RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY: Maribyrnong City Council

Medium Neutral Citation [2002] VCAT 243

With respect to permit application no TP01/0233, the Responsible Authority's decision is varied.

1. Before the use starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans must be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and four copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the application but modified to show:

(a) A revised car parking layout, showing the provision of not less than 6 car parking spaces (in lieu of 8 spaces originally shown) on the land, with access from Hargreaves Street from a crossover so located and designed that it will not cause damage to the existing street tree.

(a) Sundays and the 1st and 15th day of each lunar month, between 11am and 3pm.,

(b) 8 special occasions on the following days of each lunar year, between 11am and 3pm -

(c) 25 December in each calendar year between 11am and 3pm;

(d) in relation to memorial services, on any day between the hours of 11am and 3pm;

(e) on each Monday to Saturday excluding any days that fall on a day listed under conditions 2(a), (b) and (c), between 11am and 7.30pm.

3. Reasonable noise attenuation measures as may be deemed necessary from time to time shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. The use of music (recorded or performed) and amplifiers for worship or celebration are strictly prohibited.

5. Notwithstanding anything contained herein the use permitted and the passage of vehicles must not cause injury to or prejudicially affect the amenity of nearby land under the control of the operator of the subject premises by reason of the appearance of the land and the buildings thereon and by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, dust, waste materials or otherwise.

6. No sign, message, bunting, streamers, flags, windaves, flashing lights or the like may be erected.

7. The owner/occupier must regularly advise persons attending the land to be considerate of the parking needs of nearby residents in Hargreaves Crescent and Melon Street.

8. The number of parishioners attending the premises must not exceed the following:

(a) in relation to the use permitted under conditions 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d), fourteen (14) parishioners on the site at any one time;

(b) in relation to the use permitted under condition 2(e), 4 parishioners on the site at any one time.

9. The permit applicant will advise the Responsible Authority by telephone on each occasion that a memorial service permitted under condition 2(d) is to be conducted on the site.

10, The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use through:

* Transport of persons, materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

* Appearance of any buildings, works or materials;

* The emission of noise, artificial light or waste products;

11. The owner and the occupier of the premises, and the manager must at all times make reasonable endeavours to ensure that persons resorting to the premises do not create a nuisance and annoyance to neighbours or otherwise disturb the amenity of the area.

12. The layout of the site as shown on the endorsed plan must not be altered or modified (whether or not to comply with any statute, statutory rule or by law or for any other reason) without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

13. Any existing vehicular crossing made redundant or not required for access to on site car parking must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Mr J Cicero, solicitor with Best Hooper, appeared for the responsible authority.

Ms D Kelly appeared on her own behalf and on behalf of Mr Nam Mui Chang.

Mr David O'Brien, Barrister instructed by Corrs Westgarth Chambers lawyers, appeared for the applicant.

1. This was an application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 seeking the review of conditions imposed by the Responsible Authority in its decision to grant a permit with respect to permit application no. TP01/0233. The permission granted by the Responsible Authority is to use land at 73 Melon Street Braybrook for the purpose of a place of worship.

2. The Notice of Decision to grant a Permit issued by the Responsible Authority on the 16 July 2001 is subject to 22 conditions. The conditions in dispute are as follows:

1. Before the use starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans must be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and four copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the application but modified to show:

(a) A revised carparking layout accessed via a standard crossover to accommodate 4 to 5 vehicles on side (sic), whilst ensuring that the existing tree will not be damaged.

2. The use shall only be undertaken on Sundays and the 1st and 15th day of each lunar month between 11am and 2pm.

3. The use may only be conducted within the confines of the existing dwelling on the property. The existing shed on the land shall (sic ) be permitted to be used as either a place of worship or a place of assembly and shall only be used for storage purposes.

4. No other functions such as gatherings (unless conducted within the times specified by the permit) and meetings are to be conducted on the land.

5. All other special occasions (i.e. weddings and funerals) are to occur within the permitted hours of operation.

6. Noise attenuation measures as may be deemed necessary from time to time shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. The permit does not allow the use of the premises as an educational establishment or community facility or for any other use not stipulated in the permit.

14. Any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and hereby permitted shall be broken out and reinstated as standard footpath and kerb and channel to the approval and to the satisfaction of Council's Assets & Open Space Branch and at the permit holders cost.

15. Vehicular crossovers must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. The owner shall be responsible for the loss of value of or damage to Council's assets as a result of the development. Reinstatement or modification of the asset to Council's satisfaction will be required or compensation to the value of Council's loss paid.

17. All redundant vehicle crossings and other disused private assets associated with the property within the road reserve are to be removed and reinstated to Council's satisfaction.

18. Nothing the in the permit hereby issued shall be constructed to allow the removal of, damage to, or pruning of the street tree without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority. Please contact Council's Park & Gardens section if removal of a street tree is required.

21. The applicant or other representative from the proposed use must meet with Council officers on a calendar monthly basis and provide evidence that alternative locations for the proposed use are being sought, and advise the status of any action to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22. This permit will expire 6 months from the date of issue of the permit.

3. There have been no applications lodged under s 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by objectors against this decision, and accordingly there is no impediment to the permit being issued in accordance with the Responsible Authority's decision. I note however, that the permit has not yet been issued.

4. At the hearing, Mr Cicero, Ms Kelly and Mr O'Brien tabled and spoke to written submissions. In addition they presented me with other material and documents relevant to the consideration of the application. This included a video showing the subject land and surrounds and a religious service conducted on the land within the existing dwelling. I was also presented with other material including photographs, plans, a copy of the approved building plans for the outbuilding, Tribunal decisions and extracts from policy documents. All documents have been considered and have been retained on the Tribunal's file.

5. Mr O'Brien also called evidence from a number of local residents including Ms L Toth (71 Melon Street), Ms Diane Stark (66 Melon Street) and Ms R Klaczkiewicz (68 Melon Street). These residents essentially expressed the view that the Cao Dai parish are reasonable neighbours and the parish activities have not resulted in unreasonable amenity impacts. They do not oppose the grant of a permit without the 6 month time limit condition. These views were also supported by numerous letters from other local residents [tendered by Mr O'Brien] which either supported or did not object to the use of the land by the Cao Dai. Mr O'Brien also called Mr P Nguyen (President, Vietnamese Community of Victoria) to give evidence on the social problems experienced within the Vietnamese community and the benefit associated with the provision of a religious facility such as this. All witnesses were made available for cross examination.

6. The subject land is located on the south-west corner of Melon Street and Hargreaves Crescent, Braybrook. The land is a regular rectangular shape and is occupied by a single story dwelling built around the 1950s and a metal outbuilding which has been constructed within the last two years. The outbuilding has an overall floor area of about 72 square metres, a wall height of 3.2 metres and is situated towards the rear of the property facing Hargreaves Crescent.

7. The outbuilding was apparently constructed after the issue of a building approval in 1999. The basis for the approval was that the outbuilding would be ancillary to the existing residential use of the land.

8. Although the main building on the land typically takes the form of a dwelling, it was conceded by Mr O'Brien that the land has been used by the applicant as a place of worship without a planning permit having been issued for such purpose for some time.

9. Mr O'Brien advised that the land is used for the practice of Caodaism which is a religion that combines the elements of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism, Geniism and Islam. The religion originates in Vietnam where it is followed by about 3 per cent of the population. It is estimated that there are about 4000 followers of this religion in Australia with the majority of these in New South Wales. There are a number of Caodaist groups in Melbourne including a large community centred around the Springvale area.

10. At present religious services are conducted within the dwelling on the land. The dwelling is relatively modest in size and as such, it is capable of accommodating a relatively small number of parishioners at any one time. This was readily apparent from the video showing a typical religious service which was presented on behalf of the applicant during the course of the hearing. The outbuilding is not used for religious services.

11. There is little opportunity for on-site parking on the land at present.

12. Contextually the land is located within an established residential area in Melbourne's western suburbs. Properties surrounding the subject land are generally occupied by relatively modest single storey dwellings, not dissimilar in size and age to the dwelling which exists on the subject land itself. The land is also located in relatively close proximity to a range of other facilities such as open space, a pre-school and local shopping centre.

13. Permit application TPO1/0233 was lodged on 9 May 2001. The is the second permit application lodged with the Responsible Authority to regularise the use of the land as a place of worship, with the first application (TP00/0085) having been refused in July 2000.

14. The current permit application seeks permission to use the land for a place of worship. It is intended that the services will be conducted in the outbuilding with the main dwelling to be used as a residence and for ancillary meetings and administration.

15. The letter accompanying the permit application states that it is envisaged that the main use of the premises for religious services will be on Sundays and on the 1st and 15th day of each lunar month with services to be conducted between 11am and 3pm. It is also envisaged that there will be a number of "one off" events throughout the year when services are also proposed. In addition the letter states that it is anticipated that the maximum number of parishioners attending at any one time would not exceed 20.

16. The plans accompanying the application also show that it is proposed to provide eight car parking spaces on the land. The car spaces are to be in a tandem layout, located between the existing dwelling and the outbuilding with access to them being from Hargreaves Crescent.

17. During the course of the hearing Mr O'Brien made a number of concessions and also clarified particular aspects of the proposed. In summary Mr O'Brien said that:

* the applicant would accept a condition limiting the maximum number of persons attending services at any one time to 14;

* in relation to the "one off" events, these would not exceed more than 8 in one year, and

* the applicant also seeks the flexibility for the permit conditions to allow for the conduct of memorial services and to allow individuals to be able to worship and/or meditate outside of formal services during the day.

18. It was also conceded that the area in between the dwelling and the outbuilding can accommodate six car spaces rather than the eight shown on the application plan.

19. Under the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme the subject land is located in the Residential 1 Zone. The provisions for which are found at clause 32.01. "Place of Worship" is a Section 1 or "no permit required" use within the zone provided that a number of conditions are met. It seems that the proposal before me does meet one of these conditions, namely that the land does not adjoin or have access to a road in a Road Zone. As such, the use is one which falls within Section 2 of the land use table and a permit is therefore required.

20. The relevant decision guidelines are set out at clause 65 of the planning scheme. These require that consideration be given to, amongst other things:

* the provisions of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) including the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at clause 21 and local policies at clause 22;

21. It is also relevant to refer to Clause 52.06 which sets out parking requirements. Although there is no requirement set out in the table at clause 52.06-5 for "place of worship", it was common ground that the appropriate rate to be applied is that which is applied to "place of assembly" which requires the provision of 0.3 car spaces per seat or square metre of floor area whichever is the greater. Given that it is proposed that no more than 14 parishioners be on the land at any one time (ie: irrespective of the floor area available), the application of the per seat ratio would require the provision of between 4-5 car spaces on the land.

22. I also note that the land is subject to the Special Building Overlay. However it was common ground that the provisions of this control are not relevant to the consideration of the proposal before me. Accordingly I will not refer to it any further.

23. Having set out the background to the matter I now turn to the key issues in dispute. In doing so, it seems to me that it is appropriate that I first make a number of observations about what was said at the hearing.

24. First, whilst a number of conditions were in dispute, it was clear that the condition which is of primary concern to the applicant is Condition 22 which stipulates that the permit will expire within six months of the date of issue. Mr Cicero explained that although the Responsible Authority formed the view that the proposed use is unacceptable, rather than refusing permission, it decided that it would grant a permit for a limited period of time to give the applicant the opportunity to relocate to other premises. Mr O'Brien explained that from the applicant's viewpoint, the impact of the condition is tantamount to the application being refused.

25. I must say that the Responsible Authority's approach seems to be somewhat odd in that it appears that it has granted a permit, albeit for a limited life, for a use which it has found to be unacceptable when assessed on its planning merits. Whilst I do not doubt that the Responsible Authority was seeking to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to seek an alternative site, the grant of a permit can send out mixed messages. The grant of a permit implies that the use is acceptable, albeit that in this case it is for a limited period of time. If this is the case, then the question that needs to be asked is what makes the acceptable for 6 months (as has been allowed here) but not for a longer period? Alternatively, if a use is unacceptable, as was asserted in this case by Mr Cicero, then why was a permit granted? It seems to me that if the Responsible Authority formed the view that the use is unacceptable then the application should have been refused. The grant of permit must be based on an assessment against the relevant planning criteria.

26. None the less in the circumstances before me, Mr Cicero and Mr O'Brien agreed that to determine whether condition 22 is reasonable requires the merits of the whole proposal to be considered.

27. The second observation to be made relates to the submissions made on behalf of the Responsible Authority about many of the conditions in dispute. During the course of the hearing Mr Cicero, quite fairly in my view, conceded that conditions 1(a), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 were either redundant or in need of revision to make them clear and effective. In light of these concessions, it was clear that the matters in dispute were somewhat narrowed and that a substantial reworking of the permit conditions as a whole would be required. Because of these concessions together with those made by Mr O'Brien, I gave directions for a revised set of draft conditions to be prepared and circulated to the parties for comment. I have received and considered the further submissions made with respect to conditions.

28. Third, Ms Kelly put forward the view that, at least in part, the Responsible Authority's conditions are justified on the basis that the applicant has commenced the use without the necessary planning permit and has infringed on the planning scheme's provisions. Whilst the use of the land would appear to have commenced without the necessary permit, it needs to be made clear that the proceeding before me is one seeking the review of conditions under s 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Whether the use has commenced lawfully is not directly relevant. What is relevant to this proceeding is the consideration of the proposal against the planning scheme and to determine whether the conditions are reasonable when based on such an assessment. It is not open for me to impose conditions as some form of punishment when the merits do not support their imposition. If punishment for an offence under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is being sought, then this must be pursued in another way.

29. I now turn to the substantive or key issue in this matter which is whether or not Condition 22 is reasonable having regard to the merits of the proposal. In saying this it is clear that the condition has not been challenged on the basis that it is unlawful. This is a case where the applicant contends that the condition is unreasonable having regard to the merits of the matter.

30. It was put to me by Mr Cicero that the Responsible Authority's decision to issue a permit with a limited life is reasonable given that there is no policy support for the proposal.

31. In particular he referred to the provisions of Clause 21.04-7 of the MSS which call for the provision of a range of quality facilities, including religious facilities, which are set within attractive, well landscaped settings with adequate car parking. He then went on to refer to the policy at Clause 22.01 which essentially contains similar requirements and submitted that the proposal fails to meet the policy requirements. He argued that the lack of policy support for the proposal should be "fatal". Mr Cicero submitted that the need to gain policy support for proposals is a fundamental part of the decision guidelines and where proposals have failed to gain policy support they should be rejected. In support of this proposition, Mr Cicero relied on the Tribunal's decision in Cristory Investments Pty Ltd v Campaspe Shire Council (No. P50253/2001 unreported) which was a case involving the use and development of flood prone land for the purpose of a dwelling.

32. In considering the submissions put forward by Mr Cicero on this point, it is fair to say that the need to consider the proposal against the planning scheme's policies is a fairly fundamental task. It is the first decision guideline at clause 65. The difficulty that I have with the approach taken by the Responsible Authority in this case is that its consideration and assessment of the planning scheme's policy framework is somewhat narrow. It seems to me that the Responsible Authority has been somewhat selective about what is relevant in terms of the planning scheme's policies. The simple fact of the matter is that the policies referred to in the officer's report and relied on by Mr Cicero are not the only ones in the planning scheme relevant to the consideration of the proposal.

33. In contrast, Mr O'Brien's analysis of policy was more comprehensive and embraced the notion of looking at the "big picture" by referring to policies set out in both the SPPF and the LPPF. For example, at clause 13, which forms part of the SPPF, the planning scheme states:

"Planning is to recognise social needs by providing land for a range of accessible community resources .... "

34. I would have thought that the type of facility proposed in the permit application before me would generally be supported by this policy statement.

35. It is also appropriate to refer to the MSS in a more comprehensive way.

36. The MSS anticipates that the municipality is undergoing change and that many of its redevelopment sites offer opportunity for new housing to be provided. The consequence of this is that an increase in population is anticipated together with increased demand for services and facilities. The MSS asserts that the Council is committed to change and that:

"The primary issue is to influence change to achieve outcomes which are carefully considered fair and just to all, which will enhance the environment and economic and social opportunities".

37. It is also apparent that the municipality is an attractive location for migrants given the high proportion of its people come from non-english speaking backgrounds. On this point, it is relevant that a high proportion of new migrants arriving in the city during the 1990's were born in Vietnam. The MSS acknowledges the importance, and indeed celebrates, the ethnic diversity in the municipality's population. For example, at clause 21.01-4, the MSS states that the ethnic mix and diversity in the community "is one of the great opportunities of cultural and economic development in the City".

38. In terms of residential land use, the MSS [at clause 21.04-1] says:

"The City of Maribyrnong is the home of a diverse population. It is important that our residential areas and future residential development reflect and enhance this diversity_."_ [my emphasis]

39. It would seem to me that the provision of a religious facility that responds to a demand in the local community is consistent with the notion responding to social need and to provide for residential areas which "reflect and enhance" the ethnic diversity in the community.

40. In addition the MSS, at clause 21.04-7, recognises that:

"Adequate hospital, other health facilities, religious institutions and libraries must be provided to cope with the demands of an increased population".

41. The environmental objectives of this policy include:

"Provide quality skills, colleges, hospitals, libraries and religious facilities which have attractive, well sited buildings, good landscaping, adequate off-street car parking for staff and visitors".

42. In my view the upshot of the above is that the MSS gives specific recognition to the value and contribution which Maribyrnong's ethnic communities make to the municipality's social diversity and economic development. It is regarded as an asset and one which is to be enhanced. It also recognises that the needs associated with having a diverse community must be provided for in an orderly way. This includes providing for, amongst other things, religious facilities which are a fundamental component to the community's social well being. Accordingly, I find that there is considerable support within the MSS for the provision of a facility such as that which is being proposed here.

43. Whilst the policies set out in the SPPF and MSS support the notion of providing facilities such as this, it was also put to me by Mr Cicero that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the policy for at Clause 22.01 which is, by and large, the tool used to assess whether a particular site in a residential area is appropriate for a non residential activity.

44. I do not accept the submissions which were made by Mr Cicero in this regard. It seems to me that when one considers the details of the proposal before me and, in particular, the relatively modest scale of the proposed use, the requirements of the policy in question are met.

45. The relevant component of the policy is that which seeks to "facilitate the location of new non-residential activity of any kind in the Residential 1 zone...". Although the policy sets out several requirements, Mr Cicero agreed that it is not necessary for each requirement be met. Indeed to interpret the policy in a way that all five requirements must be met would severely constrain the ability to provide for appropriate non residential uses within the municipality's residential areas. This would be a poor outcome in that it would stifle the ability to provide necessary services and facilities in accessible locations. As such the requirement to be considered in this case [last dot pint] is whether the site in question is:

".... large enough to provide adequate off street parking for staff, customers and visitors, adequate screened storage and refuse areas, and adequate opportunities for landscaping and noise attenuation".

46. After having considered the above policy and the details of the proposal, I find that:

* the land is clearly large enough to provide for satisfactory off-street parking, and indeed, it was not asserted on behalf of the Responsible Authority that the on - site car parking is inadequate given the number of parishioners that are to be present at any one time;

* there was no evidence presented to me that demonstrated that satisfactory provision cannot be made for the storage of goods and refuse associated with the use, and

* the land is well landscaped and the standard of the garden areas is, at the very least, commensurate with that of the other residential properties in the surrounding area.

47. On the issue of noise, Mr O'Brien said that some measures which assist noise attenuation (wall and ceiling insulation) have already been incorporated into the outbuilding and that when consideration is given to the nature of the services conducted on the land, these are sufficient to ensure that no unreasonable noise would occur. After having reviewed the video of a religious service, it seems to me that the activities associated with the conduct of services are not such that the noise which will be generated is unreasonable within an urban context particularly when these services are to be conducted between 11am and 3pm, on a limited basis as proposed in this application and with a relatively small number of parishioners present.

48. Accordingly, based on this detailed assessment, it seems to me that the proposal essentially meets the requirements of the policy at clause 22.01. Taken overall, when consideration is given to the planning scheme's policies, I find that there is considerable policy support for this proposal and that this is in direct contrast with the circumstances before me in the Cristory Investments Pty Ltd case where there was little, if any, policy support for that particular proposal.

49. It was also put to me by Mr Cicero that the proposal does not accord with the purpose of the zone. The Residential 1 Zone has a number of purposes. The first of these is to facilitate outcomes which accord with planning scheme's policies. I have already carried out an analysis against the planning scheme's policies and come to the finding that in general terms these would support the proposal. However, Mr Cicero also referred to the fourth purpose statement of the zone which reads:

"In appropriate locations, to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of non residential uses to serve local community needs".

50. Essentially what was being put to me by Mr Cicero is that the proposed facility does not serve the needs of the local community given that a number of the parishioners do not reside locally, but rather in other suburbs within the municipality, in adjoining municipalities and from further afar.

51. In the first instance I think that an important point needs to be made about the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone. The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is not simply to provide for housing. The purpose of the zone clearly envisages that there will be circumstances where non-residential uses will also be allowed to meet fundamental social and economic needs. For example in Hacy v City of Mordialloc (1990/40029 unreported) the Tribunal in considering an application for a nursing home within a residential area commented as follows:

"In considering the appropriateness of a nursing home in a residential area the Tribunal believes that a residential community comprises not houses alone. It includes facilities that make up a total suburban area, for example, schools, kindergarten, local corner shop, children's play area, active and passive recreation and sporting facilities, doctors rooms, possible use of dwellings as home occupations, multi dwellings, places of assembly, for example a scout hall and places of worship. The Tribunal considers that this proposed nursing home is but one element of the total urban fabric that constitutes a residential suburb".

52. In my view a "place of worship" is one of the uses which are appropriately located within the Residential 1 Zone. This has been found to be the case time and time again by the Tribunal and its predecessors. Indeed, "place of worship" is an as-of-right use within the Residential 1 Zone subject to certain conditions being met. In this case, a permit is needed because the subject land does not have frontage or access to a main road. I do not consider that this should be fatal to the application when there is policy support for the proposal and the scale of the proposed use is such that adequate provision is made for parking and landscaping etc.

53. Whilst I accept that a number of the parishioners attending this particular facility will not reside in Braybrook, it is important to recognise that most parishioners reside within the municipality or in adjoining municipalities. The reality of the situation is that this facility will provide for a very small number of people. It is not realistic to expect that such a facility, servicing few people, will be established within each suburb. In cases where the congregation is small, such as is the case here, it is inevitable that the facility will be utilised by some persons from beyond the local area. When consideration is given to the nature of the proposed use, its modest size, the limited number of services which are envisaged together with the limitation on the number of parishioners that can be present at any one time, it seems to me that it can be comfortably located on the land and is appropriately located within a residential area such as this.

54. Ms Kelly also raised concerns about traffic and the potential for cars to be parked illegally. I do not consider that this should be a problem subject to the proper provision of the six car parking spaces on the land (which are currently not available) and the lack of constraint on kerbside parking in the area. The surrounding street network can quite easily cope with the traffic which would be generated by a proposal of this size.

55. Whilst I appreciate the concerns raised by Ms Kelly, it seems to me that when consideration is given to the modest scale of the activity being proposed, it is difficult for me to find that the amenity impacts are unreasonable. Indeed, in addition to the evidence presented by Ms Toth, Ms Stark and Ms Klaczkiewicz, I was also presented with numerous letters from surrounding residents which either expressed support or no objection to the proposed use of the land.

56. Accordingly the conclusion that I have reached is that there is considerable policy support for this particular proposal. The MSS clearly recognises that ethnic diversity is a valuable asset to the municipality, and as such, it is appropriate that facilities that respond to the needs of ethnic communities are provided. The provision of this facility accords with this general principle.

57. I also find that the use of the land for a place of worship accords with the purpose of the zone. I am also of the view that satisfactory provision can be made for car parking, landscaping, the storage of goods and waste and that the amenity impacts will not be unreasonable when consideration is given to the small number of parishioners present at any one time and the limited hours during which religious services are to be conducted.

58. Given the relatively modest scale of this particular proposal I see no justification for Condition 22 and accordingly, I will require condition to be deleted.

59. As I indicated earlier in these reasons, Mr Cicero made a number of concessions concerning conditions which were either redundant or alternatively which required substantial modification. As such the permit will require a substantial reordering of conditions. In general terms I consider that the conditions as set out in the letter by Corrs Chambers Westgarth dated 8 March 2002 are acceptable save that I will not require the total deletion of Condition 1. Rather, I will require it to be reworded so that amended plan showing six car spaces are submitted to the Responsible Authority for endorsement. In addition, I consider that the conditions requiring the removal and/or reinstatement of redundant street crossings should remain as should the condition requiring the proposed use of the land to conform to the site layout shown on the endorsed plan to be retained.

60. Accordingly my decision in this matter is that the Responsible Authority's decision is varied, Condition 22 is deleted, the balance of the permit conditions will be generally in accordance with what I have set out in the previous paragraph.