Corio Bay Car Wash v Greater Geelong CC [2007] VCAT 1457

Corio Bay Car Wash v Greater Geelong CC [2007] VCAT 1457 - VCAT 2007 case summary — Zoe

[41]

Clause 22.01 is the local policy guiding non-residential uses in residential areas. This policy seeks to protect residential amenity from significant changes to traffic conditions in the local area, from noise, light and odour emission, and disturbance associated with hours of operation.
Council's submission is that the proposed use is inconsistent with this policy. Whilst it may serve the local areas, it is not convinced that serving the local community is the primary function of the proposal.
It is also concerned that amenity impact in noise is to an extent that is inappropriate for the dwellings in the area, notwithstanding that background noise from Princes Highway is substantial.
In terms of design, it was concerned with the visual impact of a 3 metre high acoustic fence adjacent to neighbouring dwellings and right up to the street frontage at both Purnell Road and the service road of Princes Highway: something that it does not consider as respectful of the neighbourhood character of the area.
In terms of hours of operation, Council opposes the proposed hours of 5:30am to 24:00 Sunday to Saturday.
On the other hand, Mr. Sumner's evidence is that there is strategic support from the Scheme for the proposed car wash. His reading of the Scheme is that non-residential uses in the Residential 1 Zone is provided for if it serves local needs. He believes the proposed car wash will be greatly utilised by the local community. Further, he pointed out that the site is a corner site that abuts an exceptionally busy road. His view is that the re-cycling and on-site treatment of waste water is a positive outcome with regard to the objectives of Clause 15.01-2 (Water Quality Protection). The proposed acoustic fence will ensure that the objectives of Clause 15.05 (Noise Abatement) are met. His opinion is that the proposed car wash will provide a service that meets the community's needs, given that there is current restriction on washing vehicles in private properties, and that the operation involves treating and recycling water that is not available to a normal household. In terms of design, his view is that the proposed buildings and works are low level and generally has good setbacks to provide for excellent landscaping.
Based on the traffic and noise evidence provided by Ms. Dunstan and Mr. Rogers, he was satisfied that the proposal can meet the objectives and criteria for approval of Clause 22.01: that is there will be no significant change in traffic conditions, noise nuisance will be managed by acoustic fencing, and the use will serve the local community.
The Tribunal's inspection of the site confirms the busy nature of Princes Highway and its intersection with Purnell Road, which is a collector street. It also confirms the high volume of traffic in the area and the background noise created by these busy roads. In that sense, the residential amenity of the review site has been eroded by this location. It is a site that is suitable for non-residential use.
Given the current water restriction in Geelong and the fact that there is better treatment for waste water and the facility to recycle water on site than at home, the Tribunal agrees that the proposal is likely to attract customers from the local area. The issue is the design details of the proposal and the level of use.

[42]

The design details the Tribunal considers relevant are the scale of the proposed buildings, the landscaping treatment that gives the development its setting, and the impact of the proposed acoustic fence on the streetscape of the area.
The Tribunal accepts that the design of buildings associated with a car wash as not domestic in appearance. It accepts that the appearance of the proposed buildings and structures are functional. It also accepts Mr. Sumner's view that they are low profile and there is good fringe planting and landscaping around the site.
There was discussion at the hearing of how to increase the areas available for landscaping, resulting in the deletion in parts of and re-alignment of parts of the acoustic fence away from No. 4 Purnell Road and 319 Princes Highway. This discussion led to the agreement to delete the loading bay near 319 Princes Highway in order to provide a wider buffer between the acoustic fence and the common boundary, and deletion of the acoustic fence between the coffee/food vending machine and disabled toilet room near 4 Purnell Road and the control room near 319 Princes Highway.
The result of the re-alignment is a wider strip of landscaping between the proposal and the common boundaries with these two dwellings, and a reduction in the extent of a three metre high fence close to their respective common boundaries without the loss of acoustic properties of the fence.
The re-aligned acoustic fence is expressed in a plan tabled by Mr. Sumner at the hearing, a copy of which was instructed to be submitted to all the parties. The Tribunal's permit condition regarding the re-alignment is based on this plan already in every party's possession.
With regard to Council's concern of the streetscape impact of the proposed acoustic fence, the Tribunal agrees that such a fence of 3 metres high facing the street as inconsistent with the character of the area. It would require the height of the fence for the first three metres abutting No. 4 Purnell Road to be reduced to 2 metres. The fence abutting 319 Princes Highway is already setback from the street frontage.
In overall terms, the size of the site is such that it allows for decent landscaping around the site and adjacent to the residential properties in 4 Purnell Road, 319 Princes Highway and those in Leura Court at the rear.
The proposed wash bays and vacuum bays are sited in such a way that the dwellings in Leura Court are separated and buffered from them by the coffee/food vending building and the control room in the car wash. The staggering of the acoustic fence along common boundaries and augmented by landscaping will allow for the proposed development to be placed in a landscaped setting. The Tribunal considers the outcome as acceptable.

[43]

Noise is the major amenity impact on the residential properties immediately abutting the site.
Mr. Rogers' evidence is that the construction of the building, by using materials such as roofing over car wash bays and vacuum bays and doors that have noise control properties, is one that can achieve the requirements of SEPP-N1. He pointed out the high background noise caused by the Princes Highway and the busy intersection with Purnell Road as a major noise nuisance to the residential properties in the area.
His calculation is that the proposal can comply with the noise guidelines of SEPP-N1 between 5:00am and 11:00pm, and that the car wash can continue to operate beyond these hours and still comply during the entire night if only wash bays 1 and 2, auto wash 2, and the vacuums on Princes Highway are used.
When asked about the concern of customers who turn their music louder than the vacuum cleaner in order to hear the music, Mr. Roger advised that there are systems available, notably used by entertainment establishments near residential properties, to automatically cut off the power to the vacuum cleaner when a pre-determined noise level is exceeded.
The Tribunal accepts that both No. 4 Purnell road and 319 Princes Highway are presently subject to a high level of noise from both the Princes Highway and the intersection with Purnell Road. Mr. Roger's evidence is that the proposal can meet SEPP-N1 between 5:00am and 11:00pm. Beyond that, parts of the car wash can still meet those guidelines.
In determining whether the proposal is appropriate for the site, the Tribunal is mindful about the need to protect the residential amenity of dwellings in the residential zone. Noise is one of the factors. There are others such as the level of activities generated by the use in terms of traffic, illumination of the place, the amount of comings and goings, and the appearance of the place.
The Tribunal does not consider a 24 hour car wash as compatible in a residential zone and with immediately abutting dwellings. It considers a more compatible duration as from 7:00am to 10:00pm.
The Tribunal notes that discharge of traffic from the car wash is into the service road of Princes Highway and not the multi-laned part of highway. This service road is fairly long by comparison before traffic from traffic from the car wash can be discharged into the multi-laned section of the highway. It spans from Purnell Road to School Road, with the entire stretch fronted by dwellings. A 24 hour discharge of traffic into this residential service road, particularly in the sensitive late night and early morning hours, is not compatible with the residential amenity of these properties.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (46 paragraphs)

Corio Bay Car Wash v Greater Geelong CC [2007] VCAT 1457 (9 August 2007)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)