have simply set out our observations on the evidence before us.

1. The debate in respect of amenity impacts and equitable development is confined to the southern and western boundaries.

The land at 661 Chapel Street has a planning permit for the construction of a five-story building comprising retail premises at ground level, classrooms and hostel rooms. This building is associated with MHS. The plans for this proposal depict a number of classrooms at first and second level with hostel rooms being provided on levels 3 and 4. A light well has been approved along the northern boundary which adjoins the subject land. This light well is 3.3 metres in width and spans almost the entire length of its northern boundary. Mr Sheppard's evidence on behalf of the applicants considers that the proposed 17-metre high boundary wall forming part of the podium on the subject land will significantly affect the amenity of the approved MHS development. However, Mr Sheppard considers that this can be addressed by simply requiring the balustrade of the Level 3 balconies to be setback 3 metres from the common boundary.

The approved building at 661 Chapel Street has not commenced construction. Notwithstanding Mr Sheppard's evidence, the Tribunal considers that any future development on the subject land should be appropriately setback from this boundary to afford reasonable amenity to 661 Chapel Street.

Mr Sheppard is of the opinion that MHS could develop its land to the west of the subject land with a relatively low building (approx. 4 storeys). If the proposal is approved in its current form, the lack of an adequate rear setback could comprise its development potential and that outcome is inequitable. An equitable outcome does not mean an equal outcome, rather it requires a consideration of whether the proposal has made reasonable provision for development on other sites, taking into account each site's capacity to accommodate setbacks.

1. The proposal is setback 1.83 metres from its rear boundary. It is noted that built form is not consistent along this rear boundary as there are sections of the boundary where there is no built form proposed at all. The MHS land is relatively constrained given its important heritage status. Any redevelopment of the MHS land would be difficult given that constraint. It is on this basis that we agree with Mr Sheppard that further consideration ought to be given to this rear interface to ensure that the equitable development opportunity of MHS is addressed.

1. Mr Harris on behalf of Mr Uzelac raises particular concerns with wind impacts and waste collection. He is not satisfied that the impacts of wind have been adequately explored in the application material. In the Tribunal's experience it is not uncommon for a general report to be prepared to accompany the planning application and that in the event a permit is issued such permit would include a condition requiring a detailed wind assessment. We consider that if a permit had been issued that a condition would have been appropriate in the circumstances of this proposal.

Mr Harris submits that waste management and collection is a concern along Chapel Street. However, this again is a matter that can be addressed by permit condition. We also note that Ms Dunstan's evidence clarifies that waste collection will occur in the basement using small waste collection vehicle by a private contractor.

1. Having regard to our reasons set out above, we have determined to allow the application for review and direct that no permit is to issue.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing, and the statements of grounds filed; have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] [2008] PPV 111 page 47.

[3] [2017] VCAT 2155

[4] Abercrombie v Salter Architects [2017] VSC 180.