A permit is granted and directed to be issued under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for the land at 572 Chapel Street, South Yarra which allows:

A change of use to a Hotel to allow for a General Licence for the provision of the sale of packaged liquor.

1. The use allowed by this permit and shown on the drawings and/or schedules endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

2. The use permitted may operate only between the hours of 7.00am to 1.00am the following day Monday to Sunday.

3. Meals shall be available for consumption during the permitted hours of operation.

4. The premises must be open for patrons to consume meals during normal business hours (i.e. 9.00am to 5.00pm).

5. Patrons must be seated at all times including those provided with service at the bar/servery.

6. Food and drink shall not be consumed at the rear of the premises.

7. A total of 34 seats (including bar stools adjacent to the bar/servery area) shall be provided within the premises.

8. No more than 34 patrons may be present on the premises at any one time, including persons who are on the premises for the purpose of purchasing packaged liquor.

9. Packaged liquor offered for sale shall be restricted to products offered for consumption on the premises.

10. No signage or advertising material which advises that packaged liquor is available for purchase from the premises shall be displayed on the frontage of the premises.

11. The loading and unloading of vehicles, the delivery of goods to and from the premises and the parking of staff cars must at all times be conducted so as to cause minimum interference with other vehicle traffic.

12. The use permitted by this permit must at all times be carried on entirely within the site and be so conducted as to cause minimum interference with other vehicle traffic.

13. All external plant and equipment must be acoustically treated or placed in sound proof housing to reduce noise to a level satisfactory to the Responsible Authority.

14. The provision of music and entertainment on the premises must be limited to background music. Live entertainment is not permitted on the premises.

15. No bottles are to be placed in any outside storage bin between 8.00pm and 7.00pm on any day.

16. No collection of rubbish from the premises is permitted between 8.00pm and 7.00am on any day. Rubbish collection must occur at least once per week and collection must be restricted to normal business hours.

17. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid wastes within the curtilage of the site. This area must be properly maintained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed those required to be met under State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2.

19. At all times during the operation of the use, there must be present on the premises a person over the age of 21 years who is responsible for ensuring that the activities on the premises and the conduct of persons attending the premises do not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Referred to in this permit as "the manager").

The manager must be authorised by the operator under this permit to make statements at any time on his/her behalf to any officer of the Responsible Authority and of the Victoria Police and/or of Liquor Licensing Victoria authorised under section 129 of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998; and/or to take action on his/her behalf in accordance with a direction of such officer.

20. The site and immediate surrounds must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in a manner which ensures that the residential amenity of nearby residential properties is not detrimentally affected (i.e. collection of cigarette butts, bottles and other litter from outside the site).

21. The premises must not be used for accommodation, gambling, dancing and amusement machines or any other service without the written permission of the Responsible Authority.

22. This permit will expire if the use is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Ms Marita Foley, Solicitor of Maddocks, represented the Responsible Authority.

Dr Peter Coulter appeared in person and also represented his wife.

Mr James Coomes, town planning and property consultant (Coomes Planning) appeared for the Applicant for Review/Applicant for Permit.

The written submissions of the parties, further submissions made after the hearing, together with numerous photographs, policy documents and other material tendered at the hearing, have been retained on the Tribunal's file.

1. This is an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a decision by the City of Stonnington to refuse to grant a permit (in Application No 1136/01) for a change of use of the land at 572 Chapel Street, South Yarra from a Bar/Restaurant to a Hotel - to enable a change in the class of liquor licence under which the premises operates.

2. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Chapel Street, between Toorak Road and Oxford Street. It commences 9.6m north of the latter. It has a frontage of 14.4m and a depth of 39.62 m, yielding a site area of approximately 164m2.

3. The rear of the site abuts Forster Street which provides rear access to a number of commercial premises along Chapel Street and represents the boundary between the commercial zone and a Residential 1 zone to the east. Bollards in Oxford Street prevent vehicles entering the residential area.

4. The subject site is developed with a double storey building. On the ground level the Applicant for Review operates the "C'n'F Bar/Café". There is a residence above. There are two car spaces at the rear.

5. There are commercial premises to the north and south and on the opposite side of Chapel Street. Dr Coulter's property is on the north east corner of Oxford Street and Forster Street.

6. The current use was allowed by Permit P773/96, issued on 13 January 1997 (and extended on 3 March 1999). The application was the subject of an Application for Review against the Council's refusal of a proposed Bar/Restaurant.

7. The principal issue considered in Member Moles' lengthy determination was that of car parking. The Tribunal allowed the use and a reduction of the standard car parking requirement. The permit conditions include a limit of 34 patrons, required to be seated to obtain service, and operating hours of 7.00am until 1.00am the following morning, seven days a week.

8. There appears to be an inconsistency in that the current liquor licence (General Class 2) provides for a maximum of only 17 patrons.

9. Permission is sought to change the description of the use of the subject land from a Bar/Restaurant to a Hotel. The change of definition is necessary to allow the sale of packaged liquor.

10. The application spelt out that it is not intended to provide accommodation, entertainment, gambling or any other uses normally associated with a hotel use. Indeed, apart from the sale of packaged liquor there will be no change in the operation of the premises as approved by Permit No. 773/96. It is intended to sell packaged liquor over the bar. Products sold would be limited to those available for consumption on the premises.

11. Under the Stonnington Planning Scheme the subject site is zoned Business 1. It is also affected by a heritage overlay but that is not relevant to this review.

12. Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 a planning permit is required to use land in a Business 1 Zone for the purpose of a Hotel. Pursuant to Clause 52.27 a permit is also required to use land to sell or consume liquor if, inter alia, "a different licence or class of licence is required from that which is in force".

13. Clause 65.01 of the Planning Scheme directs the Responsible Authority, and this Tribunal, to consider certain matters, including the matters set out at Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, the purpose of the zone, the orderly planning of the area and the effect on the amenity of the area.

14. Although Mr Coomes referred to various sections of the State Planning Policy Framework their particular relevance was not highlighted.

15. Much emphasis, however, was placed on the provisions of the Local Planning Policy Framework. Mr Coomes and/or Ms Foley highlighted numerous provisions of Council's Municipal Strategic Statement ("MSS"), including Clause 21.02 (local Planning Challenges), Clause 21.03 (Vision for the City of Stonnington), Clause 21.08 (Residential Areas Character and Amenity), Clause 21.09 (Retailing Areas Viability) and Clause 21.10 (Identity of Commercial Areas, Their Focus and Residential Interface).

16. Clause 21.10 identifies a hierarchy of commercial areas. Chapel Street (with the theme "Historic Heart") is a Group 1 - Regional centre, accommodating intensive retailing and complementary uses, including a variety of entertainment uses.

17. Relevant local policies include Clause 22.06 (Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy), Clause 22.09 (Retail Centres Policy), Clause 22.10 (Entertainment Uses Policy), Clause 22.12 (Traffic Policy and Clause 22.13 (Parking Policy).

18. The purpose of the Business 1 zone, stated at Clause 34.01, is:

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

* To encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complementary commercial, entertainment and community uses.

19. The Application for Permit was lodged on 10 September 2001. Notice was given directly to the owners and occupiers of adjoining lots and by the erection of a sign on the site. In response one objection was received from the current Respondents. Ms Foley summarised the grounds of objection as follows:

In response to the advertising of the application, Council received a submission from Dr P.R. and Mrs H Coulter which objected to the grant of a permit. The objection raised the following matters:

* deterioration in amenity from the sale of packaged liquor;

* increase in late night/early morning noise in Forster Street and Oxford Street, South Yarra;

* A Change of Use will encourage drinking in the street;

* There are two existing bottle shops within the vicinity of the subject land;

* The Applicants made verbal representations to the residents that they would keep Forster Street clean, and that they would not apply for further packaged liquor licences (January 1997 - Original Change of Use);

* Council has not been enforcing the car parking in Forster Street, South Yarra.

20. The planning officer's recommendation that the application be allowed subject to conditions was not adopted by the Council. A Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit was issued on 19 December 2001, with the following grounds:

1. The proposed use is inappropriate and is inconsistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework.

2. Approval would set a bad precedent for similar uses.

3. The use of land for the purpose of a hotel would cause a loss of amenity.

21. The application for review, lodged on 4 January 2002, stated the following grounds:

1. The proposal is not an inappropriate use in the area.

2. The proposal is not inconsistent with Local Planning Policy and is in accordance with similar decisions made by the Council.

3. The proposal would not set a bad precedent for similar uses in the area.

4. The proposal would not cause a loss of amenity in the area.

22. Dr Coulter lodged a Statement of Grounds on 23 January 2002 in the form of an attached letter which had been sent to the Council as an Objection to the application for permit and the additional ground:

Insufficient notice of application to nearby owners of residential property - we believe we are the only ones to receive notice.

23. Dr Coulter's additional ground was not pursued at the hearing. Submissions related to the issues encompassed in the Grounds of Refusal, particularly amenity considerations. It is convenient to present my findings under headings derived from the Grounds of Refusal.

24. In order to better understand the issues after the hearing I made an inspection of the general area, during the middle of the day.

25. The written submissions of Ms Foley and Mr Coomes included extensive extracts from the Local Planning Policy Framework. While it is not necessary to reproduce them here it is useful to note the following provisions.

26. A strategy at Clause 21.08-3 is "The protection of the amenity of residential properties, particularly those close to commercial areas affected by intrusive activities, such as traffic, parking and noise, particularly at night"

27. A key issue or central challenge identified in Clause 21.10-1 is "Minimising or resolving any negative impacts on the surrounding residential areas generated by overflow effects from the larger commercial areas, including the entertainment venues within some of them". Associated strategies include to "encourage appropriate services to... commercial areas that are complementary to their development as community foci" and to "discourage further entertainment uses from locating close to residential areas"

28. The Council's policy relating to the viability of retailing areas recognises that increases in entertainment uses and their associated effects (such as late hours of operation, noise, traffic and parking congestion) can impact on retail economics and the character and viability of the whole centre. The policy stresses the need to create the conditions that maintain and enhance the economic viability of retailing centres. A strategy is to:

Encourage a diversity of businesses, goods and services that will enhance the economic viability of Stonnington's retail centres, particularly new small businesses and uses that are high value and low impact, and that are consistent with the needs of local and regional communities.

29. Clause 22.10-3 provides that in a Group 1 commercial centre entertainment uses that operate after 12.30pm are to be discouraged unless the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the applicant can demonstrate minimal detriment to nearby residential amenity caused by the operation of the use (including patrons leaving the premises and the availability and location of carparking). The policy also relates to the expansion of existing entertainment uses.

30. With reference to those policies Ms Foley submitted that the grant of a permit enabling the sale of packaged liquor will result in a lowering of the overall amenity of adjoining residential properties on Foster Street and Oxford Street. She saw this as flowing from an increase in patronage as a result of the change of use. Specific impacts cited were increased traffic and short term parking outside the subject land, increased litter (such as discarded bottles and cans) outside the subject land and in the immediate vicinity and increased noise levels, particularly at night from increased patronage/traffic.

31. Ms Foley also submitted that contrary to the objective of Clause 21.10-2 the sale of packaged liquor would not be complementary to the Scheme's community foci as it would result in an increased level of patronage which would create increased levels of noise, traffic and a lack of parking. She highlighted that the premises is one of only a small number of premises with permission to operate in a Group 1 commercial centre after 12.30pm.

32. Ms Foley further argued that the proposal cannot be said to be complementary to the development of the area because two bottleshops already exist in close proximity to the subject land. In other words, she submitted that no need has been established for the proposal. Ms Foley submitted that the proposal would not represent business diversity. She also questioned the economic viability of the proposal in the light of the proximity of the "direct competitors".

33. Dr Coulter also raised the issue of need. He suggested that existing bottle shops could stock the specialist products intended to be sold.

34. Lastly, Ms Foley submitted that the proposal does not accord with the Entertainment Uses Policy as the Applicant has not demonstrated that change of use will cause "minimal detriment" Ms Foley submitted that allowing its operation until 1.00am would be contrary to that policy.

35. It is obvious that a central thrust of Council's policies for the Chapel Street centre is to ensure that it does not loose its retail viability as a result of the establishment of an excessive number of non-retail activities, particularly entertainment uses.

36. In the light of the submissions made by Mr Coomes I consider that the proposal would not be contrary to that policy thrust. In particular I accept Mr Coomes' submission that as the proposal involves a change to an existing use there would be no impact on the viability of existing retail premises. As noted by Mr Coomes the proposal represents the introduction of a small retailing component which would add to the retailing diversity in the centre. Indeed, in an absolute sense it would marginally increase the amount of retailing activity undertaken in the centre. It would also add to the viability of the existing use. In contrast to many entertainment venues, the fact that it is open during the day would complement retailing activities.

37. Mr Coomes correctly pointed out that the need for a facility is rarely a relevant town planning consideration. There certainly is no requirement to show a "desperate need for the sale of packaged liquor from the premises" or a "shortage of supply of packaged liquor", as suggested by Ms Foley. In any event I was provided with no information about the hours of operation of nearby bottle shops or the manner in which they already respond to community "need".

38. It must be recognised that the approved use operates until 1.00am. Although this is marginally later than the policy suggestion of a 12.30am curfew in a Group 1 centre the proposal would not result in a change of hours of operation.

39. My central finding is that the proposal is not contrary to or in conflict with Council's policies relating to the viability of retail centres.

40. A further focus of the policies is to limit the adverse effects of the commercial and entertainment activities of the retail centre on the nearby residential areas. It was Ms Foley's submission that the amenity of residents in the vicinity is the single most important consideration in this application for review. It is to that policy focus that I now turn.

41. Ms Foley submitted that the location of the subject premises, close to a street corner shared with a residential street, "may require greater restrictions than a premises located in the middle of a business zone and buffered by other

non-residential uses". While acknowledging that the residents reside at the interface of residential and business zones Ms Foley submitted that they should not be required to accept a lower level of amenity simply because of their location adjacent to land zoned for business. Ms Foley submitted that consistent with the Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy at Clause 22.06 "Residents are still entitled to peace and quiet late at night commensurate with their residential zoning".

42. In particular Ms Foley submitted that the proposed sale of packaged liquor could exacerbate the difficulties associated with patrons drinking liquor in their cars which has been purchased at retail prices before going to entertainment venues where liquor is more expensive. Ms Foley noted that such behaviour had been observed by Member Eccles when inspecting Toorak Village in relation to another application for review.

43. Dr Coulter recognised the need for a trade-off of amenity due to proximity to the commercial centre but argued that the situation should not get progressively worse. He saw the change to the use of the subject premises as a piecemeal approach to the intensification of the use - a "slippery slope" incrementally diminishing the amenity of the residential area.

44. Although Dr Coulter has never resided at his property to the rear of the subject site I understand that until around 12 moths ago his son lived there and his wife uses the front rooms during the day. Dr Coulter also indicated a wish for his dwelling to be used as a residence again and noted that he is installing double glazing to deal with difficulties.

45. Dr Coulter described the current impacts on residential amenity. He noted the problem of noise associated with people leaving premises or drinking cheap alcohol before going to entertainment venues. He suggested that to consume alcohol people seek a dark place, such as Forster Street or the small lane adjacent to his property. He noted that the former has a cavernous effect which amplifies noise. Dr Coulter also noted the problem of littering, particularly at weekends. He described how he regularly has to clean away empty bottles from the protective railing along his wall.

46. In essence Dr Coulter fears that the proposed change of use will bring about an increase in litter and late night/early morning noise at the rear, close to his property.

47. Although my inspection of the area was during the day I have no hesitation in accepting that that there are problems as described by Dr Coulter and observed by Member Eccles. There was, however, no evidence put to me that the problems relate to the existing use. As noted by Mr Coomes it has very limited take away products (just coffee). It is apparently a low key establishment, not attracting the "robust clientele" associated with the many late night venues in the area.

48. As described by Mr Coomes it is not intended to change the nature of the business. He advised that there is no intention to offer bulk sales such as slabs of beer. There is not adequate storage to allow that and prices would not be competitive. Indeed, Mr Coomes submitted that the proprietors do not want people coming to look for cheap alcohol as that would affect the ambience and nature of the business. Mr Coomes also stressed that there would be no convenience element. That is, due to parking difficulties people would be unlikely to come in their cars just to buy liquor. Mr Coomes indicated an intention to offer packaged liquor to existing patrons and those off the street who are aware of the type of liquor available. Mr Coomes submitted that the focus would be on "boutique liquor"; wines, beers and speciality spirits at the "high end of the market".

49. Mr Coomes conceded that ultimately the management would have no control over the behaviour of buyers of packaged liquor when they leave the premises. He did, however, assume that the buyers of specialist liquor are likely to be "responsible" and that it is unlikely that such liquor would be immediately consumed in the street. I am prepared to accept the validity of that assumption. Provided the business operates in the manner described by Mr Coomes I consider that it would be unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. Permit conditions to ensure that are discussed later.

50. Ms Foley simply submitted that in the light of non-compliance with planning policy the grant of a permit would establish a negative precedent for similar proposal in the future.

51. I find that to be an unusual position to take in the circumstances. As highlighted by Mr Coomes the Council has relatively recently endorsed a number of similar changes of use which themselves have created a "precedent".

52. In particular Mr Coomes cited "The Greek Deli" at 583-585 Chapel Street. It was the subject of an Application for Review (No 2000/06128) by an Objector, heard on 3 November 2000 by Member Liston. It involved an existing restaurant with 100 patrons trading until 3am. The Tribunal granted a permit for a hotel and to use land to sell or consume liquor on or off the premises. The Applicant for Review (the occupier of an apartment to the rear) was concerned about more stringent conditions regarding containment of noise and area where alcohol consumed. Significantly, Member Liston noted that "It is accepted by all the parties...that both the existing and the proposed use, and associated licences, are entirely appropriate having regard to the planning scheme provisions, and the established land use character of Chapel Street.."

53. Mr Coomes also highlighted that on 14 December 2001 the Council issued a permit to enable a bar/restaurant (the "Kasbar") at 481 Chapel Street to be used as a hotel. It can operate until 3.00am.

54. Mr Coomes submitted that those proposals (together with the current application) reflect changes in practices in the operation of liquor licensing laws and community attitudes. He suggested that it can be anticipated that there will be other premises that seek to change to a hotel. Mr Coomes submitted that while each application in the future would need to be considered on its merits the existence of similar facilities in the area will not have any significant effect on whether or not other permits are granted.

55. I accept that analysis. I do not believe the granting of a permit in this instance will set an undesirable "precedent".

56. In his findings with respect to the change of use of "The Greek Deli" Member Liston observed that:

...it must be accepted that once a permit is issued the character of the activity on the land could change significantly albeit with the restrictions inherent in the permit in relation to the number of patrons etc...

It is often a useful technique in the case of entertainment uses to try and anticipate the worst case, and when issuing a permit seek to address the possible consequences of the worst case in the permitted development and in the conditions which control its use".

57. While I consider that the extended use currently envisaged by the Applicant for Permit would be unlikely to result in any detrimental impacts I consider that it is wise to adopt the approach identified by Member Liston. Although the hours of operation would be restricted by permit there is, for instance, a need to guard against further changes, perhaps by a new operator, which could alter the nature of the use.

58. The final phase of the hearing was devoted to a discussion about possible permit conditions to restrict the use and its impacts. The basis of the discussion was a list of conditions (as suggested by the planning officer when recommending the issue of a permit) tendered by Ms Foley. Possible permit conditions were also the subject of further submissions from the parties as directed at the end of the hearing. A further submission was received on behalf of the Applicant for Permit on 13 May 2001. A response on behalf of the Council was received on 22 May 2001 (with minor corrections received on 22 May 2001).

59. The planning officer had recommended the inclusion of a condition requiring amended plans indicating that the light court and two storage sheds at the rear of the premises do not form part of the permit. The parties agreed that it would be simpler to include a condition restricting where food or alcohol could be consumed.

60. A condition proposed by the planing officer (No 18) states:

The predominant activity carried out on the premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the premises. The premises must not be used for accommodation, gambling, dancing and amusement machines or any other service without the written permission of the Responsible Authority.

61. Ms Foley advised that such a condition has been suggested so the use does not expand further. The latter part of the restriction is not problematic. None of those activities are proposed. However, Mr Coomes advised that the preparation and serving of meals is not the current or proposed predominant activity. The licence allows liquor to be served without meals. Coffee is also served without food.

62. Although Ms Foley argued in her further submission that the full wording of the condition should be retained I accept Mr Coomes' submission that that is not necessary. Instead I consider that it would be more appropriate to control the nature of the use by including a condition requiring meals to be available at all times the premises are open, in addition to the proposed condition that the premises be open for patrons to consume meals during normal business hours.

63. The nature of the business could also be controlled by a requirement for there to be 34 seats. That would effectively restrict the area available for other than eating and drinking. It would mean that the use could not change to that of a bottle shop or dominant retailing activity. In his further submission Mr Coomes also advised of his client's willingness to limit the number of persons on the premises (including people buying packaged liquor) to 34. I consider that to be an effective concession.

64. Submission were made about the possible restriction of the range of liquor sold. At the hearing Mr Coomes suggested that to obtain a general liquor licence there is a requirement that a full range of products be made available. However, in his further submission he stated that the Liquor Licensing Commission "prefer a full range of liquor products to be available for sale from any premises for which a general license has been issued". He also acknowledged that a business will necessarily be selective in the products it sells.

65. I accept Ms Foley's further submission that no evidence was provided to support Mr Coomes' original contention. There is also no evidence to support his contention about what the Liquor Licensing Commission "prefer". I note Ms Foleys submission that there is nothing in the relevant Act, practice direction or the like to support Mr Coomes' proposition.

66. The Council requests that if a permit is to be granted then the sale of liquor be restricted to patrons of the premises and to alcohol which is sold for consumption on the premises.

67. In his further submission Mr Coomes reiterated that it is intended to sell all products offered for consumption on the premises. He included a copy of a list of products and brands that would be available for retail purchase.

68. I consider that it would be appropriate to include a condition expressly restricting the sale of products to those offered for consumption on the premises. However, in the light of Mr Coomes' submissions about the nature of the intended use and the approval of similar uses in the vicinity I am not convinced that there is a need to restrict the sale of packaged liquor to patrons of the premises. As noted earlier the business is unlikely to attract people seeking cheap or bulk liquor. I also note Mr Coomes' further submission that as it is not intended that off street sales be a major component of the business his client is prepared to accept a condition that no signage be displayed on the frontage advising that packaged liquor is available for purchase.

69. Although it was not mentioned by the parties I considered the possibility of a specific restriction of the hours for the sale of liquor to other than patrons. However, on the evidence before me I can see no justification for such a restriction which would, in effect, differentiate the hours sales could be made to different types of customers. I am, however, conscious that there may be further restrictions imposed as a result of the liquor licensing process. The Police will be involved at that stage and it may be deemed that there is a need for further restrictions.

70. In her further submission Ms Foley highlighted that Mr Coomes' further submission indicated, for the first time, that it is intended "to market the service by direct marketing means including e-mail to residents, businesses and business people in the area". Ordering will also be available by e-mail, telephone and facsimile and free delivery will be provided'.

71. In the absence of any submission from Ms Foley, or the other parties, about the implications of that intention it is difficult to make any determination about whether it is an acceptable part of the proposed use. I think it is reasonable to see the proposed marketing as an ordinary part of the business proposed. The proposed condition regarding loading and unloading of vehicles and delivery of goods would appear to cover the implications from that angle.

72. A proposed condition is that "The site and surrounds must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in a manner which ensures that the residential amenity of nearby residential properties is not detrimentally affected (ie. collection of cigarette butts, bottles and other litter from outside the site)".

73. I acknowledge Dr Coulter's concern that promises about cleaning the area have not been kept in the past. Nevertheless, I consider that such a condition would allow the Council to enforce the maintenance of the site and surrounding area.

74. In summary I have found that the proposed change of use does represent an acceptable outcome in terms of the planning policy framework in the planning Scheme, the purpose and decision guidelines of the zone and the relevant decision guidelines in Clause 65. In particular, I consider that if controlled by a range of permit conditions it would not have a detrimental impact on nearby residential properties.

75. Accordingly I will allow the Application for Review and make the appropriate order.

76. The conditions I intend to impose are based on those tendered by the Responsible Authority, which were discussed at the hearing and the subject of further submissions, but modified to reflect my findings.