respondent. The Tribunal varied the responsible authority's decision and granted a permit for the use of land at 20 Sternberg Street Kennington as a medical centre, reduction in car parking and display of an...
Key principles
A permit to reduce car parking may be granted where the nature and operation of the proposed use (here, counselling services with appointment-based, low turnover sessions by up...
When assessing parking, traffic and amenity impacts under the planning scheme, the Tribunal must consider the specific way the use will be operated and local circumstances...
Absence of demonstrated 'need' for the facility is rarely, if ever, alone a ground to refuse a permit; need may weigh in favour of a permit but lack of need will rarely justify...
Conditions may be used to limit the scope of a use (practitioner numbers, hours, client numbers, prohibition on group sessions) so as to contain any potential adverse amenity...
Issues before the court
Whether a permit should be granted to reduce car parking requirements under clause 52.06 for a proposed medical centre in a Residential 1 Zone.
Plain English Summary
The Tribunal upheld the council's grant of a permit (with variations) to turn a house on Sternberg Street, Kennington into a small counselling medical centre for up to two practitioners, allowing a substantial reduction in required on-site parking. The Tribunal accepted that counselling is appointment-based with long sessions and low turnover, that ample kerbside parking exists in a separated parking lane, and that traffic and amenity impacts would be minimal subject to conditions limiting practitioner numbers, hours and client group sizes. The permit and sign were approved with conditions.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,896 words · generated 28/06/2026
What happened
The Tribunal considered an application under s 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review the Greater Bendigo City Council's decision to grant a permit to convert an existing single-storey dwelling at 20 Sternberg Street, Kennington into a medical centre providing counselling services (two practitioners), with a large reduction in required on-site car parking and a small business identification sign (Background [1]-[8]). Mr Albert Charlton, the owner-occupier of a house opposite the site, objected and sought review at VCAT, primarily arguing that the reduction in car parking would cause traffic safety problems, driveway obstruction and unacceptable noise/amenity impacts (Background [2]; Consideration [4], [11], [13]).
Whether the proposed use would unreasonably impact neighbourhood amenity (noise and obstruction of driveways) given reliance on kerbside parking.
Whether asserted lack of demonstrated 'need' for the service is a ground to refuse the permit.
Whether signage proposed is appropriate in a residential context.
Cited legislation
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The Council had required ten on-site parking spaces under clause 52.06 (5 spaces per practitioner), but allowed a permit to reduce or waive those requirements (Background [9]). The Tribunal inspected the site and the street, heard evidence including from one of the proposed practitioners (Ms Vandermaat) about the nature of demand for counselling services, and received traffic volume data for Sternberg Street (Background [5]-[7]; Consideration [6], [8], [14]). The Tribunal ultimately varied the Council's decision by granting a permit but imposing or varying conditions to constrain the operation: limiting to a maximum of two practitioners at any one time, restricting counselling sessions to weekdays 8.30am-5.00pm with up to two evenings to 7.00pm, limiting client numbers in sessions and prohibiting group meetings, and imposing a 15-year expiry on the sign (Order; Consideration [6], [9], [10], Order conditions).
The Tribunal's core finding was that, on the specific facts, appointment-only counselling sessions of about an hour, limited practitioner numbers, low session turnover, ample kerbside parking within a dedicated parking lane and a busy road with significant background noise, the proposed use would not generate the parking demand the clause 52.06 standard assumes, nor would it create unacceptable traffic safety or amenity impacts. Consequently the Tribunal found it acceptable to allow the reduction in on-site parking and to grant the permit, subject to conditions that limit the use to the operational regime assessed (Consideration [6]-[15], [19]; Order).
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal’s reasoning is an application of the planning scheme rules to the actual, assessed intensity and manner of operation of the proposed use rather than a strict arithmetic application of the car parking table in clause 52.06.
Key elements in the reasoning:
Statutory and scheme framework: clause 52.06 provides a default rate (5 spaces per practitioner) but contemplates permit-based reductions; clause 65 and the zone purpose require assessment of amenity and orderly planning (Background [8]-[11]; Consideration [3]). The Tribunal emphasised that the scheme permits consideration of "any other relevant consideration", which encompasses the specific operational way the use will be run (Background [9]; Consideration [3]).
Nature of the use: counselling involves long, appointment-based sessions (approx. one hour), preparation time for practitioners and limited client turnover, which reduces parking demand compared with a high-turnover general practice (Consideration [6]-[8]). The Tribunal accepted the practitioner's evidence about demand and waited times for publicly funded services, but did not rely solely on need to justify the parking reduction (Consideration [5]-[6]).
Local road and parking context: Sternberg Street carries substantial traffic volumes (thousands per day) with a marked parking lane separated from the carriageway, and kerbside parking is unrestricted and ample near the site. These empirical facts made on-street parking for clients feasible without materially interfering with traffic flow or causing safety risks (Background [5]; Consideration [9], [12]-[15]).
Amenity and noise context: existing background traffic noise is significant, reducing the prospect that car door noise would create an unreasonable additional impact (Consideration [10]).
Conditions as control mechanism: the Tribunal relied on conditions to confine the use to the operational model on which its assessment relied (practitioner numbers, hours, client numbers, prohibition on group sessions, sign expiry). That is, if the operator sought to expand, it would require further approval, enabling the Council/Tribunal to reconsider impacts (Consideration [17]).
In short, the Tribunal applied the scheme flexibly, assessing the real-world operational intensity and the local environment, and used permit conditions to secure that the operation would remain within those bounds.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision:
Clause 52.06 gives a standard parking rate for medical centres (5 spaces per practitioner), and planning tribunals had previously acknowledged that reductions are possible, with local circumstances and the nature of the use being relevant. Authorities stated that 'need' can favour a permit but lack of need rarely justifies refusal (as cited by the Tribunal: Church of England Trusts Corp and Shell Company references) (Consideration [5]).
After this decision (within its factual and evidential limits):
The decision exemplifies the accepted approach: where the proposed use will operate at a materially lower intensity than the parking table assumes, and where local circumstances (road layout, kerbside availability, background traffic) permit, a substantial reduction in on-site parking can be justified. It reinforces that the Tribunal will look at the operational model, and not treat the parking table as an inflexible rule.
This is not a change in law but a specific application demonstrating the method of assessment: (1) identify the nature and intensity of the proposed use, (2) examine local physical and traffic circumstances, (3) consider amenity and safety impacts, and (4) use conditions to secure the operation assessed.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"the key issues in this matter involve car parking, traffic and the impact on the amenity of neighbours." (Consideration [1])
Plain English: The decision turns on whether parking, traffic and neighbours' living conditions will be harmed.
"Under the provisions of clause 52.06, ten car parking spaces are required. However, a permit can be granted that allows the use to operate with lesser number of spaces." (Consideration [3])
Plain English: The scheme's parking standard is a starting point, but the planning authority can approve fewer spaces after assessing the case.
"Counselling services generally require longer sessions, usually around one hour... Patients are seen by appointment rather than on a 'walk in' basis." (Consideration [6])
Plain English: Counselling has lower client turnover than a typical doctor’s clinic, so fewer parking spaces are needed per practitioner.
"I would expect that a centre providing counselling services, with two practitioners at one time, would generate a parking demand of about 5 car parking spaces ... I would also expect the potential for higher demand during 'overlap' periods to be minimal..." (Consideration [8])
Plain English: The Tribunal estimates realistic parking needs for this kind of clinic are about half the scheme’s table rate for two practitioners.
"Given the low parking demand and the nature of background noise, I am unable to conclude that noise from closing car doors would present an unreasonable impost on amenity." (Consideration [10])
Plain English: Because the street is already noisy and client arrivals are few, car door noise is unlikely to annoy neighbours unreasonably.
"The use of the land for a medical centre for two practitioners who provide counselling services is acceptable ... I am satisfied that the proposal involves a low key use that will have minimal impact on amenity." (Consideration [19])
Plain English: The Tribunal's bottom-line conclusion: allow the clinic, but keep it small and controlled.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most relevant where the following facts are present:
Proposed non-residential use in a residential zone that is appointment-based, low turnover, and of inherently lower intensity than the standard parking rates assume (for example, counselling or other therapy services with one-hour sessions).
Maximum practitioner numbers are low and can be reliably controlled by permit conditions.
The local street has substantial kerbside parking capacity, ideally with a marked parking lane separated from the main carriageway, and unrestricted kerbside parking near the site.
The street experiences significant background traffic volumes (reducing marginal noise impact) and the projected vehicle movements from the use are small relative to background traffic.
Evidence (from practitioners/operators) demonstrates how the service will operate and supports lower parking demand; the responsible authority’s technical officers (e.g., traffic engineer) do not oppose the parking reduction.
If these factors are present, this decision supports a flexible, fact-sensitive reduction in on-site parking and a focus on conditions to secure the limited operational model.
How later courts have treated it
This decision is a VCAT member decision that applies established planning scheme principles rather than creating new law. The Tribunal explicitly cited earlier authorities for the general principles about 'need' and the flexibility of parking requirements (Consideration [5]). Subsequent decisions typically look to the same methodology: evaluate the actual operational intensity, consider local parking supply and road geometry, and use conditions where necessary. This decision can be cited in later VCAT matters as an example of that application in the context of counselling/medical centre uses, particularly where the street has a dedicated parking lane and significant background traffic.
Because it is an administrative tribunal decision rather than a higher court judgment, its persuasive weight is context-specific, strongest where factual parallels (service type, street layout, kerbside parking) exist.
Still-open questions
Scalability and enforcement: The Tribunal imposed conditions to limit practitioners, hours and client numbers to maintain the assessed low intensity. Questions remain about practical enforcement and compliance monitoring of such conditions over time and how readily a council could detect non-compliance in an operation that gradually intensifies (Consideration [17]). The Tribunal expressed confidence that such conditions are not problematic for enforcement, but practical enforcement strategies may differ between councils.
Change in local parking regime: The decision relied on the existence of a separated parking lane and unrestricted kerbside parking. If local authorities subsequently change parking controls (introduce timed restrictions, resident-only parking, or remove the parking lane), the acceptability of the permit could be affected. The decision does not address future changes to the street environment.
Night-time impacts and atypical events: The Tribunal acknowledged that noise impacts could be greater at night but was satisfied by the hours limitation in the conditions (Consideration [10]). Cases where later evening hours are sought, or group sessions that raise overlapping arrival/departure profiles, could lead to different outcomes.
Quantification of 'acceptable' reduction: The Tribunal made an evidence-based estimate (about five spaces expected) but did not establish a precise formula for translating session length and turnover into parking numbers. Future cases may seek more formal methodologies or transport demand assessments to justify larger or smaller reductions.
Precedent limits: Because this is a fact-specific VCAT decision, its persuasive effect will be limited where the operation differs (higher client turnover, multiple practitioners, different services) or where the street lacks the same kerbside capacity and separation. How tribunals balance consistency with the need to assess each case on its merits may continue to produce variable outcomes.
Conclusion: Charlton v Greater Bendigo CC [2009] VCAT 1331 is an instructive, fact-sensitive application of the planning scheme’s flexibility on car parking and amenity. It demonstrates tribunal willingness to depart from table parking rates where the nature of the use and local context justify that departure, provided conditions can secure the operational model assessed. Practitioners and councils should ensure that operational practices are clearly documented, that evidence on demand and local parking supply is provided, and that conditions are precisely drafted to capture the limits relied on in the planning assessment.
Judgment (8 paragraphs)
[1]
This matter relates to an application under Section 82of the Planning and Environment Act1987 against the responsible authority's decision to grant a permit for the use of land at 20 Sternberg Street Kennington for the purpose of a medical centre. Permission was also granted for a reduction in car parking and the erection and display of a sign.
Mr Albert Charlton, the owner and occupier of a dwelling on the opposite side of Sternberg Street to the southeast of the site, objected to the grant of the permit and seeks the review of the council's decision. Mr Charlton has several concerns with this proposal including the traffic and parking impacts which include safety concerns for pedestrians and possible difficulties for him to access his property. Mr Charlton is also concerned about the impact on amenity, particularly noise.
The subject site is located on the west side of Sternberg Street, south of Hodgkinson Street. The site is rectangular with a frontage of about 19 metres and an overall area of 600 square metres. The site is occupied by a single storey dwelling with a garage to the rear.
Contextually the site is located within an established residential area with surrounding properties, immediately adjoining to the north and south as well as on the opposite side of Sternberg Street, occupied by single storey dwellings. I am also aware that there are a number of properties further south along Sternberg Street used as medical centres providing for a variety of services.
Sternberg Street comprises a relatively wide road reservation. The road reserve allows for one lane for vehicles in both northbound and southbound directions, line marking on both sides to provide for shared bicycle and parking lanes that are separate to the defined vehicle carriageways, wide nature strips and footpaths. Based on surveys carried out by VicRoads, Sternberg Street carried about 1000 vehicles during the peak hour periods with total daily volumes generally between 11000 to 12000 vehicles on weekdays[1]. About 5 per cent of the daily volumes comprise large trucks. Kerbside parking on both sides of the street is unrestricted.
The proposal involves the use of the existing dwelling for the purpose of a medical centre. Relatively minor internal alterations to the dwelling are proposed. The medical centre will provide for counselling, particularly for children and adolescents with moderate mental health difficulties. A maximum of 2 practitioners would conduct counselling sessions at any one time. It is proposed that the practitioners would conduct sessions Monday to Friday between 8.30 and 5.00pm, although it is requested that the centre be allowed to be open up to 7.00pm on two nights each week to accommodate clients outside work hours.
Two car parking spaces are to be provided for staff within the garage. A business sign is also proposed within the front setback. The sign comprises two posts supporting two separate advertisement panels, one for each practitioner. The total advertisement area measures about 2.5 square metres.
Under the planning scheme, the site is within the Residential 1 zone. A permit is required to use land in this zone for the purpose of a medical centre.
Car parking requirements are at clause 52.06. Under the table to this clause, 5 car parking spaces are required for each practitioner. Ten spaces are required to be provided for this centre. However, clause 52.05-1 also provides that a permit can be granted to reduce or waive the car parking requirement. Factors that can be considered in deciding whether a permit to reduce or waive parking should be granted include the availability of parking in the locality and "any other relevant consideration" which, in my view, can include the consideration of the specific way in which the use is to be operated.
The provisions for the control of outdoor advertising are at clause 52.05. A permit is required for the erection and display of a business identification sign of the type and size proposed in the application.
In addition to the specific decision guidelines under the above clauses, general decision guidelines are at clause 65.01. These include matters such as planning policy, purpose of the zone, orderly planning and amenity.
[2]
After having considered the submissions, the details of the proposal and the relevant matters under the planning scheme and legislation, it is clear to me that the key issues in this matter involve car parking, traffic and the impact on the amenity of neighbours.
Policy requires that adequate car parking facilities be provided[2]. What is adequate will depend on the circumstances of each case.
Under the provisions of clause 52.06, ten car parking spaces are required. However, a permit can be granted that allows the use to operate with lesser number of spaces. In this case a reduction of 8 spaces is sought.
Mr Charlton submitted that there is no justification for the reduction in car parking sought. He argued that the application has not justified the reduction on the basis of need for a medical centre of this type; other centres have been required to provide parking; reliance on kerbside parking will result in safety problems for traffic and pedestrians as well as generating noise that will disturb the amenity of neighbours.
The tribunal has supported the view that the need for a particular facility can be a factor that favours the grant of a permit even though the proposal may suffer from deficiencies. For example, in Church of England Trusts Corp for the Diocese of Melbourne v City of Brighton the former Planning Appeals Board said:
[3]
The need for a particular development can, on occasions, be so great that it can outweigh considerations of amenity.[3]
[4]
However, it is also relevant to note that in Shell Company of Australia Ltd and Others v City of Frankston and Another, the Board said:
[5]
.........a lack of need will rarely, if ever, be a ground for refusing to grant a permit.[4]
[6]
While Mr Charlton doubted that there is a need for a medical centre that provides counselling services of the type proposed, this assertion was not based on any detailed analysis. Ms Vandemaat, one of the practitioners who will provide services from the proposed medical centre, submitted that, in her experience, public sector facilities have difficulty coping with the demand in the Bendigo region resulting in a lack of counselling services for individuals or families experiencing moderate difficulties. Ms Vandermaat estimated that there is up to a four month waiting period for children and families to see private practitioners who specialise in working with children.
To this extent, I consider that the views presented by Ms Vandermaat should be preferred given that she is a professional who works in this area. It is probable that there is a need for the type of services to be provided at the proposed medical centre. That having been said, I am unable to conclude that the extent of the need is such that it justifies the grant of a permit for a significant reduction in parking. However, as noted in the extract from the decisions I have cited, the absence of need is rarely, if ever, a basis for the refusal of a proposal.
On my inspection, I observed that other medical centres near the site have provided more car parking than what is proposed in this case. This usually involves substantial paved areas to the rear of the building. While I accept Mr Charlton's proposition that other centres have provided car parking, it does not follow that a permit should be denied in this case because lesser car parking is proposed. There may be good reasons why car parking was required for those other centres such as the nature of the medical centre, number of practitioners, hours of operation etc. Each case has to be considered on its own merits having regard to the circumstances at hand, not based on the notion of a "precedent".
Mr Charlton also submitted that the failure to provide adequate parking would result in neighbours suffering unreasonable loss of amenity due to noise from car doors being slammed, and difficulties getting in and out of driveways due to cars being parked to close street crossings.
In considering the issues raised by Mr Charlton it seems to me that it is important to put the actual impact of this proposal into some perspective.
[7]
[1] This is based on figures provided by Mr Charlton based on surveys by Australian Traffic Surveys.
Charlton v Greater Bendigo CC [2009] VCAT 1331 (10 July 2009)
AI Analysis
Outcomerespondent
Disposition:
The Tribunal varied the responsible authority's decision and granted a permit for the use of land at 20 Sternberg Street Kennington as a medical centre, reduction in car parking and display of an advertising sign, subject to conditions limiting practitioners to two, restricting hours and client numbers, prohibiting group sessions, and imposing a 15-year expiry on signage; other Notice conditions included as varied (Order).
The table at clause 52.06 specifies that five car spaces should be provided for each practitioner. This is a general rate, one that is designed to meet the demand generated by medical centres that have a high volume and turnover of patients, such as those operated by general practitioners.
The nature of the practice conducted in this case is quite different. Counselling services generally require longer sessions, usually around one hour. I accept Ms Vandermaat's submission that preparation time is required before sessions. Patients are seen by appointment rather than on a "walk in" basis. The number of patients that can be attended to in both an hour and a working day are much less than a general doctors practice. Further, the council has imposed conditions that limit that scope of the activity that can be conducted within the proposed medical centre to counselling services to be provided by no more than 2 practitioners at any one time.
Understanding the nature of the medical centre, in terms of the way that it is to be operated and the intensity at which patients are seen, is directly relevant to the assessment of parking and traffic issues. In my view, the nature of the activities to be conducted at the proposed medical centre will not generate a demand for ten car parking spaces. I would expect that a centre providing counselling services, with two practitioners at one time, would generate a parking demand of about 5 car parking spaces, one for each practitioner, the others for clients. The client demand is more likely to be two spaces, one for each client seen by a practitioner, with the possibility of a fifth space being required in the event that the persons attending one session arrive in two cars (eg: two parents attending a session with their child). I would also expect the potential for higher demand during "overlap" periods to be minimal given that practitioners require preparation time between appointments.
Based on the above, I would expect that the staff parking demand to be met on site with patients required to park on street. In my view, it is reasonable to allow clients to park on street given that the demand is very low, ample kerbside parking is available (two parked cars can be accommodated in front of the site itself) and spaces are available within a dedicated lane that ensures parked cars do not interfere with the flow of traffic.
In relation to concerns about noise, it needs to be noted that Sternberg Street is not a quiet street in the residential hinterland. It is a relatively busy road carrying thousands of vehicles each day. While residential in nature, background traffic noise forms part of the existing amenity. Given the low parking demand and the nature of background noise, I am unable to conclude that noise from closing car doors would present an unreasonable impost on amenity. Indeed, I doubt that an average person within a neighbouring residential property would be able to hear car doors closing in such an environment. The potential to hear noise is greater at night when traffic levels and background noise are lower; however, the conditions of the permit limit the hours during which the use operates mainly during the daytime with some evening use.
In relation to concerns that parked cars may block driveways, the potential for this to occur must also be put into perspective. It is likely that most persons attending the proposed medical centre would seek to park as close as possible to the site, either immediately in front of it or in front of the neighbouring properties on the same side of Sternberg Street. The driveway crossing that is most likely affected by this proposal is that associated with the site itself.
While persons attending the centre could also park on the opposite side of Sternberg Street, I think this would be less likely. The extent to which it could occur is likely to be minimal and therefore not unacceptable, both in terms of its impact on the amenity of neighbours and the potential danger for persons seeking to cross the street. I agree that kerbside spaces are not individually line marked; however, this is not unusual and given the low occupancy of kerbside spaces, there will not be pressure to park cars illegally too close to street crossings. I would expect that children attending the medical centre will be under the supervision of their parents or guardians.
Mr Charlton also raised concerns about the potential for parked cars to interfere with traffic flow and safety, particularly when vehicles need to stop to make right hand turns into Hodgkinson Street. I do not accept that parked cars will cause traffic problems. This is because of the low demand associated with this proposal and the availability of kerbside parking within a dedicated parking lane that is separated from the vehicle carriageway by line marking.
I also find that the proposed medical centre would have minimal impact on traffic. I would expect that the number of vehicle movements generated by staff and clients on a daily basis would, in all likelihood, be less than 50, and certainly well under 100. The staff use of the driveway would not be dissimilar to residential use. The overall level of traffic would, in my view, be imperceptible given that Sternberg Street already carries thousands of vehicles each day. The level of traffic generated by this proposal is very low.
Based on my experience, I am unable to agree with Mr Charlton that there would be safety problems. In coming to this view I have taken into account that the council's traffic engineer has not expressed concerns on traffic grounds. In these circumstances I find that it is acceptable to grant the reduction in parking sought.
Mr Charlton raised a number of other issues in his submission. These include assertions that there were errors in the council officer's report, claims made by the applicant were not substantiated or underestimate the impact of the proposal and that no allowance had been made for the potential growth in demand. He also expressed concerns that the permit conditions could not be enforced.
On these points, I simply say that I have reviewed the proposal having regard to these matters and am satisfied that it is acceptable and should be granted a permit subject to the conditions that are specified in the order. Further, what I am required to do is assess the proposal before me. That is what I have done. If there are plans to expand the operation of this centre, either in terms of the number of practitioners or hours, then further permission is required. Whether the expansion of the centre is reasonable is a matter to be considered if and when an application is made. Finally, I note that this is not the first permit for a medical centre. There are many hundreds of permits for medical centres in existence. Many of those would contain conditions like those proposed by the council. I do not agree that the conditions are problematic in terms of enforcement.
The application also sought permission for a sign. Mr Charlton did not express any concern about the sign. In general terms, the signage proposed is reasonable for the type of use proposed, the residential context of the land and not dissimilar to signs that are displayed at other medical centres in the locality. I am satisfied that the signage proposed is acceptable.
The use of the land for a medical centre for two practitioners who provide counselling services is acceptable. The purpose of the zone contemplates non residential uses like medical centres. I am satisfied that the proposal involves a low key use that will have minimal impact on amenity. I will therefore grant the permit for the medical centre, however, I will vary some of the conditions to make them clearer and to ensure that the scope of the activities to be conducted on the site is better defined.