The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is granted for the use and development of a car wash and variation to Clause 52.13, at 317 Princes Highway, Corio, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:-

1. Before the use and development starts, amended 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 submitted with the application but modified to show:

1. Acoustic fence: 1. No gaps in the proposed acoustic fence ; 2. The height of the front 3 metres of the acoustic fence abutting No. 4 Purnell Street be reduced to 2 metres; 3. The third section of the acoustic fence along the western boundary be joined to the masonry wall of the room accommodating the coffee/food vending machine and disabled toilet, realignment of the acoustic fence following deletion of the loading bay adjacent to 319 Princes Highway, and the deletion of the section of the acoustic fence between the coffee/food/disabled toilet room and the masonry wall at the north-east corner of the control room, all as expressed in the plan tabled by Mr. Sumner and discussed at the Tribunal hearing, a copy of which was circulated to the parties by letter dated 23 July 2007; 4. The construction of the acoustic fence be either a 100mm thick concrete slab, or a solid non-permeable wall with a surface density of more than 15 kg/m2; or a design approved by the Responsible Authority; 5. Any door in the acoustic fence be well fitted of the same surface density as the fence and must overlap the door stops; Gaps at the bottom of the doors should be less than 5mm; 6. No air gaps under the acoustic fence or between the panels, and panels must have no gaps, cracks or holes in the material. 2. Water resistant sound absorbing materials such as Ecophon Hygiene or QUASH used as ceiling materials for vacuum bays;

1. Roof of the auto wash roof to have a surface density of more than 15kg/m2;

1. The proposed loading bay adjacent to 319 Princes Highway deleted and replaced by a realignment of the acoustic fence and landscaping between the acoustic fence and the common boundary with 319 Princes Highway as referred in iii if this condition; and 1. Details of the business identification signage.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use and development a waste water management plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The plan must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority how the use will adopt best practice waste saving measures, including the recycling of water and comply with the Environment Protection Act 1970. Once submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the plan will be endorsed and form part of this permit. Such plan may be varied with the approval of the Responsible Authority.
2. The hard paving area used for car parking be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use of the site hereby permitted by the permit, the development shall:
   • Construct vehicular crossings in accordance with the requirements of VicRoads via relevant Council Permit. Any redundant crossing is to be replaced with kerb and channel, to match existing.
   • Relocate any traffic signs affected by the location of the vehicle crossing including new or replacement poles and signs, where necessary;

2. Prior to the commencement of the use of the site hereby permitted the developer shall:
   • construct any car parking area, including accessways, surfaced with an all-weather sealed coat; and
   • linemark the carpark , and accessways,

all in accordance with the approved plans, and to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority

6. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted 'No exit' signage shall be provided within the site adjacent to the Purnell Road access together with 'All traffic turn left' signage adjacent to the access to the Princes Highway service road within the site and 'No entry' signage facing the service road.

1. The use hereby permitted may only operate during the following times:
   • Monday to Sunday 7.00am - 10:00pm; and

1. Noise level must not exceed the permissible noise levels stipulated in State and Environment protection Policy N-1 (Control of Noise from Industrial commercial and Trade Premises within the Melbourne Metropolitan Area).
2. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with any current standard published by Standards Australia International Limited and be connected to a security service to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Before the use begins and/or the buildings are occupied, an acoustic barrier must be erected along the eastern and northern boundaries. The design of the barrier must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer. The details of the design and acoustic qualities of the barrier must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. No permanently fixed sound amplification equipment or loud speakers may be used for the purpose of announcements, broadcasts, playing of music (whether recorded or otherwise) or similar purposes so as to be audible on adjoining public or private land, except in case of emergency situations (including mechanical malfunction), or with the prior written permission of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This plan must be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is a member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, or a person with a suitable background in horticultural science or an allied field to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the 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 landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept shown on plans dated as received on 26 June 2007 prepared by Tony Preiato & Associates. The plan must show:

1. Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary 2. Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways

1. 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.

1. Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site 2. The planting of indigenous plants of the Geelong region, Zone 17; 3. Inclusion of canopy trees in the scheme; and 4. Amended landscaping as a result of condition 1 of this permit.

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

1. Before the use/occupation of the development starts, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. 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.

1. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development through the:

1. Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land; 2. Appearance of any building, works or materials;

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

1. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles must only be carried out on the land within the designated loading bay[s] and must not disrupt the circulation and parking of vehicles on the land.
2. Deliveries to and from the site, including water cartage must only take place between 8.00 am and 6.00pm Monday to Sunday
3. Provision must be made on the land for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. This area must be graded and drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Exterior lights must be installed in such positions so as to effectively illuminate all pertinent public areas, without spilling onto the road reserve or adjoining land, and must be connected to a time clock switch or other approved system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land or road reserve.
3. Security lighting must be provided prior to the commencement of the use and only lighting essential for the security of the site may operate when the facility is not operating, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The use and development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
   2. The development is not completed within four 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 three months afterwards.

1. The 'exit only' vehicular crossover shall permit vehicle movements to the Princes Highway service road only. The crossover must be modified and appropriately signed to direct vehicles to the service road and restrict vehicle movements directly to the Princes Highway via the Purnell Road intersection.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Mr. S. Jones, barrister, by direct brief. He called the following persons to give evidence:

• Mr. Jason Sumner, town planner;
• Mr. Andrew. Rogers, noise consultant; and
• Ms. Charmaine Dunstan, traffic engineer.

Mr. Greg Hayes, Town Planner, City of Greater Geelong

1. This is a sec. 77 review under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against Council's refusal to grant a permit to develop and use land at 317 Princes Highway for a car wash. The ground of refusal was:
   1. The proposed development would through noise, light and odours be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

1. There were three procedural matters. One was the review applicant's request to amend the application to change the name of the permit applicant from Tony Preiato & Associates to Corio Bay Car Wash. Leave was granted for that change.
2. A second matter is the request to amend the application by substituting the plans as circulated to the parties in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Note. This version is marked as H25-06-07. Again, leave was granted on the basis of no objection from the parties.
3. A third matter is joining Ms. Jodi White as party to the proceeding. Ms. White is the resident of No. 4 Purnell Road to the immediate west of the review site. She was joined as party as there was no objection from Mr. Jones or Council.

1. The review site is located at the northeast corner of Princes Highway and Purnell Road, Corio. It is irregular in shape, with a frontage of approximately 33 metres to Purnell Road, nearly 27 metres to Princes Highway, and a site area of 1647 sq m. There was a single storey dwelling house on the site. It has been removed and the site is currently fenced off.
2. The intersection of Purnell Road and Princes Highway is a busy one. The site abuts a service road of the Princes Highway.
3. Abutting the site to the west is a single storey dwelling at No. 4 Purnell Road. To the northeast at No. 319 Princes Highway is also a single storey house. Development to the rear of the site is single dwellings in Leura Court.
4. Along Princes Highway on the same side of the review site are residential properties off a service road of the highway. On the opposite side of the highway is land zoned industrial, although it is developed with open landscaping and not industrial buildings.

1. The proposal is to develop and use the land as a car wash, comprising of four self serve wash bays, two auto wash bays, five vacuum bays, a single storey building to be used as office, coffee/food area and a disabled toilet, a control room, and a loading bay. A 3 metre high acoustic fence is proposed along the common boundaries with No. 4 Purnell Road and 319 Princes Highway. A strip of landscaping is also proposed along Purnell Road, against the common boundary with the two aforementioned dwellings, and along its rear boundary.
2. Vehicular access to the car wash is a one way in from Purnell Road and one way out into the service road of Princes Highway.
3. Two signs are proposed: one near the entrance of the carwash in Purnell Road, and another one at the corner of Purnell Road and Princes Highway.

1. The review site is in the Residential 1 Zone of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme ("the Scheme") under which a car wash is a section 2 use provided it has a frontage to a Road Zone. The site fronts Princes Highway which is in a Road Zone Category 1.
2. The site is affected by a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14. This overlay relates to height of dwelling over 7.5 metres.
3. For a car wash, the provisions of Clause 52.13 (Car Wash) apply.
4. Other relevant provisions and policies from the Scheme are 13, 15.05 (Noise Abatement), 17.02 (Business), Clause 17.03 (Industry), 19.03 (Design and Built Form), 21.18 (housing), 21.30 (Design and Built form), 22.01 (discretionary uses in Residential Area), and 65.

1. At the hearing, parties relied on written and oral submissions. Ms. White made an oral submission. Expert witnesses called to give evidence were made available for cross-examination.
2. Decision was reserved. The Tribunal indicated that it would inspect the site.

1. In coming to this decision, the Tribunal has had regard to the submissions, evidence, inspection of the site and provisions of the Scheme. The two issues are the proposal's locational suitability and the amenity impact on adjoining dwellings.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. In terms of hours of operation, Council opposes the proposed hours of 5:30am to 24:00 Sunday to Saturday.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

1. Noise is the major amenity impact on the residential properties immediately abutting the site.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

1. Ms. White was concerned with the impact of increased traffic in Purnell Road caused by the proposed car wash.
2. The Tribunal accepts Ms. Dunstan's evidence that the increase in traffic is not excessive for the capacity of Purnell Road. Other issues she addressed include: the appropriateness of the proposed one-way in and one-way out access; VicRoads and Council engineer's requirement to extend the median of Purnell Road to prohibit right hand turns into the car wash from Purnell Road; whether the crossover into Princes Highway should be adjusted as suggested by Council; and why the 10 queuing spaces recommended by Clause 52.13 is no longer relevant.

1. The proposal is to develop and use this extensive site for a car wash. The site is located along a very busy road and intersection, one which is subject to substantial background traffic noise.
2. The main issues of the review are whether the use is acceptable, whether the level of amenity impact is excessive, and whether the design of the buildings and works associated with the development detractive of the neighbourhood.
3. The zoning of the site and the relevant local policy provides for non-residential uses in residential areas subject to consideration of servicing the local community and protection of local residential amenity.
4. In balance, the Tribunal considers the site capable accommodating the proposed car wash because of the landscaping opportunity around the site to provide a buffer for the abutting residential properties. The proposed acoustic fence and the construction methods of the buildings and structures will ensure that relevant noise guidelines in SEPP-N1 are complied with.
5. Notwithstanding that, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to limit the hours of operation so that disturbance from the car wash is limited during the early morning and late night hours. Other permit conditions are as discussed at the hearing.

1. Council's decision to refuse the application is set aside and a permit to issue subject to the conditions stated in this order.