1. Mullum Mullum Road is a connector road[1] which extends from Warrandyte Road north-east to Oban Road. Mullum Mullum Road has a 60 km/h speed limit, a pavement width of 9 m and an average weekday traffic volume in the order of 5300 vehicles per day. The subject land is at the crest of a hill within Mullum Mullum Road, with the road falling away in each direction from the subject land.
2. Directly abutting the land are, four, two story dwellings in a recent villa unit style development, four single story dwellings forming part of a retirement village and an older a single story dwelling. Refer to figure 1.
3. The subject land is located within an established residential area. Mullum Mullum Road is predominantly residential in character with a church diagonally opposite the land, and a large park, a primary school, and a secondary school further to the north-east. The Ringwood activity centre is approximately 1 km south west of the subject land.

1. The proposal is to develop the land and then use it for the purpose of a childcare centre. The child care centre is proposed to accommodate 118 children and operating weekdays between 7 AM and 6:30 PM.

1. The proposed childcare building is to be located centrally on the site. The building will have an area of 749 m², resulting in a site coverage of 30%. The proposed outdoor play spaces are to be located to the rear and to the sides of the proposed building. A 2.5 m high acoustic fence is proposed, in locations generally described in Mr Liu's witness statement. The architecture of the building has a contemporary, flat roofed style, typical of community-based facilities of this type.

1. It is proposed to provide 26 car spaces (including five tandem car spaces) in a car park to be located to the front of the proposed building. The car park is to be set behind a 4 m wide garden strip between the car park and the front boundary fence. The car park is to be accessed via two existing crossovers. It is proposed that the north-eastern crossover will be used as the entry to the car park, while the south-western crossover will be the exit.
2. The application plans showed the provision of advertising signs on the land, one at the proposed car park entry and one at the exit. The permit application form did not expressly seek permission for the display of advertising signs. However, Council's request for further information revealed that Council was aware that there was a proposal for advertising signs. In the circumstances I think that a pragmatic approach would be for me to amend the permit application, to put beyond doubt the question of whether or not permission is sought for advertising signs.

1. Two of the key issues in this application are the issue of whether or not the proposed childcare centre is an appropriate use of land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the issue of whether or not the childcare centre, as it is proposed, is sufficiently responsive to neighbourhood character. Below I have extracted elements of the planning scheme provisions which are illustrative of the general approach within the planning scheme to these issues.

1. The subject land and its neighbourhood is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. In relation to the land use question a relevant purpose of the zone is:

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve the local community needs in appropriate locations.

The decision guidelines within the zone provisions also expressly address this land use question:

Non-residential use and development[3]

• Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.
• Whether the use generally serves local community needs.
• The scale and intensity of the use and development.
• The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
• The proposed landscaping.
• The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.
• Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.
• The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.

1. Clause 21.07, Housing And Residential Land Use, includes an objective and strategy directly relating to non-residential uses:

• To limit the intrusion of non residential uses into residential precincts.

• Prevent the loss of residential land and housing stock for essential non-residential uses without suitable residential replacement in some alternative location within the municipality.

1. Clause 22.13, Non Residential Uses in Residential Areas, is a short policy relevant to the land use issue, the policy basis is:

This policy builds on the MSS objective in clause 21.08 (sic) to limit the intrusion of non-residential uses into residential precincts.

• Maintain or enhance the residential aspect or physical appearance of the area.
• Build upon the existing commercial framework.
• Be located adjacent to or abutting an existing business zone.
• Provide a use or service that is not able to be provided within the business centre.
• Not result in the ribboning of commercial development.
• Not result in the establishment of commercial uses in intact residential areas.
• Locate new convenience and combined retailing outlets in existing commercial areas.

1. A central idea within the planning scheme, in respect of neighbourhood character, is the importance of canopy trees. The following extract from section 1 of schedule 3 of the Significant Landscape Overlay sets out a useful basis to this consideration:

Canopy trees are the main element of the urban character of Maroondah. Canopy trees in particular soften the impact of buildings in the environment and provide a distinct leafy character to Maroondah.

The continuous nature of the canopy vegetation throughout the ridgelines of Maroondah provides a strong character element and is much valued by the community. The canopy vegetation is a defining element of the ridgelines of Maroondah.

Contiguous canopy vegetation contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity through the provision of wildlife movement corridors, habitat and shelter areas.

1. Clause 22.02, Residential Neighbourhood Character, provides policy guidance in relation to the neighbourhood character issue. The site is within Neighbourhood Character Area 1, and the policy provides:

Neighbourhood area 1 Mullum Mullum Creek[5]

The preferred future character will be achieved by:

• Ensuring well-articulated and site responsive buildings that relate to the streetscape.
• Ensuring building setbacks allow space between dwellings for vegetation.
• Ensuring that driveways or car parking structures do not dominate the front setbacks.
• Encouraging low front fence treatments.
• Encouraging the retention of the tree canopy by actively retaining or replacing established trees.

1. The debate in this application is not so much that a childcare centre is fundamentally inappropriate in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Rather, it is argued that Mullum Mullum Road is an entirely suburban residential street without any characteristics which would make a non-residential use such as the proposed childcare centre and acceptable addition to the street. The argument focuses on Council's non-residential uses policy.
2. It is commonplace for planning schemes to include strategies and policies in relation to non-residential uses in residential zones. Indeed, the new residential zones, recently introduced into planning schemes, include specific decision guidelines in respect of non-residential uses and development. Early incarnations of these policy approaches were often called Discretionary Uses in Residential Zones, this clumsy title at least had the advantage that it did not seem to bring with it a pejorative implication that a non-residential use is a foreign intrusion into a residential zone to be treated with extreme caution. Like an unwonted bacteria intruding into the human biome triggering an immune response. The language of clause 22.07 of the Maroondah planning scheme seems to imply this extremely defensive posture.
3. The difficulty with approaching non-residential uses in this way is that it fails to recognise the range of non-residential uses that are to be found in residential zones in suburbs and townships throughout Victoria. Examples of non-residential uses found within residential zones include, kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools, churches, tennis clubs, maternal and child health centres, medical practices, convenience shops and service stations. The large array of possible land uses is essentially a continuum ranging from land uses which are ordinarily found within residential zones to uses which are more commonly found in commercial and/or industrial zones but which may be acceptable in residential zones in certain circumstances.
4. The zone purpose referred to in paragraph 13 above expressly recognises that the Neighbourhood Residential Zone will include community and educational uses. Indeed, a residential area without such facilities would be regarded as failing to provide for the needs of its community. In my view a childcare centre is as essential to a residential community in the 21st century as is a kindergarten or primary school, and that it is to be expected that childcare centres will be found within residential precincts. However, like kindergartens and schools, childcare centres can have significant implications in respect of planning considerations such as amenity and traffic. Therefore it is appropriate that the planning scheme requires any such use to obtain a planning permit so these matters can be properly assessed. This assessment should proceed on the basis that a childcare centre is an entirely appropriate land-use within a residential zone.
5. The applicant is a private company providing childcare services at a number of locations in metropolitan Melbourne. It is not strongly argued, but nevertheless there is a sense that because the child care centre is being operated by a for-profit private company that this in some way related to its suitability within a residential precinct. I agree with the view expressed by Member Fong in PHHH Investments Pty Ltd v Bayside[6] CC [2015] VCAT 922
   1. There is another perception that the proposed use, because it is by a private provider, is a commercial use with no community value, and that it is a purely commercial intrusion into a residential area.
   2. It is not uncommon that community and educational facilities are provided by private providers, as in the case of hospitals, medical and allied health services, as well as child care centres. A service provided privately does not negate its value as a community and education facility.

1. Planning policy in relation to neighbourhood character talks about buildings that are responsive to the streetscape, frontages which are not dominated by cars and car parking and the need for a landscape including canopy trees to respond to the landscape quality of the neighbourhood. Mr Song argues that the proposal is inconsistent or unresponsive to these policy requirements in that:
   1. the proposed building has a commercial character more suited to a commercial environment and foreign in these streetscape of Mullum Mullum Road;
   2. the frontage of the land is dominated by the 26 vehicle car park, and;
   3. insufficient space is available to promote a landscape, including canopy trees which is properly responsive to the landscape character of the area and the objectives of the SLO.

However, Mr Song also acknowledge that the essential characteristics of the proposed childcare centre, that is a centrally located building, car parking to the front and outdoor play spaces to the sides and rear, is an inevitable consequence of the functional, planning and other regulatory requirements of the use.

1. The consequence of this argument is that it would imply that childcare centres are unsuited to residential precincts unless, through a quirk of history, the streetscape character of a particular location has been so modified that it no longer possesses the uniform residential character of Mullum Mullum Road and the surrounding streets. An alternative approach, one which I prefer, is to assume that non-residential uses like schools kindergartens and childcare centres are likely to be quite different in character to the residential components of the area both in their building types and in the way their sites are utilised. In this approach, the issue is not so much that building forms are different, or that car parking arrangements are different or that the approach to landscaping is different. Rather, the issue is have these differences been managed with sufficient care to be acceptably responsive to the broader neighbourhood character.
2. In relation to the current proposal is my view that:
   1. The proposed building is not essentially commercial in character, rather it is a building which reflects the contemporary design approaches that have been adopted for uses such as childcare centres. The differences in building form are essentially acceptable, because they reflect the character of the use proposed, an acceptable use within a residential precinct. In any event, the building is setback some 22 m from the frontage of the site and therefore will not have an overly strong presence in the streetscape.
   2. The idea of there being a car park in association with such a use visible from the street is not essentially unacceptable, its acceptability is largely dependent upon the landscape response.
   3. The proposal adopts a 4 m setback between the frontage of the site and the car park to provide a landscape buffer screening the car park from the street. In general terms I think that this is a sufficiently generous landscape buffer to acceptably moderate the impact of the car park on the streetscape. However I remain concerned that overall, the availability of space within the frontage setback for landscaping is not sufficient to accommodate canopy trees necessary to be responsive to the preferred landscape character.
3. Mr Wren made a number of submissions in respect of the provision for canopy trees. Mr Smith had proposed a variety of shrubs for planting within the frontage setback, responding to the dominance of the tree canopy from the three street trees adjoining the landscape buffer. Giving evidence, Mr Smith agreed with Mr Wren that it would be possible to plant a smaller canopy trees within this landscape buffer. In addition, Mr Wren, submitted that the traffic evidence support of the contention that the number of car spaces provided could be reduced, to create larger landscaped spaces are capable of containing canopy trees.
4. I will require that four car spaces are deleted to create new areas for landscaping including canopy trees. I accept that on the evidence before me it is arguable that the number of car spaces could be reduced below the requirement of clause 52.06. However, there is no application to reduce or waive car parking before me, and the other parties have not had sufficient opportunity to address that question. Moreover, there may others who received notice of the application, but did not object, because the car parking provided complied with the planning scheme provision.
5. In these circumstances I do not think it appropriate that I amend the permit application to include an application to reduce car parking, and therefore, to the extent necessary, the number of children who can be cared for on the premises at any one time must be reduced to ensure compliance with the planning scheme car parking requirement. The applicant may wish to pursue the question of whether or not a permit should be granted for a reduction in the required car parking, as consequence of the conclusion I reached above. Such an issue would need to be considered by way of a new application to amend the permit that will be granted by my order.
6. The issue of the intensity of the use can have a neighbourhood character implication. The general busyness of an area, particularly in the immediate environs of the site, can be an aspect of its character. For example a childcare centre sited at the end of a relatively short cul-de-sac, in which there is a very low level of activity and low traffic volumes, may be unacceptable because of the unusual tranquillity of this setting, even if you could conclude that the use would function satisfactorily in terms of traffic management and the like. However, these considerations are primarily amenity issues and I deal with them in this way below.

1. Many planning schemes encourage the location of non-residential uses on arterial roads. This is not the case in the Maroondah planning scheme. In any event, I am not entirely convinced that this is a desirable outcome in the case of childcare centres. Drop-off and pickup of children at childcare centres primarily occurs during the morning and evening peak periods. Is it desirable that harassed parents are responsible for shepherding small children to and from the centre in an arterial road environment? Moreover, while environmental controls are intended to ensure that air quality near arterial roads is not an obstacle to the establishment of a childcare centre, it would be desirable to avoid such an environment if practicable.
2. As described above, Mullum Mullum Road is a connector road which carries a reasonably high volume of traffic for this type of local road. I surmise, that in this case, the observed traffic volume is a consequence of both the general connectivity of the road and traffic associated with Norwood High School and Norwood Primary School, both of which abut Mullum Mullum Road.[7]
3. At the request of the parties I inspected the subject land during the morning peak period first observing traffic on Mullum Mullum Road at around 7:30 AM and later at around 8:30 AM. The traffic was considerably heavier at about 8:30 AM and I observed traffic banking up the hill for some distance from Warrandyte Road. I was also able to assess the difficulties which would confront a driver seeking to exit the site.
4. Having undertaken this inspection I am happy to accept Mr Walley's evidence that the proposed access arrangements to and from the land will be adequate, both functionally and from a safety perspective. Moreover, I think it is relevant that most users of the site, staff and parents, are long-term users and will quickly become familiar with the traffic environment and adapt their behaviours to it. In my mind, this is a positive factor relevant to the safe operation of the proposed use in this traffic environment.
5. In addition I accept Mr Walley's evidence that the additional traffic which might be generated by the proposed use can be reasonably accommodated within the existing traffic environment of Mullum Mullum Road. Indeed, over time it is possible that there will be some sharing of traffic trips between the proposed childcare centre and the existing primary school, thereby, diminishing the traffic impact of the proposed use to a small degree.

1. Having already addressed neighbourhood character related issue the primary amenity issue in respect of childcare centres, is the issue of noise. It unsurprising, having regard to my discussion about the place of childcare centres within residential precincts, that the Tribunal has adopted the general approach that noise from childcare centres is reasonable within residential precincts but that operators of childcare centres have an obligation to ensure any noise impact is of an acceptable level[8].
2. The question of what is an acceptable level is not concerned with the achievement of a specified noise level. There are no specified levels of noise arising from the sound of children at play in schools, kindergartens or childcare centres. Rather, the approach has been to understand the likely level of noise to be emitted and to make pragmatic requirements for the installation of acoustic fences on boundaries with neighbouring properties having regard to the sensitivity of these interfaces from place to place around the boundary.
3. This has been the approach adopted by Mr Liu. In general terms I accept that he has arrived at a suitably pragmatic outcome. However, extending the pragmatic approach slightly I think it is probably desirable that on the north eastern boundary of the land the acoustic fence be extended past Mr Quinlan's property. Moreover, because of the uncertainty about the finished site levels, both for the car park and the outdoor play spaces, I think it appropriate that Mr Liu should review his recommendations in respect of the south-western boundary of the land in light of a more precise finalisation of the proposed finished levels.
4. Like schools, childcare centres generate high level of activity at the beginning and end of each day particularly at the interface between the land use and the street. An obvious measure of this activity is the increase in traffic volumes, but it is not solely a traffic consideration or a noise consideration. A marked change in general busyness could conceivably have an impact on amenity, however, I do not think this consideration could reasonably arise on a connector street like Mullum Mullum Road.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is the Tribunal's conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside a permit granted.
2. In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit the Tribunal has had regard to the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from these reasons.

The use of the land for the purpose of a childcare centre, the construction of an associated building, the construction or carrying out of associated works and the display of advertising signs in accordance with the endorsed plans:

Before any buildings and works or use start (whichever is the sooner), plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans dated August 2015 but modified to show:

(a) Front boundary treatment to be labelled on the site plan.

(b) The deletion of the two, rear tandem car spaces adjacent to the proposed service area to the south west of the chilcare centre and the deletion of the two northernmost , rear tandem car spaces adjacent the proposed play area north east of the childcare centre to create new areas for landscaping including canopy trees;

(c) The clear specification of finished site levels, particularly at the boundaries of the land;

(d) Acoustic measures recommended by the Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic dated 31 March 2016 as revised in accordance with this condition to include:

• (i) The extension of the acoustic fence proposed along the north east boundary to include the property at 4/17 Mullum Mullum Road, and ;

• (ii) A review of recommendations in relation to the acoustic treatment of the south west boundary of the land having regard to the clarification of finished site levels required by condition 1(c);

(e) the construction detail and the content of the proposed signs;

(f) Location of kerbs or some other type of barrier that adequately protects landscape areas from car park spaces and access lanes.

(g) The reconstruction of existing crossovers in accordance with condition 15 (the north-eastern crossing must be detached from the drainage pit).

(h) Driveway amended to align with crossovers.

The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

The location, size and content of the signs and supporting structure, shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

(a) be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(b) not be illuminated except without the further consent of the Responsible Authority.

The use and/or the occupation of the development must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the area through the:

(a) Transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

(b) Appearance of any building, works or materials;

(c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

(d) Presence of vermin; or

(e) In any other way.

1. No audible noise from public address system

No public address system may be used which results in noise being audible outside the site.

1. Acoustic Measures
2. All noise attenuation measures must be designed in accordance with the recommendations as stated within the Acoustic Report by Acoustic Logic dated 31 March 2016 as revised in accordance with condition 1, and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. No audible security alarm

All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with any current standard published by the Standards Australia International Limited and be connected to a security service.

Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, no more than 100 children may be in care at any one time.

Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the centre may only operate between the following hours:

The plant and equipment on the roof of the building must be screened in a manner to complement the appearance of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All external lights must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent nuisance or light spill to adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Before any building or works start, construction plans for all parking areas and access lanes must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The construction plans must be consistent with the endorsed site layout, development plans and landscaping plans.

Before the use starts or the development is occupied (whichever occur first), the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the approved plan must be:

(a) Surfaced with an durable all-weather seal;

(b) Drained to the nominated legal point of discharge;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Before the development is occupied, the owner must at its cost remove the existing vehicle crossing and construct two (2) new industrial concrete vehicular crossings at right angles to the road to suit the proposed driveway to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The vehicle crossings must be a minimum 1.0 m offset from any existing tree or utility service assets.

Before any building or works start, drainage plans including calculations prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Drainage Plans must:

(a) Show all drainage works associated with the development including any drainage works required beyond the boundaries of the land;

(b) Show the nominated legal point of discharge;

(c) Convey stormwater runoff by means of underground drains to the nominated legal point of discharge.

(d) Prevent overland flows from having a detrimental effect on the environment or adjoining properties;

(e) Limit the permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to the equivalent of a 35% impervious site coverage, or the pre-developed discharge rate, if it is less than 35% impervious site coverage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and

(f) Provide appropriate stormwater detention storage for a 10 Year ARI storm event to limit the maximum discharge rate to the PSD;

Before the development is occupied, the drainage and associated works shown on the Drainage Plans must be constructed in accordance with those plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Within 14 Days of the completion of the works, certification by a suitably qualified engineer must be submitted to the Responsible Authority certifying that works have been completed in accordance with the Drainage Plans.

During the construction of the development, methods to control sediment laden runoff as described under 'Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater' or similar must be implemented and used to minimise sediment laden runoff and stormwater pollution from leaving the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

Before the development starts, three copies of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the CMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CMP must include, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) Details of hours of demolition and construction including deliveries;

(b) Details of the construction program;

(c) Traffic Management details;

(d) Methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within land, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures;

(e) Details of facilities on the land for vehicle washing;

(f) Protection measures for features of the land to be retained including vegetation, retaining walls, buildings, other structures and pathways;

(g) Details of delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;

(h) Details of a liaison officer for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event queries or problems are experienced;

(i) Details of the movement of construction vehicles to and from the land to avoid traffic hazards in and around the land;

(j) Details of parking facilities for construction workers;

(k) Measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land;

(l) An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services;

(m) The processes to be adopted for the separation, re-use and recycling of demolition materials;

(n) The measures for prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials and other pollutants on or off the land, whether by air, water or other means;

(o) The measures to minimise the amount of waste construction materials; the provision for the recycling of demolition and waste materials; and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a program of reuse or recycling);

(p) The measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours;

(q) The provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all contractors and sub-contractors on the land; and

(r) Measures to protect the stormwater drainage system so that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the land enters the stormwater drainage system.

Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must be generally in accordance with the plan by Michael Smith and Associates (Landscape development Plan - Rev A) but modified to show:

(a) A landscape proposal, including canopy trees, for the new garden spaces created by the deletion of four car spaces in accordance with condition 1

(b) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;

(c) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary;

(d) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;

(e) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;

(f) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;

(g) an in-ground irrigation system to all landscaped areas;

All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Before the use starts, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

Before the development (including demolition and any site works) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Tree Protection Zone (or as close as practicable to this zone) of each street tree and any neighbouring tree within 5.0m on an abutting site. The fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh or similar to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed. During the construction of the development, the ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch and watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the following must not occur within the Tree Protection Zone:

(a) Vehicular or pedestrian access;

(b) Trenching or soil excavation;

(c) Storage or dumping of materials, tools, equipment or waste.

1. Time for Starting and Completion (Use and/or Development)

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

(a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit;

(b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit; or

(c) The use does not commence within five years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards if the use or development has not yet started, or within 12 months afterwards if the development has lawfully started before the permit expires

[1] Mullum Mullum Road would be classified as a Connector Road - Level 2 under the provisions of clause 56 of the Planning Scheme.

[6] In the actual medium neutral citation for this case there is a misspelling of the word Bayside, it is misspelt Baside.

[7] Both schools occupy very large sites, because of the topography neither school is accessed from Mullum Mullum Road, rather, the primary school is accessed from Panfield Avenue and the high school is accessed from Byron Street. Both the streets are more minor local streets.

[8] P Petzierides v Hobsons Bay CC [2012] VCAT 686